how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[Foxfyre]

Well my research shows that those same ice cores demonstrate that we have had periods of much higher CO2 concentrations when the Earth was much cooler on average than now. So. . . .what does your research show about that?

It would show that orbital forcings and other forcings were at play.

Your stupid point relies on the dumb assumption that someone ever claimed that CO2 was the only factor at play. Since no one ever made such crazy claim, your point only successfully manages to shoot down your own dumb strawman. it doesn't address the actual global warming issue at all.

Let's check some of your other nonsense.

Working from memory here so there may be some variations in the numbers, in spite of huge increases in human activity that produces CO2, the human generated CO2 levels in the atmosphere is at most about 2% of all CO2 generated from all sources

So you fail to understand how an equilibrium system works. If I make $500 a week and spend $500 a week, my bank account doesn't change. If I make $510 a week and spend $500, my bank account goes up $10 a month, even though it's only a 2% increase.

and CO2 is miniscule among greenhouse gasses when compared to water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, that is also produced in massive quantities via human activity.

Water vapor immediately rains out. CO2 doesn't. Human emissions of water vapor mean zilch, because they don't stick around. Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.

But nobody on the AGW side seems to be looking at that.

Bull-freaking-shit. _Everyone_ on the AGW side looks at the effects of water vapor. Where did you hear such idiot propaganda?

I have never suggested that anybody has said that CO2 is the only factor at play so you can put that straw man back on the shelf. However, I have said that CO2 seems to be the only factor that our AGW proponents are seriously worried about, the one that is the main topic of conversation on these AGW threads, and the only one cited in the OP. So silly me, I focused on that. Stupid of me I know, but oh well. . . .

As for those percentages, your metaphor does not address whether the percentages are significant. If I put a teaspoon of salt into the ocean I have increased the salt content of the ocean but at a level that is insignificant. If I put a second teaspoon of salt into the ocean, I have doubled the added salt or increased it by 100% but it still is at a level that is insignificant. But if I word it that I have doubled the salt content added to the ocean--something that is unprecedented--it can sound really ominous to somebody who doesn't put that into the proper persepctive.

And you just contradicted yourself re the water vapor issue.

 

[westwall]

Last 5 days of preliminary daily average CO2
May 16 - 399.74 May 15 - 399.59 May 14 - 399.81 May 13 - 399.86 May 12 - 399.46

notice the latest measurement is lower than the one 2 days before it and the one the day before that? And notice the earliest of the 5 day account is .28 below most recent one? That much variance in just 5 consecutive days and you don't think the fact it's near a volcano has any bearing on CO2 measurements???

LOL, wake up man..

Amazing what they can convince themselves of if their faith is strong enough isn't it.

Oopt te doo pointed out the CO2 levels of the ocean around there as if the volcano weren't spewing CO2 and other compounds constantly below the surface of the ocean. It appeared as if it never occurred to him.

The obvious never does. But once again who cares....CO2 is the essential building block of life, the more the better and it follows the warmth anyway. Anybody who can look at the Vostock ice core data and think that CO2 drives the temps is a mentally challenged individual.

They are best ignored because they couldn't rub two sticks together anyway...

 

[Saigon]

Fox -

However, I have said that CO2 seems to be the only factor that our AGW proponents are seriously worried about, the one that is the main topic of conversation on these AGW threads, and the only one cited in the OP.

I am sure you would also agree that CO2 is cited by the overwhelming majority of scientists as being the main factor (but not the only factor) in rising temperatures.

Hence, it is also the issue that is most discussed here.

If more scientists start to conclude that solar activity is more important than we thought; I imagine we will discuss that more at that point.

 

[westwall]

This is why looneyboy....why aren't you smart enough to figure out they told you the truth....


"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

"People who argue against climate change,
would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes"​

(That's how fuckin' stupid their argument is!)​

Climate change is not a debatable issue, it's a reality!

Howcum 97% of Scientists Say Humans Cause Climate Change
But Americans Still Don't Get It?

 

[westwall]

The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.

This represents what I believe to be the simplest description of how greenhouse gases cause warming of the surface. It bypasses all of the esoteric discussions and instead deals only with observations, which I believe cannot be easily explained any other way:

FIRST, warming can be caused by a decrease in the rate of energy loss by the climate system (or any other system, for that matter).

SECOND, IR absorbing gases are observed from satellites to reduce the rate of energy loss to space.

THEREFORE, adding more IR absorbing gases will cause a warming tendency.

QED.

Again I emphasize, however, the above simple argument is necessarily true only to the extent that all other elements of the climate system remain the same, which they will not. These other changes are called ‘feedbacks’, and they can either make or break theories of global warming and associated climate change.

Slaying the Slayers with the Alabama Two-Step « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

for konradv. you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate. the effect is real, the positive feedbacks are not. no positive feedback, no problem.

ever wonder why ocean water never exceeds 31C and is seldom above 29C? different pathways are expanded or contracted depending on how much energy is available to power them. and the natural order of things is to reduce the impact of disturbance to the system. negative feedback. homeostasis.

the climate models are rough projections of what may happen given the few parameters that are fed into them. slight changes in how clouds (or a host of other things) can radically change the outcome of those results. the feddbacks of the IPCC climate models are obviously only as good as the information and programing put into them. I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me. but we shall see.

Do your part. Stop breathing.

After you sweety, you're the one who wishes to ignore history and basic science...

 

[westwall]

Well my research shows that those same ice cores demonstrate that we have had periods of much higher CO2 concentrations when the Earth was much cooler on average than now. So. . . .what does your research show about that?

It would show that orbital forcings and other forcings were at play.

Your stupid point relies on the dumb assumption that someone ever claimed that CO2 was the only factor at play. Since no one ever made such crazy claim, your point only successfully manages to shoot down your own dumb strawman. it doesn't address the actual global warming issue at all.

Let's check some of your other nonsense.

Working from memory here so there may be some variations in the numbers, in spite of huge increases in human activity that produces CO2, the human generated CO2 levels in the atmosphere is at most about 2% of all CO2 generated from all sources

So you fail to understand how an equilibrium system works. If I make $500 a week and spend $500 a week, my bank account doesn't change. If I make $510 a week and spend $500, my bank account goes up $10 a month, even though it's only a 2% increase.

and CO2 is miniscule among greenhouse gasses when compared to water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, that is also produced in massive quantities via human activity.

Water vapor immediately rains out. CO2 doesn't. Human emissions of water vapor mean zilch, because they don't stick around. Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.

But nobody on the AGW side seems to be looking at that.

Bull-freaking-shit. _Everyone_ on the AGW side looks at the effects of water vapor. Where did you hear such idiot propaganda?

Bullcrap to your whole post. Computer models the climatologists have developed incorporate water vapor as a POSITIVE forcer (if they even incorporated it at all which the VAST majority of them didn't because they couldn't figure out how to do it) when the actual effect of water vapor is as a negative forcer. Furthermore, AGW propagandists have (until very recently) claimed that CO2 was THE dominant driver in global temps.

You pathetic attempt to revise history is duly noted. Unfortunately for you the internet is a wonderful source for what you clowns actually said and that source categorizes your statement as FALSE.

 

[westwall]

Fox -

However, I have said that CO2 seems to be the only factor that our AGW proponents are seriously worried about, the one that is the main topic of conversation on these AGW threads, and the only one cited in the OP.

I am sure you would also agree that CO2 is cited by the overwhelming majority of scientists as being the main factor (but not the only factor) in rising temperatures.

Hence, it is also the issue that is most discussed here.

If more scientists start to conclude that solar activity is more important than we thought; I imagine we will discuss that more at that point.

No, it's cited by climatologists and as we have seen they can't do math very well so their opinion doesn't matter any more. When they get their level of education up to a third year geology students level I might take notice.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Just in case I haven't mentioned this earlier - I now only read and respond posts by the the stonger, more on-topic posters. There is more to life than having to wade through you and glslack's gibberish and spam.

Hence, you are on ignore mode.

btw, If you are going to quote Schneider -try and do so honestly. You missed out this line:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here are a few $$$ worth of statistics for you to dispute if you can:

You're Gish Galloping now, a tactic named after creationist Duane Gish. That is, dump out a vast torrent of strawmen, half-truths and fabrications, demand they all be refuted one by one, and then declare victory when no one wastes time on it. Good luck with that.

