Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Warming is a Scam
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 6 of 164 (646766)
01-06-2012 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
01-06-2012 12:28 AM


Re: And Other Reasons there's no Snow in January
Is this an expected result of global warming? Or, is this a naturally-occurring weather fluke?
In my non-expert opinion, this migh be a case of constructive fluctuations where the ups and downs in two trends meet at the crest of the sine waves.
Global warming is not about short term trends over a few months. In other words, it is about climate, not weather. In Idaho where I live the local ski resort has zero snow which is unheard of for this time of year. Other ski resorts in the area opened really late. Our temps have been pretty mild as well, getting to the high 40's last week. At the beginning of the year we were told to expect a La Nina pattern which is usually cooler and wet. We have seen the opposite, more of an El Nino pattern. I think we are seeing fluky weather combined with warmer ocean temps. Again, just my non-expert opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 01-06-2012 12:28 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 01-06-2012 1:21 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 28 of 164 (667569)
07-09-2012 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by 1.61803
07-09-2012 4:21 PM


Re: And Other Reasons there's no Snow in January
I am for one freaking out about the current weather. You hear almost nothing from Global warming deniers as of late when heat records all over the country are being broken daily.
Have we once and for all witnessed in our life times climate change?
One should never confuse short term spikes with long term warming. One is not the other. We could have long term cooling and still have occasions where the temp spikes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by 1.61803, posted 07-09-2012 4:21 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Panda, posted 07-09-2012 5:37 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 49 of 164 (668036)
07-16-2012 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by foreveryoung
07-16-2012 12:22 PM


Can you prove that increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1950 is responsible for the increase in temperature since that time? You cannot do it.
As frako demonstrates above, we can prove that increasing atmopsheric CO2 concentrations will trap more heat in the atmosphere. What do you think will happen when we trap more heat in the atmosphere? Do think global temps will go down, go up, or remain the same?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by foreveryoung, posted 07-16-2012 12:22 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 61 of 164 (668118)
07-17-2012 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by NoNukes
07-17-2012 7:05 AM


Are you sure about this? I thought that petroleum and coal were notoriously hard to carbon date.
Radiodate is a poor description. What we can do is analyze the isotopic mixture of atmospheric carbon dioxide and compare it to the same mixture in fossil fuels. As it turns out, fossil fuels are relatively rich in 13C compared to normal atmospheric pools. What we have seen over the last 100 years is a sharp increase in the relative amount of 13C in the atmosphere which is a clear indication that the increase is due to fossil fuels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 07-17-2012 7:05 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 65 of 164 (668146)
07-17-2012 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by fearandloathing
07-17-2012 4:29 PM


Re: Natural Carbon Sequestration
As we grow in population what effect do we have on carbon sequestration? I think of slash and burn agriculture practices in less developed countries, deforestation for lumber ect... add in pollution of the ocean and I wonder how much of an impact on the Earths natural carbon sink we have made.
I am most concerned with permafrost. These are major carbon sinks. They contain massive amounts of frozen plant and animal material that is just sitting there. When it thaws that organic material is attacked by soil bacteria which release the carbon into the atmosphere. With permafrost we are actually releasing thousands of years of stored carbon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by fearandloathing, posted 07-17-2012 4:29 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by fearandloathing, posted 07-17-2012 6:11 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 119 of 164 (677687)
10-31-2012 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by foreveryoung
10-31-2012 3:43 AM


Would someone with either a background in physics or chemistry please analyze the following paper; It makes the case that carbon dioxide has a cooling effect rather than a warming effect on the atmosphere.
The first problem is that the paper is not published in a peer reviewed journal. That is a big warning right away.
From what I can tell what he is really showing is that the magnitude of heat absorption is not as high as it would be with the gases by themselves, but there is still heat absorption. It's a bit like saying that shooting a gun saves lives because if you shoot someone who is wearing a thick coat the bullet actually goes a little bit slower when it hits the coat.
CO2 is still absorbing heat. There is no way around it. It is simple physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by foreveryoung, posted 10-31-2012 3:43 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by foreveryoung, posted 10-31-2012 8:22 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 126 of 164 (677763)
11-01-2012 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by foreveryoung
10-31-2012 8:22 PM


