May 21st.....end of the world?

[mustang_sallad]

Yes, actually it does.

If there is an error in the data, then any results or conclusion that are a result of that data, are false. If you ignore facts that don't help you achieve the results you are looking for, then it is false.

 

Notice how i said "same field of research" not "same lab group working with the same data set". Very different statements.

[mustang_sallad]

RN4 the belief in the AGM myth requires that you believe in several things at the same time:

 

1. Global warming is man made. Isn't this redundant to the above? What exactly do you think AGW stands for?

 

2. It is caused by CO2. Agreed.

 

3. Man can control the global climate at will. I'd hardly call this "controlling at will".

 

4. Drastic reductions in human quality of life is a reasonable price to pay. How is this in any way a requirement for believing in AGW? This is a requirement in believing in drastic countermeasures. You could believe in AGW without necessarily thinking we should do anything about it.

 

Failure to accept ANY of the above means that you are a heretic.

 

So tell us RN4, and Sallad, do you believe in all of the above?

 

You're 4 points aren't chosen very well and frankly betray an inability to make logical connections on your part. How about this, if you believe in AGW, you need to believe these two things:

 

1. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere can cause increased global temperatures by trapping more solar energy on the planet.

2. Humans are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

Each of those can be broken down further, but I think that sums it up pretty clearly. We can argue all we want about the degree to which humans are increasing CO2 levels, and the degree to which increased CO2 concentrations affects global temperatures, but let's at least start with something concrete (ie, not "Man can control the climate at will").

[mustang_sallad]

EXACTLY!!!!!!!

 

Go ahead, just gloss over the fact that your last post showed a COMPLETE lack of understanding of the sea level issue. Ignore the extensive research done by a couple NASA scientists and just grab on desperately to the fact that they acknowledge that there remains some uncertainty in the specifics of their findings as a sign that you're childish misunderstanding might have had merit. What do you do for a living anyways?

[RangerM]

You're 4 points aren't chosen very well and frankly betray an inability to make logical connections on your part. How about this, if you believe in AGW, you need to believe these two things:

 

1. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere can cause increased global temperatures by trapping more solar energy on the planet.

2. Humans are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

Each of those can be broken down further, but I think that sums it up pretty clearly. We can argue all we want about the degree to which humans are increasing CO2 levels, and the degree to which increased CO2 concentrations affects global temperatures, but let's at least start with something concrete (ie, not "Man can control the climate at will").

But "controlling the climate at will" is exactly where the AGW belief system is based.

 

I am increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere simply by being alive.

 

If you believe that any activity I engage in further increases CO2, thereby increasing the global temperature (and that increased global temperature can only be a bad thing), then you must believe that it is to a significant degree.

 

If you believe it is a significant degree, then you believe that I can control that temperature at will, since I can control my activities at will.

 

This is used as justification for imposition against my will.

[xr7g428]

Sallad, You are the one that falls flat when it comes to applied logic.

 

1. Global warming is man made. Isn't this redundant to the above? What exactly do you think AGW stands for?

 

To believe in the myth, you have to believe that Global Warming is NOT the product of any natural event. If Global Warming is a natural event, then the rest of the myth falls apart: CO2 is no longer to blame so therefore there is no reason to modify behaviors to control it.

 

3. Man can control the global climate at will. I'd hardly call this "controlling at will".

 

The myth requires a belief that we can control the climate: all that we have to do is move the big lever labeled CO2 and we can make it warmer or colder as desired. Again, if we can't control the climate, the myth falls apart.

 

4. Drastic reductions in human quality of life is a reasonable price to pay. How is this in any way a requirement for believing in AGW? This is a requirement in believing in drastic countermeasures. You could believe in AGW without necessarily thinking we should do anything about it.

 

The AGW myth starts and ends with changing behavior at its core. It is far more likely that people who want to control behavior jump on the AGW band wagon to serve their own agenda than it is for a true AGW believer to suggest doing nothing is the best choice. Please point us to some site where AGW people advocate doing nothing.

 

1. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere can cause increased global temperatures by trapping more solar energy on the planet.

 

 

From a technical stand point, can you at least get this right? CO2 does not trap heat. It does resonate in the infrared spectrum and the resonance produces friction that generates heat. There is no great CO2 layer in the atmosphere acting as a blanket to hold in heat. The following explanation, from a paper by Dr. Richard Lindzen, may be helpful in understanding the actual process.

 

Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology.

 

 

The Greenhouse Effect.

 

The crude idea in the common popular presentation of the greenhouse effect is that the atmosphere is

transparent to sunlight (apart from the very significant reflectivity of both clouds and the surface), which heats

the Earth's surface. The surface offsets that heating by radiating in the infrared. The infrared radiation

increases with increasing surface temperature, and the temperature adjusts until balance is achieved. If the

atmosphere were also transparent to infrared radiation, the infrared radiation produced by an average surface

temperature of minus eighteen degrees centigrade would balance the incoming solar radiation (less that

amount reflected back to space by clouds). The atmosphere is not transparent in the infrared, however. So

the Earth must heat up somewhat more to deliver the same flux of infrared radiation to space. That is what is

called the greenhouse effect.

