An error occoured at http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?rewritten=1&id=8064&page=3 on 2008-08-30 01:44:31. Please relay this data to support. Error #2: 'opendir(cache) [function.opendir]: failed to open dir: Permission denied' in /home/pgk/public_html/forums/includes/filefunctions.php on line 89.

An error occoured at http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?rewritten=1&id=8064&page=3 on 2008-08-30 01:44:31. Please relay this data to support. Error #2: 'closedir(): supplied argument is not a valid Directory resource' in /home/pgk/public_html/forums/includes/filefunctions.php on line 101. Global Warming: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums
Forums Links Articles Gallery Chat
Style:



Register | Forgot Password

Global Warming

printPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Global Warming
swstephe
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1656
Posted 02/19/07 - 07:13 PM:
quote post
#51
This reminds me of this great scene from "Dr. Strangelove (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)".

Strangelove wrote:
Mr. President, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy... heh heh... at the bottom of ah ... some of our deeper mineshafts. The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided.


Muffley wrote:
How long would you have to stay down there?


Strangelove wrote:
Well let's see now ah, cobalt thorium G. aa... nn... Radioactive halflife of uh,... hmm.. I would think that uh... possibly uh... one hundred years.


Muffley wrote:
You mean, people could actually stay down there for a hundred years?


Strangelove wrote:
It would not be difficult mein Fuhrer! Nuclear reactors could, heh... I'm sorry. Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plantlife. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country. But I would guess... that ah, dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.


Muffley wrote:
Well I... I would hate to have to decide.. who stays up and.. who goes down.


Strangelove wrote:
Well, that would not be necessary Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Arrrrr! Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.


Muffley wrote:
But look here doctor, wouldn't this nucleus of survivors be so grief stricken and anguished that they'd, well, envy the dead and not want to go on living?


Strangelove wrote:
No sir... Excuse me. Also when... when they go down into the mine everyone would still be alive. There would be no shocking memories, and the prevailing emotion will be one of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead! Ahhhh!


Turgidson wrote:
Doctor, you mentioned the ration of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?


Strangelove wrote:
Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.


DeSadeski wrote:
I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.


Strangelove wrote:
Thank you, sir.

A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".
Lord Drivel
rambler

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 200
Posted 02/19/07 - 08:37 PM:
quote post
#52
Gramm wrote:


Exactly.

The whole dubious business of 'manufacturing consensus' over Global Warming, is a classic example of Ideocratic despotism.

Many of these so called Global Warming experts are falling over themselves in pronouncing doom and gloom scenarios. They use hysteria and bullying to force governments into signing profoundly damaging economic treaties that will effect societies for generations to come.

But what is the point of carrying out such measures and changes, if according to their own hysterical claims....it is all too late and we're all "gonna die"...?




This is the problem: "manufacturing consensus". You simply cannot trust the sources or the motives because 'there is money in dem daar hills'. When the herd is on the move, the green starts falling from the sky.

Now, of course, to whip the herd up into a frenzy (because it is essentially bovine by nature) you need to be apocalyptic or noone will react, much like it was with Y2K, Avian Flu, Saars in Asia, and the ozone layer, which have now become notorious damp squibs and have lost their green making power.

But the fact that these visions of doom tell us it is already too late makes it utterly futile to add to our woes by turning on a financial depression: if we are going to go down we might as well go down partying to the end.

Other experts, who do not seem to apparently gain from this, are just timorous beasties who want to be seen as politically correct, whilst still others aren't really experts at all - more like blind sheep.

Suspicious is the fact that there is so much emotion involved, yet so little hard evidence.
lucretius
epicurean

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168
Posted 02/19/07 - 08:51 PM:
quote post
#53
"Will the REAL catastrophe please stand up!"

You forgot to mention the AIDS pandemic that was going to wipe out the population of the world, and the Atomic Doomsday Clock that has been stuck on one minute to midnight for the last 30 years.

Funnily enough, when something really big did come along, like Spanish Influenza which killed 80 million people in less than a year, or 5% of the world's population at the time, and more than all the casualties of the First World War put together, today it hardly gets a mention.

This is the trouble with "crying wolf", when the real one comes along, noone will take any notice.



Edited by lucretius on 02/19/07 - 09:20 PM
Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921
Posted 02/20/07 - 01:16 AM:
quote post
#54
swstephe wrote:
This reminds me of this great scene from "Dr. Strangelove (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)


I am sorry, but what exactly is the relevance of your quoting slabs of dialogue from the film ?

In the meantime...

This is really worth repeating..

This, just published research shows that we are possibly wrong about the so called 'anthropogenic causes' of 'global warming'.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1...

Furthermore, if anyone doubts the witch hunting mentality of the so called supporters of Global Warming supporters...read this and weep.

"When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.

For crying out loud, what sort of sick psychotic society is it that would crush reasoned dissent..?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1717925/posts


Edited by Gramm on 02/20/07 - 01:47 AM

Light is not diminished by being shared.


Desiderata
swstephe
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1656
Posted 02/20/07 - 02:22 AM:
quote post
#55
I'm just saying -- if global warming is not caused by humans, and we can't do anything about it, maybe it is time to start looking at mine shafts and for virile 1-10 couple ratios ... or something equivalent ... I mean, what else is there -- unless it isn't that much of a threat.

One thing else bothers me. Watching some anti-evolution stuff, recently, I realized -- none of these things are up for a vote. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population believes in something or not -- it isn't going to change the facts, (unless you are one of those "reality is what we wish for" folks).

A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".
Ron Harvey
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 22, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 272
Posted 02/20/07 - 05:19 AM:
quote post
#56
swstephe wrote:
-- it isn't going to change the facts, (unless you are one of those "reality is what we wish for" folks).


The reality in question is what was already wished for, and long since foreseen.

For more of the same then, continue with the same sort of deterministic folly.

It is the ignorance of thought that is wishful, not the intelligence of it.


perseus
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 532
Posted 02/20/07 - 09:59 AM:
quote post
#57


There are some interesting if somewhat speculative ideas on combating climate change here


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6298507.stm...


Here, is a summary plus a few of my initial thoughts.



Global Sunshade: putting a giant sunshade - consisting of 16 trillion glass discs • in a zero gravity point between the earth and sun.



This is probably the wackiest idea in my opinion. The cost of doing it is astronomical, the launch process polluting (shuttle version), and the mechanism very complicated. However, why is it necessary to use a mirror, surely anything would do. Small black dust grains would have a higher surface area to mass ratio, and block the directional optical radiation just as efficiently (they would re-emit a scattered long wave radiation). Perhaps they would not stay put and get blown away by the solar wind?


Creating a 'sulphur screen', sulphur particles similar to those erupting from volcanoes could act as a natural cooling device for the planet, by creating a cloud "blanket" that would stop the Sun's rays from reaching the Earth.


Unfortunately sulphur can be destructive to the ozone layer and produces acid rain in the troposphere although this screen will be placed higher up. It is proposed to use rockets to get the sulphur there, could the sulphur not be released from high altitude air breathing aircraft to achieve the same effect? (these can reach around 25 km).


Futuristic fleet of 'cloudseeders' a fleet of yachts that would pump fine particles of sea-water into clouds, thickening them to reflect more of the Sun's rays.


This seems like a good idea, although it isn’t really necessary to use a yacht, since the energy that could be extracted from the wind is small. It is probably better to use a proper hydrocarbon powered ship, which can speed to the required areas quickly.


Multiplying the ocean's CO2 guzzlers Adding urea nutrients to areas of the ocean that lack phytoplankton they can take carbon dioxide and give us back oxygen. When the plankton die, they sink deep to the ocean floor, taking the carbon with them.


The iron seeding version of this idea has been around for some time, but 80% of sea areas have enough iron. Urea has to be controlled, since if you have too much you can kill the ecosystem. Would urea generate N20 another greenhouse gas? I am surprised the iron version hasn’t been tested more widely.


Artificial trees: These look more like a radiator hung in the wind containing a high surface area coated with some CO2 absorbing compound such as sodium hydroxide in this case producing a liquid solution of sodium carbonate. This could be piped away, and the CO2 could be recovered as a concentrated gas in preparation for its final storage.


Obviously it would be easier and cheaper to extract and sequester the CO2 from a concentrated stream of flue gas than the diluted atmosphere. Similar carbon separation and sequestration techniques have already been proposed for power stations and processes, so this is probably directed at offsetting the transport sector where such methods are not possible. I suspect there are cheaper and easier methods such as batteries and biofuels if this technology has been perfected anyway.


Unfortunately the first 3 ideas don’t get rid of carbon dioxide, which is increasing the concentration and acidity in the seas and oceans. These seem like the environmental equivalent of taking a painkiller for a chronic illness. None of them remove the other greenhouse components.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw
Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921
Posted 02/26/07 - 02:54 AM:
quote post
#58
Here is further proof that censorship of material is being carried out by so called unbiased scientific publications.

Interesting too, how the so often cited claim that there is world wide consensus on anthropogenic caused global warming is a tissue of lies..

... controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.

The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.

A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."

Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them."

Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.

As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."

Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."

He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."

Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming.

In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".

A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views."

Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality.

"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.

Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n...







Light is not diminished by being shared.


Desiderata
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2539
Posted 02/26/07 - 06:05 AM:
quote post
#59
Where is the "tissue of lies"? Peiser also seems to have concluded that no study disagrees with global warming. (If he had found a single paper that disagreed with global warming, I'm sure that this article would present that datum.) Did Science comment on its refusal to publish his paper?

Notice that this article does not note that the esteemed Dr. Peiser is not a climatologist. Nor does it note the criteria by which Oreskes judged that a paper "explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view" or the criteria by which Peiser judged the papers.

This is the kind of poor science writing that people should be rejecting. It is a lame attempt to by into the preposterous tinfoil hat theory of a worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists.

"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]
Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921
Posted 02/26/07 - 10:42 PM:
quote post
#60
Pity you cant read.

Nothing to say over this matter..

"Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."

He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."


Of course according to your world view, he and his research group are to be dismissed as "cranks and professional liars" .disapproval

Edited by Gramm on 02/26/07 - 10:49 PM

Light is not diminished by being shared.


