Is news coverage of stories global?
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I've never heard that before... What's your basis?
Heres a google blast: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=CO2+temperature+logarithmic&meta=&aq=o&oq=[^]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It takes time for things to circulate... How much time, I honestly don't know. But just think of the concept of pre-heating an oven... Takes a few minutes just to heat up that small amount of air
We have beem producing CO2 in quantity since 1880. Surely enough time to see any effets of CO2.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I keep seeing articles about how the hurricane patterns are changing, for one
This is not true. It is speculation but has not been born out in studies of hurricane frequency or intensity. What you are hearing is media chatter.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
parts (Not all, just parts) of the ice caps will melt off into the ocean. We're already seeing that.
No we arent. Only ONE icecap is mshowing signs of melting, the north pole. The south pole has been getting colder for 50 years and is gaining ice. The total sea ice has not changed at all. My internet is so slow currently that I cant find a link, so feel free to look yourself.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now, the ice caps are like giant mirrors on the poles, reflecting sunlight and exerting a cooling effect on the atmosphere
AT the low angles if incidence at the poles water is a mirror to sunlight. You will see this if you lok at a sunset across the sea. However, the issue of tipping points, or irreversible change can easilly be disproved by considering that the earth has been a lot warmer than today in the past. And yet here we are.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
CO2 does affect the climate
There is no proof at all that CO2 causes warming. It is an unproved theory. Even Bob Watson states that the only evidence for CO2 changing the climate is circumstantial. t is possible of course, a
fat_boy wrote:
Heres a google blast: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=CO2+temperature+logarithmic&meta=&aq=o&oq=\[^\]
Interesting. None of the first bunch of links seemed to dispute that CO2 causes warming. They're just disputing the amount. They say every time we double the CO2 in the air, the temperature rises by a finite amount. That would imply that the increase will gradually slow, not that the increase isn't happening.
fat_boy wrote:
We have beem producing CO2 in quantity since 1880. Surely enough time to see any effets of CO2.
And we ARE seeing ice caps melting, aren't we? All this news about the northern passage opening up? Time for Russia to start shipping things over the pole, etc etc. Anyway, the way this is working, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere is something like 5% of the total, the rest being natural. The trick is that the other 95% is balanced by other natural processes, so our 5% is kind of the overflow... It's tiny trickle, but it's adding up. Couple that with the time it would take for changes to propagate... This isn't like turning on your heating system and seeing how long it takes to warm up the house. This is like closing one window in your house half an inch, and waiting for the average interior temperature to change. It's not a huge amount, but our ecosystem is fragile.
fat_boy wrote:
This is not true. It is speculation but has not been born out in studies of hurricane frequency or intensity. What you are hearing is media chatter.
Yeah, isn't the IPCC studying this, among other things? A couple guys act like idiots and get exposed, and suddenly everyone just ignores all of the science.
fat_boy wrote:
No we arent. Only ONE icecap is mshowing signs of melting, the north pole. The south pole has been getting colder for 50 years and is gaining ice. The total sea ice has not changed at all. My internet is so slow currently that I cant find a link, so feel free to look yourself.
Ok, did some research, and that seems to be true. Interesting that the warming is uneven, since most of the industrialized world is in the northern hemisphere. What's more interesting is where the new snow and ice are coming from. Antarctica is a desert (The term defines as a lack of precipitation, not high temperatures), in that it usua
-
fat_boy wrote:
Heres a google blast: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=CO2+temperature+logarithmic&meta=&aq=o&oq=\[^\]
Interesting. None of the first bunch of links seemed to dispute that CO2 causes warming. They're just disputing the amount. They say every time we double the CO2 in the air, the temperature rises by a finite amount. That would imply that the increase will gradually slow, not that the increase isn't happening.
fat_boy wrote:
We have beem producing CO2 in quantity since 1880. Surely enough time to see any effets of CO2.
And we ARE seeing ice caps melting, aren't we? All this news about the northern passage opening up? Time for Russia to start shipping things over the pole, etc etc. Anyway, the way this is working, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere is something like 5% of the total, the rest being natural. The trick is that the other 95% is balanced by other natural processes, so our 5% is kind of the overflow... It's tiny trickle, but it's adding up. Couple that with the time it would take for changes to propagate... This isn't like turning on your heating system and seeing how long it takes to warm up the house. This is like closing one window in your house half an inch, and waiting for the average interior temperature to change. It's not a huge amount, but our ecosystem is fragile.
fat_boy wrote:
This is not true. It is speculation but has not been born out in studies of hurricane frequency or intensity. What you are hearing is media chatter.
