Global Warming Again (Probably Political... go figure!)

[Weird Harold]

Gawd, Weird. You've really given this some thought.

Thanks.

Not alot of thought actually, everything I've proposed just seems obvious to me -- it's just the way my mind works; little bits of trivia stick to it as I vegetate in front of the TV and then a question comes up and my mind digs through all the trivia looking for an answer.

BTW, the "Thrust Pods" I mentioned aobve were featured again on the Modern Marvels Episode about Icebrekers and are properly called "azipods."

Here's a picture:
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/elation/images/elation10.jpg
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/elation/images/elation10.jpg

 

[Weird Harold]

Gawd, Weird. You've really given this some thought.

Thanks.

Another random connection wa made just a few minutes ago:

Tomorrow the PBS series Secrets of the Dead is exploring the Hindenburg disaster of May 6, 1937.

Then there was "Ivy Mike" and Enewetok Atoll on Novemeber 1, 1954: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNcQX033V_M

For MY generation, those are the two events the word Hydrogen brings to mind in a "free association" context and one of the reasons that gaseous Hydrogen as a motor fuel is such a hard sell.

For later generations, the Space Shuttle is an impressive demonstrationof the potential of Liquid Hydrogen but the Challenger Explosion is another disaster linked to "Hydrogen" in many minds (even though it was the 'safe' solid rocket booster that caused the problem, it was the main fuel tank's LH2 and LOx that made it so spectacular.)

I wonder how many people are less than enthusiastic about Hydrogen in their car because it's so associated with three of the biggest and most emotional explosions in the history of mankind?

Hydrogen, no way! I don't want my car to blow up like Challenger!

 

[DrHappy]

In the end, water vapor acts as a feedback loop, multiplying the effect of air temperature rise...

The existence of so many feedback mechanisms, all tending to multiply the effect of temperature rise, is what makes CO2 so significant.

Forgive me if this wasn't your intention, but you seem to be implying that water vapor feedback from CO2 is positive, though this is definitely not necessarily true. At least two independent groups have published results (empirical model plus real climate data) supporting a negative feedback mechanism via clouds. Clouds and precipitation play a dominant role in global climate and temperatures. It's not as simple as saying that increased temperatures result in an increased equilibrium level of water vapor. Most clouds tends to have a net cooling effect.

The alarmist predictions of climate change require that the warming from feedback to be several hundred percent more than the original heating from CO2 alone.

 

[Weird Harold]

Clouds and precipitation play a dominant role in global climate and temperatures. It's not as simple as saying that increased temperatures result in an increased equilibrium level of water vapor. Most clouds tends to have a net cooling effect.

Clouds (and higher relative humidity) tend to reduce the high temperatures but they also moderate the low temperatures over a 24 hour period. I'm not sure that a "net cooling effect" is necessarily the result.

My concern over increased humidity really has nothing to do with clouds, it has to do with the heat carrying capacity of moister, denser air and the higher overnight lows that result.

 

[cantdog]

Forgive me if this wasn't your intention, but you seem to be implying that water vapor feedback from CO2 is positive, though this is definitely not necessarily true. At least two independent groups have published results (empirical model plus real climate data) supporting a negative feedback mechanism via clouds. Clouds and precipitation play a dominant role in global climate and temperatures. It's not as simple as saying that increased temperatures result in an increased equilibrium level of water vapor. Most clouds tends to have a net cooling effect.

The alarmist predictions of climate change require that the warming from feedback to be several hundred percent more than the original heating from CO2 alone.

Dear Sir.

Check, if you will, the original link in the thread, which is a link to a couple of hours of video. Watch a proportion of it. Thank you.

I am dismissive because I no longer care to hear any more cavil over the science; that dog won't hunt. This little post of yours is one layman, or even one Ph.D., I don't much care, spouting off. It is not peer-reviewed science. I may be misguided, but I believe you less than I do the peer-reviewed science.

Exxon, among others, used to fund think tanks to put out phony, silly, specious, and even scientific arguments into the stream of public discourse. You have, I imagine, a storehouse of them. Big deal. That part is over. Exxon no lobger funds those people. Many energy and extractive, chemical and manufacturing firms have also stopped funding that shit. They are instead asking that regulations be placed upon themselves, by government, to deal with the problem.

Why? Because your argument about water is wrong? No. Because they want a single regulatory standard so that they can compete on an even basis and still get this job done. Also, it would be nice if the measures taken made some sense, which can only happen if we take a little time at it and talk it out.

