Customer Discussions > Politics forum

The Global Warming Wackos say, "Oops!"

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 7526-7550 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 9:50:12 AM PDT
No, just stating the facts about the current scientific consensus on AGW and the current uncertainties in climate modelling.

Posted on Jun 19, 2012 10:02:49 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 19, 2012 10:03:52 AM PDT
A. Dobrynin says:
>> af; No, just stating the facts about the current scientific consensus on AGW and the current uncertainties in climate modelling. <<

"facts" huh? - LQTM

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 10:27:57 AM PDT
AD: "facts" huh? - LQTM

BPL: These are facts:

1. Greenhouse gases keep the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be. This is an inescapable side-effect of quantum mechanics.
2. Ceteris paribus, an increase in greenhouse gases will warm the Earth further. This is shown by the equation of radiative transfer.
3. Earth is, in fact, warming, as shown by weather station time series data, sea surface data, balloon radiosonde data, borehole data, satellite data, tree lines moving toward the poles and up mountains, tropical diseases and species appearing in temperate zones, loss of ice cover at the poles, and at least a dozen changes in phenology.
4. Greenhouse gases are, in fact, increasing. This is shown by flask measurements from around the world, and bubbles in ice cores from sites as diverse as Siberia, Greenland, and Antarctica.
5. The two increases correlate closely (r = 0.87 from 1880 to 2010). Let me know if you want the numbers.
6. Other factors known to affect climate (sunlight, cosmic rays, mountain-building, volcanic activity, total cloud cover, surface albedo) have changed little over this time. Let me know if you want the numbers.
7. The increase in greenhouse gases is due to human technology, in order by importance, burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and cement/concrete use. This is shown by the radioisotope profile of the new carbon.
8. Sea levels rise as temperature rises. This is shown by paleoclimatology and by the fact that the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps are over land, and will flow downhill when they melt.
9. Global warming moves the rain. Continental interiors dry out, while coastlines get soaked. This is proved by weather station time series data, and by the vast increase in recent droughts.
10. Climate change involving drought has killed civilizations before, including the Harappans, the Anasazi, and the Mayan Empire.
11. Drought is the major killer of crops.
12. We need food to live.
13. Even if we eat only meat, the animals we need have to eat other animals, and those animals have to eat plants.

Which of those facts do you dispute, and why?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 10:41:05 AM PDT
You can disagree with the scientific consensus if you wish. That's not the same as saying that there is no scientific consensus, or that it does not agree on a certain range of warming to be expected by 2100, etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 12:05:05 PM PDT
Lisareads says:
"When one alternative is taken away, the ingenuity of humans will always find another. "
===========================
Yes but what ever system comes, it is based on trust. Such as a community barter bucks. The Mafia has a system too and it comes in the form of protection. The Jesus system has never worked with any sustainable population.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 12:28:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 19, 2012 12:31:46 PM PDT
PapaSmurerf says:
13. What animals do bovines normally eat?

11. Late frosts are equally hazardous.

10. Lots of SUVs and coal fired plants existed then, too?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 12:55:30 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
Barton Paul Levenson's post: Which part of "total social collapse and mass human die-off" do you not understand?

f4a: Crazy talk. What we have to fear is economic chaos cause by governments and their central banks.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 3:29:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 19, 2012 3:34:59 PM PDT
PapaSmurerf says:
BPL: Besides, what evidence there is on cloud feedback tends to support the idea that it's positive, not negative:...


"Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface depends on several factors, including the cloud's altitude, its size, and the make-up of the particles that form the cloud. The balance between the cooling and warming actions of clouds is very close although, overall, averaging the effects of all the clouds around the globe, cooling predominates."
. . .
"Because a cloud usually has a higher albedo than the surface beneath it, the cloud reflects more shortwave radiation back to space than the surface would in the absence of the cloud, thus leaving less solar energy available to heat the surface and atmosphere. Hence, this "cloud albedo forcing," taken by itself, tends to cause a cooling or "negative forcing" of the Earth's climate."
. . .
"The overall effect of all clouds together is that the Earth's surface is cooler than it would be if the atmosphere had no clouds."
~ http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 5:09:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 19, 2012 5:11:04 PM PDT
f: TS, once cheaper energy is developed or new desalination methods, millions and millions of acres of dry land lying near salt water can be made productive.

BPL: And it won't even require any investment or prior planning!

TS: And by investment you mean money. Hey isn't teaPartywoman the person screeching about how alternative energy costs too much? Guess she hasn't seen her right wing heroes complain about desalination.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 5:13:31 PM PDT
BPL: Besides, what evidence there is on cloud feedback tends to support the idea that it's positive, not negative:...

"Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface depends on several factors, including the cloud's altitude, its size, and the make-up of the particles that form the cloud. The balance between the cooling and warming actions of clouds is very close although, overall, averaging the effects of all the clouds around the globe, cooling predominates."
. . .
"Because a cloud usually has a higher albedo than the surface beneath it, the cloud reflects more shortwave radiation back to space than the surface would in the absence of the cloud, thus leaving less solar energy available to heat the surface and atmosphere. Hence, this "cloud albedo forcing," taken by itself, tends to cause a cooling or "negative forcing" of the Earth's climate."
. . .
"The overall effect of all clouds together is that the Earth's surface is cooler than it would be if the atmosphere had no clouds."
~ http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/

TS: Great post (for once PS). Didn't realize you knew NASA even existed.