Desiderata
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2539
Posted 02/27/07 - 06:26 AM:
quote post
#61
Spencer's deeds label him a crank and if not a professional liar, then a professional crank.

For example, his participation in the following: http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pages/articl...

He has produced work for the George C. Marshall Institute. (This would be the professional crank part.) See also the oil-funded Tech Central Science Foundation.

Oh, and then there is Spencer's support of intelligent design. http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I

So, here we have an article that uses two sources, both dubious (one outside the field who doesn't actually show what is claimed and another who is demonstrably in the pay of oil companies). The article has no mention of the (vast) majority opinion.

Where in the article is the mention of the articles that appeared in scientific journals pointing out significant sources of error ignored in Spencer's work? Maybe the public might find that information valuable when judging his comments on scientific journals. Unless, of course, the scientifically published criticisms of Spencer's work are deeply flawed and every scientist that reads the journals has been keeping quiet as their part of the conspiracy.

Edit: Of coure, Peiser has also received funding from oil companies for his work directly atacking the work of the IPCC. He gets around a lot for a social scientist.

Edited by Kwalish Kid on 02/27/07 - 06:34 AM

"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]
Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921
Posted 03/01/07 - 12:39 AM:
quote post
#62
Kwalish Kid wrote:
Spencer's deeds label him a crank and if not a professional liar, then a professional crank.

For example, his participation in the following: http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pages/articl...
So what? Many so called 'global warming experts' are from other faith backgrounds, or are atheists. Yours is a ad hominem argument. like suggesting Einstein played violin and was Jewish, therefore he must not be considered a 'proper' Physicist.

Kwalish Kid wrote:
He has produced work for the George C. Marshall Institute. (This would be the professional crank part.) See also the oil-funded Tech Central Science Foundation.
Again false argument based on guilt by association. Some global warming experts are also members of Greenpeace etc and have been funded by left wing groups. Or is it, (in your mind) that only right~wing organisations are to be accused of having an agenda in relation to the Global Warming argument?

Kwalish Kid wrote:
Oh, and then there is Spencer's support of intelligent design. http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I
Here you resort to red herring argument.

Kwalish Kid wrote:

Re Spencer,

Maybe the public might find that information valuable when judging his comments on scientific journals. Unless, of course, the scientifically published criticisms of Spencer's work are deeply flawed and every scientist that reads the journals has been keeping quiet as their part of the conspiracy.


Provide me with the evidence of where Spencer's scientific papers concerning satellite measurements of global temperatures have been dismissed in peer reviews.


Edited by Gramm on 03/01/07 - 12:46 AM

Light is not diminished by being shared.


Desiderata
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2539
Posted 03/01/07 - 08:06 AM:
quote post
#63
Gramm wrote:
So what? Many so called 'global warming experts' are from other faith backgrounds, or are atheists. Yours is a ad hominem argument. like suggesting Einstein played violin and was Jewish, therefore he must not be considered a 'proper' Physicist.

Of course not. Why don't you look into the activities of that organization? One of their principles is to base scientific reasoning on climate change on Biblical principles.
Again false argument based on guilt by association. Some global warming experts are also members of Greenpeace etc and have been funded by left wing groups. Or is it, (in your mind) that only right~wing organisations are to be accused of having an agenda in relation to the Global Warming argument?

Actually, in this case guilt by association is a very powerful tool.

Sure, some climatologists are members of Greenpeace, but all of them? On the other hand, you'll find that every scientists, or even person, who speaks out in the media against global warming is paid by a mineral exploration company. Every single one. These same people cannot get published in an actual scientific journal.

So, either the mineral exploration companies are tireless champions of truth or they are promoting people from the fringes of science with no regard to the worth of that science.
Here you resort to red herring argument.

People who want to judge this man's ability to reason may want to know about his other intellectual projects.

Information about the character of global warming deniers is important information because we who are not climatologists cannot actually do the science ourselves. We have to find out who we can trust. Neither of the scientists presented in your article seem very trustworthy.
Provide me with the evidence of where Spencer's scientific papers concerning satellite measurements of global temperatures have been dismissed in peer reviews.

You, through the article you posted, are the one putting him forward as an expert. The only claim in support of his expertise is the claim that he is, "a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures." The evidence against his science in the field is that he could not produce a paper which, we can infer from the statements of the editor of Science, was not of, "acceptable scientific quality."

One might consider F. J. Wentz, M. Schabel, Nature 394, 661 (1998) to be a criticism of the underlying data that Spencer seems to rely upon.

Here's an interesting story about Spencer's response to the paper. The route to publication (or publicizing) of the paper is interesting. I'm not sure about the veracity of the link, however. People might want to do their own research. http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies...

"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]
Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921
Posted 03/01/07 - 04:28 PM:
quote post
#64
Kwalish Kid wrote:
On the other hand, you'll find that every scientists, or even person, who speaks out in the media against global warming is paid by a mineral exploration company. Every single one.
That is palpable nonsense, even for you.

There are hundreds of lesser well known climatologists (and other allied field scientists) who have disputed the Global warming doomsday scenarios. Furthermore, the oft quoted claim by the IPCC that there is virtually complete consensus on the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming, is nothing more than dillusional propaganda. Science is not about consensus, most especially when the research concerning Global warming is still in its infancy.

