The President's Commision on Global Warming - Page 4 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
League Champs
Bayou Self
Member since Oct 2012
3116 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Sure, except for the hundreds of millions of people who would be flooded out of their cities, and the hundreds of trillions of dollars of buildings and infrastructure that would be lost.

uh, look at old maps. Even as late as the 1800s. People knew not to build near the coastlines.

Man did created these disasters; by being greedy not by affecting weather







Back to top
  Replies (0)
League Champs
Bayou Self
Member since Oct 2012
3116 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

You've been duped.

Pretty much this

Ya think AlGore sells his TV network to an oil emirate if he really believed in this cause? Its been about duping folks to give them money. In the old west they were called snakeoil salesmen.

He just bought a huge bottle of Dr Feelgoods cureall






Back to top
  Replies (0)
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
51273 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Atmospheric CO2 levels have surely been higher in the distant past, but again, so far the data indicates that the levels have never risen nearly as fast as today.
You do understand CO2 did not cause warming then, and it is not causing warming now? It is a correlate not a cause.






Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9390 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

The sun getting hotter.

LINK

Solar output varies by 0.1-0.2%, at most, typically in 11 year cycles, and is generally accepted to have minimal effect on surface temperatures. Even so, solar activity and global temperatures have been going in opposite directions for several decades.






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
51273 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Solar output . . . . is generally accepted to have minimal effect on surface temperatures
Well done!






Back to top
moneyg
LSU Fan
Member since Jun 2006
18921 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Is it better to adapt before it's too late, or after the fact?


What is the cost of adapting?






Back to top
Archie Bengal Bunker
Florida State Fan
UWF Fan
Member since Jun 2008
15211 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


What happened to the Ozone hole? Did we finally determine that the sun caused that? I've read that the ozone hole is shrinking, is that true?





Back to top
  Replies (0)
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9390 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

quote:

Solar output . . . . is generally accepted to have minimal effect on surface temperatures
Well done!

I should have said solar output variation






Back to top
  Replies (0)
OMLandshark
Ole Miss Fan
Member since Apr 2009
37980 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

I may be wrong on this, but aren't periods of warming more prosperous and healthy than periods of cooling?



I know this is true in Westeros.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
moneyg
LSU Fan
Member since Jun 2006
18921 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Solar output . . . . is generally accepted to have minimal effect on surface temperatures
Well done!










Back to top
  Replies (0)
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9390 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

You do understand CO2 did not cause warming then, and it is not causing warming now? It is a correlate not a cause.

I understand the difference between correlation and causation.

I used to think that global warming was no big deal. I believed that higher temperatures, higher humidity, and higher CO2 levels were all good things for vegetation, and that plants would grow fast enough to compensate and keep everything in check long before things got out of hand. However, the more I read and learn, the more I feel that we have a big problem on our hands. It's not the current temperature and CO2 that bothers me, it's the rate at which they are rising.

Everybody likes to tease about record snowfalls and record local low temperatures being due to global warming, but if you really think about it, it makes sense. If you heat a system, it creates a lot of turmoil. Very high temps in one place, very low in others. Lots of humidity in one place, very little in others. But overall, the whole system is heating up. Can it dump a lot of rain/snow/whatever in one place, and leave another place in a drought? Sure. But those extremes can quickly reverse, as well.

Do I know for sure that humans are causing climate change? I think I've been pretty clear in saying that nobody knows for sure. But I do know that there is reason for concern, and I don't think brushing it aside as a non-issue should be an option.






Back to top
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
22423 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

As far as I can tell it's one guy fibbing about one site.
It's not that simple. Trenberth's proxy data was incorporated into the UEA-CRU historical data set. Those datasets are then used to calibrate models. Since the datasets don't represent reality, how can a model designed based on non-reality predict reality going forward with skillful fidelity? HINT: It can't.

quote:

What do regional samples say vs. global samples taken as a whole?
They won't say the same thing. They can't. Currently, in TX there is a drought and a mild winter. In the northeast you have massive, record cold and tons of precipitiation. You simply can't draw climatic conclusions based on single co-location. Of course, you can't cook the data by drawing on many locations, nor draw much of a conclusion because all weather is local.