And I again ask for your credentials that makes you an authority on who is and who is not credible when you provide no backup for your opinion.

See: http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-atmosphere-is-what-we-4.html#post7235855

 

[Foxfyre]

Slaying the Slayers with the Alabama Two-Step « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

for konradv. you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate. the effect is real, the positive feedbacks are not. no positive feedback, no problem.

ever wonder why ocean water never exceeds 31C and is seldom above 29C? different pathways are expanded or contracted depending on how much energy is available to power them. and the natural order of things is to reduce the impact of disturbance to the system. negative feedback. homeostasis.

the climate models are rough projections of what may happen given the few parameters that are fed into them. slight changes in how clouds (or a host of other things) can radically change the outcome of those results. the feddbacks of the IPCC climate models are obviously only as good as the information and programing put into them. I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me. but we shall see.

Do your part. Stop breathing.

After you sweety, you're the one who wishes to ignore history and basic science...

Um, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Sunshine's post was tongue-in-cheek. If you were responding to somebody else, you might want to clarify that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox -

However, I have said that CO2 seems to be the only factor that our AGW proponents are seriously worried about, the one that is the main topic of conversation on these AGW threads, and the only one cited in the OP.

I am sure you would also agree that CO2 is cited by the overwhelming majority of scientists as being the main factor (but not the only factor) in rising temperatures.

Hence, it is also the issue that is most discussed here.

If more scientists start to conclude that solar activity is more important than we thought; I imagine we will discuss that more at that point.

I will agree that the CO2 is cited by an overwhelming majority of AGW proponents as being the main factor (but not the only factor) in rising temperatures. I am not at all convinced that is the case with an overwhelming majority (or any majority) of competent climate scientists, however.

Thus I remain interested in the opinions of those researchers and scientists, most especially climate scientists, who have a different point of view about that.

I would like for ALL Americans who value their opportunities, options, and choices to be as interested in all sides of the debate and not so gung ho to give over their liberties to those who may or may not have their best interests at heart.

 

[Saigon]

Fox -

It's always good to keep an open mind about the debate - although there are some aspects of the discussion (glaciers, the Arctic) that there really can not be any doubt about now, and has not been for many years. Other issues, such as ocean pH and deep ocean warming the jury is still out on.

I am not at all convinced that is the case with an overwhelming majority (or any majority) of competent climate scientists, however.

Did you see the graphic posted earlier?

If there is not actual scientific consensus, then there is at least 95% of scientists backing the concept of AGW.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox -

It's always good to keep an open mind about the debate - although there are some aspects of the discussion (glaciers, the Arctic) that there really can not be any doubt about now, and has not been for many years. Other issues, such as ocean pH and deep ocean warming the jury is still out on.

I am not at all convinced that is the case with an overwhelming majority (or any majority) of competent climate scientists, however.

Did you see the graphic posted earlier?

If there is not actual scientific consensus, then there is at least 95% of scientists backing the concept of AGW.

Sure I look at all the pretty graphs, any one of which can be produced by anybody with a computer who knows how to make a graph.

I don't dispue at all that at least 95% of scientists believe in AGW. Even climate scientists have to acknowledge that humans are having some effect. The evidence of whether the AGW effect presents any significant danger or whether other, more uncontrollable causes are the more dangerous reality is still very much open to debate.

Take this study from George Mason Univiersity:

Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

Scientists still debate the dangers
A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”

A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)

Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.

Seventy percent see climate change as very difficult to manage over the next 50 to 100 years, compared to only 5% who see it as not very difficult to manage. Another 23% see moderate difficulty in managing these changes.

A need to know more
Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.

Climate scientists are skeptical of the media
Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable. . . .”
STATS:

And though the GMU study found a tiny percentage of climate scientists who would admit to being pressured into taking a given postiion, there is evidence to question that:

On the subject of the sad state of research funding:

“The agencies are also at fault. They are bureaucracies that promote top-down science to suit political and administrative ends. To begin with, there is the application process itself. Often, an agency’s request for proposal, or RFP, reads like a legal document, constricting the applicant to stay within very narrow and conventional bounds, with no profound scientific questions posed at all. Many RFP’s are so overly specific that they amount to little more than work for hire. Those who know how to play the game simply reply to RFP’s with parroted responses that echo the language in the proposal, in efforts to convince the reviewers that their programs exactly fit the conditions of the RFP. Thus many RFP’s inhibit good research rather than encourage it.
Perceptive Article On The Sad State Of Research Funding By Toby N. Carlson | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

From my own experience as a research assistant as well as a grants writer over the years, I can testify that the opinion expressed above appears to be right on target.