And speaking about highly qualified dissenters to the whole "science by consensus" way of doing Global Warming research...ever heard of Richard Lindzen?

He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT.

Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen. Why ?

Probably because most people don't understand the necessarily skeptical predisposition that science requires of all researchers in relation to their suppositions and theoretical positions.

In effect, scientists must let go of all potential presumtions otherwise, they run the risk of tainting their own work with bias.

So, in the light of the above, lets look at the matter of Co2 upon so much of the Global Warming claims depend.

The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

Yet there is now compelling evidence to show that increased levels of Co2 actually cool significant portions of atmosphere.





http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004JD00509...

The IPCC and others know about this and other significant research ...and what do they do ? Do they add it to their findings, or alter their press releases? No, no such thing...they ignore it of course. My my, how "scientific" of them..


Kwalish Kid wrote:
Information about the character of global warming deniers is important information because we who are not climatologists cannot actually do the science ourselves. We have to find out who we can trust. Neither of the scientists presented in your article seem very trustworthy.


And we should trust such luminary yet unqualified to speak scientists like Dr David Suzuki whose Science background is the study of Fruitflies. Or Al Gore, the proven self promoting liar of a past Clinton Administration? Or Tim Flannery whose scientific qualification is paleontology and was nothing but a glorified natural museum curator before he hitched his star (and fortune) by promoting the Doom and Gloom GW scenarios. Or James Lovelock, who has a degree in Medicine, and who claims the world is living organism called Gaia and that we should all go nuclear.

I posted this material earlier in this thread. You seemed to have completely missed it. It concerns Svensmark's research into the influence of cosmic radiation and an article written by the ex editor of New Scientist in relation to bias. Perhaps you should read it.

And please resist the temptation of claiming that they are all cranks. As Lindzen said many years ago concerning "Global Warming"....

"...the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1...

Gramm

Edited by Gramm on 03/01/07 - 05:15 PM

Light is not diminished by being shared.


Desiderata
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2539
Posted 03/01/07 - 08:05 PM:
quote post
#65
Gramm wrote:
That is palpable nonsense, even for you.

Oh, come on. The two you managed to drag up in the article above both get money from oil companies.

Find any other.
There are hundreds of lesser well known climatologists (and other allied field scientists) who have disputed the Global warming doomsday scenarios.

Really. Please point us to a list of these supposed hundreds of climatologists who dispute global warming.

Oh, wait, our readers here might have missed that nice sophistical turn to "doomsday scenarios". Regardless, find the climatologists.
Furthermore, the oft quoted claim by the IPCC that there is virtually complete consensus on the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming, is nothing more than dillusional propaganda. Science is not about consensus, most especially when the research concerning Global warming is still in its infancy.

Let's see. There are now years of research in this field and most researchers are quite willing to acknowledge the reality of global warming. The published reviews of scientific journals finds no dissent from the consensus. The nutjob you find in the Telegraph says differently, but for many reasons I find this unconvincing.

Please, find some scientific publication that dissents from the consensus.
And speaking about highly qualified dissenters to the whole "science by consensus" way of doing Global Warming research...ever heard of Richard Lindzen?

He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT.

Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen. Why ?

Probably because most people don't understand the necessarily skeptical predisposition that science requires of all researchers in relation to their suppositions and theoretical positions.

No. I bet it's the article in Harpers that exposed the amount of money that he's paid by oil companies.

Since I don't actually do climatology, I have to weed through the sicentists to find the ones I can trust. And I obviously can't trust a guy like Linzen.

"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]
Cyberflaneur
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 05, 2005
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 172
Posted 03/01/07 - 09:32 PM:
quote post
#66
there's near unanimity among climate scientists regarding this issue. Human causes has had a significant impact on the earth's climate. mad
Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921
Posted 03/02/07 - 12:36 AM:
quote post
#67
Kwalish Kid wrote:

Oh, come on. The two you managed to drag up in the article above both get money from oil companies.
Think about it Kwalish.

Did they get alleged funding before or after they did their initial research. If the latter, then your bleating about nothing, because if their findings were uncovered prior to such financial support, then funding from those sectors is logical, most particularly if such research exonerates human industry.

So unless you can prove they were funded to deliberately lie or distort their research findings (after or during the research process) so that it would benefit the "oil companies" etc, then I suggest your argument of guilt by association is utterly hollow.

Kwalish Kid wrote:
Please point us to a list of these supposed hundreds of climatologists who dispute global warming.
The list is too long. But let me remind you of the claim you made that all climatologists are in agreement. The fact that there are plenty of dissenting voices shows that your claim is materially false to begin with. If a single dissenting voice exists, then your claim to consensus is phoney.

Kwalish Kid wrote:
Oh, wait, our readers here might have missed that nice sophistical turn to "doomsday scenarios".
Sarcasm doesn't add any substance to your argument. The phase "Global Warming Doomsday scenarios" have been used by advocates of Global Warming to scare people for a very long time. I have already covered the scare tactics being used by GW doomsday activists. Please do me the courtesy of reading the material.

Kwalish Kid wrote:
Let's see. There are now years of research in this field and most researchers are quite willing to acknowledge the reality of global warming. The published reviews of scientific journals finds no dissent from the consensus.

