Science vs Global Warming

[Aardverk]

One point on water vapor. Water vapor is not seen as a driving force since it is short term. It acts as a magnifying source. A change in CO2 levels will increase the heat slightly which will increase water vapor and that will in turn raise temperature even more. Within limits there is feedback, but that is controlled by the base temperature set by CO2. A cold snap can remove quite a bit of the water vapor from the atmosphere and then it will have to build up again form its base. Carbon dioxide is long term. It gets removed from the atmosphere very slowly. That is why it is more of a concern for long time warming than either water or methane.

Ah, this is getting more interesting. Let's start at the end where you mention Methane. I will assume that you know that most methane rapidly (8-9 years) breaks down into CO2 & H2O. Apart from a dozen other methane sources, global warming releases methane from permafrost, wetlands, oceans etc. Methane starts off as a 'super' greenhouse gas and subsequently become 2 lesser greenhouse gases. It is itself a major source of global CO2.

Back to water vapour. Water vapour in polar regions barely exists, it nearly all condenses into clouds. Water vapour mainly exists between the tropics - where there is of course an almost constant strong sun to warm the planet up. Warmer air can hold more water vapour so as the planet warms, the atmosphere as a whole can sustain more water vapour. That in turn acts as a greenhouse gas which starts the cycle again. There is nothing obvious to stop it until the day that the air can sustain no more water vapour and we end up with complete cloud cover, maybe triggering global cooling - who knows?

Local weather and temperature variation in the temperate zones can have very little effect on the total global water vapour (very difficult to measure by the way). Outside the tropics we do indeed get seasonal variations in temperatures which condense the vapour into clouds and subsequent precipitation but as the Northern hemisphere cools, the Southern hemisphere warms up (and visa-versa) which balances out the condensation.

Don't forget the methane and CO2 released by global warming and countless billions of living creatures. It certainly helps to drive temperatures up to sustain even more water vapour - the biggest greenhouse gas by far. We all know that CO2 is a moderately potent greenhouse gas but the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is THE major cause of global warming is just a theory. The IPCC carefully couch their reports with terms like 'It is likely that' or 'It is thought that' rather than stating a cause as a fact. They do that for very good reasons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, this is getting more interesting. Let's start at the end where you mention Methane. I will assume that you know that most methane rapidly (8-9 years) breaks down into CO2 & H2O. Apart from a dozen other methane sources, global warming releases methane from permafrost, wetlands, oceans etc. Methane starts off as a 'super' greenhouse gas and subsequently become 2 lesser greenhouse gases. It is itself a major source of global CO2.

When making claims can you support them with valid sources please? There is not much point in responding if you play the "because I said so" game. If you need sources for any claims that I make and do not support links I will of course have to do the same.

Back to water vapour. Water vapour in polar regions barely exists, it nearly all condenses into clouds. Water vapour mainly exists between the tropics - where there is of course an almost constant strong sun to warm the planet up. Warmer air can hold more water vapour so as the planet warms, the atmosphere as a whole can sustain more water vapour. That in turn acts as a greenhouse gas which starts the cycle again. There is nothing obvious to stop it until the day that the air can sustain no more water vapour and we end up with complete cloud cover, maybe triggering global cooling - who knows?

Again, please find a source for this claim.

Local weather and temperature variation in the temperate zones can have very little effect on the total global water vapour (very difficult to measure by the way). Outside the tropics we do indeed get seasonal variations in temperatures which condense the vapour into clouds and subsequent precipitation but as the Northern hemisphere cools, the Southern hemisphere warms up (and visa-versa) which balances out the condensation.

Don't forget the methane and CO2 released by global warming and countless billions of living creatures. It certainly helps to drive temperatures up to sustain even more water vapour - the biggest greenhouse gas by far. We all know that CO2 is a moderately potent greenhouse gas but the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is THE major cause of global warming is just a theory. The IPCC carefully couch their reports with terms like 'It is likely that' or 'It is thought that' rather than stating a cause as a fact. They do that for very good reasons.

No one is forgetting natural sources. The Earth has been roughly in equilibrium, at least since shortly after the last glaciation. CO2 is added by various sources as you pointed out, but what has happened is that we have increased the yearly amount of CO2 released. Animal production of CO2 is balanced by the food that they rely on. It is part of the carbon cycle:

Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?

What you should have asked is how we know that we are the cause of new CO2 and not nature. The answer to that can be found by analyzing the isotopic carbon in the atmosphere:

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

In an nutshell CO2 from fossil fuels has a different C13/C12 ration than atmospheric carbon. By measuring the change in those isotopes over years scientists can confirm that the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere is due to man.

 

[sparow]

I like this guy (At least what he says that is science driven) - anyone else heard of him?

Very interesting and correct physics but I believe he has incorrectly identified the problem.