Yeah, isn't the IPCC studying this, among other things? A couple guys act like idiots and get exposed, and suddenly everyone just ignores all of the science.
fat_boy wrote:
No we arent. Only ONE icecap is mshowing signs of melting, the north pole. The south pole has been getting colder for 50 years and is gaining ice. The total sea ice has not changed at all. My internet is so slow currently that I cant find a link, so feel free to look yourself.
Ok, did some research, and that seems to be true. Interesting that the warming is uneven, since most of the industrialized world is in the northern hemisphere. What's more interesting is where the new snow and ice are coming from. Antarctica is a desert (The term defines as a lack of precipitation, not high temperatures), in that it usua
I think you hit it on the head Ian. I don't care about whether or not the planet won't die. I care about whether or not my son will have to wear a mask to walk outside. I care about whether or not his health will be bad from this. If people being alarmists changes the way every nation behaves so that companies aren't dumping whatever chemicals they want into a river that is used for recreation all the better. If they force these companies to start behaving like a human life is more important than a few dollars in profit, all the better. If people start recyling and that helps stretch out resources and we invest in new ways to get energy, this is only a good thing.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Heres a google blast: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=CO2+temperature+logarithmic&meta=&aq=o&oq=\[^\]
Interesting. None of the first bunch of links seemed to dispute that CO2 causes warming. They're just disputing the amount. They say every time we double the CO2 in the air, the temperature rises by a finite amount. That would imply that the increase will gradually slow, not that the increase isn't happening.
fat_boy wrote:
We have beem producing CO2 in quantity since 1880. Surely enough time to see any effets of CO2.
And we ARE seeing ice caps melting, aren't we? All this news about the northern passage opening up? Time for Russia to start shipping things over the pole, etc etc. Anyway, the way this is working, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere is something like 5% of the total, the rest being natural. The trick is that the other 95% is balanced by other natural processes, so our 5% is kind of the overflow... It's tiny trickle, but it's adding up. Couple that with the time it would take for changes to propagate... This isn't like turning on your heating system and seeing how long it takes to warm up the house. This is like closing one window in your house half an inch, and waiting for the average interior temperature to change. It's not a huge amount, but our ecosystem is fragile.
fat_boy wrote:
This is not true. It is speculation but has not been born out in studies of hurricane frequency or intensity. What you are hearing is media chatter.
Yeah, isn't the IPCC studying this, among other things? A couple guys act like idiots and get exposed, and suddenly everyone just ignores all of the science.
fat_boy wrote:
No we arent. Only ONE icecap is mshowing signs of melting, the north pole. The south pole has been getting colder for 50 years and is gaining ice. The total sea ice has not changed at all. My internet is so slow currently that I cant find a link, so feel free to look yourself.
Ok, did some research, and that seems to be true. Interesting that the warming is uneven, since most of the industrialized world is in the northern hemisphere. What's more interesting is where the new snow and ice are coming from. Antarctica is a desert (The term defines as a lack of precipitation, not high temperatures), in that it usua
Eeek, long post, but here I go:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
not that the increase isn't happening
Yes, according to GH gas theory. Next quesiton, is that theory proved or not?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And we ARE seeing ice caps melting, aren't we?
