AGW is a lie

[Tomk80]

Try to understand and to USE the natural process, is smart, and is the responsibility of scientist.

Try to STOP or to CHANGE the natural process, is however, STUPID.

For example, even if we could "dissolve" a hurricane, we better not to do it.

Where am I proposing to stop or change a natural process?

edited to add: What I am proposing is that we diminish our use of carbon-based fuels as quickly and as widely as possible, in order to diminish or stop the man-made component of global warming. If we do so, we will either stop global warming or bring it back to natural levels.

edited to add a bit more: If you are talking about preventing floodings in coastal areas, we do have the technology to do this. What it does take, what we do in the Netherlands and what you guys apparantly routinely neglect to do in the USA, is to create a working system of levies and dikes that is properly maintained.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Try to understand and to USE the natural process, is smart, and is the responsibility of scientist.

Try to STOP or to CHANGE the natural process, is however, STUPID.

For example, even if we could "dissolve" a hurricane, we better not to do it.

Thankfully in terms of the Anthropogenic Global Warming debate we know some very important things:

1. We know (from the carbon isotope signature in the atmosphere) that we are likely the main culprit of the recent increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (a lot of the new CO2 is depleted in 14-C, a hallmark of the burning of fossil fuels)

2. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (owing to the ability for CO2-bonds to absorb in the infrared)

3. We know that CO2 has an extremely long residence time in the atmosphere, so while it may not be the worst greenhouse gas known, it certainly lasts a long time when its up there.

4. We know that we can curtail our dumping of CO2 (and several other known greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere by taking responsibility for our actions.

We have a responsibility. We have a duty greater than any generation has ever faced (with the possible exception of nuclear war).

 

[Greatcloud]

The mona loa curve was misleading any objective person can see that.



Greenland Ice Loss Not Increasing
Michael Asher (Blog) - July 4, 2008

Surface melt from Greenland glaciers. Previous studies have suggested this melt could destabilize the Greenland ice sheet.

Longest-term study yet of the continent says nothing to fear.

For global warming activists, Greenland is the most potent weapon of fear in their arsenal. With Antarctica cooling, and the floating ice at the North Pole incapable of affecting sea levels, Greenland alone can contribute the vast amounts of melted ice capable of flooding cities. Greenland -- which began gradually melting at the end of the last ice age some 20,000 years ago -- continues to slowly shed ice today.
The only problem? It's melting far too slowly. At its current rate, Greenland will take thousands of years to significantly affect sea level.

Fears have still arisen, however, over claims that melting rate is being accelerated by man-made global warming. Some past studies have indicated this may be happening, by measuring the rate at which glaciers have slid towards the sea, sped by melt water beneath lubricating the process.
However, a new study has concluded that Greenland's rate of melting is not accelerating, and in fact may actually be decreasing when viewed over a longer timescale. The study, which used 17 years of satellite measurements to reach its conclusions, determined the overall yearly movement of ice to the sea is not increasing, and is actually decreasing in some places.
The researchers noted the speedup observed by past studies was strictly a short-term transient phenomena, occurring primarily in the summer months.
The study, which is appearing in the Friday edition of the journal Science, was led by Dutch Researcher Roderik S.W. van de Wal, of the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research of the University of Utrecht.
Claiming losses in coastal property values, a group of Spanish homeowners and investors last month threatened Greenpeace with legal action over exaggerated claims of sea level rise.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The mona loa curve was misleading any objective person can see that.

Hey! Thanks for the substantive response! I respect a simple declarative sentence that a study is "misleading". I know you probably are incapable of actually fleshing out that idea with actual information, so I won't bother asking you for any.

You're too obsessed with calling people liars. I won't harsh your mellow.

But I do appreciate the toss-off line there...especially after I took the time and trouble to post actual information.

In case you actually can support your claim on the Keeling Curve (and for the sake of your point, please, dear God, spell it correctly: Mauna Loa), I'd be interested in seeing it. But I won't hold my breath.

 

[Greatcloud]

Thaumugy There are more people on this thred then you,and the Mauna Loa co2 graph controversy is well known.

