Hurricanes and Global warming...

[rushmc 23]

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.

You got it backwards I think. As temps rise so will CO2. Once the cycle begins to reverse itself, as it will, CO2 will drop. There is forcing going on but it is the temp that is the driver.

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

[speedy 0]

Err , even I, as a raging denier, albeit type 3, realises that the CO2 levels are rising due to humans burning fossil fuels.
Don't you believe that?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Err , even I, as a raging denier, albeit type 3, realises that the CO2 levels are rising due to humans burning fossil fuels.
Don't you believe that?

rushmc is a denier of ALL types. He invents new denials on a daily basis. He hasn't denied that higher temperatures are warmer yet, but he will as soon as he thinks of it.

Such an astounding faith he has. I've never seen such conviction in the absence of information even in religious zealots. He'd notice the chill in his refrigerator and cite that as his latest proof against global warming.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,119]

>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.

So you think man-made CO2 increases are really natural increases.

>But before the end of the increasing the temps will start to fall.

So you are arguing that as CO2 increases, at some point temperatures will begin to fall? What mechanism will drive this negative forcing?

>Cause after all, you can't fool mother nature.

But a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Err , even I, as a raging denier, albeit type 3, realises that the CO2 levels are rising due to humans burning fossil fuels.
Don't you believe that?

A small percentage but, I do not think that is the issue. Some researchers now believe that CO2 increase are caused by increases in heat not CO2 causes heating. It is interesting to follow

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

[rehmwa 2]

Alec Baldwin is also a great champion of the pro-global warming crowd

...
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

[billvon 3,119]

> Alec Baldwin is also a great champion of the pro-global warming crowd

He's for global warming, like Jeanie? He must have shorefront property in Canada!

I hear his daughter's evil though.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>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.

So you think man-made CO2 increases are really natural increases.

Quote

The majority of it yes

>But before the end of the increasing the temps will start to fall.

So you are arguing that as CO2 increases, at some point temperatures will begin to fall? What mechanism will drive this negative forcing?

Yes, some research is sugesting that CO2 increases are caused by increasing temps. The oceans are the largest holders of CO2. These researchers say that the current (and they call it a 800 year) warming trend caused by the sun causes the oceans to warm. As they warm they release CO2.

>Cause after all, you can't fool mother nature.

But a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Do I think this is all true? Don't know yet but despite all the PAs on this thread I will continue to look. And more importantly I will continue to point out that this science is a long way from settled despite your attemps to say otherwise.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

He's for global warming, like Jeanie?

I didn't define "for"

1 - wants to see more warming - GW is good
2 - believes in the theory that's it's primarily man made - GW is bad

pick one, I don't mind which

...
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

[billvon 3,119]

>And more importantly I will continue to point out that this science is a
>long way from settled despite your attemps to say otherwise.

Are you also of the opinion that no one knows whether cigarette smoking is really bad for you or not, so quitting smoking would be premature? After all, there is still some medical debate about the effects of smoking; it is not "settled" either.

[billvon 3,119]

>1 - wants to see more warming - GW is good

I like that one. Except now you didn't define GW, so I'll take that to mean George Washington. Who is also good, so it still works.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

He's for global warming, like Jeanie? He must have shorefront property in Canada!

AND its more than 75 ft above current Sea level....maybe I can get waterfront property there... I am selling my 400 ft of riverfront on the Columbia River..



I need to heat up the Pacific more with my twin high performance 350 CI with the 750 CFM double squirters. Its Halibut season here.. I feel the need to heat up a BUNCH of water in the near future.

Plus I think the red states will make a great desert.. I will be able to cruise my sand buggie over some serious dunes.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>And more importantly I will continue to point out that this science is a
>long way from settled despite your attemps to say otherwise.

Are you also of the opinion that no one knows whether cigarette smoking is really bad for you or not, so quitting smoking would be premature? After all, there is still some medical debate about the effects of smoking; it is not "settled" either.

Ah, did you know Clinton got a blow job?

....seemed fitting....

