http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=984466#984466

Abgemacht thread linking to research demonstrating CO2 increases *lag* warming...and therefore can not cause it...

So temperatures are not increasing anymore, the climate "models" do not work, the scientists have no idea what is happening anymore or why it is happening..

Yet some will still believe. Why? Is there anyone here that will admit they once believed in global warming, but are now being swayed by the lack of evidence that perhaps...just maybe...global warming was either bad science...or (worst case) a hoax perpetrated on society?

and...before you say such a hoax is impossible...I'll imagine many of you don't believe in God, and yet you believe in (what to you is) the hoax of religion...

Nobody wants to play "Facts vs. Consensus?"

Have you ever considered putting all your thoughts into one well written post instead of three and four poorly stylized posts?

most people on this site have kind of given up openly debating the issue for whatever reason maybe one or two of the important people are now questioning the global warming theory and others are following. whatever it is if they are learning from it, then we should take success and bring up other things. there is so much crap these people believe, lets focus on that stuff. or you can also spend your time giving me criticism on my website, i do want to hear what people think.

We've stopped debating Global Warming (climate change) because it is more fun to watch the people on the other side try to convince themselves that they are right.

NEWS FLASH!
Extraordinarily complex and chaotic systems not fully understood by science!

i do think it is weird that you all stopped debating it. more evidence that there are a lot of propaganda accounts here. people typically dont move in lockstep like that unless they are members of some kind of group.

Yeah, just like when you're playing France and suddenly Italy stops talking to you, you know something is up... or it could just be Easter.

??? In order for there to be "more" evidence that there are a lot of propaganda accounts, wouldn't there first have to be "any" evidence?

Coal doesn't cause global cooling ... Coal causes global warming. Global warming causes global cooling ... I don't understand it either, but that's what al gore tells me and he won a Nobel prize, an Oscar and a Grammy ... So he must be right.

Don't forget... AG invented the interweb thingie.

I think that's what the Grammy was for. It was a very musical invention.

"Wait...Wait...now coal emissions are *causing* lower temperature?"

The carbon-dioxide in coal results in a long term net warming effect because it causes the Earth to absorb more of the suns radiation that it would otherwise.

The particulate matter in coal (the smoke) can have a short term cooling effect because it reflects sunlight.

No one expects the temperatures to keep rising without fluctuations. Temperatures will rise and fall but the long term trend is upward.

Is this really such a revelation to you?

"Nobody wants to play "Facts vs. Consensus?""

The reason a consensus exists is because the facts overwhelming support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

A consensus is also not always correct. There was consensus on the steady state theory for an entire generation before the Big Bang theory was widely accepted. There was consensus that slavery was okay until there was consensus that it wasn't. Same with smoking. Same with marrying your cousin. Saying "there is scholarly consensus that x is true" is an appeal to the masses and authority, and both are fallacies.

I completely agree with spyman....the data for global warming's existence is overwhelming:

1) Keeling curve data from Mauna Loa observatory shows a rise in global temperatures since 1950

2) Arctic Ice sheets are receding, and we have satellite evidence for that.

3) Sea levels are rising due to melting.

There are more arguments that you can see here:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/
http://www.globalwarming.org/

@spyman: there aren't overwhelming facts, there are computer models which can't possibly take into account all of the variables involved. They don't even try to take clouds into account. Clouds are monumentally important in the negative feedback effect of reflection of the suns radiation. And just to be a little nitpicky about what you said, CO2 doesn't change the absorption of radiant energy, only the retention of it. But warming causes more water vapor, which means more clouds which DO affect the absorption, because clouds relect IT. And visible light. Thus warming causes cooling, negative feedback ... Nothing to worry about.

'five years' david bowie

clouds relect IT. And visible light.

Should have read

clouds relect IR and visible light.

@djakarta: arctic ice has been receding since the last ice age. It used to extend all the way down to Michigan and Montana. Who was burning fossil fuels 10,000 years ago to make them start receding? Are we supposed to make billionaires out of carbon credit scammers like al gore who don't even believe in what they're saying enough to alter their own lifestyle (or to sell their tv network to someone whose source of income isn't oil) just because we've had satelites in space for a few decades that show the natural continuation of a process completely out of our control?