Of course there is no dissent in consensus science. But Consensus science is just another word for Junk Science. As I keep trying to tell you, science is not done by a show of hands. Science is done through repetitive experimentation and all within an environment of skepticism. Furthermore, if you persue a scientific idea from a base of flawed assumptions, then your results are going to be skewed. That's all there is to it. No amount of tossing graphs around like the famous Mann hockey stick is going to change that simple fact. The more you lie as a scientist, like Mann, the more you have to prop up your flawed evidence. The fact that GW advocates get hot under the collar about Mann's deliberate eradication of the mini Ice age of the 1700's to early 1800's is evidence of that.

As for other dissenting researchers.

There is plenty of dissent that does not get published or finds it hard to get published under the current climate of hysteria..

Case in point. I note how you have deliberately ignored Svensmarks research. Why is that ?

I remind you that his seminal work in this field was rejected by a number of major scientific magazines because it didn't fit in with their editorial policy concerning global warming. I already post the article links over that matter.

Furthermore, you seem to have nothing to say about the Co2 research that clearly shows Co2 being not only an alleged "Global Warming" gas, but a cooling gas as well. Surely, even you can see, that such research makes a mockery of the claim by the IPCC that Co2 is the major global warming gas problem. (That in itself being another convenient lie), because as any climatologist will testify, the greatest part of the atmosphere involved in Global Warming is H2O which as a vapour is classified as a GW and GC gas.

In any-case, what's the point of debating with you if you don't do some basic scientific research of your own ?

Kwalish Kid wrote:
The nutjob you find in the Telegraph says differently, but for many reasons I find this unconvincing.


Nut Job...!!!! My my...the moment a highly respected editor of science questions the whole Junk science approach to global warming you have to call him a nut job. Tsk tsk typical of GW fanatics..rolling eyes

Kwalish Kid wrote:
Since I don't actually do climatology, I have to weed through the scientists to find the ones I can trust. And I obviously can't trust a guy like Linzen.


Ermm...it's Lindzen actually.

That aside; since your admiting to not being a climatologist...then how do you know who to trust ?

Seems like you place an awful lot of your trust in committees with their own nameless and faceless so called climate experts.

But guess what ?

Most of the people running the IPCC etc haven't the vaguest academic background in Climatology. And since Lindzen blew the whistle on how the IPCC does do its science, then you should be thinking very seriously about just who it is that you are placing so much foolish trust in.

After~all you do realize that Lindzen himself WAS a member of the IPCC.grin

'Lindzen was a lead author of one chapter of the IPCC report and was an author of the NAS report.'

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00095B...



Edited by Gramm on 03/02/07 - 01:03 AM

Light is not diminished by being shared.


Desiderata
perseus
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 532
Posted 03/02/07 - 01:05 AM:
quote post
#68
Grimm posted Yet there is now compelling evidence to show that increased levels of Co2 actually cool significant portions of atmosphere.

Yes the stratosphere, that's the bit where nothing lives, and there is no significant ice, to melt, so what? There is nothing in the first two references which appear to contradict global warming. The cooling of the stratosphere may not be as well understood as the troposphere, but it is predicted by theory and models as these references suggest. There is little doubt that the lower troposphere is warming. From the first link it concludes:

So releasing more carbon dioxide may not only increase global warming but may also contribute to the formation of the ozone hole.

Doesn't this suggest that reducing CO2 is even more important?




The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw
Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921
Posted 03/02/07 - 01:29 AM:
quote post
#69
perseus wrote:
[i]Grimm posted Yet there is now compelling evidence to show that increased levels of Co2 actually cool significant portions of atmosphere.


Grimm..Cute one there Percy.

perseus wrote:
Yes the stratosphere, that's the bit where nothing lives, and there is no significant ice, to melt, so what?
The "so what" of it is that it is part and parcel of a deeply complex system. So unless your prepared to give the same irrelevance to the Ozone Hole argument..(after~all, who lives at the South or North Poles.), then I suggest your argument is flawed.

perseus wrote:
There is nothing in the first two references which appear to contradict global warming. The cooling of the stratosphere may not be as well understood as the troposphere, but it is predicted by theory and models as these references suggest.
Well hold your horses there Percy. Who told you that the troposphere is well understood ? Fact is it is a highly complex system that is far too difficult for us to model even now with the most advance computers and computing programs. There is a huge amount that we DONT KNOW. That (whether you like it or not) IS FACT.

perseus wrote:
There is little doubt that the lower troposphere is warming. From the first link it concludes:

So releasing more carbon dioxide may not only increase global warming but may also contribute to the formation of the ozone hole.

Doesn't this suggest that reducing CO2 is even more important?



Note the word "May" there Percy.

They are being speculative.

it is a big gap between "May" and Definitely does. Besides which the point of my Co2 Graphs etc is to show how the IPCC's claim that Co2 is ONLY a Warming gas, is patently false.

The material I posted supports that position. Furthermore, no one said that global warming may or may not be real, what I said and what I question is the anthropogenic aspect of so called GW.

Gramm



Light is not diminished by being shared.