The bottom line is that it's assinine to simplify an entire planet of temperatures down to a single number. That's a plainly unrealistic simplification. But then again... it's done to convince simpletons.

quote:

Or do you not think CO2 stays airborne long enough to cover the globe? I'm having a hard time understanding your issue with this.
Do you think ANYTHING in the atmosphere is evenly and equally distributed over the globe? I'm not sure why you cannot see the obvious (oversimlpified) assumption at work here.

quote:

So, the only input to earth's system is the sun, right?
It is the only source of heat. CO2 is NEVER EVER a source of heat at atmospheric pressures.

quote:

What happens to all of that energy?
You're asking? If you don't know where the energy comes from and goes... how can you believe in AGW?

quote:

Doesn't a lot of it radiate back out into space?
Of course. You might want to take a look at that boundary condition and the potential for energy flow across it before concluding AGW is even possible.

quote:

Does it stand to reason that the only ways for our long-term climate to change is if there is a change in the amount of greenhouse gases OR a change in the composition of the surface which would radiate more heat back out into space?
Ummm. No. Not at all. Particulate matter, aerosols like (SO4), the mechanics of cloud formation and clustering, global wind patterns, el nino, la nina, ocean/atmospheric diffusion, albedo effects, all have HUGE effects on our climate. Hell, four of those things have greater sky obscuration potential than CO2 does even if the atmosphere were 100% CO2.

The assumption that CO2 is the sole and only independent variable in the climate is plainly silly.

quote:

Am I missing anything?
Obviously, a lot. I'm not saying that to be disrespectful. But you clearly don't have a working knowledge of modeling nor thermodynamics. You believe you are making a science-based argument. But you aren't. No more so than any creationist makes a science based argument because "their priest told them it's true".

I understand where you're coming from. I once believed in AGW too. It sounds good. But so do most 9/11 conspiracy theories. Doesn't make them true in either case. And in both cases, the more you learn about them, the faster they fall apart.



This post was edited on 2/11 at 6:17 pm


Back to top
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
22423 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Everybody likes to tease about record snowfalls and record local low temperatures being due to global warming, but if you really think about it, it makes sense.
No it doesn't. All that humidity in the air must meet colder air to precipitate. Otherwise it never gets turned into snow or rain.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9390 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

What is the cost of adapting?

This is the root of the entire debate.

If we begin adapting now, the cost will be high. If we do nothing now, the cost is obviously zero for us, but it has the potential to cost our grandchildren tens or hundreds of times more to adapt later if necessary.

Of course, "if necessary" are the key words. Adapting now would be like insurance. Surely Obamacare would cover this, right guys?






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
51273 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

If we begin adapting now, the cost will be high
Gets back to the issue of causation vs correlation. If "adapting" means acting on a correlate as if it is a cause, then we've wasted our time, teaching, and treasure on nonsense. There is substantial harm in that.




This post was edited on 2/11 at 6:22 pm


Back to top
  Replies (0)
TrueTiger
LSU Fan
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
9992 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

killing us off and solving the problem.



It's not like we're going to be around forever anyway.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9390 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

They won't say the same thing. They can't. Currently, in TX there is a drought and a mild winter. In the northeast you have massive, record cold and tons of precipitiation. You simply can't draw climatic conclusions based on single co-location.

This is why I was curious as to why you were focused on cooked tree ring data from a single location. Local weather is not climate.
quote:

Do you think ANYTHING in the atmosphere is evenly and equally distributed over the globe? I'm not sure why you cannot see the obvious (oversimlpified) assumption at work here.
Perfectly distributed? Not a chance. But we do have recent measurements of atmospheric CO2 from all over the globe, and it is relatively uniform. Is that not sufficient to create a baseline in an ice sample?
quote:

CO2 is NEVER EVER a source of heat at atmospheric pressures.
Never said it was. I only said it prevents heat from radiating into space.
quote:

Ummm. No. Not at all. Particulate matter, aerosols like (SO4), the mechanics of cloud formation and clustering, global wind patterns, el nino, la nina, ocean/atmospheric diffusion, albedo effects, all have HUGE effects on our climate. Hell, four of those things have greater sky obscuration potential than CO2 does even if the atmosphere were 100% CO2.