 

[[serious]]

Nice argument by blog, but I rather doubt the blogger had a chance to read and consider the article that quickly (released the same day as the article). What we have is a single paper, noting that the observed phenomenon of meltwater -> velocity increase exists and is greater than previously thought, along with some evidence that a feedback system may provide for better drainage of the OBSERVED INCREASE IN MELTWATER thus reducing the impact of ablation on sea level.

The paper does not dispute that global warming occurs. Nor does it contradict the human element of global warming. Nor does it address any of the effects of global warming other than the ablation of icesheets. Nor does it phrase it's findings as conclusive. This is a first look at a mechanism that may alter models for a specific aspect of the effects of global warming.

 

[juvenissun]

Thankfully in terms of the Anthropogenic Global Warming debate we know some very important things:

1. We know (from the carbon isotope signature in the atmosphere) that we are likely the main culprit of the recent increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (a lot of the new CO2 is depleted in 14-C, a hallmark of the burning of fossil fuels)

2. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (owing to the ability for CO2-bonds to absorb in the infrared)

3. We know that CO2 has an extremely long residence time in the atmosphere, so while it may not be the worst greenhouse gas known, it certainly lasts a long time when its up there.

4. We know that we can curtail our dumping of CO2 (and several other known greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere by taking responsibility for our actions.

We have a responsibility. We have a duty greater than any generation has ever faced (with the possible exception of nuclear war).

We do not know if this increase of CO2 is a decorative one or a significant one in the warming trend of the earth. It may be just a high and sharp peak on the gradual curve of increase. It is the main curve (along a 10 to 100 KY axis) which really describes the warming, instead of the narrow ( <1 KY) peak. Our scientific data is too little to tell that. The main curve may not even be a warming curve but a cooling curve. Who said we are not getting into another ice age?

 

[juvenissun]

Where am I proposing to stop or change a natural process?

edited to add: What I am proposing is that we diminish our use of carbon-based fuels as quickly and as widely as possible, in order to diminish or stop the man-made component of global warming. If we do so, we will either stop global warming or bring it back to natural levels.

edited to add a bit more: If you are talking about preventing floodings in coastal areas, we do have the technology to do this. What it does take, what we do in the Netherlands and what you guys apparantly routinely neglect to do in the USA, is to create a working system of levies and dikes that is properly maintained.

Yes, the CO2 problem is what I am referring to. I don't think we should worry about the increase of CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuel. If we stopped it too fast, we will end up killing each other off before the earth has a chance to really warming up. Just like I said, we DO have enough land to live. If managed properly, we do not have to worry a thing even the whole ice cap melted.

What Netherlands did is engineering. What I said is geology. They can not be compared.

 

[Gawron]

Haven't we been over this ground before?

 

[corvus_corax]

Haven't we been over this ground before?

Yes we have, and [serious] and thaumaturgy bring up the most prevalent aspects of quickly read and obviously misunderstood writings.
IOW, global warming is not disputed, and the AGW is generally not disputed as well.
The evidence points directly to GW and AGW specifically

You're right, this has been done to death. Those arguing against AGW are just beating a dead horse.

 

[Tomk80]

Yes, the CO2 problem is what I am referring to.

Given that anthropogenic CO2 is not a natural phenomenon, according to your reasoning of not stopping or changing a natural process, we should do something about it.

I don't think we should worry about the increase of CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuel.

Well, we don't know that, do we?

If we stopped it too fast, we will end up killing each other off before the earth has a chance to really warming up.

Stopped what too fast? Increase of CO2? How would that end up with us killing of each other. Especially taking into account increasing oil demands and decreasing oil supplies, how would actually curbing our use of fossils fuels lead to us killing each other faster than maintaining our current way of life would?

Just like I said, we DO have enough land to live. If managed properly, we do not have to worry a thing even the whole ice cap melted.

That is by no means certain. If increasing sea levels would be the only problem, sure. The problem is they're not. Problems with possible decreases of agricultural land are also possible. In which case more people need to take there nutrition from even less land than today.

What Netherlands did is engineering. What I said is geology. They can not be compared.

I have no idea how this should be an answer to anything I wrote. With good engineering people in coastal areas can be safe enough to stay right where they are, even with increasing sea levels.