Desiderata
perseus
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 532
Posted 03/02/07 - 05:24 AM:
quote post
#70
Grimm: The point I was making is that the temperature of the stratosphere has no direct relevence to ecosystems, that it has an indirect effect is the point the reference you posted was making. It's presence supports climate models, and therfore supports global warming.

The ozone 'hole' is (or at least was) very important, since stratospheric ozone absorbs UV radiation, so a reduction in this would allow more UV to reach the ground destroying plankton and the entire ecosystem. The effect on the ground is the essential part. You cannot say that the cooling of a specific layer of atmosphere disproves any aspect of tropospheric warming , if anything it supports it.

The selective way you display graphs without the explanation behind them will simply confuse people. To them the atmosphere either warms or it cools, and their vote counts just as much as the most knowledgeable climate scientist.

It seems to me that there is so much evidence supporting global warming its criticism can be safely placed alongside other far fetched conspiracy theories ranging from 'man did not step on the moon' to the 9/11 US government involvement'. Conspiracy theorists look at all the mass of data and try to isolate any part to fit their theory so it sounds credible.





Edited by perseus on 03/02/07 - 05:40 AM

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2539
Posted 03/02/07 - 06:43 AM:
quote post
#71
Gramm wrote:
Did they get alleged funding before or after they did their initial research. If the latter, then your bleating about nothing, because if their findings were uncovered prior to such financial support, then funding from those sectors is logical, most particularly if such research exonerates human industry.

So unless you can prove they were funded to deliberately lie or distort their research findings (after or during the research process) so that it would benefit the "oil companies" etc, then I suggest your argument of guilt by association is utterly hollow.

There are two things at work here.

The first is that all of these global warming deniers are paid by the oil industry. In some cases, the scientists took money and wrote their papers accordingly. This could even be the case if they wrote a speculative paper and were given money to develop that speculation as much as possible.

The second is that most of these deniers can get their work published. In some cases, they haven't been published anywhere for years. So they are definitely at the fringes, yet they reach the public because of th support of companies with a special interest in denying the reality of global warming, whether or not it is a real effect.

So, in some cases, there are people who are outright lying. In others, there are people who are simply incompetent.

It is also important to reognize that many of the people fighting against global warming used to have work fighting against the harm and addiction associated with tobacco smoking. Steve Milloy, from junkscience.com, used to be the head of a PR-firm created science council devoted to telling people that smoking was safe. He's far from being a scientist, but there are many scientists who worked for tobacco and then followed the money over to global warming deniers.

People can make a lot of claims, but why should I believe these claims? If I cannot actually judge the scientific merits of their work, I have to rely on other means. The fact that I would never hear their position, except for the fact that oil companies pay to publicize that decision, is an important fator.
The list is too long. But let me remind you of the claim you made that all climatologists are in agreement. The fact that there are plenty of dissenting voices shows that your claim is materially false to begin with. If a single dissenting voice exists, then your claim to consensus is phoney.

Actually, you don't seem to have read the piece that you posted. The claim is about published scientific papers. You have not been able to produce a paper that dissents from the consensus view.
Of course there is no dissent in consensus science. But Consensus science is just another word for Junk Science. As I keep trying to tell you, science is not done by a show of hands. Science is done through repetitive experimentation and all within an environment of skepticism. Furthermore, if you persue a scientific idea from a base of flawed assumptions, then your results are going to be skewed. That's all there is to it. No amount of tossing graphs around like the famous Mann hockey stick is going to change that simple fact. The more you lie as a scientist, like Mann, the more you have to prop up your flawed evidence. The fact that GW advocates get hot under the collar about Mann's deliberate eradication of the mini Ice age of the 1700's to early 1800's is evidence of that.

All I see here is that you have been sold a bill of goods and that you are continuing to follow an idea based on flawed assumptions.

You are taking information that only reached you because of the financial interest of a few non-scientists. You are using this information to infer that, because the majority of scientists working in climatology community rejects the science of those who deny global warming, that the majority must be wrong. You are also using this base of information to assume that the editors of scientific journals, all scientific journals, are dimsissing all global warming articles out of hand. Now there may be some bias, but you are willing to believe that the editors of every scientific journal are willing to refuse every article denying global warming regardless of the scientific merit of the paper.

You even use the language created by PR firms, "junk science". You are willing do deny scientific research because it is widely accepted. All because of the tireless efforts of oil companies to make sure that the research of these fringe scientists makes it to the public (rather than scientific journals).

Does this not sound a little tinfoil hat to you?

Compare this to someone who denies the moon landings. They hear, from someone selling a book or pamphlet or their own public appearances, that there are certain problems with the moon landinds. They believe that the community of astronomers and rocket engineers (at least in the US) are part of some conspiracy to fake the landings.
Nut Job...!!!! My my...the moment a highly respected editor of science questions the whole Junk science approach to global warming you have to call him a nut job. Tsk tsk typical of GW fanatics..rolling eyes

I laid out the reasons why I consider Spencer to be a nutjob. If you can produce someone else who has done research on scientific publications, feel free to do so.

If you feel free to trust a community that does not face peer review and receives money from those with a vested interest in the conclusions, then so be it.

