Global Warming Update

So when your 'Scientific Theology' on man-made GW is under attack... what to do?!!!

One thing would be to set up a serious looking website and publish a phony paper to support your 'enemy's' claims.

You make up a scientist who works in a non-existent department in an existing university and make it sufficiently obtuse and the subject just related but not directly germane.

Well, that's the most recent skirmish in the battle, but it was apparently the GW skeptics that first exposed it:

Isnt it interesting that he wanted to smoke out GW agnostics, but caught mainstream science reporters, instead? And it was skeptic bloggers who found him out as early as any. Evidently he sees no relationship between what he did and his credibiliity.

This is a very real danger in looking at 'evidence' on the net. I recently saw a claim that the Antarctic Sea Ice was as big as ever recorded. I thought that was interesting but decided to wait to see if that caught on in other blogs. It hasnt and now I cant find it.

On the other side of the coin, I STILL cant find a multi-millenial temp/CO2 tracking chart.. As anyone who does a LOT of search and read work knows it's almost impossible to bookmark everything, I should have done so on the charts that realclimate put up that stupidly showed the whole thing in multi cycles. Which showed that CO2 continued to rise when Temp started descent... THAT was the evidence that proved the lie of CO2 cause.

OTOH, it should be on a skeptic site.

But it's a little discouraging that almost everyone but midwestern politicians sees the bald-faced lies in the Ethanol/biofuel debacle and we are still saddled with it. And the farm subsidies continue on...forever.
Further news that a lot of biofuel resellers are running tankers around the global to skim multiple government credits for 'green' fuel subsidies shows where the REAL interests lie.

Just a reminder; the ONLY GOOD biofuels are those from waste or inedible plants. No NOT even sugar based products.. which are often from slash/burn agriculture in South America.

 

Petty, the chart you are looking for can be found at http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17057/ It's from an article in MIT's Technology Review magazine about NASA scientist Jim Hanson. The chart is a PDF file you link by clicking on "The Ornery Climate Beast" in the multimedia window. Tell me what you think. It does show the temperature starting to spike in relation to the CO2 but it is still lagging CO2, as was not the trend over the rest of time.


Also I heard the thing about the Antarctic Ice sheets being larger on NBC so maybe you are more careful about vetting your info than they are . . . or it's true.

 

RE: Re: Global Warming Update

Thats pretty funny and pathetic. He needed to smoke out climate change skeptics who "don't understand science", so he created fake science. Brilliant idea man, Brilliant!

 

I looked at that and thought..WTH?!!!

Then I hooked up the little magnifying thingy... go to 1600% or higher and tell me what you think.

Remember AlGoreacle said the 80-800 years was a blip?

NBC is HARDLY a 'source' anymore. heh... I'll wait.

 

I dont quite know what to think of that graph because of the last datum point. 150 years (i.e. CO2 spike) is on the same vertical line as the 30 year temp spike. Is the data to make the graph avarage yearly temp, average decade temp, average century temp? It doesnt say and that is certainly relevant to how you interpret that graph. Have you seen a more informative graph of this info somewhere?

 

GWCW: Oooops!

Mo... you're going to have to separate the 'Warming" fact from the "Cause" factor.
Let's NOT get into whether GW is happening. I'm not sure it's happening as fast as Gore says.. no, I'm sure it's NOT happening that fast. But the Global temp IS going up. see below the separator.

First...Like I said, zoom in and look at the leading/lagging indicators. Which leads and which lags? If you go in close enough, doesnt the CO2 continue to climb AFTER the temp starts back down? THAT is counter to the basis of the AGW (Anthropogenic - meaning man-made) by CO2 theory. He addressed that temp starts UP before CO2, but it's inconvenient for him that the opposite is ALSO true.

Now what THAT does is to cause you to consider what is exactly the 'forcing factor'... we know that as temp rises, sequestered/dissolved CO2 is released from the oceans. It just MIGHT cause you to think maybe OTHER factors... like massive methane release... or Solar energy received on surface MIGHT factor in.

In fact, I'm beginning to question the effect, as to forcing temp, of so-called Greenhouse gases.


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Some interesting developments on patented conventional GW wisdom!

Increased Temp causes more Cirrus clouding, which causes heat retention.

Uh... NO

Earlier leafing and later leaf shedding is caused by global warming...