 

The fact that the Earth's average surface temperature is fifteen degrees centigrade rather than minus eighteen

degrees centigrade is attributed to that effect. The main absorbers of infrared in the atmosphere are water

vapor and clouds. Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to

disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect. Nevertheless, it is

presumed that increases in carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases will lead to significant increases

in temperature. As we have seen, carbon dioxide is increasing. So are other minor greenhouse gases. A

widely held but questionable contention is that those increases will continue along the path they have followed

for the past century.

 

The simple picture of the greenhouse mechanism is seriously oversimplified. Many of us were taught in

elementary school that heat is transported by radiation, convection, and conduction. The above

representation only refers to radiative transfer. As it turns out, if there were only radiative heat transfer, the

greenhouse effect would warm the Earth to about seventy-seven degrees centigrade rather than to fifteen

degrees centigrade. In fact, the greenhouse effect is only about 25 percent of what it would be in a pure

radiative situation. The reason for this is the presence of convection (heat transport by air motions), which

bypasses much of the radiative absorption.

[xr7g428]

This is a false assumption. There are ways to lower carbon output without much of an impact in quality of life, if any.

 

So you believe that denying low cost energy to billions of people has no significant effect? We can't afford solar or wind, but you think Africa can? Obama campaigned on an 80% reduction in CO2 based energy consumption, with out a plan to replace it. That would take the US back to 1915 levels of energy availability, with a population that is over 3 times larger, and still growing. And this sounds to you like not much impact, if ANY?

 

Do you realize that we have to have about twice as much generating capacity using wind and solar as we do using non intermittent, sources? So we have to build twice the capacity, at greater cost per watt, and you can't connect that to "much impact"?

[mustang_sallad]

From a technical stand point, can you at least get this right? CO2 does not trap heat. It does resonate in the infrared spectrum and the resonance produces friction that generates heat. There is no great CO2 layer in the atmosphere acting as a blanket to hold in heat. The following explanation, from a paper by Dr. Richard Lindzen, may be helpful in understanding the actual process.

 

We've had this discussion before and I've pointed out that there's nothing wrong with the term "trapping heat". If the suggestion is that the presence of more CO2 leads to the earth getting hotter, and the only input of energy to the system is solar energy, then that means that more of the incident solar energy is being retained on the planet, energy that otherwise would have left the system. Agreed? That sounds like "trapping" to me.

[suv_guy_19]

So you believe that denying low cost energy to billions of people has no significant effect? We can't afford solar or wind, but you think Africa can?

 

Because those are the only source, and because technology, as it matures, never becomes more affordable. Oh wait, the exact opposite is true.

[xr7g428]

Because those are the only source, and because technology, as it matures, never becomes more affordable. Oh wait, the exact opposite is true.

 

So all of those people who are burning sticks to keep warm should make the jump straight to wind and solar, cost be damned, to make you happy. Good plan.

[suv_guy_19]

So all of those people who are burning sticks to keep warm should make the jump straight to wind and solar, cost be damned, to make you happy. Good plan.

 

No, but all of those people burning coal and oil should. And, again, there are other sources of power, from methan capture to hydroelectricity, to various forms of nuclear.

Edited June 6, 2011 by suv_guy_19

[xr7g428]

I will tell that to the next Chinese factory worker I meet, who rides a bike to work. I am pretty sure that he will tell me to go screw myself, thereby saving you the trouble... LOL! When are you buying that Nissan Leaf?

Edited June 6, 2011 by xr7g428

[goinbroke2]

xr7g428, on 04 June 2011 - 11:39 PM, said:

 

RN4 the belief in the AGM myth requires that you believe in several things at the same time:

 

1. Global warming is man made. Isn't this redundant to the above? What exactly do you think AGW stands for? GW and AGW are two different things but thanks for AGAIN trying diversion tactics. Once again you've used diversion to point the blame at man (or more pointedly, rich countries) If the general public believes GW is AGW then when the earth warms, IT'S MANS FAULT! And if it cools..IT'S MANS FAULT! But if people are allowed to see the difference, it's harder to convince a sane person to take on a responsibility which has repercutions, which is not theirs to assume.

 

2. It is caused by CO2. Agreed. WRONG! CO2 is one contributor and a MINOR ONE AT THAT!

 

3. Man can control the global climate at will. I'd hardly call this "controlling at will". Our choice to live in the present age instead of like cavemen is "our will". WE have decided to use products that expell CO2. Your inferance is that "if we stop producing CO2, this will stop the earth from warming" is exactly "MAN CONTROLLING THE CLIMATE"!

 

4. Drastic reductions in human quality of life is a reasonable price to pay. How is this in any way a requirement for believing in AGW? This is a requirement in believing in drastic countermeasures. You could believe in AGW without necessarily thinking we should do anything about it. While there may be those out there, they are not the ones trying to manipulate and control others.(which is who we are talking about) To follow what the people who DO believe in AGW and DO believe in drastic countermeasures...(otherwise known as "alarmist's").....requires drastic reductions in human quality of life.

[jpd80]

The big fear is that China and India's populations want the same sort of lifestyle as Americans and Europeans,

they're producing cars and building coal fired power plants at an alarming rate.

 

The problem is that the US and Europe cannot stop China and India's infrastructure build up

and unless they are seen as doing the right thing, there's no way that China or India will come

on board and want to reduce emissions with their power grids set to rapidly expand.

Edited June 7, 2011 by jpd80