No, only the north pole. The south pole is gaining ice and cooling.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
our ecosystem is fragile
IMO its robust, very pibust. Look at the earths past, and yet life kept on. Species died, species evolved, but never was life under threat.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
isn't the IPCC studying this
They quoted a scientists early findings in their 4th AR. Sicne then the scientist has retracted stating that their is no stastical increase in extreme weather incidence or severity. So no change.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Interesting that the warming is uneven
Exactly, its not global. But CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere, and yest does not cause warming in the south. GH gas theory states that the poles warm the most, and yet only one is, so what we are seeing today isnt GH gas warming.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The planet will recover, given enough time. It has enough of a track record to make this pretty obvious. The question is whether it will remain habitable in the meantime. Make no mistake, this isn't about the survival of the planet. This is about HUMANS still being able to live on it
Yes, the poanet IS rough. And WE are the most adaptable of species. Look at the variety of climates we already inhabit. Do you thihink we cant easially adapt further?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the moon is actually a bit hotter in the daytime
A bit! The earth gets to 50 or so, the moon is over twoce that.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I don't know if you're familiar with the greenhouse effect, though. The issue is that the greenhouse gases are transparent to visible light, but reflect/absorb infrared. Light comes from the sun and heats the planet... Basically, they don't do much to the incoming sunlight (Which heats us), but they lessen the amount of heat radiated into space. The AGW theory is, to my understanding, that th
-
As I live in an area that normally gets some snow that melts within a week, I want to now where the global warming is as I trudge through the 16 inches of snow from two weeks ago awaiting the next 4 to 8 inches today? The Nobel committee should ask for their money back! Average snowfall Jan 8.1 Feb 6.2 Mar 4.5 Apr 0.9 May 0.0 Jun 0.0 Jul 0.0 Aug 0.0 Sep T Oct 0.1 Nov 2.3 Dec 5.5 Year 27.6
Wow...I just love it when people put their foot into arenas that they haven't fully studied. I would assume that the majority of people on this site are programmers by education...meaning a BS in computer science, computer engineering, etc... Probably even a few Master's and PhDs in here in those subjects. Well, I actually have a Masters in Environmental Science. I just want to say that I think you're all morons when it comes to GW. It's like me trying to talk about the efficiency of chips based on NAND gates. I know what a NAND gate is, and from my Computer Architecture course I can say that you can build an entire chip out of NAND gates, but you all are making claims like if I said, all chips are made exclusively out of NAND gates or even that NAND gate use is a myth, no one uses NAND gates anymore! Stick to subject you actually know something about.
-
Eeek, long post, but here I go:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
not that the increase isn't happening
Yes, according to GH gas theory. Next quesiton, is that theory proved or not?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And we ARE seeing ice caps melting, aren't we?
No, only the north pole. The south pole is gaining ice and cooling.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
our ecosystem is fragile
IMO its robust, very pibust. Look at the earths past, and yet life kept on. Species died, species evolved, but never was life under threat.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
isn't the IPCC studying this
They quoted a scientists early findings in their 4th AR. Sicne then the scientist has retracted stating that their is no stastical increase in extreme weather incidence or severity. So no change.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Interesting that the warming is uneven
Exactly, its not global. But CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere, and yest does not cause warming in the south. GH gas theory states that the poles warm the most, and yet only one is, so what we are seeing today isnt GH gas warming.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The planet will recover, given enough time. It has enough of a track record to make this pretty obvious. The question is whether it will remain habitable in the meantime. Make no mistake, this isn't about the survival of the planet. This is about HUMANS still being able to live on it
Yes, the poanet IS rough. And WE are the most adaptable of species. Look at the variety of climates we already inhabit. Do you thihink we cant easially adapt further?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the moon is actually a bit hotter in the daytime
A bit! The earth gets to 50 or so, the moon is over twoce that.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I don't know if you're familiar with the greenhouse effect, though. The issue is that the greenhouse gases are transparent to visible light, but reflect/absorb infrared. Light comes from the sun and heats the planet... Basically, they don't do much to the incoming sunlight (Which heats us), but they lessen the amount of heat radiated into space. The AGW theory is, to my understanding, that th
fat_boy wrote:
Exactly, its not global. But CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere, and yest does not cause warming in the south. GH gas theory states that the poles warm the most, and yet only one is, so what we are seeing today isnt GH gas warming.
Except it's not evenly distributed. In a static system, given enough time, it would be. But CO2 is being continuously produced by animal life and industry (And other processes), and continuously being consumed by plant life and absorbed into the oceans. The northern hemisphere has a lot more land mass, so there's a lot more production of CO2. There's also more consumption by plant life up here, but not as much absorption by oceans. So you'll see a higher concentration of CO2 in the northern hemisphere (Not hugely higher, but measurably)... Found that when researching a few posts ago, but lost the link.
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, the poanet IS rough. And WE are the most adaptable of species. Look at the variety of climates we already inhabit. Do you thihink we cant easially adapt further?
