Global warming

[hoho]

From the very first page it seems that he has little idea what global warming is all about. Yes, in warmer climate there will probably be more varid life on earth but if the warming happens fast then species can't cope and WILL die out in masses.

Also this: http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/20...cussion-between-burt-rutan-and-brian-angliss/
and this: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/some-questions-for-rutan/

Being famous in one area doesn't mean that same person knows anything about something completely unrelated. Also apparently he had quite a few problems analyzing the data. Kind of weird considering how he said he has had almost half a century of experience with it

 

[Frank]

From the very first page it seems that he has little idea what global warming is all about. Yes, in warmer climate there will probably be more varid life on earth but if the warming happens fast then species can't cope and WILL die out in masses.

Also this: http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/20...cussion-between-burt-rutan-and-brian-angliss/
and this: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/some-questions-for-rutan/

Being famous in one area doesn't mean that same person knows anything about something completely unrelated. Also apparently he had quite a few problems analyzing the data. Kind of weird considering how he said he has had almost half a century of experience with it

Well, if you want to apply to authority, I'll do the same and have Burt answer my questions for me. As he did in the links you posted.

If you don't agree and/or want more, feel free to post any questions you have about the research done as outlined in the document I linked. As I have done most of that research myself as well, I'm pretty sure I can help you with it.

And if you feel that those authorities should make their own point, feel free to point them to this thread and have them discuss the fine points directly with me.



EDIT: I requested a move to the General forum for this thread in Site Feedback, to make it easier for AGW Authorities to respond.

 

[MfA]

The thing about global warming is that there are lots of options ... for instance :

1. it's not anthropogenic and the trend of the last 50 years keeps on going
2. it's not anthropogenic and the trend will reverse
3. it's anthropogenic but we won't be able to reverse course in time to prevent major human extinction events
4. it's anthropogenic and we might be able to reverse course in time to prevent major human extinction events

Option 1 might be the most likely, but it's also a bit distressing ... what happened in history is nice and all, but we have never been butting heads with global resource constraints like we are in this day and age. The largest advances in technologically based yield improvements in carbohydrate crops are already in the past ... progress has actually slowed down. If population growth and climate change keeps pace ... well, we be fucked.

 

[Frank]

The thing about global warming is that there are lots of options ... for instance :

1. it's not anthropogenic and the trend of the last 50 years keeps on going
2. it's not anthropogenic and the trend will reverse
3. it's anthropogenic but we won't be able to reverse course in time to prevent major human extinction events
4. it's anthropogenic and we might be able to reverse course in time to prevent major human extinction events

Option 1 might be the most likely, but it's also a bit distressing ... what happened in history is nice and all, but we have never been butting heads with global resource constraints like we are in this day and age. The largest advances in technologically based yield improvements in carbohydrate crops are already in the past ... progress has actually slowed down. If population growth and climate change keeps pace ... well, we be fucked.

5. It doesn't matter and we cannot influence it anyway.

6. Nothing is happening out of the ordinary (as seen from whatever perspective that takes > 100 years).

Both 5 and 6 are true.

 

[KimB]

5. It doesn't matter and we cannot influence it anyway.

6. Nothing is happening out of the ordinary (as seen from whatever perspective that takes > 100 years).

Both 5 and 6 are true.

Holy fucking shit. What universe do you live in?

 

[Frank]

Holy fucking shit. What universe do you live in?

Hi, Chalnoth!

If you have specific questions, I can answer them for you.

And I am pretty sure, that my take on things refers more to how the universe works, than who told me so.

Please, feel free to have those authorities discuss things over here with me. I'm looking forward to it.

 

[hoho]

5. It doesn't matter and we cannot influence it anyway.

6. Nothing is happening out of the ordinary (as seen from whatever perspective that takes > 100 years).

Both 5 and 6 are true.

Can you provide any kind of proof to either of those claims?

 

[Frank]

Can you provide any kind of proof to either of those claims?

I already did, or didn't you read the link I posted? It's answered there.

And, again, if you have specific questions, ask and I'll help you with them.

 

[Gubbi]

Ok, I found a nice report ]

Comedy gold.