"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]
enkidu
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1047
Posted 03/02/07 - 02:39 PM:
Subject: About CO2
quote post
#72
Let's put something straight, I am not a climatologist, and I dont know first hand whether there is a global warming, but one cannot say that CO2 may be a cooling gas, this is utter nonsense, Venus is not a "cool" planet, as it should if CO2 was so cooling (and the difference of distance from the sun does not explain by itself the difference of temperature). Here is a comparison of Earth and Venus atmospheres:

Earth (N2:0.79, O2:0.2, Ar:0.01, CO2:0.0003, H2O:~0.02, Total: 1)

Venus (N2:2, O2:<0.001, Ar:0.005, CO2:64, H2O:0.003, Total: 66)

As you see, the cooling effect of CO2 is not very obviuous (if it was, Venus should be a sphere of ice) given that the average temperature at 0 level is 462 degrees celsius, and don't tell me it is because of the pressure (which is indeed much higher than on Earth) since even at 55 km of altitude, where the pressure is about that of Earth, the temperature is still 75 degrees celsius.


Besides, CO2 also yields the formation of sulfuric acid:
CO2 -> CO + O
SO2 + O -> SO3
SO3 + H2O -> H2SO4
You may have heard of acidic rain, a dire consequences of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that is not a very friendly consequence either for human survival.

Greenhouse effect is not an invention of GW "fanatics", it is a well-known effect known for a very long time. CO2 is a warming up gas, any self-appointed climatologist who denies that is a crank.



Edited by enkidu on 03/02/07 - 02:52 PM

"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book

"Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who
Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921
Posted 03/02/07 - 03:55 PM:
quote post
#73
perseus wrote:
The point I was making is that the temperature of the stratosphere has no direct relevence to ecosystems, that it has an indirect effect is the point the reference you posted was making. It's presence supports climate models, and therefore supports global warming.
No direct relevance on ecosystems? Tell that to the IPCC who are downplaying the role of the Sun in their prognostications. Whether or not Co2 cooling is having a direct impact is immaterial to the argument. It is part of a whole, and as such is one link in the chain of cause and effect. The fact you can't draw a direct link (for the moment..remembering how little is still yet known) doesn't mean that a linkage won't be found later on.

perseus wrote:
The ozone 'hole' is (or at least was) very important, since stratospheric ozone absorbs UV radiation, so a reduction in this would allow more UV to reach the ground destroying plankton and the entire ecosystem.
We could have another entire debate on the business of the Ozone Hole. Have you noticed how it has gone on the back burner of late..? Ask yourself why is that ?

perseus wrote:
The selective way you display graphs without the explanation behind them will simply confuse people. To them the atmosphere either warms or it cools, and their vote counts just as much as the most knowledgeable climate scientist.

Selective display of graphs.? How extraordinary !! I supplied the link and the relevant explanatory material.

Funny how your concern isn't extended to the false claims over mann like hockey stick graphs that the IPCC used without substantive background explanation or modeling sources. If anyone should be accused of dishonesty and of deliberately confusing the public it is the IPCC.

enkidu wrote:
Let's put something straight, I am not a climatologist, and I dont know first hand whether there is a global warming, but one cannot say that CO2 may be a cooling gas, this is utter nonsense, Venus is not a "cool" planet, as it should if CO2 was so cooling (and the difference of distance from the sun does not explain by itself the difference of temperature). Here is a comparison of Earth and Venus atmospheres:

Earth (N2:0.79, O2:0.2, Ar:0.01, CO2:0.0003, H2O:~0.02, Total: 1)

Venus (N2:2, O2:<0.001, Ar:0.005, CO2:64, H2O:0.003, Total: 66)

As you see, the cooling effect of CO2 is not very obviuous (if it was, Venus should be a sphere of ice) given that the average temperature at 0 level is 462 degrees celsius, and don't tell me it is because of the pressure (which is indeed much higher than on Earth) since even at 55 km of altitude, where the pressure is about that of Earth, the temperature is still 75 degrees celsius.


I was wondering when the baloney comparison between the Earth and Venus would come up.

I can hear the mantra...

" Venus is a 'runaway Greenhouse' example of what the Earth will be like if we don't pull the plug on Co2 emissions." rolling eyes

Lets get one thing clear. It's absolute Junk science to make any form of direct comparison between the two when dealing with the issue of alleged Anthropogenic based Global Warming.

Why ?

For starters despite their similar size, the atmospheres are profoundly different and always have been. The amount of Co2 in the atmosphere of Venus is 95%. The Earth has only .0003%.. That in itself is a BIG BIG Difference.

Secondly Venus does not have a moon, which scientists are now beginning to appreciate had a profound role in the creation of the Earth and its various geophysical and biological systems.

Thirdly, Venus never had an ocean of H2O, nor does Venus have the same tectonic system that the Earth does. These make a profound difference in the way the entire system sequesters and recycles gas into rock form.

Fourthly, Venus barely spins on its axis. Its retrograde spin means that a single Venus day lasts 243 Earth days.

And last but not least, Venus is half the distance to the Sun that the Earth is.

So, for all those reasons, your comparative GW argument is scientific nonsense.

enkidu wrote:
Greenhouse effect is not an invention of GW "fanatics", it is a well-known effect known for a very long time.