We have our limits, though. Before industrialization, hot climates had much higher disease and mortality rates than temperate ones. That's mostly changed, because we can ship food from where it's produced to where it's needed. If the amount of accessible, arable land, however, falls below some threshold, we won't be able to produce enough food to survive. Also, if some species die out because of regional climate shifts, it alters the food chain, which also affects us indirectly (Not always negatively). Yes, we're adaptable, but we do have limits. Perhaps I should clarify... Yes, the planet is very robust and adaptable. What's fragile is the current equilibrium, that we're equipped to survive in. Anyway, if AGW is correct, the caps melt, and sea level shoots up even 10-20 feet, we can wave goodbye to a lot of land, and overpopulation will become even more of an issue, and then we have a slew of other problems... Cause and effect.
fat_boy wrote:
A bit! The earth gets to 50 or so, the moon is over twoce that.
A bit higher than your quoted numbers, I meant :)
fat_boy wrote:
So what does all this IR coming fomr the sun fo? Well it smacks into the CO2 and is blocked. Of not, like the mon, the surface would be a lot hotter. So, CO2 acts to media
-
Wow...I just love it when people put their foot into arenas that they haven't fully studied. I would assume that the majority of people on this site are programmers by education...meaning a BS in computer science, computer engineering, etc... Probably even a few Master's and PhDs in here in those subjects. Well, I actually have a Masters in Environmental Science. I just want to say that I think you're all morons when it comes to GW. It's like me trying to talk about the efficiency of chips based on NAND gates. I know what a NAND gate is, and from my Computer Architecture course I can say that you can build an entire chip out of NAND gates, but you all are making claims like if I said, all chips are made exclusively out of NAND gates or even that NAND gate use is a myth, no one uses NAND gates anymore! Stick to subject you actually know something about.
William Winner wrote:
Stick to subject you actually know something about.
Why? A debate like this encourages us to do research, and learn new things. We may not come to a consensus, and we may make some mistakes along the way, but I've already learned a few things from this thread. Just because I'm a programmer, doesn't mean I can't develop interests in other things. If I followed your advice, I never would have written and published my novels, because I would have just focused on programming.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
William Winner wrote:
Stick to subject you actually know something about.
Why? A debate like this encourages us to do research, and learn new things. We may not come to a consensus, and we may make some mistakes along the way, but I've already learned a few things from this thread. Just because I'm a programmer, doesn't mean I can't develop interests in other things. If I followed your advice, I never would have written and published my novels, because I would have just focused on programming.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I don't have a problem with debate, but debate needs to be well-founded. I was mostly annoyed with good old fat_boy Where he got:"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm." bewilders me or that the troposphere would have to warm substantially for it to be greenhouse gases. And the very first article in that google link that he sent can't be taken as truth just because it's on the internet. One of the sources of the article is an article saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't even exist. The truth is that climate is not well understood. In fact, Dr. Lubchenco, the NOAA Administrator is trying to create a new line office to deal solely with Climate Change. This would be the first US government division to be seriously devoted to trying to understand climate change. I would say that the majority of climate change research is done with an intent in mind to prove one side of the other, which inherently removes the objectivity of the research. I would also say that much of the work that has been presented, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" has the numbers blown out of proportion and are alarmist propaganda. That doesn't mean that some of its not true, but really, no one fully understands it. You (Ian) actually seem to have a pretty good grasp of the research, but you're dealing with people that don't and don't want to take the time to examine it with an objective eye.
-
I don't have a problem with debate, but debate needs to be well-founded. I was mostly annoyed with good old fat_boy Where he got:"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm." bewilders me or that the troposphere would have to warm substantially for it to be greenhouse gases. And the very first article in that google link that he sent can't be taken as truth just because it's on the internet. One of the sources of the article is an article saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't even exist. The truth is that climate is not well understood. In fact, Dr. Lubchenco, the NOAA Administrator is trying to create a new line office to deal solely with Climate Change. This would be the first US government division to be seriously devoted to trying to understand climate change. I would say that the majority of climate change research is done with an intent in mind to prove one side of the other, which inherently removes the objectivity of the research. I would also say that much of the work that has been presented, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" has the numbers blown out of proportion and are alarmist propaganda. That doesn't mean that some of its not true, but really, no one fully understands it. You (Ian) actually seem to have a pretty good grasp of the research, but you're dealing with people that don't and don't want to take the time to examine it with an objective eye.
oh yea, well you are a poopy head. ;) You are also pretty much spot on. My thinking on this whole subject is simple. If we start paying attention and act like what we do freaking matters and has an effect on the future generations, then the entire GW thing did something good. People need to start looking at long term and not right now...