@blankman - You said "i do think it is weird that you all stopped debating it. more evidence that there are a lot of propaganda accounts here. people typically dont move in lockstep like that unless they are members of some kind of group."

So, are you accusing us all of being multis? Or that we are all in some secret organization that has infiltrated WebDip to spread our liberal views? I am looking forward to your answer.

@djakarta: and about the the long term trend ... You cannot call it a trend on the order of a tenth of a degree when the variation in daily temps is 40 degrees, and the seasonal variation is another 40 on top of that. Any digestion of a trend is not being statistically honest.

Goddamn Fucking piece of shit Autocorrect!!

Digestion = suggestion

FUCK!

Ok everybody. I am swayed towards the ideas that Global Warming exists. HOWEVER, even if global warming doesn't exist, the effects of excess CO2 and CFCs is not good for the ozone. CFCs break down O3, ozone, into O2 and O1. The ozone protects the environment from UV rays. The effects of these rays are evident in Australia. When students go outside for playtime in Australia, they have to put on sunscreen. If the hole in the ozone keeps growing, the consequences could be devastating. Plants can't take all that much UV light either. In other words, decreasing emissions is still Very important.

" CO2 doesn't change the absorption of radiant energy, only the retention of it."

Fair enough. What is wrong with my choice of words though? Is it not possible to speak of an object absorbing heat?

This article on NASA's website uses similar language.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/HeatBucket/

"Like any planet, the Earth absorbs some radiation and emits some radiation back into space."

Yes, CFCs are bad. The US banned them years ago. But ... Nothing to do with global warming or CO2 which is essential for all life on the planet and is naturally occurring and has been around since the earth was formed. I'm not saying man can't Fuck up the environment, I'm just saying that the current CO2 scare is fiction. If it was being said that some man-made chemical like CFC was the culprit, I'd be more apt to believe it, but its freaking CO2! Yeast produces it when it turns sugar into alcohol ... How can that be bad?

@spyman: I said it was nitpicky :-)

The language used is fine, the planet does absorb, reflect and emit radiation. CO2 just isn't doesn't change the amount absorbed is all. It dies change the amount emitted - it is a green house gas, no argument there - but a warmer planet, whether man caused or not - contributes to more water vapor which in turn contributes to clouds which in turn adds to the reflection side of the equation.

Anybody who is sceptical about AGW for scientific reasons, rather than political ones agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. They just don't think that there will be a positive feedback leading to catastrophic consequences because of it. And now the evidence is starting to come in in their favor. Just keep watching for another 5 to 10 years and you'll see the "concensus" disapear as the evidence of lack of warming continues to come in.

"A consensus is also not always correct."

Dudmbell I assume you were replying to me. My statement...

"The reason a consensus exists is because the facts overwhelming support the theory of anthropogenic climate change."

... does not imply that something must be true because there is a consensus.
Of course a consensus can be wrong.

The point I was making is that in the case of AGW the "facts" and "the consensus" are on the same page.

Is is possible that the whole theory is wrong? Yes. But at this point unlikely given the preponderance of evidence.

The problem is that we are producing more CO2 than O2. In the long run, the combination of deforestation and CO2 emissions will make an incredible spike in CO2 and an incredible dip in O2 emissions from plants. Still, reducing emissions is extremely necessary.

1st. Hole in the ozone is closing but there is always going to be a thin spot in the ozone over the Antarctic due to HCl build up there from natural production of it and how it interacts with O3 and UV.

2nd. CO2 acidifies water, this kills/retards plankton growth, they are a keystone in the sea's ecosystem. If you don't think that burning coal is a bad thing, go live in hong kong with their killer smog.

CO2 does change the absorption of radiant energy it has a major absorption in the IR spectrum that o2 and n2 don't have. That is a fact, that is how it increases the retention of radiant energy. It's increased concentration in the atmosphere will have effects on more than you would imagine.

