Hurricanes and Global warming...

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>And who wrote this billvon?

All you've got is an attack on the source? Not even a crazy emoticon?

Does the USC give specific examples of oil companies funding scientists, who criticize AGW?

[billvon 3,118]

>Does the USC give specific examples of oil companies funding scientists, who criticize AGW?


$857,000 to the Frontiers of Freedom. This group in turn funds "scientists" like Robert Ferguson, who writes papers on how the glaciers are not retreating (among others.)

$630,000 to George C. Marshall Institute, which funds Patrick Michaels to write denier books. Contributors were Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, John Christy, Ross McKitrick, and Willie Soon.

$119,000 to Heartland Institute. They fund research (and publish articles by) Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, John Christy, Ross McKitrick, and Willie Soon.

$241,000 to American Legislative Exchange; they fund Patrick Michaels, whose articles predominate on that site.

$215,000 to The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which funds Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, Roger Bate, Sherwood Idso, Patrick Michaels, and Frederick Seitz. (Noticing a pattern yet?)

$2,000,000 to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Funds articles by the same people.

Original UCS article here:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>And who wrote this billvon?

All you've got is an attack on the source? Not even a crazy emoticon?

Yah!

Hows it feel?

By the way. I have not attacked your source. I put out some information of who they are, for perspective.

You post in a way (at least to me) that seems to put your sources beyond reproach. Like they have no agenda except for the good of man and the planet. I only question if that is really the case.

I have no problem with cleaner energy and environmentaly friendly processes. I do have a problem with an issue misused to push eco morality. A morality that those pushing will not live under for themselves

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

>Hows it feel?

Ah, so that was a reply just to try to make me feel bad. Puts it in context at least.

>I have not attacked your source.

"And who wrote this billvon? Who is UCS Oh ya, UCS is a nonpartisen . . . (other sarcastic comments deleted) "

>You post in a way (at least to me) that seems to put your sources beyond reproach.

Not at all. When I post stuff on the science of global warming (which the above is not, by the way) I'm open to rebuttals of it. For example, if I post "human anthropogenic emissions are the reason that the CO2 levels are rising" a possibly-valid rebuttal might be "they are not rising at research stations in Antarctica." The reply "I guess we're all going to die" is not a rebuttal, and "oh, look, another looney liberal lie about global warming" is not a valid critique of the source material.

[speedy 0]

Quote

>CO2 is being overrated. The Sun is the real power player here.

CO2 forcing: 1.5 W/m²
Direct solar forcing: 0.3 W/m²

Climate models usually work on 0.5 - 1.0 °C per Wm-2. Why have we not yet had this warming? Easy, Hansen said the heat was all going into the ocean. Only problem with that is in that the latest measurements (not available for the latest IPCC report) show the oceans were cooling (corrected now to say stayed the same temp) in the last few years.

Why should I still have faith in the IPCC models and predictions?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,118]

> Why have we not yet had this warming?

We are. Average temps are going up steadily.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

> Why have we not yet had this warming?

We are. Average temps are going up steadily.

isn't that normal for spring time in the northern hemisphere?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

> Why have we not yet had this warming?

We are. Average temps are going up steadily.

isn't that normal for spring time in the northern hemisphere?

That was beneath you...

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That was beneath you...

no it's not

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

Quote

That was beneath you...

It all depends on what altitude he is at...

[speedy 0]

Quote

> Why have we not yet had this warming?

We are. Average temps are going up steadily.

That was a typical contextomy that you always seem to use when the questions get tough.
As such, your answer is not an answer at all.
Again, another reason for me to question the alarmists.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,118]

>That was a typical contextomy . . . .

No, it was a correction. You asked why we have not yet had this warming. Your question was based on a false assumption (that warming has not occurred.) I corrected you.

[billvon 3,118]

>isn't that normal for spring time in the northern hemisphere?

True. But it's going to be warm this weekend, and a new church opened near me, so global warming will then become a proven biblical historical fact.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>isn't that normal for spring time in the northern hemisphere?

True. But it's going to be warm this weekend, and a new church opened near me, so global warming will then become a proven biblical historical fact.

yup - "this happened before that, therefore this caused that" it's a false logical argument. In the Latin "coitus interruptus".

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[speedy 0]

Quote

>That was a typical contextomy . . . .

No, it was a correction. You asked why we have not yet had this warming. Your question was based on a false assumption (that warming has not occurred.) I corrected you.

No. My question was why the models the IPCC use assume 0.5 - 1.0 °C of warming per Wm² , and you quoted a forcing of 1.5 Wm² (which is way below what the IPCC use due to feedbacks) but we have not had a measured warming effect for this level of forcing.
I did not say warming has not occurred, I just said it does not match up to the climate models from the IPCC.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,118]

>My question was why the models the IPCC use assume 0.5 - 1.0 °C
>of warming per Wm² , and you quoted a forcing of 1.5 Wm

Ah, I see. The 1.5W/m2 is CO2. The _total_ forcing is somewhat lower since some of our other activities (like high altitude pollution) decrease forcing by reducing the amount of sunlight making it to the lower atmosphere. See attached graph. (Which is now seven years old; haven't seen a newer one yet.)