Not being reviewed in a professional journal nor being a climate scientist doesn't bother me at all when it comes to climate science.
It shoud bother you as much as going to an unlicensed doctor who has never gone to medical school.
These people are so convinced that carbon dioxide is the culprit for recent warming and for all past warming that it is impossible for them to consider otherwise.
It is a fact that CO2 absorbs heat. The argument is really focused on how much CO2 will increase temperatures, not whether CO2 absorbs heat. If we took all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere the atmosphere would absorb less heat. Trying to claim that CO2 cools the atmosphere is serious quackery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by foreveryoung, posted 10-31-2012 8:22 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 12:30 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 131 of 164 (677792)
11-01-2012 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 12:33 PM


Why should I believe in anthropomorphic climate change? The only evidence for it is circumstantial.
Do you agree that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 12:33 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 6:48 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 156 of 164 (677889)
11-02-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 6:38 PM


Not only will we survive it; we will thrive in it. There will be greater food production and a greater diversity of new species.
We are already seeing vast areas of coral dying because of rising ocean temps. We are also seeing massive droughts in the American heartland which accounts for a very large chunk of the world's agriculture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 6:38 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 157 of 164 (677891)
11-02-2012 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 6:45 PM


Re: "Circumstantial"
What I mean is that nobody can point to the evidence and show that every warming period was preceded by an increase in carbon dioxide.
Of course that is not the case. Past warming trends were not caused by the burning of massive amounts of stored fossil fuels.
Can you show anywhere in the ice cores where CO2 has been higher? The answer to that is a resounding "NO". Current atmospheric CO2 is well above any level seen in any paleoclimate record. Why do you think that is?
They also cannot show that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the result of warmer ocean temperatures.
I have no doubt that CO2 released by warmer oceans is adding to global warming. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!! We put 1 unit of CO2 in the atmosphere that causes a set amount of warming. That heats the oceans and releases even MORE CO2. This additional CO2 warms the oceans and atmosphere even more leading to less ice. Less ice reflects less heat back into the atmosphere and warms the oceans even more adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. This warming again starts to heat up the permafrost near the poles and releases massive amounts of methane which is an even stronger greenhouse gas. Methane also oxidizes over time into CO2. Are you starting to see a trend here?
This is why CO2 is considered to be a forcer, a gas that changes atmospheric temperatures and has a long residence time in the atmosphere.
Until someone can show there are no periods of increased carbon dioxide that are not accompanied by an increase in temperatures, all evidence is merely circumstantial.
Until you can show that the laws of physics suspend themselves to where CO2 no longer acts as a greenhouse gas then the evidence is quite solid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 6:45 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-02-2012 11:51 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 158 of 164 (677892)
11-02-2012 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 6:48 PM


No, I don't. It temporarily absorbs long wave radiation then re -releases it.
Quite right. A portion of that re-released radiation will be directed back at the Earth. Therefore, CO2 causes the Earth to heat up by bouncing heat back at the Earth, heat that would have otherwise radiated out into space. That is why CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is simply physics. The more CO2 you have in the atmosphere the more heat that is trapped. There is no getting around it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 6:48 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 161 of 164 (677905)
11-02-2012 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dr Adequate
11-01-2012 7:02 PM


Re: "Circumstantial"
If we wish to prove that Fred Brown killed John Smith by stabbing him with a knife, it is not necessary to prove that every death was preceded by Fred Brown stabbing someone with a knife.
This point needs to be stressed more. A common refrain from AGW opponents is that the Earth has gone through cooling and warming periods in the past. It is also true that the initiation of these cycles was probably not CO2, although it could have played a secondary role. All of the evidence points to Malinkovich cycles being the main forcer in previous warming periods:
Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia
All of this is very, very true. However, this doesn't change the fact that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase global temps. What may have muddied the waters is people claiming that CO2 initiated those past warming cycles when in fact CO2 probably just made the warming cycle peak at a higher temp. That is, the increase in energy reaching the oceans due to the changes in Earth's orbit and wobble was magnified by the release of CO2 from the warming oceans.
Now we have the opposite effect. Increasing CO2 is heating the oceans causing the release of even more CO2. Human produced CO2 has simply replaced the previous initiation process.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2012 7:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024