contrails

On 9 Jan, 13:02, T8 wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:56*am, Tom Gardner wrote:

On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy wrote:

Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,

Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
that then there is never going to be the basis of any
form of useful discussion.

Of course CO2 is a selective IR filter. *That's basic physics.

The more interesting question is: what is the effect of changing the
atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense, and
increasing (or decreasing) its concentration has only tertiary and
probably unmeasurable effects on climate. *There are weaker absorption
bands that may make a difference, but some/most(?) of these are in
areas of the spectrum where water vapor dominates completely as long
as water vapor is present.

"Of course it has been proven"? *Well, yes, the agenda setters take
that view. *It's regarded as a weak point of the AGW thesis by some.
It's an area that I think deserves particularly careful study, as this
is *the* key to the "A" in AGW.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Relevant info?

http://tiny.cc/o22Sr

Derek Copeland

There are a couple of words which have been thrown around in this long
thread. One is "Believe or belief". Another is "proof". Neither
have a place in an objective discussion of climate change.

"Belief" has far more to do with philosophy or religion than science.

"Proof" is a mathematical term not generally used in other scientific
disciplines.

It is not belief or proof but criticism which is central to the
scientific method. No scientific "conjecture" or "theory" or "fact"
is beyond criticism based on new data. However, there are rules for
presenting criticism. Any valid data contradicting the current
warming trend or suggesting causes other than burning fossil fuels
would get top billing.

The climate change theory is a particularly difficult one in that by
the time a solid data set is available for study, profound and highly
disruptive changes to our environment may have occurred. This
requires an attempt to predict the future with incomplete data - a
chancy endeavor at best.

Climate scientists don't talk about belief or proof - they use far
softer terms like "suggest" or "trends" . They don't worry much about
being 'right' or 'wrong' - their only certainty is that each new data
set will change their models and theories. The study of climate
change is very much a work in progress and the climate scientists know
it.

If one would understand the current state of climate research, avoid
all popular media - they have no interest in objective reporting. The
popular media just wants to stir up controversy so their audience will
stick around to watch or listen to the commercials. Avoid too the
radio talk show propagandists whose motives are similar and possibly
more sinister. Instead, read the scientific media like Scientific
American or New Scientist.

Mark Jardini wrote:
I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.


If someone told you that they are full of something that should be
flushed down the drain line.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.


Another bit of errata.

Mark Jardini

...lew...

T8 wrote:

Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense, and
increasing (or decreasing) its concentration has only tertiary and
probably unmeasurable effects on climate. There are weaker absorption
bands that may make a difference, but some/most(?) of these are in
areas of the spectrum where water vapor dominates completely as long
as water vapor is present.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

I have tried to make that point over a year ago, having worked
in the IR surveillance field for 20 years and found you can't
shake the "true believers" faith with facts. :-(
...lew...

mike wrote:
On Jan 8, 4:26 am, Scott wrote:
Mark Jardini wrote:
While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
Mark Jardini
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

Thank you Scott. A voice of reason.

Mike Carris

Well, I won't unequivocally say a voice of reason, but I know I'M not
buying all of the global warming stuff. It's zero here this morning

The part that bothers me a bit is they are focused on CO2 emissions. We
humans emit CO2. Probably lots of it (along with a little Methane on
occasion). So, with the auctioning of "carbon credits", if they go
after humans, how long will it be before I need to be "shut down"
because I can't afford enough carbon credits to keep me breathing?



Scott

Mark Jardini wrote:

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
Yikes!! I think I am going to build an arc....

mj


Ya, and Al Gore SAYS he invented the Internet

I live 1000 AGL. I ain't scared!

Scott

delboy wrote:
On 9 Jan, 00:57, Mark Jardini wrote:


Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

As long as he is not being sponsored by the Oil or Coal Industries, I
would tend to believe him. The data he presents is accurate as far as
I can tell.