-
Good. How about the errors in the 4th AR fomr the IPCC. The errors about glaciers, africa, antarctica, the netherlands, and the recent statements by Phil Jones, former head of CRU. Have you seen those too?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Yes, it has all been been covered. But the irritating thing is that Norwegian politicans and journalists tend to take anything from the UN as gospel. It is an important arena for them as we are not members of EU. But most people I talk to are fed up of the whole GW business.
-
I don't have a problem with debate, but debate needs to be well-founded. I was mostly annoyed with good old fat_boy Where he got:"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm." bewilders me or that the troposphere would have to warm substantially for it to be greenhouse gases. And the very first article in that google link that he sent can't be taken as truth just because it's on the internet. One of the sources of the article is an article saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't even exist. The truth is that climate is not well understood. In fact, Dr. Lubchenco, the NOAA Administrator is trying to create a new line office to deal solely with Climate Change. This would be the first US government division to be seriously devoted to trying to understand climate change. I would say that the majority of climate change research is done with an intent in mind to prove one side of the other, which inherently removes the objectivity of the research. I would also say that much of the work that has been presented, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" has the numbers blown out of proportion and are alarmist propaganda. That doesn't mean that some of its not true, but really, no one fully understands it. You (Ian) actually seem to have a pretty good grasp of the research, but you're dealing with people that don't and don't want to take the time to examine it with an objective eye.
Well put. I don't claim to be an expert on any of this, but I research as I go, and learn as I go, so I try to better understand both sides as the argument progresses. My personal viewpoint is that the AGW theory is PROBABLY correct, but that even if it isn't, we should still be cleaning up our act. Even if it turns out to be wrong, and we're not roasting the planet with coal power, we're still polluting.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
fat_boy wrote:
Exactly, its not global. But CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere, and yest does not cause warming in the south. GH gas theory states that the poles warm the most, and yet only one is, so what we are seeing today isnt GH gas warming.
Except it's not evenly distributed. In a static system, given enough time, it would be. But CO2 is being continuously produced by animal life and industry (And other processes), and continuously being consumed by plant life and absorbed into the oceans. The northern hemisphere has a lot more land mass, so there's a lot more production of CO2. There's also more consumption by plant life up here, but not as much absorption by oceans. So you'll see a higher concentration of CO2 in the northern hemisphere (Not hugely higher, but measurably)... Found that when researching a few posts ago, but lost the link.
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, the poanet IS rough. And WE are the most adaptable of species. Look at the variety of climates we already inhabit. Do you thihink we cant easially adapt further?
We have our limits, though. Before industrialization, hot climates had much higher disease and mortality rates than temperate ones. That's mostly changed, because we can ship food from where it's produced to where it's needed. If the amount of accessible, arable land, however, falls below some threshold, we won't be able to produce enough food to survive. Also, if some species die out because of regional climate shifts, it alters the food chain, which also affects us indirectly (Not always negatively). Yes, we're adaptable, but we do have limits. Perhaps I should clarify... Yes, the planet is very robust and adaptable. What's fragile is the current equilibrium, that we're equipped to survive in. Anyway, if AGW is correct, the caps melt, and sea level shoots up even 10-20 feet, we can wave goodbye to a lot of land, and overpopulation will become even more of an issue, and then we have a slew of other problems... Cause and effect.
fat_boy wrote:
A bit! The earth gets to 50 or so, the moon is over twoce that.
A bit higher than your quoted numbers, I meant :)
fat_boy wrote:
So what does all this IR coming fomr the sun fo? Well it smacks into the CO2 and is blocked. Of not, like the mon, the surface would be a lot hotter. So, CO2 acts to media
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except it's not evenly distributed
Yes, it makes sense. Not only is CO2 produced by man but sea water releases it as it gets warmer so it would make sense that since the northern hemisphere is getting warmer and it has most of the industry and population then it will have the higher level. As you say though it spreads pretty quickly. The thing is, and this is where you need to lok at raw station data, not the GISS NCDC data since most of it is fabricated (look at a recent paper by D'Alio or someone like that). A soure I use for raw station data is John Dalys site, google for "what the stations say" www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm[^]. Take a look at the southern hemisphere stations. This is raw unadjusted data. I validated one temperature series, the central England one. I believe it comes form Sheffield in the UK, which is a long runing series. I checked with the historic data form the Met office website and it tallies, and shows warming of 0.5 degrees or so obver the last centiry, so I am pretty confident the data on John Dalys site is genuine. As for the northern hemisphere, see how many stations show the same pattern as this general temp series for north of 70`. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/arctictemps.jpg[^] As you know the US was warmer in the 1930s than today, the same is true for the Greenland ice core data. This pattern, warmer in the 1930s than today, is quite common in the raw station data on Dalys website. This is a newspaper report fomr 1922 describing warming in the arctic. It is entirely in line with the temperature series for the region. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png[^] As for using the word 'blocked' in respect of CO2 it is more accurate to say absorbed and reradiated. Since that reradiation happens in all directions ropughly half the absorbed CO2 s reradiated back to where it came
-
Yes, it has all been been covered. But the irritating thing is that Norwegian politicans and journalists tend to take anything from the UN as gospel. It is an important arena for them as we are not members of EU. But most people I talk to are fed up of the whole GW business.