If you honestly believe the climate isn't changing then you are missing out on reality. If you believe it isn't due to human activity what is the problem with moving away from burning coal and transfering power by way of power lines which wastes huge amounts of the energy?

Yeast turning sugar into alcohol is not even on the scale of the burning of coal and oil.
CO2 is essential for all life but all things in moderation. You increase the amount in the atmosphere and you increase the amount in water, you kill fish and retard plankton growth. You see lower returns on wheat yeilds, corn too. Which means more hunger and starvation in the developing world.

"CO2 just isn't doesn't change the amount absorbed is all. "

philocore, If I have misunderstood what you mean by this point, I apologize in advance...

But it does. C02 like water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Without greenhouse gases the Earth would be frozen. The fact the Earth has greenhouse gases make it possible for us to live here.

Do you dispute this point? If so I'll go can into more detail.

No, I don't dispute it at all as I said earlier. Water vapor, CO2, CH4 are all greenhouse gases. And we would definitely be screwed without them. But green house gases trap heat in, they don't absorb more. That's all I was saying. The important equations are:

Absorption = heat energy hitting us - reflection

Net heat = absorption - emission

Or to combine:

Net heat = heat energy hitting us - reflection - emission

I was just saying that CO2 is involved in the emission component, not the absorption component. A really minor point. Again, I said it was nitpicky. It certainly isn't the cornerstone of the argument for or against. It's just necesary to break things down into their constituent components sometimes to fully understand the system.

@akido: the yeast comment was just a joke. Not really about scale, but about the fact that nature has always been involved in CO2 production, contrasting that with man-made chemicals like CFCs

I did say "causes the Earth to absorb more heat". The difference between greenhouse gases and other atmospheric gases is that while Nitrogen and Oxygen are transparent to both sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, greenhouse gases are opaque to infrared, which means they absorb infrared which they then radiate outwards, both into space and back in the direction of the Earth resulting in a warmer Earth than we would have otherwise. I think we're basically on the same page on this point.

Since we both agree that less greenhouse gases means a cooler Earth, and more greenhouse gases means a warmer Earth... then surely if we increase the amount of greenhouse gas then the Earth will tend to be even warmer.

Now you hypothesize that more greenhouse gases means more cloud cover, which could then offset the tendency for the Earth to keep warming (Is that right?).

We can see that if the Earth had no water vapor that it would be a lot colder. If we then increase the water vapor in the atmosphere the Earth gets warmer, despite the fact that some sunlight will be reflected by the cloud cover.

I assume you are hypothesize that there could be some cross-over point where the impact of cloud cover reflecting sunlight is greater than the impact of greenhouses gases causing the Earth to retain more heat. Have I understood you correctly?

Yes. The cooling effect of clouds far outweighs the greenhouse effect of water vapor. The crux of the argument is actually whether there is a positive or negative feedback from global warming. They set up the computer models to show that it is positive, that a slight warming will lead to effects that will make the warming worse, thus magnifying the effects and therefore the warming. But many think the models are inaccurate and point to a basic flaw in the theory that says if a slight perturbation will cause the system to go out of control, then it would have done so thousands of years ago if not millions, because we've had many periods in the earthen history that have been much warmer and much cooler without our influence on CO2 levels.

The basic question is this: is the earth a self-correcting, self-regulating system, or is it a very precisely balanced system that will spiral out of control with the slight perturbation from equilibrium?

In physics, we have a concept of stable, versus unstable equilibrium. Imagine a pendulum with a stiff arm. If you balance it just right at the top if its swing its in equilibrium. If you knock it out of equilibrium by the slightest amount, it will fall down. That is an unstable equilibrium. Now imagine the same pendulum at the bottom of its swing. Again in equilibrium. Now knock it slightly out of equilibrium, and it will self correct back to its equilibrium position. That is a stable equilibrium.

Is the earth, with respect to temperature (regardless of cause) in a stable or unstable equilibrium? That's the question on the table. And you can make the computer models go either direction with the slightest tweak of one or more assumptions, so they are not reliable.

