An Inconvenient Truth

albente · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Aug 20, 2004 Posts: 1356

In the Orange County Register the author talkes about our 'carbon footprint'. Haven't found it yet. Seems like a cool movie though.
http://www.climatecrisis.net/

miraculix · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 11, 2006 Posts: 142

We sould stop obsessing about CO2.

Here a useful link to debunk this irratic correlation-causality misconception on greenhouse gases.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

dissident · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 08, 2006 Posts: 419

Citing a lame denialist website doesn't refute the work of climate scientists. Of course you can choose to believe that there is a vast conspiracy by scientists to mislead the public, but you are free to believe whatever you want.

For starters, the direct effect of CO2 on tropospheric temperatures is small. The real problem is the additional water vapour that can be supported by the atmosphere due to the slight direct CO2 warming. In the upper tropososphere water concentration increases by over 80% (the total water mass in the atmosphere increases by about 20%). Water vapour is a very efficient trap for infrared radiation and so we have a feedback that contributes to warming of the troposphere and the oceans. Global average sea surface temperatures increase by about 2 degrees Celsius (except in the Arctic where the loss of the ice cap translates into a large change).

This small temperature change in SSTs translates into a not so small increase in convective available potential energy. As a result more water is pumped into the atmosphere by convection from the seas, which re-inforces the original CO2 effect. Denialists have come up with numerous theories to try to wiggle out of this feedback. One of these claims is that there would be an "infared iris" effect which would offset the warming of the troposphere by having clouds radiate more into space. However, no evidence for such a convenient offset mechanism has been found. In fact there is evidence for pollution inducing cooling by distributing cloud water over a much greater number of condensation nuclei, leading to smaller average droplet size and increasing cloud albedo. This dimming effect has been hiding a significant fraction of the global warming but will go away as China and India clean up their industry just like the EU and North America. The absence of a significant increase in cloud albedo without the presence of pollution shoots down another denialist claim.

The importance of the upper troposphere humidifcation cannot be overstated. This is exactly the region where water vapour is most effective as a heat trap. Low and mid level clouds result in a net loss of heat out of these levels of the troposphere through infrared re-radiation.

miraculix · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 11, 2006 Posts: 142

Let us not get lost in technical details here.

Can't we agree on some basic things (?), such as:

-the only constant in climate is change

-we are well below average temperatures since the end of the last major ice age

-there have been sharp rises in global temperatures w/in the last 2000 years, surpassing anything we are witnessing right now
(e.g. between 750 AD and 1000 increase by >2°C)

-all climate models are just that - models. None of these models can account for the myriad of factors governing our climate. Nobody knows anything to a reliable degree of certainty

So please do not discredit anybody that derives at different coclusions as you, because of alternative ASSUMPTIONS a denialist

Our climate is changing of course, but that is to be expected.
To expect some sort of equilibrium would be a foolish assumption.

Temperaure measurements can not be used for anything. The inherent margin of error alone prohibits to draw any meaningful conclusions. Garbage in garbage out. It is as simple as that.

There are much better indicators for global climate change.
For instance bio-indicators, such as plant and insect species distribution. Lower organism are much more sensitive to environmental stresses and changes.

From what I gather, and that sort of research is still more anecdotal then systematic, there are indications of a warming trend.

So all that can be stated is that there has been some warming on a global scale. Where all of this is going however is not known.

There are too many mechanisms in place that we do not understand. One possible feedback could actually a dramatic cooling. We can not discount that.

JustinFrankl · Intermediate Crude Joined: Aug 22, 2005 Posts: 657

miraculix · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 11, 2006 Posts: 142

oh brother......

I never said that restraining CO2 emissions is a bad thing.

I never said there was no global warming.

... but the theory presented in linking CO2 to the current warming trend is as shaky or solid as that what is presented by the link I cited above.

As many scientists that promote the CO2 HYPOTHESIS are countered by an equal number of scientists against it.

A fine read makes Nobel prize winner Kay Mullin's book "Walking naked in the mindfield" - not very scientific but very entertaining.

Once you peel off all the layers of the underlying "science" as it relates to our climate you find that it is a house of cards, built on assumptions that are footed on assumptions resting on more assumptions.

Have we yet managed to be able to forecast the weather accurately more then 2 or 3 days out?

Nothing is cast in stone.

Yes, I will concede that CO2 might a good suspect, but please do not turn this into gospel.

albente · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Aug 20, 2004 Posts: 1356

Miraculix fits right in with the propaganda machine there called the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Click on 'view the ads' and note the background music. In the second clip they say 'why do they want to scare us'?

These clips will broadcast in 15 cities of the US by the end of this month, just before 'An Inconvenient Truth' is about to be released.

I wonder who payed for them.

UIUCstudent01 · Intermediate Crude Joined: Mar 10, 2005 Posts: 894

gg3 · Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 5:25 am Post subject: Re: An Inconvenient Truth

Miraculix, you may as well forget it. You've just identified yourself with a flat-earth position and thereby destroyed any hope of credibility you might have had around here.

Nothing you have to say is going to be taken seriously after that.

Modest suggestion: ditch that userID and come back here under a different name so no one knows it's you.

basil_hayden · Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:09 am Post subject: Re: An Inconvenient Truth

On the contrary gg3

Miraculix has lost no credibility with anyone that has an open mind.

Of course, dissident, albente and Justin have.

The complex buffered system we call climate currently defies a full explanation of cause and effect, positive and negative feedbacks, for example global warming versus global dimming.

As long as the jury is out, why pull the switch, gg3?

ECM · Heavy Crude Joined: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 227

Global Warming and Global Dimming are not mutually exclusive. You can have both in effect at the same time. If global dimming is having a stronger effect it can cause temperatures to drop.

Global Dimming = Less light and heat energy reaching the surface

Global Warming = Greater retention of heat energy

If the base number for Global Warming and Global Dimming = 1, with numbers greater than 1 for global warming meaning more energy retained and numbers less than 1 for Global Dimming meaning less light and heat energy getting to the surface,
then the base formula GW * GD = 1

If the GD effect is 95% and the GW effect is 103% then

.95 * 1.03 = 97.85% of normal

Therefore you can have both in effect and still have colder temperatures than normal. This is already understood by climatologists and conforms to existing theory.

basil_hayden · Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 9:13 am Post subject: Re: An Inconvenient Truth

Thanks for helping to prove my point, ECM.

albente · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Aug 20, 2004 Posts: 1356

So we have a clear front here as I understand it and the denial of climate change is being shuffed in the middle of the ring sort of like a 'tool' as the British call a clueless person. Well, then we are back to the point that I evaluated in the past when certain self declared and proactive elements in society under the impression that they are in charge feel the urge to ignite the bomb as the remedy of last resort (just in case that the Burners were right and the inflamation of all available hydrocarbons on this planet indeed should cause it to get out of equilibrium). eternal winter

ECM · Heavy Crude Joined: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 227

miraculix · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 11, 2006 Posts: 142

@gg3 et albente

what is all that intolerance?

I am talking about competing scientific ideas - and one corner stone of good science is to allow dissenting voices to be heard

and I reiterate - I do see climate change and yes there might be a link to human activities and it is propably not a bad thing to curb CO2 emmissions

I am just not convinced that current models represent proof beyond reasonable doubt

I wonder where I lost any credibility in saying that??

If you only want to listen to what you already think you know - fine with me. I was hoping for a factual point - counter - point response to my link.

Thus far, all I have heard from you two is ridicule, but no science.

You are as fair and balanced as "the Factor".....

Maybe you guys would strike as more credible yourselves if you'd ditch your messaic approach!