In 1964, science was described as (among other things); Systematic and formulated knowledge (moral, political, natural, etc., such knowledge in reference to those subjects); pursuit of this or principles regulating such pursuit.

If the science of climate change was physics, then the term pseudo-science could apply, but the science is not physics, it is psychology; the science of manipulating the minds of the gullible; those who Marx called useful persons. The prefix (pseudo) does not apply to the science of mind manipulation (climate change) it is the real thing.

Climate change is a tool used by treacherous globalists to bring about global rule (dictatorship).

 

[Aardverk]

Please provide a source for your claims so that I can know exactly what you are asking about. And if you need to see the data then you will probably have to go to the original peer reviewed material and that will cost a few bucks. Why be suspicious? If the data was misrepresented don't you think that some of the deniers would find out? There are deniers that do have access to the peer reviewed sources. If you are a student at any major university you can find it through the university libraries. I can only provide a limited amount of info for you.

Also at this point it looks like you are only making excuses for not accepting the findings of scientists. Why would you do that?

EDIT: And I really would like to see your source for the 1970's claim. A couple of scientists predicted an ice age was coming back. Nowhere near a consensus agreement. It made good copy so the newspapers hyped it up. The public press often gets science wrong. It is easy to get misled at times.

Second Edit: I can find some of the data for you, but it is not that simple. Follow this link and you can download all sorts of data on ice cores:
Ice Core | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

You could read Spencer Weart's - The Modern Temperature Trend, but I was actually going from personal memory. I am 70. I was working with a group of meteorologists in the 70's on a study of jet streams and their effect on weather, amongst other things. Ice core data was coming in with very interesting results and the general consensus was that temperatures were likely to be dropping. Nobody(?) called themselves a climate scientist back then - so I admit that I was taking a bit of a liberty when I said 'most climate scientists agreed'. It was actually, most meteorologists agreed. It was all over the news for quite a long time but such things are ephemera.

I am not clear what support for Vostock data do you want. Graphical representations of the data are easily available on the 'net. The main one is the graph that Al Gore famously misunderstood in his presentations. The benthic forams data is not quite so easy to find but I am sure you will find it if you try.

To save me hunting, I attach a graph from my files which show what that temperature generally precedes CO2 and that low temperatures coincide with atmospheric dust.

The second graph is primarily the Milankovitch cycles but under that you will see the Vostaoch data again as well as the benthic forams data - actually going back 800,000 years. Ignore my pencil notes, they were just discussion points for another group I was with.

Hopefully, when you have studied them you will understand exactly why I want access to the data and not just graphs and pdf's.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You could read Spencer Weart's - The Modern Temperature Trend, but I was actually going from personal memory. I am 70. I was working with a group of meteorologists in the 70's on a study of jet streams and their effect on weather, amongst other things. Ice core data was coming in with very interesting results and the general consensus was that temperatures were likely to be dropping. Nobody(?) called themselves a climate scientist back then - so I admit that I was taking a bit of a liberty when I said 'most climate scientists agreed'. It was actually, most meteorologists agreed. It was all over the news for quite a long time but such things are ephemera.

I am not clear what support for Vostock data do you want. Graphical representations of the data are easily available on the 'net. The main one is the graph that Al Gore famously misunderstood in his presentations. The benthic forams data is not quite so easy to find but I am sure you will find it if you try.

To save me hunting, I attach a graph from my files which show what that temperature generally precedes CO2 and that low temperatures coincide with atmospheric dust.

The second graph is primarily the Milankovitch cycles but under that you will see the Vostaoch data again as well as the benthic forams data - actually going back 800,000 years. Ignore my pencil notes, they were just discussion points for another group I was with.

View attachment 244132 View attachment 244133
Hopefully, when you have studied them you will understand exactly why I want access to the data and not just graphs and pdf's.

Since you can provide graphs you should be able to supply links to your claims. And did you follow the link I gave in my second edit. You can download all sorts of raw data.

 

[Aardverk]

When making claims can you support them with valid sources please? There is not much point in responding if you play the "because I said so" game. If you need sources for any claims that I make and do not support links I will of course have to do the same.



Again, please find a source for this claim.



No one is forgetting natural sources. The Earth has been roughly in equilibrium, at least since shortly after the last glaciation. CO2 is added by various sources as you pointed out, but what has happened is that we have increased the yearly amount of CO2 released. Animal production of CO2 is balanced by the food that they rely on. It is part of the carbon cycle:

Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?

What you should have asked is how we know that we are the cause of new CO2 and not nature. The answer to that can be found by analyzing the isotopic carbon in the atmosphere:

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

In an nutshell CO2 from fossil fuels has a different C13/C12 ration than atmospheric carbon. By measuring the change in those isotopes over years scientists can confirm that the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere is due to man.