Haakon S. wrote:
But the irritating thing is that Norwegian politicans and journalists tend to take anything from the UN as gospe
Yep, as in the UK. Mind you, with the credibility of the entire AGW movement in tatters I dont know how much longer this will be the case.
Haakon S. wrote:
But most people I talk to are fed up of the whole GW business.
Fed up as in just plain bored by it, or fed up as in they know its a crock of shit and are sick of it being rammed down their throats by politicians and the media?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except it's not evenly distributed
Yes, it makes sense. Not only is CO2 produced by man but sea water releases it as it gets warmer so it would make sense that since the northern hemisphere is getting warmer and it has most of the industry and population then it will have the higher level. As you say though it spreads pretty quickly. The thing is, and this is where you need to lok at raw station data, not the GISS NCDC data since most of it is fabricated (look at a recent paper by D'Alio or someone like that). A soure I use for raw station data is John Dalys site, google for "what the stations say" www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm[^]. Take a look at the southern hemisphere stations. This is raw unadjusted data. I validated one temperature series, the central England one. I believe it comes form Sheffield in the UK, which is a long runing series. I checked with the historic data form the Met office website and it tallies, and shows warming of 0.5 degrees or so obver the last centiry, so I am pretty confident the data on John Dalys site is genuine. As for the northern hemisphere, see how many stations show the same pattern as this general temp series for north of 70`. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/arctictemps.jpg[^] As you know the US was warmer in the 1930s than today, the same is true for the Greenland ice core data. This pattern, warmer in the 1930s than today, is quite common in the raw station data on Dalys website. This is a newspaper report fomr 1922 describing warming in the arctic. It is entirely in line with the temperature series for the region. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png[^] As for using the word 'blocked' in respect of CO2 it is more accurate to say absorbed and reradiated. Since that reradiation happens in all directions ropughly half the absorbed CO2 s reradiated back to where it came
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, it makes sense. Not only is CO2 produced by man but sea water releases it as it gets warmer so it would make sense that since the northern hemisphere is getting warmer
Sea water does release it as it warms, but currently the oceans are our largest carbon SINK. Right now they're ABSORBING it, not releasing it. I'm seeing articles saying that the Indian Ocean may be approaching the point where it might switch (This isn't a year-to-year thing - More on the timeline of ice ages), but currently all of the oceans are absorbing CO2.
fat_boy wrote:
As you say though it spreads pretty quickly.
No, I said it's being continuously produced and consumed... Emitted from animal life, absorbed by plant life and oceans.
fat_boy wrote:
As you know the US was warmer in the 1930s than today, the same is true for the Greenland ice core data. This pattern, warmer in the 1930s than today, is quite common in the raw station data on Dalys website. This is a newspaper report fomr 1922 describing warming in the arctic. It is entirely in line with the temperature series for the region. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic\_monthly\_wx\_review.png\[^\]
You know, if this were as simple as looking at a temperature chart from one sensor and seeing if it went up or down, the entire AGW debate would have been over long ago. First, you have to look at global data, not just one or two regions. Second, you have to take into account the short-term cycles, instead looking at general warming or cooling trends.
fat_boy wrote:
As for using the word 'blocked' in respect of CO2 it is more accurate to say absorbed and reradiated. Since that reradiation happens in all directions ropughly half the absorbed CO2 s reradiated back to where it came from.
