Does the snow storm disprove climate change?
- Thread starter ymmot31
- Start date
"The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds." - Will Happer
Well respected physicist from Princeton. Guess Z is smarter than this guy too. That is an excerpt of his testimony to Congress.
Well respected physicist from Princeton. Guess Z is smarter than this guy too. That is an excerpt of his testimony to Congress.
"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."- Michael Crichton
Recognize an argument here, Z?
Recognize an argument here, Z?
Last edited:
There's a lot of natural year to year variation that makes short term trends pretty meaningless. Since the publication of that met office report noting less warming over the previous decade than the .16C long term trend, temperatures have risen .13C in only 5 years. Should we conclude that global warming is accelerating?
That's nice, but he's wrong. Well respected members of a field can be wrong. The idea that CO2's effect is saturated and more emissions won't have an effect is old and discredited. I posted earlier two studies directly measuring radiation at the surface and emitted into space (one over 10 years and 22ppm CO2 increase, the other I don't recall exactly but was at least as long) showing the greenhouse effect growing stronger over this time period. Furthermore, it isn't only the effect of CO2, but also the positive feedbacks like increased water vapor that must be taken into account. "CO2 is only 10% of the greenhouse effect" isn't a serious argument, and it surprises me that a respected physicist would present it.
The proof that they are unwilling to learn is that they do not process new information provided to them. They either ignore it or just move onto the next tired discredited nonsense. Pointless, really, to try and "debate" a fool that is impervious to facts, logic, and reason. They only want to piss on the entire subject anyway. You can already see them gathering in the periphery making idiotic posts about Godzilla and UFOs and such.
Best to just let sleeping idiots lie.
Best to just let sleeping idiots lie.
With 1C of warming under our belt after an increase in 120ppm of CO2, it looks like a climate sensitivity of 2.5C/doubling of CO2. We're adding a little more than 2ppm/year so we should get to 2.5C total warming before the end of the century. As local agricultures fail and food refugees increase, political instability will push us remorselessly toward an increase in charity, understanding, and accommodation of our brothers and sisters in need. Wisdom and justice will flower. And we rejoiced as the more sin increased the more grace was found to abound.
But Co2 isn't the only one thats gone up, methane which has 28% more heating effect than Co2 has gone up close 300% in the same time frame.
Yes. Methane is definitely a GHG but it doesn't linger in the atmosphere the way CO2 does, and its concentrations are measured in parts per billion. When I first started reading about methane it spooked the crap out of me, but there really doesn't seem to be a pathway from increases in CH4 to disaster the way there is with CO2. The chief source of atmospheric methane is the tropics. Even with those large blow outs of methane in Siberia, the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere has stayed pretty much where it has been. 5-10 years ago people got spooked by clathrates, but a clathrate is going to stay put. It takes a hell of a lot of energy to extract the CH4 from them. If it were easy, natural gas companies would be mining them. The geologic record doesn't show a calamitous spike in methane. That may be because of how quickly the methane converts to cO2 but that's still not a reason to be overly anxious. By the time deep permafrost warms enough to release outrageous amounts of methane, humans will be extinct anyway. The deep permafrost is really, really frozen.
What I'm referring to: methane blowout in Siberia:
There are landscapes where holes like these appear to stretch to the horizon.
You know that, I know that, and people who study this stuff for a living know that. The Paddock isn't going to introduce some (very basic) information that hasn't been studied and considered already.
Methane has a lifespan in the atmosphere of about 12 years. Co2 can persist for thousands of years. What we're putting up there is staying up there.
Here's a link to the hard data from the IPCC:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html#table-2-14
I understand that Z, but methane has gone up more than 300%, it doesn't matter how long it stays in the atmosphere, it's still there and has a much higher heating effect than Co2.
So why is Co2 being blamed for the rise in temps when a much more effective greenhouse gas has risen even more in the same timeframe?
In fact all greenhouse gases have risen, except moisture.
So why is Co2 being blamed for the rise in temps when a much more effective greenhouse gas has risen even more in the same timeframe?
In fact all greenhouse gases have risen, except moisture.
That 28% figure you mentioned before was the proportion of the increase in global temperatures that climate scientists have attributed to increased methane (as opposed to other greenhouse gases, including CO2). It's actual effect is 21x CO2 (per molecule) over 100 years, and up to 72x CO2 over 20 years. It's the #2 GHG after CO2. It has been studied, measured, and attributed (blamed). Methane concentrations in the atmosphere stayed steady or declined starting in the 1990s (might be on the rise again, though), so that's probably part of why it's not discussed as much as CO2. Plus, if you reduce emissions, the concentration levels drop in about a decade. So it's easier to address then CO2, which lingers (and it absolutely does matter how long it lingers). Not to mention that it is generally considered to be cheaper to address, in part because a large source of human emission is gas production (and methane is the main ingredient, so to speak, in natural gas, so capturing or reducing leakage is potentially profitable w/out even considering externalities). Also, go vegan I guess.
Again, I feel like you attack headlines, not science or policy. These are not novel ideas in the science and policy world, and it's not an either or with CO2 and methane. For instance, Obama's EPA in August proposed rules for methane emission reduction in oil and gas production (the #1 source of methane from peeps in the US). So write to support Obama's EPA for daring to attack what you've identified as the problem? Or move on to next argument?
No, in the same time frame Co2 has risen, methane has risen 300%, that's not my opinion it's fact. I'm not attacking policy or Obama, it just seems odd to me that Co2 is all you hear about. Why do you think that is?
You think it's cheaper to address the Co2 issue, do you realize how much the US relies on fossil fuel? Without building nukes we have to use fossil fuels for electricity, so again, cheap has nothing to do with it.
And Co2 isn't the number greenhouse gas, water vapor is, has it risen?
You think it's cheaper to address the Co2 issue, do you realize how much the US relies on fossil fuel? Without building nukes we have to use fossil fuels for electricity, so again, cheap has nothing to do with it.
And Co2 isn't the number greenhouse gas, water vapor is, has it risen?
The 300% increase in methane (CH4) is from pre-industrial times. Current global concentration of CH4 is around 1750 ppb (1.75 ppm) CO2 concentration is just over 400 ppm. Methane is a more effective GHG than CO2 but not over 228 times more effective. I'm not sure of the point you want to make. If all human CH4 contributions were eliminated it would be like dropping CO2 from 400 to to around 370. About 15 years worth.
Unless science can be explained to those who have no interest in understanding it, then the science itself is proven a hoax. That's what we're dealing with. Just an endless parade of nonsense. The entire world's body of scientific understanding all saying something and a bunch of hayseeds on a message board holding their hand over their ears going "na na na na na".
My point was all Greenhouse gases have gone up in the same time frame, except water vapor.
Water vapor has gone down.
it's worse than not wanting to understand. There's vanity and greed to contend with. The military is dealing with climate change. in public pronouncements even fossil fuel companies acknowledge it.
but privately there would be trillions of dollars left in the ground. so we get paid-for nonsense. what a world.
Z, why don't you actually add something to the discussion.
All you do is regurgitate insults
It doesn't have anything to do with anything left in the ground. It isn't going to be, we aren't going to stop using fossil fuels anytime soon. It's about getting a piece of the pie, and we, me you and Z foot the bill.
Not only that but companies that employ people then move a factory to a third world country and emit like hell, but we get to feel good because they aren't putting Co2 in the air from the US, to hell with the Americans that are out of a job.
It's like you guys can't see the big picture, you don't even have an idea outside of your bubble how things work.
We are going to burn fossil fuel, how much are you willing to pay for it?
Last edited:
Go outside at 12 noon. Feel the heat? Go outside at 12 midnight. Now tell me where the heat comes from. We started putting CFC's into the air and depleting the ozone layer. Yep, the same ozone layer that regulates the amount of sun energy that reaches the Earth. The Montreal Protocol had an obvious and measureable effect on our contribution to the climate.
CO2 follows the rise and fall of temperature. More sunlight striking the Earth leads to more CO2 being released from the oceans. The obvious explanation for the hiatus is the throttle we placed on the CFC engine. CO2 levels continued to increase due to the increased heat. The heat is irrespective of CO2.
Name one other aspect of science in the history of man where the data and method of discovery has been denied from peer review. Name me one other scientific discovery that has been declared "settled" based upon consensus and not verification.
I don't believe any of you misguided guys are stupid, I prefer to think you are biased due to your agendas. Funny that all of you are proclaimed Socialists.
It is very easy to go back and look at the first IPCC report and compare it to the last and see the difference in the temperature history. It is a well known and admitted fact that the history was changed to fit the agenda. Don't use that tired argument as a rebuttal.
I have just admitted to man made global warming. I cited a different cause. Does your "settled science" dispute the fact that CFC's depleted the ozone layer? Do you dispute that depleted ozone allows more solar energy to reach the Earth? Do you dispute the fact that Solar energy causes warming of the Earth?
Does it make sense to you that the pause in releasing CFC's precedes and predicts a neutralizing effect to the former warming? Have you ever been "sure" about something and been wrong?
CO2 follows the rise and fall of temperature. More sunlight striking the Earth leads to more CO2 being released from the oceans. The obvious explanation for the hiatus is the throttle we placed on the CFC engine. CO2 levels continued to increase due to the increased heat. The heat is irrespective of CO2.
Name one other aspect of science in the history of man where the data and method of discovery has been denied from peer review. Name me one other scientific discovery that has been declared "settled" based upon consensus and not verification.
I don't believe any of you misguided guys are stupid, I prefer to think you are biased due to your agendas. Funny that all of you are proclaimed Socialists.
It is very easy to go back and look at the first IPCC report and compare it to the last and see the difference in the temperature history. It is a well known and admitted fact that the history was changed to fit the agenda. Don't use that tired argument as a rebuttal.
I have just admitted to man made global warming. I cited a different cause. Does your "settled science" dispute the fact that CFC's depleted the ozone layer? Do you dispute that depleted ozone allows more solar energy to reach the Earth? Do you dispute the fact that Solar energy causes warming of the Earth?
Does it make sense to you that the pause in releasing CFC's precedes and predicts a neutralizing effect to the former warming? Have you ever been "sure" about something and been wrong?
Haha! That's probably the funniest post I've read on this sight in a while. Well done.