See those videos, and then either get on board or get off the track. Don't worry, we'll take care of the problem without your help, and benefit you right along with everyone else. We do not require you to do anything but shut up.

 

[Pure]

note to try,

Non-linear mathmatics very nearly approaches randomness and computer models attempting to forecast the future by its application should be treated with extreme skepticism. Their results should be greeted accordingly, if not with outright laughter.

while there is something to what you say, your *application* reminds me of roxanne and her 'you never know what's going to happen' stance, applied to GWB's Iraq war.

your non linear stance--'who can predict'-- is applied ONLY againstl proposed policy shifts which create hardships for certain multinationals, and which go against Republican Party positions.

in short, regardless of the grain of truth and abstract validity of your points, you're essentially just a front man for the RNC. your utter inconsistency damns you as far as being a sincere analyst.

 

[DrHappy]

... This little post of yours is one layman, or even one Ph.D., I don't much care, spouting off. It is not peer-reviewed science. I may be misguided, but I believe you less than I do the peer-reviewed science.

Thanks for the laugh. So you will consider non-peer reviewed comments from a preselected single laymen or PhD (the guy in the video) as long has he already agrees with your predetermined conclusion?

...Exxon, among others, used to fund think tanks to put out phony, silly, specious, and even scientific arguments into the stream of public discourse.

You are attacking the source but not the substance. Are you aware of your fallacy here?

Regardless, I'm referring to peer reviewed science anyway.

See those videos, and then either get on board or get off the track. Don't worry, we'll take care of the problem without your help, and benefit you right along with everyone else. We do not require you to do anything but shut up.

Wow. No one is allowed to discuss anything other than the video here? I didn't realized that you were the designated authority and censor on science here. Can I see your badge?

You certainly don't want any informed PhDs with thermal modeling background discussing global warming here?

 

[cantdog]

Thanks for the laugh. So you will consider non-peer reviewed comments from a preselected single laymen or PhD (the guy in the video) as long has he already agrees with your predetermined conclusion?



You are attacking the source but not the substance. Are you aware of your fallacy here?

Regardless, I'm referring to peer reviewed science anyway.



Wow. No one is allowed to discuss anything other than the video here? I didn't realized that you were the designated authority and censor on science here. Can I see your badge?

You certainly don't want any informed PhDs with thermal modeling background discussing global warming here?

Nope. I'm all done with that shit. I used to believe there was room for doubt and ambiguity. As to sources, well, for me, that's the key thing. Who is saying this? Since hundreds of people say hundreds of contradictory things, they cannot all be correct. So you consider sources.

Now then. You talk about water vapor, and now you claim your post on the Author's Hangout is ACTUALLY published in Nature, or some other such journal?

So what we have here is a peer-reviewed, published post on the Author's Hangout?


My.



And do you imagine that what you said invalidates the conclusions of the AAAS and NAS, as well?

I had my opinion changed by following the links which the dude in the silly hats put out. I was arguing only last month that the evidence was shaky for anthopogenesis. But you just go on and think how you please. Fine with me. I reserve the right to imagine that your post here is not peer-reviewed, and there we are.

 

[cantdog]

A guy with a handle which is a veiled synonym for penis has a scientific objection. Well , fuck it, it's a porn board, I can deal.

Water vapor, penis, persists in the troposphere for hours, maybe days. It comes and goes. Deforestation affects the local effects of it, which are indeed significant. The evidence shows that the rise in CO2 also impacts the effects of it. But over the long term, two things become clear. One, it has a determinative effect on weather, and weather, averaged out, is climate. If nothing much changes, climate will persist, but if the planet is warming, or, locally, deforestation or other changes have supervened, the climate will change.

Thus, I conclude that the endless play of water vapor will only affect climate if something else acts to change the parameters. It will affect weather, but not change the climate.

Finally, I note that the consensus of scientists in the field is that the global climate is destabilizing, and that it is going to be bad, and that the evidence is, we have caused it by burning fossil fuels. The consensus also is, we should act to correct it. Penis.

 

[DrHappy]

Is it possible for you to have a discussion without insulting? Come on, you can do it?

Now then. You talk about water vapor, and now you claim your post on the Author's Hangout is ACTUALLY published in Nature, or some other such journal?

So what we have here is a peer-reviewed, published post on the Author's Hangout?

My

Yes, the facts that I am stating have been published in mainstream scientific journals. Or are you simply playing a childish word game of semantics?

And do you imagine that what you said invalidates the conclusions of the AAAS and NAS, as well?

