Re: Global warming test

"Dan" <dnadan56@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ZGN1i.31$zz4.10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mark Test wrote:
As a species we love the warm and hate the cold. Man's population
booms tend to occur during warming trends...

Within a very narrow range. We've never seen the levels we are seeing
now, it seems.

But the Earth has. To think that man is the cause...that's a huge
leap for me to make....(sorry).

Under today's conditions, with rising temperatures, we are in a bind
because we are pushing the envelope of our carrying capacity, that
carrying capacity which is currently ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT on the use of
non-renewable fossil fuels. In addition, those fossil fuels we are
dependent on are also contributing to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere,
which is, according to the best science available, causing an increase
in global temperatures, which will, at minimum, cause disturbances in
the relatively stable climate to which we have become accustomed. Some
places will see an increase in moisture and plant growth; other places
will become deserts, and the exact locations of either is as yet
indeterminate.

That's one scientific view.....here's another....
Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in
the
first 30 feet by water vapor.

Yes, and? When temperatures rise, air is able to absorb MORE moisture,
made available by HIGHER temperatures in the liquid water, causing MORE
heat to be retained.

Do the concepts "cycle" or "positive feedback loop" mean anything to you?

Similiar to primary and secondary loop in a steam plant....

They do to people educated in science...

http://www.answers.com/topic/greenhouse-effect

Why yes they do.....not much Co2 action going on in the
greenhouse effect....

And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one
percent.

And?

Reducing Co2 is not gonna have much (if any) effect on reducing
the temp.

One one-thousandth as important as water vapor.

Um, no. You are confusing two entirely different concepts. The human
brain is only 1/50 the mass of the human body; is it less important to
your survival than a leg, which masses several times as much?

I've heard this argument before.....You can't convince me
that Co2, which absorbs 0.08% of solar energy, drastically
effects anything. It's not even a limb, let alone a brain.

You can go outside and spit
and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

--- Reid A. Bryson, PhD in Meteorology

You do understand that meteorology is the science dealing with WEATHER,
right. We are discussing CLIMATE here. Late in this screed, you
demonstrate that you have no conception of the difference, so I thought
you might like to know.

True, but the man is an accomplished meterologist, and knows a thing
or two about climate models......From Wikipedia;
"Climate is sometimes modeled as a stochastic process but this is generally
accepted as an approximation to processes that are otherwise too complicated
to analyze."

That's a nice way of saying....."we're actually guessing."

While we have a small surplus of foodstuffs at present, the population
is increasing, human activities have caused significant areas of land
to
become deserts (without warming), and our use of a fixed and wasting
asset (fossil fuels) is accelerating as more people become hooked.

So humans are un-natural beasts that must be erradicated?

Well, if YOU think so...

Just seems to me...from what I hear from the left...that planet Earth
would be much better without mankind....a view I do not subscribe to.

Or at a minimum
'controlled'. I do concur that proper land management is needed...like
we
in the US do... there are more trees in the US than there were 70 years
ago... Because the lumber companies want to stay in business.

http://www.tappi.org/paperu/all_about_paper/faq.htm

THERE's an unimpeachable source...

What is the biomass of the forests then and now?

Still, more trees today than there were in the past. We practice
land-management....Which the IPCC says is a must to reduce GW....
(Which just makes sense to most of us, including the lumber industry)

Now, the mini-event that caused the evacuation of Greenland (and a host
of other changes like the destruction of the wine industry in England)
around 1600 was evidenced by a drop in average global temperature of
less than one degree (perhaps as little as 1/2 degree C).

OK, this is where we disagree. You are buying into this 'global temp'
stat.
It's a useless stat. Look, in location A) it's 20 deg F in location B)
it's
80 deg F for an avg 'global temp' of 50 deg F.

The concept is slightly more sophisticated than that. It is only one
simple method of talking about the actual phenomenon of global
temperature, but has some validity.

I'm not "buying into" anything at all. I happen to be fairly well-read
in the subject, and, obviously, you are not quite so. I was trying to
keep it simple for the example.

Now, in location C) it's 50 deg F and in D) it's 50 deg F....for an
average
of 50 deg F....it tells us nothing...you may as well average all the
wolrd's
phone numbers to create a 'global number'.

You may as well give up trying to understand.

Roger that...but the scientists better be able to explain to us
common folk how man-made Co2, which is less than 1% of
the atmospheric Co2 (nature makes the other 99%)...is effecting
the climate. Why don't we tackle the 99% first?

I tend to think it's more complex than Co2 levels....there's the sun, the
Earth's rotation, it's tilt, land-use, sea temps, all contribute to climate.