Same old BS:
CO2 much less abundent in the atmosphere than water vapour, so insignificant contribution.
CO2 is critical for life, - so can't be bad.
Historically CO2 rises after temperature increases, so increasing CO2 won't be bad.
Atmosphere already saturated with CO2 (quote: "The CO2 only “soaks up” its favorite wavelengths of light and it‟s close to its saturation point. It can‟t do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths".)

Oh, and the CFCs never burned a hole in the ozone layer.

Cheers

 

[hoho]

I already did, or didn't you read the link I posted? It's answered there.

If you meant the Rutan's PDF then yes, I did read it and it didn't give any answer to the questions. Did you read the two other URLS I gave?

And, again, if you have specific questions, ask and I'll help you with them.

My last post wasn't specific enough? I guess I can rephrase it then

1) How do you know it doesn't matter?
2) How do you know we can't influence it?
3) How do you know it's not out of ordinary?
4) What is considered as ordinary?

 

[Frank]

Comedy gold.

Thanks for posting specific points I can answer!

Same old BS:
CO2 much less abundent in the atmosphere than water vapour, so insignificant contribution.

No.

1. The amount of CO2 shows diminishing returns.
2. There is no historic correlation for CO2 forcing warming.

CO2 is critical for life, - so can't be bad.

Even plain water will kill you if you swallow too much. It is easily shown that increased amounts of CO2 increase plant growth. Ask any greenhouse retainer.

Historically CO2 rises after temperature increases, so increasing CO2 won't be bad.

No, it simply has no perceivable impact on the global temperature, as historic records show.

Atmosphere already saturated with CO2 (quote: "The CO2 only “soaks up” its favorite wavelengths of light and it‟s close to its saturation point. It can‟t do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths".)

Exactly.

Oh, and the CFCs never burned a hole in the ozone layer.

Well, there is no proof that they did so, but multiple observations that "something else" happened.

And we all know, that GW is due to the decline of the amount of pirates, right?

Cheers

Thanks, I will!

 

[MfA]

5. It doesn't matter and we cannot influence it anyway.


6. Nothing is happening out of the ordinary (as seen from whatever perspective that takes > 100 years).

Both 5 and 6 are true.

Truth is for mathematics. Also those pretty much fall under 1 or 2 (depending on what happens next). Why quote me if you are going to completely fail to address my argument?

 

[Frank]

If you meant the Rutan's PDF then yes, I did read it and it didn't give any answer to the questions. Did you read the two other URLS I gave?
My last post wasn't specific enough? I guess I can rephrase it then

Thanks for asking specific questions.

1) How do you know it doesn't matter?

Well, that depends on what you define as "things that matter". But in the large picture, the effects we might encounter are indistinguishable from things that might have happened anyway. Margin of error.

2) How do you know we can't influence it?

Because we cannot (and should not!) get the amount of CO2 below or above the thresholds where it gets dangerous, in any way or form. We simply haven't got the amount of resources/hydrocarbons to burn needed to do that.

3) How do you know it's not out of ordinary?

Because, if anything, the amount of CO2 and the temperature are really low, in the history of the Earth.

4) What is considered as ordinary?

That's a good point, and the crux of the matter.

If something isn't like it was yesterday, or last year, is that cause for concern? Like, the cold period thirty years ago? Or the small Ice Age? Or, whatever that is chaotic and hard to predict?

Does that mean that it is unprecedented? To whom, and over what timescale?


Horror stories sell. If you want budget or viewers, proclaim people are going to die.


How many of you did your own research and made up your own mind?

 

[Frank]

Truth is for mathematics. Also those pretty much fall under 1 or 2 (depending on what happens next). Why quote me if you are going to completely fail to address my argument?

I agree. I just wanted to put it into a clearer and stronger context.

It's mostly 1, with an option on 2. But nothing out of the ordinary, or that we can "fix" (influence).

 

[Frank]

Btw.

Does that means I'm against renewable sources of energy? No.

Or that I forgot to calculate the amount of CO2 and methane released through our lifestyle? No.

Or many more things like that. They are all contributing.


However, they tend to cancel each other out in the "unknown, margin of error" territory.