Oh, and their lack of predictive power also makes them unreliable.

Notices
krellin
07:01 PM
Have you ever considered putting all your thoughts into one well written post instead of three and four poorly stylized posts?

1. It got your dumb ass to respond, didn't it?
2. Long posts are difficult for the mostly illiterate crowd around here, so it was broken up for your benefit
3. even broken up into sub topics, you apparently were still too illiterate to comment on the OP.

If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then why do you post anything at all? I thin there was no harm in there being 1 versus multiple posts, as those those choose to comment **ON THE OP*** SEEMED TO HAVE DIFFICULTY getting the discussion going.

Have you ever considered not being a dumbass all the time and instead commenting on the discussion, instead of just spending all your time attacking people???

Spyman, no, I was trying to make a jab at krellin and his "facts vs consensus." The consensus will always shift the correct way, and once the naysaying ilk die, the consensus will shift towards pro-GW/ CC opinion, right or wrong. Krellin's dichotomy is false, which is what I ineloquently tried to get at.

"the consensus will shift towards GW right or wrong"?? I think that's part of the problem.

And calling people who see the flaws in the psuedoscience that is going on, "naysayers" is to dismiss potentially reasonable arguments because you don't want want to think about them.

"Is the earth, with respect to temperature (regardless of cause) in a stable or unstable equilibrium? "

This is my understanding: an increase or decrease of greenhouse gases changes the point at which equilibrium is reached. Thus if we increase greenhouse gases to a particular point, the Earth's temperature will be unstable for a period, but then eventually reach a new stable point - stable but warmer than it is now.

Predicting exactly what that new stable point would be, however is tricky. Also predicting to what extent feedback loops apply is also tricky. That is why projected temperature increases fall within a range. Some models predict an increase of only a couple of degrees over the next century, while other models predict more extreme changes.

philcore you say that the models do not take clouds into consideration. Where did you get this idea from. A quick google shows this claim to be false.

For example take this article, 'Cloud Climatology'
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html

Here is a sample of what is written in the article:

"In order to predict the climate several decades into the future, we need to understand many aspects of the climate system, one being the role of clouds in determining the climate's sensitivity to change. Clouds affect the climate but changes in the climate, in turn, affect the clouds. This relationship creates a complicated system of climate feedbacks , in which clouds modulate Earth's radiation and water balances."
"[...] A major effort is under way at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) under the direction of Dr. William B. Rossow , to gather better information about clouds and their radiative effects. Since 1983 the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) , as part of the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) , has been collecting observations from weather satellites to assemble a global, multi-year dataset. GISS serves as the Global Processing Center for ISCCP, in cooperation with institutions in several other countries. The datasets provide some of the key variables that determine the interaction of clouds and radiation."

It appears that they are starting to take them into consideration. That's a good thing because the models they built before which have proved to vastly overestimate the temperature rise.

I think it's a good point about green house gases establishing a new equilibrium, that's something that would make sense as opposed to the unstable equilibrium scenario that an inconvenient truth was trying to say.

Here's a good article about clouds now that they are being taken into account

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/11/new-paper-finds-clouds-cool-climate.html?m=1

If your opinion is that the climate is not changing in worrying ways, I don't consider you a real person.

Krellin is fake. This is all the proof I need.

@Thucy - way to have an intelligent comment on the OP, genius.

I *never* said there is no such thing as "climate change". the climate changes all the time - hell, where I live used to be buried under a glacier - clearly climate changes, jackass.

What I *did* do, you mental midget, is post a link to an article that discussing the halting of temperature increase, potential debunking the "climate models" that predict doom and gloom. I *also* posted a link to a thread Abgemacht created which discusses the *lack* of evidence regarding CO2 causing temperature increases...

So, Thucy - if you want to MAN UP and actually comment on the discussion, feel free. Otherwise...continue to be a little YJ sheep, demonstrating your lack of intellectual capacity. Nobody really expects anything worthwhile from you...

Wait there's an OP?

Who?

I don't see any OP. Does OP exist? It doesn't seem like it