 

[juvenissun]

Stopped what too fast? Increase of CO2? How would that end up with us killing of each other. Especially taking into account increasing oil demands and decreasing oil supplies, how would actually curbing our use of fossils fuels lead to us killing each other faster than maintaining our current way of life would?

Stop using fossil fuel too fast.

Under normal situation, we could not do that by any means. As long as the fuel is available, people is going to burn it, no matter whatever treaty will be set.

We could reduce its use dramatically. By what? Yes, ultimately, by WAR.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thaumugy There are more people on this thred then you,and the Mauna Loa co2 graph controversy is well known.

So I'll take that as your inability to back the claim up. Usually when someone just repeats an unfounded claim and then declares that the unfounded claim is "well known", I assume they are talking out of a non-standard speaking orifice.

Here's the curve, in case you haven't looked at it in a while:

I dunno what is "misleading" about this, but if you ever do actually care to back up an accusation, I'd be interested in hearing what you have found. But I understand if the science is hard for you, or if you are more interested in leveling unfounded accusations.

I'll tell you why I'm interested, you see, several years ago I worked as an oceanographic chemist measuring gases that are commonly exchanged across the air-sea interface. I got to do a study on a major estuary (the first paper I was listed as co-author on in a peer-reviewed journal) and I got to be involved in a North Atlantic Research cruise from the east coast of the U.S. to Scandinavia. You'll understand why this stuff interests me so much.

But it's always refreshing to see people make unevidenced claims about scientists work.

 

[Tomk80]

Stop using fossil fuel too fast.

Under normal situation, we could not do that by any means. As long as the fuel is available, people is going to burn it, no matter whatever treaty will be set.

We could reduce its use dramatically. By what? Yes, ultimately, by WAR.

No need for war. Yes, people will use energy, no matter what treaty. But we can use less. By what means other than war? By using fuel more efficiently on the one hand. Why do you think the production of foolish machines like the Hummer are being reconsidered? Next to this, we can use other means. There are other options than fossil fuels, as long as we put in some effort to develop them.

We'll have to, because fuel is not going to be available indefinitely. Why do you even think, given current developments, that we will not be forced to rethink our use of it in the coming decade(s)?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yes we have, and [serious] and thaumaturgy bring up the most prevalent aspects of quickly read and obviously misunderstood writings.
IOW, global warming is not disputed, and the AGW is generally not disputed as well.
The evidence points directly to GW and AGW specifically

You're right, this has been done to death. Those arguing against AGW are just beating a dead horse.

Agreed! QFT.

It fascinates me that new people come on and make big broad claims like "this or that is a lie!" Why does everything have to be a conspiracy? If it makes someone feel sad, does that mean someone is persecuting them?

I just dearly wish the anti-AGW folks would try to be a bit more rational and bring some science to the table, not just "talking points" and commentary around Al Gore as if Al Gore invented AGW and is the leading scientists on it!

Lately I've been reading more about Revelle and Keeling and others who did the early research. It's part of my new part-time thing writing questions for an organization that runs science scholastic bowls. That and my wife works at an oceanographic institution, so I'm seeing far more stuff about global warming, from the science side. AND, as I said earlier, I used to work for a different oceanographic institute and I had the joy of briefly meeting folks like Wally Broeker and other climate gurus. It's a fun area I wish I was more involved in.

 

[atomweaver]

Stop using fossil fuel too fast.

Under normal situation, we could not do that by any means. As long as the fuel is available, people is going to burn it, no matter whatever treaty will be set.

We could reduce its use dramatically. By what? Yes, ultimately, by WAR.

Needs more drama juvenissun, more pop... Like this;

By what? Yes, ultimately by WARRRR!!!!!!onel!1

Man, you just cannot find good diatribe on the Internet these days...


Seriously, do you think it would require a war for the US to have fuel economy standards at least equivalent to Europe? The tech to improve our fuel efficiency to that standard is already on the books.

When we switch from Incandescent bulbs to CF nation-wide, home energy demand will drop by ~10%, which goes straight to the bottom line of your carbon footprint (and lowers mercury emissions, too. It'd be great if I could eat tuna more than once per week...). Heck, I did this two years ago, because it saved me a few hundred buck a year on my electricity bill. You're telling me this would require a war? I've never heard of people going to war in order to prevent themselves from saving money.