Err.. NOT EXACTLY

Golly gee... it's ANOTHER way the planet regulates itself.

Which would make sense... but it would also make sense that the longer the leaves are on, the more CO2 is being processed into carbon... thus if carbon dioxide was the CAUSE of GW, then there's a negative reaction... feedback, RIGHT AL?!!!

But, even BETTER....

Hmmmmm... you mean JUST like commercial greenhouses which have long added CO2 to increase their plants' hardiness while keeping the greenhouse temp the same or even lower?!!

I see. So if I were so bold as to conclude that ANYTHING that reduces a forest canopy, like say... oh, slashing and burning it to grow sugar beets so as to make ethanol to burn -LESS EFFICIENTLY- instead of using already sequestered _MORE EFFICIENT- carbon fuels might be actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE!!!!!!

Of course I'm just a poor dumb self taught engineer, not a highly trained politician... so, wtf do I know!

 

RE: GWCW: Oooops!

WTH!!!

I just looked atthat chart mo put up, again, and now it shows that, compensating for small spiking with your brain, CO2 is LEADING global temp. In BOTH directions.

Now... remember Gore's chart? Co2 lagged on the up-swing. He said the explanation was 'complicated'

Like I said about stuff on the net...

 

RE: GWCW: Oooops!

Just out of curiosity, Pettyfog do you think human beings and the mass consumption of fossil fuels have had no effect on the planet? I mean you must ackknowledge that human beings are causing some ecological issues?
Oil will not be around forever. Whether you agree with the global warming theory or not, we have to conserve more energy and consume less. Reduce, reuse, recycle. It is the first two that people have trouble with.

 

RE: GWCW: Oooops!

Of course I dont think that humans have had no effect. What I disagree with is the AMOUNT of impact. As well as the ability to counter it by simple reduction of the supposed cause.

Here's something to think about:

Methane has {variously stated} 14 to 20 times the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The environmentalists have even begun to point to cows as a danger to the climate because they emit a huge amount of methane in their farts and poop.
- DNA scientists want to breed cows with Kangaroo stomachs to eliminate this.
Yet bovine emission is nothing compared to natural geo-farts, most notable from mantle beneath sea-bed. In fact Japan is on a pilot program to actually "mine" it.
- Gaia's Methane belching is ALSO suspected as the true culprit behind the Bermuda Triangle disappearances, as well as the similar on the PacRim near Japan.
Something else that's 'inconvenient' for the Gore-bies is that the greenhouse effect of increased CO2 is NOT linear. Meaning higher the concentration the less the effect of the increase.

MY thinking is that we really SHOULD STOP rain-forest destruction to reduce CO2.
We really SHOULD 'light the night' less. Ask Don how much difference there is in lighting as seen from the air over the last forty years.
We SHOULD NOT impress stifling reductions on production to do so. The market IS addressing the problem and it's only the beginning. CFL lighting is good but LED lighting will make a HUGE difference once production costs are reduced.

Battery Technology is about to make a huge leap, so if we build new-tech nukes and powered plug-driven cars with them that would go a huge way in reducing whatever effect we are having.

Bottom Line: reducing CO2 cant hurt, much... but my cynical side says 'how long till we try to reverse global cooling?' My bet.. 10 years.

 

Re: GWCW: Oooops!

Petty I thought the significance of that graph was this 1.)Throughout the previous millenia, CO2 has lagged temp. but mirrored its rise and fall 2.)the industrial age came and we started spewing C02 into the atmoshere, causing the C02 levels to exceed the temp on the graph 3.)Scientists became concerned that because of #1, the temp may catch up and exceed the C02 spike (temps about 4 - 5 degrees Celcius higher than current temps) 4) the smaller spike in temp has convinced some scientists, like Hansen - the author, that #3 is indeed starting to occur.

To me the info on the graph isnt clear enough. Is the vertical spike on the right axis a datum point taken over the same amount of time?

Anyway your posts from studies about C02 levels and fall folliage, only prove one thing, that scientists dont understand what is happening or what will happen. That is why they are still studying it. They are also studying it because they think there is cause for concern.

The problem with the man made global warming zealots and Al Gore is that have stiffled the scientific debate concerning this issue. Scientists are reluctant to criticize any man made global warming evidence for fear of being called crazy and or a puppet of GW. But I think that we have been here before so I'll stop.