You state that the earth has been roughly in equilibrium since the last ice-age but temperatures have almost constantly increased. So has CO2 and so has CH4. Sea levels have changes, land levels have changed, land area has changed, vegetation has changed, animal life has changed dramatically, human activity and population has changed incredibly. What on earth do you think is in equilibrium?

I am well aware that plants process some CO2 more readily than others - leaving the fossil fuel CO2 more prevalent in the atmosphere; don't ask me why, I'm not a biologist. There is obviously no doubt that the vast majority of fossil based CO2 comes from man and also no doubt that CO2 levels have increased but that is not the point. What I was seeking, right from the outset, is an explanation of the theory of anthropogenic global warming that is above the stupidly dumbed down version and below the 'secret' and unavailable computer model. I have seen nothing at all from you on that.

It seems that you are only interested in providing and asking for links to other people's work. I'm not interested in wasting my time searching the internet for your benefit, I have done plenty of that. If you are not able to understand or explain basic physics I will go elsewhere.

 

[BobRyan]

In an nutshell CO2 from fossil fuels has a different C13/C12 ration than atmospheric carbon. By measuring the change in those isotopes over years scientists can confirm that the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere is due to man.

The question is -- does C02 from forest fires, volcanoes and ocean release have a "different C13/C12 ratio" than atmospheric carbon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You state that the earth has been roughly in equilibrium since the last ice-age but temperatures have almost constantly increased. So has CO2 and so has CH4. Sea levels have changes, land levels have changed, land area has changed, vegetation has changed, animal life has changed dramatically, human activity and population has changed incredibly. What on earth do you think is in equilibrium?

I am well aware that plants process some CO2 more readily than others - leaving the fossil fuel CO2 more prevalent in the atmosphere; don't ask me why, I'm not a biologist. There is obviously no doubt that the vast majority of fossil based CO2 comes from man and also no doubt that CO2 levels have increased but that is not the point. What I was seeking, right from the outset, is an explanation of the theory of anthropogenic global warming that is above the stupidly dumbed down version and below the 'secret' and unavailable computer model. I have seen nothing at all from you on that.

It seems that you are only interested in providing and asking for links to other people's work. I'm not interested in wasting my time searching the internet for your benefit, I have done plenty of that. If you are not able to understand or explain basic physics I will go elsewhere.

No, since the end of the latest glaciation we had a short period of warming, which I still consider to be part of that. But for roughly the last ten thousand years temperatures have been stable.

And all that you have done is to copy and paste some graphs that you did not understand. If you want to understand the work of climate scientists on a deeper level you will have to pay to read scientific journals. Why do you think the work is secret?

Right now it looks as if you are trying to find excuses not to accept their work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The question is -- does C02 from forest fires, volcanoes and ocean release have a "different C13/C12 ratio" than atmospheric carbon.

Some of it does. But that has been accounted for. Why assume that scientists would not do that?

 

[Rubricnigel]

NASA Exposed in 'Massive' New Climate Data Fraud | PSI Intl

 

[Rubricnigel]

NASA Exposed in 'Massive' New Climate Data Fraud | PSI Intl

Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws

 

[Subduction Zone]

NASA Exposed in 'Massive' New Climate Data Fraud | PSI Intl

NASA Exposed in 'Massive' New Climate Data Fraud | PSI Intl

Do you have a non-tinfoil hat site that supports your claims?

Principia Scientific International

 

[Rubricnigel]

Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

I just typed in Scientists fake climate change data to suit agenda. Nasa, noaa, etc.
Now why would they lie to cover for the truth?
If they're so certain its real, and the data proves it, why lie, cheat, and change the results?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws

Really? Really? That old canard? I would like a serious discussion please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

I just typed in Scientists fake climate change data to suit agenda. Nasa, noaa, etc.
Now why would they lie to cover for the truth?
If they're so certain its real, and the data proves it, why lie, cheat, and change the results?

When you enter biased terms into a Google search you will get biased results. It is an example of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

 

[Rubricnigel]

Do you have a non-tinfoil hat site that supports your claims?

Principia Scientific International

Prison Planet.com » IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming

Is that a good site?
Hard to refute those facts huh?

 

[Rubricnigel]

When you enter biased terms into a Google search you will get biased results. It is an example of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Thats google, the 3rd and 4th (not in pic) were wilipedia articles about misconduct, etc.

 

[Rubricnigel]

When you enter biased terms into a Google search you will get biased results. It is an example of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Thats bing.
Odd how google seems to push snopes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Prison Planet.com » IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming

Is that a good site?
Hard to refute those facts huh?

Alex Jones? Now I know that you are poeing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thats bing.
Odd how google seems to push snopes.

It does not matter what search engine you use. When you screw up in the terms that you use you will only get garbage as a result.