The UK Government is now running an advertising campaign to persuade
us to drive 5 miles less per week to 'save the planet'. Fat lot of
difference that will make in our tiny country, compared with all the
CO2 and other pollutants being pumped out by US and Far Eastern power
stations, manufacturing plants and vehicles. Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway, and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model? Global warming
or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
crusade, than hard science. That's not to say that we shouldn't
continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.

Derek Copeland

Don't forget that humans emit CO2! You don't want the government
shutting THEM down, do you?

Scott

Tom Gardner wrote:


Um, which planet earth do you live on? There have
been multiple "extinction events" which take all of 5
seconds to find on wackypedia.


Over billions of years, yes? How long have we been burning fossil
fuels? 200 years perhaps?

In particular, the "clathrate gun hypothesis" is particularly
relevant.

...
However there is stronger evidence that runaway methane
clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of
the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a
number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens
of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the
Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species
became extinct 251 million years ago.

And human use of fossils fuels couldn't have caused that. We weren't
using coal to generate electricity or burning gas for our cars 251
million years ago.

Sounds pretty drastic to me!

But it was caused by nature, not interfering humans...

Would the skeptics believe Al Gore if he was a TV weatherman?

Steve

On 9 Jan, 15:59, bildan wrote:
There are a couple of words which have been thrown around in this long
thread. *One is "Believe or belief". *Another is "proof". *Neither
have a place in an objective discussion of climate change.

"Belief" has far more to do with philosophy or religion than science.

"Proof" is a mathematical term not generally used in other scientific
disciplines.

It is not belief or proof but criticism which is central to the
scientific method. *No scientific "conjecture" or "theory" or "fact"
is beyond criticism based on new data. *However, there are rules for
presenting criticism. *Any valid data contradicting the current
warming trend or suggesting causes other than burning fossil fuels
would get top billing.

The climate change theory is a particularly difficult one in that by
the time a solid data set is available for study, profound and highly
disruptive changes to our environment may have occurred. *This
requires an attempt to predict the future with incomplete data - a
chancy endeavor at best.

Climate scientists don't talk about belief or proof - they use far
softer terms like "suggest" or "trends" . *They don't worry much about
being 'right' or 'wrong' - their only certainty is that each new data
set will change their models and theories. *The study of climate
change is very much a work in progress and the climate scientists know
it.

If one would understand the current state of climate research, avoid
all popular media - they have no interest in objective reporting. *The
popular media just wants to stir up controversy so their audience will
stick around to watch or listen to the commercials. * *Avoid too the
radio talk show propagandists whose motives are similar and possibly
more sinister. *Instead, read the scientific media like Scientific
American or New Scientist.

The whole basis of experimental science is that you observe what
happens, and then produce a theory or a mathematical model to explain
the observed facts. You then make further observations or carry out
experiments to test the theory. If the observations and experiments
continue to support the theory it eventually becomes accepted as a law
(although still a theory). If they don't you then have to modify the
theory. Isaac Newton almost got his laws of physics dead right, but
then Einstein then discovered relativity which modified things again.

The worst scientific mistakes seem to occur when scientists are
convinced they are right and then falsify evidence to prove their
case. Examples include Piltdown Man which was supposed to be the
missing link between apes and man, and it seems even Gregor Mendel
(father of genetics) probably fiddled his data, because statistically
speaking his results came out too well.

The problem for a scientist with a theory is; what do you do if you
start getting data that doesn't quite fit? Do you dismiss them as
statistical outliers, do you keep repeating the observations or
experiments until you do get the right answer (probably what Mendel
did), do you make up false evidence (as per Piltdown Man), or do you
revise the theory?

Suppose you measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere for a few years when
global temperatures are increasing naturally. Then you draw a graph of
increasing CO2 concentrations against Global Temperature and find that
you have a correlation. Then you nail your colours to the mast, go to
the politicians and say 'we have a big problem here'. The politicians
then start scaring the hell out of the population by showing films of
crumbling ice cliffs (which were probably crumbling anyway) and polar
bears falling out the sky, and generally brainwashing the young and
impressionable people with spin, who then become Climate Change
Protesters. Then the global temperatures stop going up! What do you do
next? Interesting dilemma!

Derek Copeland