And then there is that pesky question of whether scientific opinion is being purchased by governments eager to have more power and resources via global warming issues:
Global Warming Skeptics Lambaste Plan to Increase Funding for Climate Change Research | Fox News

And the question should be: if all federal research monies were withdrawn, how much of a scientific consensus in favor of AGW would there be? As much? A lot less?

Is there a credible and qualified climate scientist out there who is NOT receiving government funding or otherwise personally benefitting from promoting AGW who is pushing AGW as a significant issue?

ASIDE: And it is difficult to take you seriously re your scientific views when you would put somebody like Westwall on ignore because he challenges your scientific views? Or you don't like what he says? I don't always like the way he says it, but I have found his scholarship to be pretty unassailable and I personally respect his opinion a great deal whether or not I agree with it.

 

[mamooth]

And the question should be: if all federal research monies were withdrawn, how much of a scientific consensus in favor of AGW would there be? As much? A lot less?

The same amount, obviously. Only the conspiracy theorists think all scientists are lying for money, given that there's zero evidence for such a slanderous accusation.

Any scientist could double his salary by switching to the denialist side. That's where the cash is. The ethical scientists all choose to continue accepting a lower wage to tell the truth. They can't be bribed over to the denialist side, and that gives them credibility.

 

[Foxfyre]

And the question should be: if all federal research monies were withdrawn, how much of a scientific consensus in favor of AGW would there be? As much? A lot less?

The same amount, obviously. Only the conspiracy theorists think all scientists are lying for money, given that there's zero evidence for such a slanderous accusation.

Any scientist could double his salary by switching to the denialist side. That's where the cash is. The ethical scientists all choose to continue accepting a lower wage to tell the truth. They can't be bribed over to the denialist side, and that gives them credibility.

Your still unsubstantiated opinion is noted and set aside as you still can't back up what you're typing out.

 

[mamooth]

I have never suggested that anybody has said that CO2 is the only factor at play so you can put that straw man back on the shelf. However, I have said that CO2 seems to be the only factor that our AGW proponents are seriously worried about, the one that is the main topic of conversation on these AGW threads, and the only one cited in the OP. So silly me, I focused on that. Stupid of me I know, but oh well. . . .

Since greenhouse gases are the only factor we control, of course that's what people focus on. That's simple logic. It not like we can make the sun cooler, or move the orbit of the earth. If I'm designing an airplane, I don't focus on changing gravity.

Now, your problem is in how you'll only look at denialist propaganda sources. You need to try some competent, honest and neutral sources instead. Here's a good summary for you to start with, one that debunks the standard list of denialist nonsense.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

Make sure you refute all 174 arguments point-by-point. After all, you use that standard on others, so it's only fair that it be applied to you.

 

[mamooth]

Your still unsubstantiated opinion is noted and set aside as you still can't back up what you're typing out.

Nice attempt at running, but it won't work. I'll just go right back to the point you're running from.

Scientists take a pay cut to be on the AGW side. Yet you accuse them of greed. How can someone be greedy for taking a pay cut? You claim money corrupts, but then you give your allegiance to the side that's been corrupted by money.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's another more recent poll of scientists, however, that comes to a very differen conclusion than that GMU poll I posted:

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

he survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims . . . .

. . . .One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe. . . .
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

 

[mamooth]

Your survey wasn't of scientists. It was of petroleum engineers working the Alberta Tar Sands.

Golly, who could have predicted such a response?

 

[mamooth]

I now only read and respond posts by the the stonger, more on-topic posters.

This is the DNFTEC rule. "Do not feed the energy creature."

That is, there are entities roaming the internet that derive sustenance from the negative emotions of others. One should deny them such nourishment. As it was with Captain Kirk and Klingon Commander Kang, one should resist the negative emotions, and drive them away with laughter instead.