[speedy 0]

Quote

The _total_ forcing is somewhat lower

If the total forcing is lower, why do the IPCC predict much higher rises in temperature?

You cannot have it both ways.

Edited to add: If you could go with a 0.8°C temp increase for 560 ppm CO2 then we might be agreement.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,118]

>If the total forcing is lower, why do the IPCC predict much higher rises in
>temperature?
>You cannot have it both ways.

?? They haven't.

The original 1995 prediction was .1 to .35 C/decade; the 2001 prediction was .04 to .26 per decade. (That's the widest possible range, including nightmare and complete containment scenarios.) The actual warming was .13-.16C per decade over the last 50 years, which is close to the center of both predictions.

The 2006 prediction range is .15 to .45 deg C/decade. They don't have the same sort of scenario setup, but they do say it's very unlikely to be outside this range. The increase is primarily due to:

1) the fact that no one is serious about CO2 reductions. That 1.5w/m2 is going to increase, guaranteed.
2) positive feedback mechanisms we have already seen in action. Melting tundra absorbs more heat, and gives off more methane, than snow does.

>If you could go with a 0.8°C temp increase for 560 ppm CO2 then
>we might be agreement.

We're there already, and the concentration is only 380ppm. Are you really saying that increasing CO2 further will result in no further warming?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>If the total forcing is lower, why do the IPCC predict much higher rises in
>temperature?
>You cannot have it both ways.

?? They haven't.

The original 1995 prediction was .1 to .35 C/decade; the 2001 prediction was .04 to .26 per decade. (That's the widest possible range, including nightmare and complete containment scenarios.) The actual warming was .13-.16C per decade over the last 50 years, which is close to the center of both predictions.

The 2006 prediction range is .15 to .45 deg C/decade. They don't have the same sort of scenario setup, but they do say it's very unlikely to be outside this range. The increase is primarily due to:

1) the fact that no one is serious about CO2 reductions. That 1.5w/m2 is going to increase, guaranteed.
2) positive feedback mechanisms we have already seen in action. Melting tundra absorbs more heat, and gives off more methane, than snow does.

>If you could go with a 0.8°C temp increase for 560 ppm CO2 then
>we might be agreement.

We're there already, and the concentration is only 380ppm. Are you really saying that increasing CO2 further will result in no further warming?

you once again post as if this is a done deal. Guaranteed is the work you use. Consesus is your battle cry. Well, here is more to consider

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USL1829984220070418


and this

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1176974192195090.xml&coll=1

I wonder who funded these guys??? Of course we all know that is the true indicator

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

>you once again post as if this is a done deal. Guaranteed is the work you use.

Are you now arguing for CO2 reductions? Because unless we do that, increased concentrations of CO2 (and the resultant changes in re-radiation) are guaranteed.

I think it would be great if we could prove that wrong, and reduce the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing our emissions. But people like you will prevent that from happening. Hence, the concentrations (and forcings) will continue to increase, as they have for the past 100 years.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>you once again post as if this is a done deal. Guaranteed is the work you use.

Are you now arguing for CO2 reductions? Because unless we do that, increased concentrations of CO2 (and the resultant changes in re-radiation) are guaranteed.

I think it would be great if we could prove that wrong, and reduce the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing our emissions. But people like you will prevent that from happening. Hence, the concentrations (and forcings) will continue to increase, as they have for the past 100 years.

No, people like me, like those back in the 70's call bull shit to those alarmists who want to change the way people live to meet their standards.


So? Thank you for the compliment. The compliment of common sense instead of alarmism.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

>No, people like me, like those back in the 70's call bull shit

Then you have answered Speedy's criticism. CO2 levels (and thus CO2 mediated forcing) will continue to climb.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>No, people like me, like those back in the 70's call bull shit

Then you have answered Speedy's criticism. CO2 levels (and thus CO2 mediated forcing) will continue to climb.

And they will fall too. Like I mentioned in a different thread, the earth is constantly changing, and has been constantly changing. There is no "relative stability" to speak of per se.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,118]

>And they will fall too.

Eventually, yes. The human race won't last forever; neither will oil and coal. The question is - do we want to force a rapid change or live with the very gradual changes we see recorded in the sediments and ice cores? Perhaps the answer is that we're OK with the more rapid changes. That's fine; but it would then be wise to plan for the side effects of this rapid warming, like seaside evacuations.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>you once again post as if this is a done deal. Guaranteed is the work you use.

Are you now arguing for CO2 reductions? Because unless we do that, increased concentrations of CO2 (and the resultant changes in re-radiation) are guaranteed.

I think it would be great if we could prove that wrong, and reduce the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing our emissions. But people like you will prevent that from happening. Hence, the concentrations (and forcings) will continue to increase, as they have for the past 100 years.

As I learn more about this whole issue, well, no, I will not agrue, and I don't care if it does because CO2 increases are a natural part of the current and natural warming cycle.

They can, according to history continue to increase fro up to 800 years. But before the end of the increasing the temps will start to fall. After a few hundred years of declining temps and after the ocean temps drop , again, in the natural cycle, CO2 levels will begin to drop. After all, the oceans are the biggests holders of CO2 on the planet.

So, gaurantee all you want. Cause after all, you can't fool mother nature.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln