Who believes in climate change?

you tell me, dude, you are the one that favors it. we need it to save the world from the sins of humans against god i mean mother earth i mean earth.

 

I don't think you want to go there. If you're saying a 0.03% change in CO2 was enough to melt the glaciers that once covered the majority of North America, and we've added five times that amount over the last 160 years... the obvious question would be... Where's the warming?

Your "data" would seem to support the argument that we've added a tremendous amount of CO2 to very little temperature change. That would be an argument that we can continue to pollute without consequence. Not that I'd ever make that argument, as I'm a strong proponent of conservation, but that would be the obvious conclusion.

The only thing special about 1958 was that's where my chart ended . But go ahead, show the plot of your graph full scale... the increase still won't be visible. Only the timescale will be longer.

Lack of increase wasn't my claim. Lack of relative increase was my claim.

Unfortunately simply declaring "that's bogus" doesn't actually make it so. What you posted has nothing to do with what the graph is showing. It doesn't refudiate () anything. Don't know the source. It's floated around for a while. But a quick post-it note calculation can tell us if it's off base. Let's just simplify and use CO2 and water vapor. This (link) says that the total concentration of water vapor at say an ISA day is ~17,800ppm. Using your numbers of 380-280ppm=100ppm added to the atmosphere.... we have 100/(17800+380) or about 0.55% added from manmade sources. Chart has 0.28%. So... yeah it's still wouldn't be visible.

There's also a problem with focusing solely on CO2. As any student of comubstion knows... burning doesn't exclusively create CO2 except in a freshman level chemistry book. Burning also produces sulfate aerosols, low-level ozone, and carbon-black particulates which are GHG antagonists that provide a shading effect. How many tons of those constituents have been 'produced' over the last 200 years?

Studies are beginning, and they point to reduction in surface solar radiation. Link

As they say when holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

First, I'll recognize the authors of that website are the same group implicated by the UEA-CRU email scandal, and have specifically used it to 'publish' their work when legitimate peer reviewed journals refused because they would not submit data necessary for proper peer review. But beyond that...

The IPCC report calls water vapor feedback the greatest unknown of AGW. You won't find any AGW evangelists that don't admit water vapor forcing is a requirement for AGW to occur. That's only sensical as CO2 at atmosphereic temperatures and pressures has NO CAPACITY to retain heat.

The problem is... climate models have never correcrtly approximated the behaviour of water vapor in our atmosphere. Primarily, models do not mimic the evaporation and condensation cycle, nor the amount of heat displaced (vertically) by these processes. This is also something any (honest) climate modeler will agree to.

Models fail to approximate these known physical occurances -not- because they are insignificant, but because they are damn hard to model. The closest thing we have are weather models, which after only a few days lose accuracy beyond simply regressing historical data. If we could construct accurate models, we could simply calibrate the model to (hindcast) the model to quantify the water vapor feedback. Unfortunately, that can't be done as we have no idea what the humidity was 500, 5000, or 50000 years ago and proxies don't exist for humidity as they do for temperature (tree rings, ice core data,etc).

As a result there has always been this missing, unaccounted for amount of energy in the models. Even prominent AGW evangelist Kevin Trenberth admits (privately...) that the energy budgets in climate models don't balance. Saying:

.

Miskolczi has been quantifying modeling heat budget errors in the IPCC for years. (link) McEntyre has as well.

Quantifying the feedback ratio is make or break for the theory of AGW. It is beginning to crack. Su et al found that indeed there were postitive feedbacks, but after a certain point was reached, the feedback turned negative. Lindzen and Choi have found that climate models overexaggerate the feedback in quite blunt terms:

There's Trenberth's missing CERES-derived warmth.

The Spencer & Braswel paper also from this year is more interesting, because it combines the "missing heat" with water vapor sensitivities.

They attempted to relate sattelite visualized cloud data to measured temperature changes. The idea is that where a cloud is present, the humidity is known (100%), condensation is known to be occuring, and we can measure the temperature change occuring over time. Thus, calculating the heat gained/lost is a simple yet accurate calculation.

Classic AGW modeling would assume the heat lost to space is negligeable. As latent heat and localized effects of cloud radiation variation aren't considered. (on the face, that's a real dumb assumption). The remote sensing method however does not make this assumption.

The result of the analysis shows that the observed data and the IPCC models do not match. The paper concludes...

I do have some problems with the S&B method. I'm no fan of using transients in what climate theory argues is a static system. I think the static assumption is incorrect, but it's a bit of an apples/oranges comparison. However, the S&B paper is a response to Dessler's paper which was an attempt to prove what you posted in your link about "raining out too fast".

Criticisms aside... the S&B work corresponds better with observational data than the climate models of the IPCC. And it brings energy flows closer to balace, provides one possible explaination of lack of heating predicted by climate models over the last two decades. It's going out to space, where many theorized it would given space is near-infinitely cold.

The point of all this? If one believes the science of globall climate is "settled" or even mature is naive. The last two years has seen many belweather knowledge breakthroughs pointing away from the "dire" predictions of the IPCC. CERN even found that cosmic rays reacting with combustion produced aerosols play an important role in increasing cloud formation.

As Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics said in his resignation from the American Physical Society...

 

jibboo beat me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.

 

I believe in climate change although not sure whether it's primarily natural cycles or something we can control/improve. I definitely think we need to continue studying the issue. We will need fossil fuels for at least a couple of decades but I also don't think it's prudent to put our heads in the sand like it was en vogue to do for the past couple of years.

About a year ago, I remember reading about forecasted solar activity expected to peak in late 2011 and 2012. Was the abnormally hot summer this year at all related to the solar activity? Or has that phase not started yet?

Since I've lived in the Houston area, there are typically only a handful of days in the low 100s each summer. This year included the entire month of August in the 100s with a few days up to 107-110.

 

How many people have died from the extra CO2?

How many people have died from all that ice melting?

How many people WILL die from man made climate change?


What percent of climate change is related to humans?

 

is climate change even a net negative?

 

We won't stop these changes if we shut down all manufacturing and oil exploration. But that would cause a HUGE DIE OFF of human beings. Come to think of it that is what the Globalists want.

No thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk