Slashdot Mirror

Except for the whole lying through his teeth part, which makes up the bulk of both that post and the implication from yours. Look into Svante Arrhenius, the father of physical chemistry. He wrote about the exact chemical processes causing anthropogenic climate change and they are explicitly tied to burning hydrocarbon fuels. Here is a translation of the detailed paper he wrote in 1906 which is an elaboration on his original one in 1896. These mechanisms are the same ones acting now. There is zero ambiguity on the mechanism, and the direct as well as increasingly increasing role of human activity in accelerating global warming.

See my post above:

"You think CO2 is causing climate change. There are 3 main CO2 bands of IR absorption at wavelengths 1388, 667, 2349 cm-1 (HITRAN) and these are already saturated at current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Infra Red measurements from space show that the atmosphere is opaque at these wavelengths. Our atmosphere is at 0.04% CO2 and already opaque at those wavelengths. So no, I don't think CO2 is causing climate change, and have yet to see any proof that it is (lab proof, not hand waiving/correlation vs causation observations that do not have any means of controlling for the natural change of the global climate)."

On the other hand, CO2 is essential for all life on this planet, hardly the description of a pollutant. If you were to build a machine that consumes and captures all CO2 on the planet, you would wipe out all life in a mater of months, and with the death of all plant life, the planet temperature would soar to desert levels at lower lattitudes. So the real question that a scientist would ask is if zero CO2 kills all life on the planet, and CO2 at current levels already blocks all the outbound radiation that it can, what exactly are we afraid of with CO2 levels? A real scientist might look at (OMG) scientific studies done on CO2 levels for plants and find that they love the stuff at nearly any level up to something like 20% atmosphere (that's 200,000 ppm for those who are bad at math), and that CO2 only becomes noticeable for animals at around 1000 ppm (0.1%). https://www.kane.co.uk/knowled... So we could literally double our CO2 levels with no effect on outbound radiation or human comfort. (CO2 has gone from an estimated 335ppm to 380ppm at most in the last 100 years; the older data has been cherry picked, but there is a lot of pre-industiral revolution data showing atmospheric CO2 levels in the 400ppm range). If you are truly interested to learn more about earlier CO2 measurements, this paper has some very interesting HISTORICAL FACTS that have been for the most part ignored by the climate change orthodox fanatics because it doesn't fit their narrative or agenda (note this is not the practice of good scientists). https://friendsofscience.org/a...

Yeah, except that 97% is a made up statistic in the category of "repeat a lie often enough and people will think it is the truth.
97% of IPCC climate scientist agree with the IPCC findings.

One would hope so, since they helped craft the findings. Self selection at it's finest.

Broaden that out, and that number starts to fall dramatically: 66% of all climate scientists.

Broaden that out again, to match the phrasing often used: "Scientists" with no qualifier, it drops below 5%

http://www.friendsofscience.or...

Oh, and Bill Nye's (everyones favorite "Scientist" example these days) does not get a vote: He is an engineer.

The next thing I did was superimpose the rise and fall of the great human cultures in both the Old World and the Americas, with a focus on equatorial civilizations. With a couple of exceptions, they all get their start during warming periods. A few, the Hittites, both Romes, Islam, see their fortunes literally rise and fall with temperature.

These periods even have names - and were undisputed before the current crop of CAGW-proponents started to claim it's always been really really cold until now and that we'd soon burn in hell if we didn't immediately stop all technical progress.

http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/HoloceneOptimumTemperature.jpg

Furthermore; http://www.friendsofscience.org/ just for starters. Have fun on your journey.

"No warming in 11 years", in particular, is a wingnut claim

Er, no, actually, that's observation of the data.

It rather says quite a bit about this topic that a demonstrably factual statement is attempted to be labelled "a wingnut claim" doesn't it now?

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg

FYI: "Friends of science" is an oil industry sponsored lobby group with a strong bias.

"No warming in 11 years", in particular, is a wingnut claim

Er, no, actually, that's observation of the data.

It rather says quite a bit about this topic that a demonstrably factual statement is attempted to be labelled "a wingnut claim" doesn't it now?

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg

Even if you throw out the 11-year old peak El Niño as a complete freak because since you have your AGW-über-alles blinders on and therefore can make no sense of it (whilst the magnetic/solar theorists -- aka, REAL scientists and not humanity-hating Chicken Littles -- are pointing out that event is exactly is what one expects as a cycle climax ... but I digress) there still is no way to interpret the 2002-present data as anything but a sustained downward trend, is there now?

But sure would be nice if you could provide some sensible AGW-centric explanation for the way that C02 continues to climb monotonically whilst temperatures decline. The 'weather is not climate' thing is getting too old to believe by now if you have any kind of a brain, yes? And if not, just exactly how many years does the trend in the graph have to continue before you accept reality?

Oh sure right after you explain why CO2 doesn't deflect an equal amount of light right out and that CO2 by-products (ie tag alongs like soot) don't do it either. Because from what you're telling me it goes both ways. Which would mean global warming is a lie and a scam.

Look here for example:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/absorbspec.gif

CO2 doesn't absorb much at the higher frequencies, but a lot at the lower frequencies. The incoming light is high frequency, and the resulting infrared warmth is low frequency. Thus, more energy will pass through the atmosphere on the way in than on the way out.

Exactly why CO2 absorbs these frequencies is a bit technical, and involves electrons jumping between orbits around the atomic nucleus.

Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland - is that good enough?

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of scientists who are still skeptical of man's influence as the predominant cause of climate change. Most don't discount we may be having an impact but are skeptical of the amount of our effect.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4 ;-)

Then there is this article, or this one...

Now this has nothing to do with left wing/right wing anything, it's about hard science. Something that you believe in that is not supported by facts is essentially a religion.

After doing a little light reading inspired by your .sig, I'm just going to smile passively, politley agree to everything you say, and back slowly away.

Slowly, slowly away...

But seriously:

Ah, yes. Rules of engagement. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, unless it is. I was insulating against the "Hurk, there's nevar bin inny such thing!!1!" reponses. Wikipedia is a convenient reference for such puposes. To be fair, I don't recall hearing the phrase "global cooling" until after the advent of "global warming". I believe it was actually reported at the time as "Are We Entering a New Ice Age?"

I am not an authority on the climate. Most of my exposure is from popular media. I read articles, papers, op/ed pieces, so on and so forth. The energy crisis, global cooling, commie reds and nuclear winter, global warming, terrorism - whatever the topic of the day is that is going to end us all generates the same hysterics. Yet, we still have gas, I have never been run over by a glacier, I have never been recruited by the communist party, I have never been nuked, I have never been baked out of my habitat, I have never been car-bombed. Yes, I recognize that all of these things are real to a greater or lesser extent, and that people have been affected by them to a greater or lesser extent, some quite catestrophically. I feel for those people, at least inasmuch as I wish no ill upon anybody, but my personal exposure has always been at the receiving end of a televised talking head.

So please forgive me if I don't have the will to dance about the current superstitious campfire. Forgive me if I seem a bit cynical about "consensus" - I am. Forgive me if my recollection seems tainted by popular media - it is.

But here's the thing: in spite of the wikipedians saying that there was never a consensus, there were expert talking heads saying we were entering an ice age, just as there are expert talking heads now. I didn't believe them, either, I bring them up only as a counterpoint.

The fact is, there still isn't consensus. I am not alone questioning the impact of humans. People far smarter than I, who are experts, ask the same questions. See what Dr. Tim Ball has to say. Or Professor C.R. de Freitas (apologies, PDF... but very informative and with sources listed. A very brief unsourced summary is here). Wikipedia (dare I?) has a list of scientists that doubt one aspect or another of the "global warming consensus". I'll even acknowledge that the first line says "A small minority of scientists", but that does not change the fact that some of their concerns with the current fervor sound very reasonable to me.

OTOH, people far smarter than I, who are also experts, say we are the cause. The experts do not agree. I choose to side with the skeptics. And that, basically, is all I have to say.

After doing a little light reading inspired by your .sig, I'm just going to smile passively, politley agree to everything you say, and back slowly away.

Slowly, slowly away...

But seriously:

Ah, yes. Rules of engagement. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, unless it is. I was insulating against the "Hurk, there's nevar bin inny such thing!!1!" reponses. Wikipedia is a convenient reference for such puposes. To be fair, I don't recall hearing the phrase "global cooling" until after the advent of "global warming". I believe it was actually reported at the time as "Are We Entering a New Ice Age?"

I am not an authority on the climate. Most of my exposure is from popular media. I read articles, papers, op/ed pieces, so on and so forth. The energy crisis, global cooling, commie reds and nuclear winter, global warming, terrorism - whatever the topic of the day is that is going to end us all generates the same hysterics. Yet, we still have gas, I have never been run over by a glacier, I have never been recruited by the communist party, I have never been nuked, I have never been baked out of my habitat, I have never been car-bombed. Yes, I recognize that all of these things are real to a greater or lesser extent, and that people have been affected by them to a greater or lesser extent, some quite catestrophically. I feel for those people, at least inasmuch as I wish no ill upon anybody, but my personal exposure has always been at the receiving end of a televised talking head.

So please forgive me if I don't have the will to dance about the current superstitious campfire. Forgive me if I seem a bit cynical about "consensus" - I am. Forgive me if my recollection seems tainted by popular media - it is.

But here's the thing: in spite of the wikipedians saying that there was never a consensus, there were expert talking heads saying we were entering an ice age, just as there are expert talking heads now. I didn't believe them, either, I bring them up only as a counterpoint.

The fact is, there still isn't consensus. I am not alone questioning the impact of humans. People far smarter than I, who are experts, ask the same questions. See what Dr. Tim Ball has to say. Or Professor C.R. de Freitas (apologies, PDF... but very informative and with sources listed. A very brief unsourced summary is here). Wikipedia (dare I?) has a list of scientists that doubt one aspect or another of the "global warming consensus". I'll even acknowledge that the first line says "A small minority of scientists", but that does not change the fact that some of their concerns with the current fervor sound very reasonable to me.

OTOH, people far smarter than I, who are also experts, say we are the cause. The experts do not agree. I choose to side with the skeptics. And that, basically, is all I have to say.

Just as a question though, how is offering a bribe any better then refusing to fund/publish scientifically valid counterpoints to the consensus on global warming?

http://www.friendsofscience.org/

Lots of information and insight. Should be looked at by everyone.

I'll say this regarding the religious nature of science. A lot of people (myself included) believe in Evolution. But most people don't really know why. They know some key phrases, like, "We share 99% of our DNA with chimps" and "survival of the fittest," but if you really talk to people about it, they really don't understand it. Much like creationists, they'll argue with a few phrases that they don't really understand the scientific merit behind. Fortunetly, evidence would suggest that the evolutionists are correct, but again, most people don't really know why. Ideas like Punctuated Equilibrium and the fact that Darwin was off on a number of things are for the most part, misunderstood, or not understood at all.

"Global warming" sort of works the same way. Earth has been warming and cooling naturally for many, many years. The ocean and decaying plants make up about 95% of CO2 emission, and a single volcano eruption can match the CO2 production of the United States for an entire year. We're getting out of an ice age (and a mini-ice age), so, the Earth is going to warm. The Earth orbits a ball of fire at like 45km a second. It's not a perfect system. The Earth is not a closed environment, and there are a plethora of variables that can adjust world temperature. Science has simply been so far incapable of narrowing it down to human CO2 production.

For the love of God, keep the research going, but don't preach it like it's scientific fact.

The reason you should "waste" some times is that we can't vote on climate change. It is not political. Regardless who brings the message, if the message is correct then it behoves us to pay attention to what the messenger is saying.

This "association" claimed between the "left" and the "right" reminds me of my high school math teacher's inclination to have the class "vote" on the correct answer. Math is also not subject to a "vote".

We may have climate change. But if we do it is not caused by CO2. Comparatively speaking: CO2 concentrations compared to the major green house gas is like comparing a sheet of toilet paper to a tree stump. Presence or lack of mountains is far more important for instance. There are a lot of factors. CO2 is very minor.

Have a read here: http://www.friendsofscience.org/

Dr. Tim Patterson for instance states that global temperatures and CO2 are not coupled. Patterson is paid by Carleton University which is turn is supported by two (2) governments both of whom are trying to sell Kyoto to the Canadian public. I would suggest you take his course on Paleoclimatology.

So in this case, those who are paying the salaries are not getting Patterson's support.

I am reminded of the press yapping about "Limits to Growth" in the 70's. A couple years after I graduated I happened to be wandering through the Geology Library at the UofC and found a thesis written by a grad student at the Colorado School of Mines. He discovered the Runge Kutta numerical integrations of the model used in "Limits to Growth" were often not converging. He discoved many other outright mathematical and other errors.... and published them.

Clearly the press is not all that interested in publishing facts. I've never seen a comment or retraction of the speculation surrounding "Limits to Growth" despite the fact that it has been discredited for over 30 years.

WHERE are the peer reviewed articles that debunk global warming.

Here: http://friendsofscience.org/

Especially here: http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=7

Anyone who is really conserned about CO2 emissions can do something about it simply by stuffing R50 insulation into the walls of their house. This is about 1 foot thick. The time to do it is during new construction (best) and during any renovation and failing that doing it room by room when painting for instance needs to be done.

Cost of the insulation is about $1 bux per square foot. Labour is extra but a do-it-yourselfer can eliminate most of these costs.

This will already pay for itself from the cost of energy alone.

If

WHERE are the peer reviewed articles that debunk global warming.

Here: http://friendsofscience.org/

Especially here: http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=7

Anyone who is really conserned about CO2 emissions can do something about it simply by stuffing R50 insulation into the walls of their house. This is about 1 foot thick. The time to do it is during new construction (best) and during any renovation and failing that doing it room by room when painting for instance needs to be done.

Cost of the insulation is about $1 bux per square foot. Labour is extra but a do-it-yourselfer can eliminate most of these costs.

This will already pay for itself from the cost of energy alone.

If

Yeah, great site for debunking. Reputable and impartial, indeed. Canada has a similar site: Friends of Science. How cute a name, eh? About as reliable as Junkscience as well.

Mod the artical as a troll. Global warming is a political creation by the same people who brought us Original Sin. Its meant to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy and guilty.

Check this out: http://www.friendsofscience.org/

Watch the video here: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

A number of top scientists - some from the UofC - have spoken out and are starting to debunk the crap we've been fed by the media.

I just love segment #4 of the video - its on CO2. When CO2 levels were more than 10 times higher than now, about 400 million years ago, the planet plunged into the coldest ice age of the last 1/2 billion years.

Mod the artical as a troll. Global warming is a political creation by the same people who brought us Original Sin. Its meant to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy and guilty.

Check this out: http://www.friendsofscience.org/

Watch the video here: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

A number of top scientists - some from the UofC - have spoken out and are starting to debunk the crap we've been fed by the media.

I just love segment #4 of the video - its on CO2. When CO2 levels were more than 10 times higher than now, about 400 million years ago, the planet plunged into the coldest ice age of the last 1/2 billion years.

A good read about this topic: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
Fact: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures.

Average ground station readings do show a mild warming over the last 100 years, but well within the natural variations recorded in the last millenium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands") which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

Myth 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

Fact: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. The CO2 increase was only 0.4% over the last 50 years, rather than the 5% per 100 years quoted by Kyoto. However, as measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this. There is solid evidence that as temperatures rise naturally and cyclically, the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

Myth 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

Fact: Water vapour or clouds, which makes up on average about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume, and - according to several researchers - about 60% by effect, is the major greenhouse gas. 97% of greenhouse gases are water vapour by volume. Moreover, because of its molecular weight and absorptive capacity, water vapour is 3000 times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

It only takes on idjoit who wants to suppress ideas for this to happen. Before the idjoit came along it was at plus 4. However I didn't express the water vapour in the climate models as well as I could.

They still do not know if there is a quantitative change in water vapour. This IMHO is a very significant issue. Also they don't really know if water vapour increases whether the planet will cool for a short while due to increased cloud cover. Tim Patterson addresses this issue mind you and say cosmic rays affect cloud cover enough to force us into an ice age.

Now your comments are well taken. I agree. What you may not know is that there has been a letter written from a number of profs and ex profs to the Canadian government. You can read about it here:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php

Apparently the communication was scrubbed from the materials the minister was presented with. When you look at the list of who wrote it you will find the credentials are pretty imposing.

But this is what bigots do. If you say something they don't like to hear - rather than address it they attack you or try to suppress what you say.

-------------

One thing we should try to do is compare the climate of the late Cretaceous to now. Or we could chose miocene I guess. Back then the planet was 10C warmer than now with no ice at the poles - at least no glaciation. The humidity of the planet was a lot warmer and many of the young mountain chains we have now didn't exist back then. In addition the atmosphere was considerably thicker than it is now with about 31% O2 in place of the 21% we have now.

The thing is - we are locked into a snowball earth now because partly we have very arid poles and a lot of land at high elevation. The question in my mind is whether there has been enough erosion to remove enough of that high elevation land to place us into a stable hot house phase. I suspect the earth is bistable at this time and I suspect we can be in either a hot house or a snowball earth phase. But when caught in one or the other we stay there.

The thing is that increased CO2 is so small that it isn't going to make any significant difference. You have to add all the greenhouse gasses togather and multiply the concentrations by the efficiency of the gas and when you do this you will see that CO2 is a drop in the ocean.

A quote from the website above:

"97% of greenhouse gases are water vapour by volume. Moreover, because of its molecular weight and absorptive capacity, water vapour is 3000 times more effective than CO2

---------------

Changes in CO2 might change the overall absorbancy from 97% by an additional 1% - assuming equal contribution (which it is not) and assuming that H2O is not changed (which is also not true) and assuming a 30% increase in CO2 - Ie a 30% increase in the 3% CO2 presently contributes.

Now look at an El Nino. The increases in H2O are VERY SIGNIFICANT. Surely we should be able to see some temperature response due to the long term effects of an El Nino. I have not seen anyone publish anything - in spite of the fact the H2O quantitative changes are very significant.

There is another factor which people do not talk about.

This is the fact that H2O operates at ground level. CO2 is dispersed through a much greater elevation range - however it is heavier than air so it should tend to concentrate a bit on the ground. Here mixing and air currents need to be modeled. The IPCC says they are weak in this area.

So if the balnket of water vapour near the surface of the earth is not as thick - then the energy can disperse. OTOH if it is thick then the H2O holds the energy and the CO2 above it doesn't matter because the energy gradient prevents the energy from even reaching out of the lower atmosphere. For this reason I would expect higher H2O at low elevations to warm the lower atmosphere and simultaneously cool the upper atmosp