Does the increase in the amount of humans and agriculture cancel the effect of deforestation and pavement? Or, what is the feedback loop between those and cloud coverage?

Help! Chaotic systems (ie. there are more variables than can be taken into account, which can all initiate a feedback loop) make things very hard to predict.

It's like you build a state machine with more variables than you know, and put weather on top of it. Nobody is going to be able to come up with a working model of that. Period.


Then again, does that make it impossible to model and predict that system? Definitely not. You can simply look at the past and extrapolate.

Then again, if you extrapolate "weather" to predict "climate", you're just being stupid. And if you start changing the records to make "weather" follow your preferred "climate" model, you're a fraud.


On the other hand, people live about 50 years, and things that take 30 years to resolve (which is an arbitrary cutoff), take much too long to raise any "awareness", or budgets.


In short: Marketing rules, and the Laws of nature are NOT subject to the majority vote. In the long run.

 

[Frank]

Btw2.

I think it's great that it made many people aware of these issues, that many scientists are now trying to figure out how it all works and that it has created a multi-billion dollar industry.

But I object strongly against the way it's forced down our throats. Lies and FUD.

Be honest about it, and you get my support.

 

[Grall]

2. There is no historic correlation for CO2 forcing warming.

Actually, correlation has been established far into the past using glacier ice drillcores and such. Things like tree growth rings also, I believe.

It is easily shown that increased amounts of CO2 increase plant growth. Ask any greenhouse retainer.

Yet atmosphere CO2 increases constantly. Plants cannot absorb all of our emissions, because plants mostly just balance out the supply they have adjusted themselves to over the course of hundreds of thousands of years.

Also, plants have in some experiments been shown to grow faster and bigger at higher CO2 levels, but they are less dense, so they don't retain any more carbon than they would normally.

Exactly.

No, it doesn't work like that; you can't "saturate" the air with CO2, because after the photons are absorbed by the CO2 they will be re-emitted again, and the more CO2 there is (and other greenhouse gases of course) the more times the photons will be re-absorbed.

If greenhouse gases worked like you said then planet Venus wouldn't be ~400C, but it is...

 

[Gubbi]

No, it doesn't work like that; you can't "saturate" the air with CO2, because after the photons are absorbed by the CO2 they will be re-emitted again, and the more CO2 there is (and other greenhouse gases of course) the more times the photons will be re-absorbed.

If greenhouse gases worked like you said then planet Venus wouldn't be ~400C, but it is...

Just to elaborate. The mean free path for photons in the frequency bands where CO2 absorbs is around 25 meters at sea level. Double the concentration -> halve MFP.

You can model radiative heat transfer as photons diffusing through a medium. When you lower MFP you increase the time it takes a photon to reach space. That means the atmosphere buffers more photons/energy and thus warms.

It is also why the CO2 saturation argument is *completely bogus*

Cheers

 

[KimB]

Hi, Chalnoth!

If you have specific questions, I can answer them for you.

And I am pretty sure, that my take on things refers more to how the universe works, than who told me so.

Please, feel free to have those authorities discuss things over here with me. I'm looking forward to it.

Questions? Why on Earth would I seek the input of somebody that is so completely and utterly disconnected from reality that he actually thinks that the Earth isn't warming?

 

[Gubbi]

2. There is no historic correlation for CO2 forcing warming.

There is historic evidence though that when the planets start to heat a powerful positive feedback effect kicks in. Temperature increase -> CO2 release -> further temperature increase -> further CO2 release ... etc.

This time we're not starting with a temperature increase, but with an increase in CO2.

Even plain water will kill you if you swallow too much. It is easily shown that increased amounts of CO2 increase plant growth. Ask any greenhouse retainer.

Completely irrelevant to AGW though.

No, it simply has no perceivable impact on the global temperature, as historic records show.

Like I said above, historic records shows that extended heating periods coincide with CO2 releases.


wrt. Ozone

Well, there is no proof that they did so, but multiple observations that "something else" happened.

For Christs sake. The chemistry is well understood. Use of CFC correlated well with chlorine in the atmosphere and the amount of chlorine correlate well with the loss of ozone. Both the rise of CFCs and the stabilisation afterwards.

Cheers