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

[rushmc 23]

You have listed NASA as a source. Well here is one from one that works there and testified last month for congress. Oh yah, his testimony was in the news now wasn't it.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

"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 3,119]

A few comments on his material:

"But it turns out we don't need to use "proxies" for temperature like tree ring measurements -- there are actual temperature 'measurements' that go back over 1,000 years. 'Borehole' temperatures are taken deep in the ground, where the seasonal cycle in surface temperature sends an annual temperature "pulse" down into the Earth."

Borehole measurements get less accurate the farther back you go, because below a given depth the ground starts to heat up (because you get closer to the mantle, which is quite warm.) So if you don't massage the data you see exactly what he describes because every hole in the world gets warm if you dig deep enough. You can massage the data (primarily with high pass spatial filtering and biasing) to come up with estimates of what the temperature was like X years ago based on borehole readings - but the results differ depending on which mathematical model (and which biases) you use, and indeed several such borehole studies show that the recent 50 years have been the warmest in the past 1000. I know you do not believe in mathematical models, so perhaps we should just ignore this part.

"If everything else in the climate system remained the same, a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (probably late in this century) would cause little more than 1 deg. F of surface warming. The effect is so small because, even at CO2 doubling, the fraction of our atmosphere that carbon dioxide occupies is still less than 1 part in 1,000."

It's already increased by more than that, and CO2 has only increased by 50%. So his premise is incorrect from the start. (And if he really thinks that things in low concentration cannot have significant effects - he's not much of a scientist!)

So temps have already increased by .7C, and is projected to increase by another 1.1 to 2.4C on average. It may well be true that a secondary effect - like increased cloud cover or atmospheric circulation - will kick in and prevent too much temperature rise. He mentions this possibility. But again, knowing how much you hate these theoretical, unproven effects, perhaps we should skip this one as well.

"The average amount of water vapor that resides in our atmosphere is not controlled by evaporation. Instead, it is controlled by precipitation (rain and snow) systems."

This is a dumb thing to say. It's like saying that the amount of gas in your gas tank is not determined by how much you put in, but how much you use. They are both, of course, equally important.

I will give him credit for hitting three popular denier positions, though:

1) The earth is not really getting much warmer compared to recent history.

2) Even if it is, it's probably not CO2.

3) Even if it's CO2, some system we don't yet understand will fix it.

The only one he missed is "so the earth is getting warmer, and CO2 is the cause - but it will be a good thing." Perhaps next month.

[rushmc 23]

You are so sure arent you..........

Why is he wrong and you right?

"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 3,119]

>Why is he wrong and you right?

1) Much of what he posted I agree with. I agree that there will be additional positive and negative feedback we don't understand yet, and he is quite correct that 90% of "global warming" has to do with the normal atmospheric mixture of oxygen, nitrogen, natural CO2 and water vapor. That's why the term "forcing" instead of "warming" is often used. His description of energy balance (absorption and re-radiation) is fairly accurate as well.

2) Where I do disagree with him I stated my reasons above. If you'd like more clarification let me know.

>> You are so sure arent you.........

Nope. I'm not sure I know what will happen. Heck, I'm not even sure that smoking would kill me - but I know _enough_ to know it's a bad idea, and that it will _most_likely_ be bad for me.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Why is he wrong and you right?

1) Much of what he posted I agree with. I agree that there will be additional positive and negative feedback we don't understand yet, and he is quite correct that 90% of "global warming" has to do with the normal atmospheric mixture of oxygen, nitrogen, natural CO2 and water vapor. That's why the term "forcing" instead of "warming" is often used. His description of energy balance (absorption and re-radiation) is fairly accurate as well.

2) Where I do disagree with him I stated my reasons above. If you'd like more clarification let me know.

>> You are so sure arent you.........

Nope. I'm not sure I know what will happen. Heck, I'm not even sure that smoking would kill me - but I know _enough_ to know it's a bad idea, and that it will _most_likely_ be bad for me.

You know, this post just lowered my blood presure. With what you just posted in mind, I will be more open to your thoughts and opinions.
Thanks
Marc

As for more calification? Please, I am interested

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