No. What is required to put AGW to in the rear-view mirror is mostly innovation and willpower, both of which are available in quantity from people who don't have baggage of the "the world is in a post-Fall state of decay!!11 Only GAWD can sort it out!!!" fatalist variety...

 

[Greatcloud]

The purpose of the keeling curve was to show a dramatic increase in co2 in the latter part of the century. He started out measuring in the Antarctica wastelands then for the seventies he changed his proxy data to Mauna Loa. Mauna Loa is an active volcano giving out great amounts of co2. How does this not alter the purpose of the graph.






CO2

 

[juvenissun]

Needs more drama juvenissun, more pop... Like this;

By what? Yes, ultimately by WARRRR!!!!!!onel!1

Man, you just cannot find good diatribe on the Internet these days...


Seriously, do you think it would require a war for the US to have fuel economy standards at least equivalent to Europe? The tech to improve our fuel efficiency to that standard is already on the books.

When we switch from Incandescent bulbs to CF nation-wide, home energy demand will drop by ~10%, which goes straight to the bottom line of your carbon footprint (and lowers mercury emissions, too. It'd be great if I could eat tuna more than once per week...). Heck, I did this two years ago, because it saved me a few hundred buck a year on my electricity bill. You're telling me this would require a war? I've never heard of people going to war in order to prevent themselves from saving money.

No. What is required to put AGW to in the rear-view mirror is mostly innovation and willpower, both of which are available in quantity from people who don't have baggage of the "the world is in a post-Fall state of decay!!11 Only GAWD can sort it out!!!" fatalist variety...

Yeah. You may try to say the same to Chinese, Indian and may be Russian and Iranian, and see what would they say to you. US does not own the earth. A clean US means little to the emission of global CO2.

 

[Gawron]

Well, lets look at some other data.

In 1988 James Hansen published one of the most famous climate models. He generated three “scenarios”.

Scenario “A” envisioned little or no efforts to curb GHG emissions and very little volcanic activity.

Scenario “C” envisioned a very significant effort to curb GHG’s and significant volcanic activity.

Scenario “B” was somewhere in between. Below is a copy of Hansen’s 1988 model with the HADCRUT3 temperature data (10 year moving average and 4th order polynomial) overlaid. As is shown by the data, the actual temperature changes were less than all of Hansen’s scenarios despite the fact that GHG emissions have continued to grow.

Some will undoubtedly say that computer modeling methods and climate modelers’ understanding of climate dynamics have improved since Hansen’s 1988 model. Therefore, a more recent model:

The actual temperature observations since 2000 must certainly fall well within the range of these models. Lets see if they did:

These models are quite recent, but the actual temperatures just won’t cooperate. The HADCRUT3 annual temperature anomaly tracked at the low end of the model range until a couple of years ago and then took a nose dive. None of the models predicted this.

If CO2 is still going up, and it is, then why on Earth did those temperatures start to decline? Could the Sun have anything to do with this? As I have argued before, it Sun plays more of a role in global temperatures than CO2.

Note how shortening Schwabe (11-year) Solar Cycles preceded the warming periods from 1908-1942 and 1978-2003. Furthermore, lengthening Schwabe Solar Cycles preceded the cooling period from 1942-1978. With the end of Solar Cycle 23 in January 2008, it is now clear that the Schwabe has gone long again.

NOTE: SOLAR CYCLE LENGTH IS PLOTTED WITH INCREASES MOVING TOWARD THE X-AXIS AND DECREASES AWAY FROM THE X-AXIS

Since the end of the Little Ice Age, the Earth has oscillated between warming and cooling spells of 0.2C to 0.5C every 30 (+/- 5) years:

If Gore is only the messenger, how did he miss all of this from those delivering the message? Oh yeah, it isn't the message he wants the poor peons who have no say in how much of their money which they worked for is taken from them in the name of Science and wasted on trying to alter nature.

 

[Gawron]

"A clean US means little to the emission of global CO2."

As China and India continue to grow as economic and industrial powers, this becomes more and more true. But the Socialist will come in and say something like:

"Americans should be made to sacrifice because we have had it so good for so long we must now lead the way and destroy our way of life in order to show the world how much we, as the richest country in the world, care."