So, very minor AVERAGE temperature deviations have SIGNIFICANT effects
beyond what "common sense" would indicate.

Based on flawed data, flawed computer models, and scientists that can't
even
get a 5 day forecast correct.

You have evidence about flawed data and flawed models? Point out the
specific flaws, and why they are misrepresentations of the phenomenon to

They can't accurately model water vapor......this should concern us all,
since
H2O accounts for over 94% of the greenhouse effect.

be studied. You have looked at the models, right? What, specifically,
are the flaws in the data? Are they systematic flaws, sampling errors,
or is the data collection process itself flawed? Are the flaws knowable
and correctable? Is there fraud in the data collection or processing
system? Enquiring minds want to know...

When they can predict a 5 day forecast with a greater than
50% accuracy...I'll take notice. Also, just one verifiable prediction
would be nice too. (not, should be warmer) Tell us how much warmer..
ie., a Co2 level of 400 ppm will raise the temp by 0.1C.

You DO know that weather and climate are different things,right. No, of
course you don't...

Of course I do....but both are related.

Ever hear of chaos theory (besides from Dr. Malcolm in Jurassic Park)?

Great book.

With changes predicted for AGW of a few degrees C, yes, I am worried.

Well, you shouldn't be.

I think I have a better grasp of the phenomenon than you do, and I'll
worry when I think it is appropriate, thank you very much.

Good on ya.

"Britain's University of East Anglia climate research unit found global
temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2005, and a NASA satellite
recently found the southern hemisphere had not warmed in the past 25
years."

Interesting, the article I found said something quite different than that.

what scholarly source gave you that quote?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

It's from data collected by East Anglia, but not reported by them....

And here's a prediction from the same folks:
"Some scientists already predict a warmer year in 2007, in large part
because of a natural phenomenon called El Niño in the eastern Pacific, which
is expected to have a profound effect on climate."
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1971637,00.html

Well, anytime now...it's mid-May 2007 and the temps here in San Diego
are below normal....again, note they don't tell us how much warmer. Plus
they admit it should be due to El Nino, not man.

"Today was the first 70-degree day in April at Lindbergh Field. It looks
like the high reached 72 this afternoon.
The temperatures have been somewhat of a saving grace this very dry year.
April has been about 3 degrees cooler than normal. March was a tenth of
degree below normal, and February was 1.4 degrees cooler than normal.
January, of course, was nearly off-the-charts cool, with an average
temperature 3.8 degrees below normal. Inland stations in San Diego County
have been similarly cool."

Now, ya think if the climate model could model H2O accurately it would've
told us that we were gonna be DRY, thus not much warming happening here.

"We may have been alarmed by the sighting of an iceberg as large as an
aircraft carrier off Dunedin, but we should be consoled by the news that
the
Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing there."

What science journal is that from? It is at odds with every other
research paper I have read or heard about. That, indeed, is interesting.

It's from the East Anglia's data. They did not report it. Afraid they'd lose
funding
perhaps?

How about this:


" Sea level rise

Aye, good stuff.....but glaciers have melted before....they will
return (many years from now)....and sea levels rise
and fall.....it's natural.

<snipped to save bandwidth>

Cheers,

Dan

Same at ya,
Mark



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... Did you notice how current CO2 levels are higher than at any other ... temperatures will become higher than is ... ancestors must have survived similar changes in climate. ... would have been warming. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... It looks to me like there is a 100,000 year cycle of warming ... Did you notice how current CO2 levels are higher than at any ... temperatures will become higher than is ... ancestors must have survived similar changes in climate. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Semi OT: Wacko Environmentalist Now Wants Sports Cars Banned in Europe
    ... Something that really bothers me with many of the scientists that think the science of global climate is "settled" is their ability to take a slice of detailed, emperical climate data from a 10-15 year period and claim they can extrapolate ACCURATE climate models out to 50, 100, 500 or thousands of years. ... They can't say why the Earth is warming when pushed for a detailed answer as to the cause. ... The only thing they hang their hats on is rising CO2 levels with recent temperature increases. ... They also can't tell us why temperatures have been relatively stable and for some decades actually declined while CO2 levels from man's activity have slowly risen since 1800. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang)
  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... Did you notice how current CO2 levels are higher than at any other ... temperatures will become higher than is good ... ancestors must have survived similar changes in climate. ... would have been warming. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: YAGWP (Yet Another Global Warming Poast)
    ... CO2 is a greenhouse gas; there's more of it in the atmosphere, ... therefore the temp has gone up," is a post hoc fallacy of the worst ... There are multiple documented climate swings in the Earth's climate ... claims when we can't even predict the weather five days away with as ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
Loading