The assumption that CO2 is the sole and only independent variable in the climate is plainly silly.
Again, who ever said CO2 is the sole and only variable in the climate? Do you at least think that it is a factor at all? This is the only question I need you to answer.






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
51273 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Do you at least think that it is a factor at all?
Insignificant at best.






Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9390 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Insignificant at best.

I keep hearing that, but it doesn't have much meaning with no explanation. The amount of sunlight reaching earth is very, very consistent. That sunlight warms the earth to the point where the energy radiated back out into space is equal to the amount it receives. If we had no atmosphere, this temperature would be well below freezing. But we do have an atmosphere, and trace gases (mainly water vapor) capture the energy radiating from the surface, heats the air, which, in turn, radiates in all directions including back at the surface. This further warms the surface, and it snowballs to a point where equilibrium is reached. This is what determines our average global temperature. Can we all accept this as true?

Now, I think we all agree that water vapor is the main gas that captures this heat, and that CO2 does the same. So what causes more water vapor? Heat. So what created the imbalance that lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere? Is there no chance that a slight increase in CO2, no matter how seemingly insignificant, could capture and radiate enough heat to warm the earth enough to create more water vapor?






Back to top
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
22423 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

This is why I was curious as to why you were focused on cooked tree ring data from a single location. Local weather is not climate.
Then you don't believe the UEA-CRU dataset. That is exactly how it was constructed. From local proxy data.

quote:

Is that not sufficient to create a baseline in an ice sample?
Not really. Look how poorly ozone is distributed both laterally and vertically at the poles. What would a measurement of ground-level ozone at the poles tell you about high altitude ozone over the equator? Nothing. What would ozone measurement at the poles tell you about smog (ground level ozone) in LA? Nothing. Ground level ozone measurements at the poles, doesn't even tell you high-altitude ozone at the poles. It's a singular geographically isolate datapoint. Nothing more. Nothing less. It's certainly not conclusive.

Think this through. Given the relative density of CO2 at polar temperatures... what would we expect at the poles? Higher or lower CO2 levels than at the equator? What about higher altitudes?

quote:

Never said it was. I only said it prevents heat from radiating into space.
Well that's even less informed. CO2 doesn't act as an insulator. CO2 is incapable of storing heat at atmospheric temperatures and pressures. It's a gas FFS!

It absorbs more slightly more energy from a small fraction of the sun's spectrum than the typical mixture of air. That's it. Nothing more (and maybe less).

Further, the portion of the air mixture that is CO2 is relatively small. During the last century we've gone from roughly 27 molecules per 100,000 parts of air to 39 molecules per 100,000 parts of air. Compared to the energy absorbed by the rest of air's constituents and water vapor, it's not very significant. CO2 is simply not thermodynamically capable of absorbing very much energy.

quote:

Do you at least think that it is a factor at all? This is the only question I need you to answer.
I do not. See above for CO2 ability to convert solar radiation into heat. Do the math. Can the change in obscuration caused by increase from 2.7ppm to 3.9ppm absorb enough heat to raise the temperature of say... 60%RH air by 1C?

Further, for the entire AGW theory to work, the heating must occur at the surface ONLY. (Remember when I mentioned boundary condition flux potential above?) Heated air doesn't stay at the surface. What direction does heated air go? And what does that do to radiation potential to space? Remember CO2 traps light, it does not trap heat. The heat flows through low altitude CO2 unimpeded on it's way to space.

The failure to properly account for vertical flow is the greatest flaw in climate models. There was an interesting paper detailing how lack of vertical fidelity was key reason most of the doomsday predictions of polar melts in climate models aren't coming to pass. Interesting paper that should have blow then entire concept out of the water if it were correctly reported in the media. You simply cannot model such a dynamic system with 2D models.

The technology exists to conduct a true (not the bogus coeffecient-based, non-transient) 3D models. But climate scientists won't touch them. Wonder why?



This post was edited on 2/11 at 11:37 pm


Back to top


Back to top