I think that's a vast oversimplification, and only holds true if there's a thin layer of CO2, as opposed to the entire atmosphere.
fat_boy wrote:
Yet to me, and using the moon as a comparison, if ALL the solar IR got thropugh we would be toast so its a good thing we have an atmosphere that is somewhat impermeable to IR during the day but by acting as a heat store keeps us warm at night.
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Obviously the
-
Wow...I just love it when people put their foot into arenas that they haven't fully studied. I would assume that the majority of people on this site are programmers by education...meaning a BS in computer science, computer engineering, etc... Probably even a few Master's and PhDs in here in those subjects. Well, I actually have a Masters in Environmental Science. I just want to say that I think you're all morons when it comes to GW. It's like me trying to talk about the efficiency of chips based on NAND gates. I know what a NAND gate is, and from my Computer Architecture course I can say that you can build an entire chip out of NAND gates, but you all are making claims like if I said, all chips are made exclusively out of NAND gates or even that NAND gate use is a myth, no one uses NAND gates anymore! Stick to subject you actually know something about.
William Winner wrote:
Well, I actually have a Masters in Environmental Science. I just want to say that I think you're all morons when it comes to GW
Sorry, and just how much meterology do you study in 'environmental' science?
William Winner wrote:
Stick to subject you actually know something about.
SO just because I earn most of my cash by engineering software I am not entitled to discuss anythign else? So I also earn cash on stock, does that make me a fucking financial expert? OK, we also get paid a bit in the band for playing, mostly beer, but sometimes a bit of cash, does that make me Rogers and Hamerstien? And then again, I used to make money fixing cars, so I must know a lot about it. And then, fuck me, I spent most of my schooldays learnign about science! Yes, Science! You know, where you are trained to test a theory experimentaly and observe the outcome. I wonder if that in anyway makes me capable of noticing the fact that the change in temperatures across the globe in the last 60 years is totally out of kilter with GH gas warming theory. Hmmm, perhaps it does.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:16 AM
-
oh yea, well you are a poopy head. ;) You are also pretty much spot on. My thinking on this whole subject is simple. If we start paying attention and act like what we do freaking matters and has an effect on the future generations, then the entire GW thing did something good. People need to start looking at long term and not right now...
ragnaroknrol wrote:
If we start paying attention and act like what we do freaking matters and has an effect on the future generations, then the entire GW thing did something good.
The good old, it doesnt mater if its a crock of shit, its god for the planet anyway. Tell me, just how good will it be for the planet if it turns out that, correctly, CO2 is plant food and increases crop yields globally thus helping relieve starvation, and that it doesnt cause any warming? How will the act of limiting CO2 have been of any help to the future?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I don't have a problem with debate, but debate needs to be well-founded. I was mostly annoyed with good old fat_boy Where he got:"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm." bewilders me or that the troposphere would have to warm substantially for it to be greenhouse gases. And the very first article in that google link that he sent can't be taken as truth just because it's on the internet. One of the sources of the article is an article saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't even exist. The truth is that climate is not well understood. In fact, Dr. Lubchenco, the NOAA Administrator is trying to create a new line office to deal solely with Climate Change. This would be the first US government division to be seriously devoted to trying to understand climate change. I would say that the majority of climate change research is done with an intent in mind to prove one side of the other, which inherently removes the objectivity of the research. I would also say that much of the work that has been presented, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" has the numbers blown out of proportion and are alarmist propaganda. That doesn't mean that some of its not true, but really, no one fully understands it. You (Ian) actually seem to have a pretty good grasp of the research, but you're dealing with people that don't and don't want to take the time to examine it with an objective eye.
William Winner wrote:
Where he got:"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm." bewilders me or that the troposphere would have to warm substantially for it to be greenhouse gases.
OK, now down to the facts. Greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system, causing heating at the surface of the planet [^] So, since the surface doesnt contain any CO2, it is the troposphere that traps the heat. This heat is then radiated towards the surface. A radiator has to be hotter then the receiver of the heat, otherwise the heat would flow the other way. This is why the troposphere has to be HOTTER than the surface. As fopr polar warmihg, here is a snippet from Nature, quoted here many climate models indicate that the Polar regions should serve as bellwethers for any global warming trend, responding first and most rapidly to an increase in temperatures[^] Thats BOTH polar regions, not one. Its GH gass theory 101. I am surprised, since you have studied 'environmental science', that you dont know this. I would have thought basic GH gas theory would have been part of you sylabus.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
If we start paying attention and act like what we do freaking matters and has an effect on the future generations, then the entire GW thing did something good.