Get your facts straight. I never said the Greenhouse effect isn't real.

enkidu wrote:
CO2 is a warming up gas, any self-appointed climatologist who denies that is a crank.



Enkidu, this is tragic.

I just provided you with clear scientific proof where Co2 is directly implicated in the cooling of the stratosphere. I don't know what sort of science trust in, but I trust in science that is based on proven facts. That you reject such clear and unequivocal evidence in favor of some sort of politically biased science is tragic.

Gramm


Ps Kawalish, No point discussing matters with you any further until you acknowledge your errors over Lidzen.



Edited by Gramm on 03/02/07 - 04:32 PM

Light is not diminished by being shared.


Desiderata
enkidu
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1047
Posted 03/02/07 - 04:42 PM:
quote post
#74
Gramm,

Had you taken the time to read the link you put in reference, you would have realised that it is not CO2 that is a cooling gas but all greenhouse gases that are liable to cool the stratosphere as an effect of warming up the troposphere (depending on their concehtration), and that if CO2 is cooling the stratosphere, it only is because it is heating the troposphere:

"Cooling due to the greenhouse effect

The second effect is more complicated. Greenhouse gases (CO2, O3, CFC) absorb infra-red radiation from the surface of the Earth and trap the heat in the troposphere. If this absorption is really strong, the greenhouse gas blocks most of the outgoing infra-red radiation close to the Earth's surface. This means that only a small amount of outgoing infra-red radiation reaches carbon dioxide in the upper troposphere and the lower stratosphere. On the other hand, carbon dioxide emits heat radiation, which is lost from the stratosphere into space. In the stratosphere, this emission of heat becomes larger than the energy received from below by absorption and, as a result, there is a net energy loss from the stratosphere and a resulting cooling. Other greenhouse gases, such as ozone and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), have a weaker impact because their concentrations in the troposphere are smaller. They do not entirely block the whole radiation in their wavelength regime so some reaches the stratosphere where it can be absorbed and, as a consequence, heat this region of the atmosphere."

And so the conclusion goes:

"Conclusions

We now know that stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected and that carbon dioxide plays a part in both processes. At present, however, our understanding of stratospheric cooling is not complete and further research has to be done. We do, however, already know that observed and predicted cooling in the stratosphere makes the formation of an Arctic ozone hole more likely."

This article is actually confirming GW.



As for the rest I never said that Venus and Earth were the same planet, but simply that the conditions in Venus demonstrate that CO2 cannot be a cooling gas AT THE GROUND LEVEL (Global warming is to be understood at this level, since it is where the danger lies for living systems). As to say that CO2 is sometimes having a cooling effect sometimes a warming effect, fine, it's relativity, water is warming ice, but cooling fire as well, there is no such thing as an inherently cooling substance, it all depends on the system we consider.







Edited by enkidu on 03/02/07 - 07:21 PM

"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book

"Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who
Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921
Posted 03/03/07 - 01:40 AM:
quote post
#75
enkidu wrote:
And so the conclusion goes:

"Conclusion.

We now know that stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected and that carbon dioxide plays a part in both processes.




Enkidu,

I say this with the greatest respect, but seriously, you should really take you own advice and READ what has been said. Notice how is says Co2 plays a part in both (cooling and warming) processes?

We now know that stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected and that carbon dioxide plays a part in both processes.

Ie Carbon dioxide leads to cooling as much as carbon dioxide leads to warming.

Case closed.

As to your ongoing insistence on using the excruciating Venus explanation...Puhleese stop..I am in danger of falling of my perch....grin

As I have endeavored to point out to you. It's Junk science to compare the two in an argument over alleged GW issues on Earth.

Why?

Please allow me to use your Venus~Earth comparison with another so called GW gas .... Methane.

Now we know that Methane is abundant in relation to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.

Yet on almost all of those planets Methane is either a cold intert gas or a frozen rock solid. (exceptions are Jupiter and Saturn where internal heating have an effect on Methane)

Why ?

Remember, it can't possibly be the Sun. (the IPCC fundamentally discount the effect of the sun on GW in all their claims to global warming on the Earth.)

Q. So if it is not the Sun...(according to ~ and in keeping with ~ the the Ipcc), then who is the real culprit.?

A. Humans driving around in gas guzzling cars....or more particularly their absence thereof.

Can you see how according to your own understanding of science, that's a reasonable assertion? And that is the same systemic 'argumentum absurdum; being promoted by the IPCC?

In closing...

For your information Enkidu, I used to be a Anthropogenic Global Warming supporter, until I did the fundamental and basic research for myself.

From that moment on I became a skeptic... as any person interested in the whole GW issue should be.

In the end it really doesn't matter to me what you believe, so long as you have gone to the trouble of researching the issue for yourself.

In science that is all that matters.

Questioning is the basis of all good science.

Full stop.

Respectfully.

Gramm



Edited by Gramm on 03/03/07 - 02:44 AM

Light is not diminished by being shared.


Desiderata
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8



You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.

8 total queries
This page was created in 1.22 seconds
Memory used: 4002788 bytes
Server Status: time since last reboot is 152 days, 8 min, load average: 2.75, 1.51, 1.22