I actually haven't stated anything controversial. My comments aren't in conflict with AAAS, NAS, or IPCC reports. First, here's an except of what I said earlier:

... Clouds and precipitation play a dominant role in global climate and temperatures. It's not as simple as saying that increased temperatures result in an increased equilibrium level of water vapor. Most clouds tends to have a net cooling effect.

The alarmist predictions of climate change require that the warming from feedback to be several hundred percent more than the original heating from CO2 alone.

The IPCC's Third Accessment Report (TAR) discusses CO2's dependence on a strong water vapor feedback in section 1.3.1 here
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc%5Ftar/wg1/pdf/TAR-01.PDF

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously, with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation. To appreciate the magnitude of this temperature increase, it should be compared with the global mean temperature difference of perhaps 5 or 6°C from the middle of the last Ice Age to the present interglacial.

The so-called water vapour feedback, caused by an increase in atmospheric water vapour due to a temperature increase, is the most important feedback responsible for the amplification of the temperature increase.

They are stating that a doubling of CO2 would only increase temperatures by 1.2°C. This value of 1.2°C is considered by some to be a high estimate (common estimates range from 0.9°C to 1.2°C), but let's assume that this is correct for the sake of argument. A 4.5°C increase in temperatures due to a doubling of CO2 would require a strong positive feedback in order to cause a temperature increase that is 375% of the original increase. If water/cloud feedback happens to be negative (as some have reported evidence for), then the increase would be less than 1.2°C.

Arguing the credibility of models which give positive vs negative feedback for water vapor is another discussion. There's no need to be angry and insulting. I find both sides of the topic to be interesting.

 

[Oblimo]

F At least two independent groups have published results (empirical model plus real climate data) supporting a negative feedback mechanism via clouds.

Linkies?

 

[trysail]

your non linear stance--'who can predict'-- is applied ONLY againstl proposed policy shifts which create hardships for certain multinationals, and which go against Republican Party positions.

Wha? You've left me scratching my head over this one. Presumably, there's some thin thread of logic between the leap you've made from assertion to conclusion but I'll be damned if I see it.

in short, regardless of the grain of truth and abstract validity of your points, you're essentially just a front man for the RNC. your utter inconsistency damns you as far as being a sincere analyst.

Once again, you have failed to show anything resembling a path of logic.

You certainly don't want any informed PhDs with thermal modeling background discussing global warming here?

Once again, you've hit the nail right smack dab on the head, Doc.

There are some folk roun' heah with no interest in being confused with either fact or logic. On a planet that's been around for 4,600,000,000 years, it is amazing, frightening, appalling, depressing, and laughable that people have been bamboozled into hysteria by questionable data and methodologies.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Originally Posted by Pure
your non linear stance--'who can predict'-- is applied ONLY againstl proposed policy shifts which create hardships for certain multinationals, and which go against Republican Party positions.

Wha? You've left me scratching my head over this one. Presumably, there's some thin thread of logic between the leap you've made from assertion to conclusion but I'll be damned if I see it.

Once again, you have failed to show anything resembling a path of logic.

I can explain: It's perfectly logical if you understand the underlying premise, which is that the relationship between "multinational corporations" (a symbol denoting "capitalism") and human beings is a zero-sum exchange, in which anything that accrues to the benefit of one diminishes the well being of the other. Of course the premise is demonstrably false and is itself illogical, but there it is . . .

 

[cantdog]

I'm not real sure about the utility of affixing a label to someone. Who cares who's a shill for the RNC or not?

 

[cantdog]

Seems like it'd need a lot to establish that, and for little gain.

 

[Weird Harold]

A random thought about carbon dioxide removal: Kudzu!

It worked so well for erosion control that I think we should plant more of it because it's so fast growing it will absorb tons of CO2 and lock it into an absolutely worthless form so it won't be released back into the atmosphere.

 

[SlickTony]

"multinational corporations" (a symbol denoting "capitalism")

I thought it had been pretty well established that many corporations, multinational or not, have precious little to do with capitalism.

 

[rgraham666]

I thought it had been pretty well established that many corporations, multinational or not, have precious little to do with capitalism.

That's pretty much how I feel about.

All you have to do is look at the people advocating it and praising it. Hardly a capitalist in the lot. Speculators, consultants, business school professors, economists, and company executives out the ying yang.

But almost no actual capitalists. That is people risking their own capital investing in companies that turn out a product. All the real capitalists I know tend to be pretty moderate. Because they know if they fuck up or any one of a large number of things goes wrong, they'll lose their shirts.

The people in the first batch will walk home with the same paychecks no matter what.

It's risk that separates the capitalists from the pseuds.