The good old, it doesnt mater if its a crock of shit, its god for the planet anyway. Tell me, just how good will it be for the planet if it turns out that, correctly, CO2 is plant food and increases crop yields globally thus helping relieve starvation, and that it doesnt cause any warming? How will the act of limiting CO2 have been of any help to the future?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Ah the good old, I'll throw in a scenario and act like this is obviously the only way it could end up argument. Tell me, just how good will it be for the planet if it turns out that, correctly, CO2 also causes massive weather pattern shifts which destroy crops globally thus increasing starvation and that the increased yields didn't compensate? How will the act of continuing to build CO2 levels have been any help to the future? Since you want to deal with hypotheticals.
-
Ah the good old, I'll throw in a scenario and act like this is obviously the only way it could end up argument. Tell me, just how good will it be for the planet if it turns out that, correctly, CO2 also causes massive weather pattern shifts which destroy crops globally thus increasing starvation and that the increased yields didn't compensate? How will the act of continuing to build CO2 levels have been any help to the future? Since you want to deal with hypotheticals.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Tell me, just how good will it be for the planet if it turns out that, correctly, CO2 also causes massive weather pattern shifts which destroy crops globally
Unless you can find proof then you cannot substantiate this claim. And if you are refering to the IPCC AR4 then the scientist on whose initial findings the IPCC based that report has since retracted sayiug there is no stastical evidence for an increase in frequency or severity of bad weather events. So the only fact we do know at present is that CO2 increases crop yields. --edit-- And here is a link to that retraction. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1245695/UN-climate-change-panel-blunders-wrongly-linking-global-warming-rise-severe-floodings.html[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:57 AM
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Tell me, just how good will it be for the planet if it turns out that, correctly, CO2 also causes massive weather pattern shifts which destroy crops globally
Unless you can find proof then you cannot substantiate this claim. And if you are refering to the IPCC AR4 then the scientist on whose initial findings the IPCC based that report has since retracted sayiug there is no stastical evidence for an increase in frequency or severity of bad weather events. So the only fact we do know at present is that CO2 increases crop yields. --edit-- And here is a link to that retraction. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1245695/UN-climate-change-panel-blunders-wrongly-linking-global-warming-rise-severe-floodings.html[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:57 AM
Yea, and everywhere I read these studies on the effects of CO2 on plants involve anti-GW websites. It's like these folks latched on to something and won't drop it. Weather is still being figured out. Considering I have yet to hear an accurate 7 day forcast I am pretty sure it will be a while yet before someone can give me a fully functional explanation for why Britain got hit with snow. And crop yields don't need extra CO2. Trust me. All we need to do is switch to crops that aren't as damaging to their local environment. We drop our dependance on corn (dangerous for me to say in Iowa) and increase Soybeans and a few other low impact crops and food yields would go up substantially since less fertilizer would be needed. But you'll ignore this answer because it means changing habits and heaven forbid we have to do that...
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Tell me, just how good will it be for the planet if it turns out that, correctly, CO2 also causes massive weather pattern shifts which destroy crops globally
Unless you can find proof then you cannot substantiate this claim. And if you are refering to the IPCC AR4 then the scientist on whose initial findings the IPCC based that report has since retracted sayiug there is no stastical evidence for an increase in frequency or severity of bad weather events. So the only fact we do know at present is that CO2 increases crop yields. --edit-- And here is a link to that retraction. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1245695/UN-climate-change-panel-blunders-wrongly-linking-global-warming-rise-severe-floodings.html[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:57 AM
- This study from 1992[^] suggests that too much CO2 might hurt plants. 2) This[^] more recent one suggests similar, when combined with other likely consequences of climate change (Higher temperatures, increased precipitation, more nitrogen in the soil) 3) This study[^] shows that increased CO2 helps plant growth, but lowers quality. It does mention that this study did not include increased temperature as a factor - Just higher CO2 concentration. 4) This study[^] seems to support your position, that it would increase plant growth. So I'm seeing research on both sides of the issue. Now I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think we can consider your position to be a "fact." It may be true, or it may not be. At this point, I consider it in dispute.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
![http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic\_monthly\_wx\_review.png\[^\]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic%5C_monthly%5C_wx%5C_review.png%5C%5B%5E%5C%5D){kind=link}