But the flaw with your post is knowing the difference between averages and incremental.
i.e., I have seen BPLs source for his statement. As I recall it was NASA climatologists who of course know the basics.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 5:15:22 PM PDT
Barton Paul Levenson's post: Which part of "total social collapse and mass human die-off" do you not understand?

f4a: Crazy talk. What we have to fear is economic chaos cause by governments and their central banks.

TS: I would place VERY high odds that you agreed in 2005 -- that the reports of a financial banking crisis were greatly exaggerated, if not outright overblown. Why, maybe you even thought the fundamentals pf our banking institutions were sound.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 9:03:29 AM PDT
BPL: Which part of "total social collapse and mass human die-off" do you not understand?

f4a: Crazy talk.

BPL: Nope. A conclusion reached after actually looking at the evidence. Which is more than you've done.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 9:03:59 AM PDT
Smurf: "The overall effect of all clouds together is that the Earth's surface is cooler than it would be if the atmosphere had no clouds."

BPL: You've got "the effect of clouds" confused with "cloud feedback," Smurf.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 11:08:35 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 20, 2012 11:09:55 AM PDT
PapaSmurerf says:
Overall effect of clouds = cooling
Cloud feedback = warming

Locus of existence = warmists craniums

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 11:17:52 AM PDT
Clouds can have both effects. That's why they represent the major area of uncertainty in climate modelling.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 2:00:52 PM PDT
Truthseeker says:
Yes, at least you are trying to understand the science unlike zero-science worshippers of AGW like TSNTP who are firmly convinced that clouds only have a cooling effect.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 2:04:22 PM PDT
Truthseeker says:
"BPL: You've got "the effect of clouds" confused with "cloud feedback," Smurf."

Zero-science BPL at it again.

Below is the science. I already posted it before on this thread:

Cloud Albedo
Cloud albedo is a measure of the how much solar radiation is reflected by a cloud. Higher values mean that the cloud reflects more solar radiation.
Cloud albedo varies from less than 10% to more than 90% and depends on drop sizes, liquid water or ice content, thickness of the cloud, and the sun's zenith angle. Usually, clouds with smaller drops and greater liquid water content have higher cloud albedo.
Low, thick clouds (such as stratocumulus) primarily reflect incoming solar radiation and, therefore, have a high albedo.
On the other hand, high, thin clouds (such as Cirrus) tend to transmit solar radiation to the surface and trap outgoing infrared radiation, thus resulting in low albedo.

Low Cloud Albedo = Greenhouse Effect
Popular myth, often reinforced by the mainstream press and science journals to the layperson, is that Carbon Dioxide and Methane are the main greenhouse gases. This is not quite true. Water vapor constitutes over 1% (10,000 parts per million) of the Earth's atmosphere, as compared to a concentration of 390 parts per million for Carbon Dioxide. As anyone looking at, or, even better these days, flying through the sky will notice, a significant portion of this water vapor manifests itself as high, thin clouds. By transmitting solar radiation to the surface and trapping outgoing infrared radiation, high, thin clouds are a very effective contributor to the greenhouse effect. In other words, water vapor is a key greenhouse gas. And that is not a bad thing. If less heat were trapped by greenhouse gases is the Earth's atmosphere, the planet would probably have been too cold to sustain life.

Again the pseudoscience of AGW naturally ignores the facts.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 2:23:34 PM PDT
Smurf: Overall effect of clouds = cooling
Cloud feedback = warming
Locus of existence = warmists craniums

BPL: You really can't understand that two different processes are involved?

Look, guys. A classic example of militant ignorance.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 2:26:54 PM PDT
Truthseeker says:
BPL is the science ignoramus and my last post proves it.

Posted on Jun 20, 2012 2:38:24 PM PDT
MisterTee says:
Clouds *definitely* act as an insulator at night. I can tell you that from experience.

Posted on Jun 20, 2012 3:00:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 20, 2012 3:00:27 PM PDT
Truthseeker says:
BPL from another thread:
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 2:39:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author 17 minutes ago
Barton Paul Levenson says:
"Bubba: Just more denial of [BPL's] homophobia and attempted justification of his gay bashing.

BPL: I am neither a homophobe, nor a gay basher. You are not reading carefully. The following are facts you are unaware of.

1. I am myself bisexual."

.... Hmmmm, I wonder if BPL and TSNTP and TH and EGAY are lovers :)

Posted on Jun 20, 2012 4:12:34 PM PDT
A. Dobrynin says:
>> .... Hmmmm, I wonder if BPL and TSNTP and TH and EGAY are lovers :) <<

Well, that's none of our business and I don't see any reason for such things to be brought up in this forum....

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 5:32:54 PM PDT
Treehugger,
Many moons ago, there was a PBS documentary on over-fishing the continental shelves and the designs of fishing nets destroying too much of what you term "bycatch" that contributed an important part to the food chain in the oceans. I don't recall who made it or many details. How do you see the problem - humans over eating or humans over catching more than what is marketable?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 5:37:01 PM PDT
TruthSeeker,
Deforestation and over grazing might have more impact on the expansion of deserts and climate change than fossil fuels.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 5:50:39 PM PDT
Lisareads,
You write: "It would not be very intelligent to favor destruction by consumption"

Let's take a look at California. The new environmentalists are pitching we end consumption of plastic bags and Styrofoam cups. In fact, they point to a giant swirling island of plastic muck out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Instead of "save a tree" we are now chanting "Dirty Plastic Pigs."

Of course, the economy keeps crashing all about us, and the jobs, industries and banks are vanishing left and right. I asked one young petitioner:
"Hey, why doesn't your environmentalist organization start up a recycling business to cook up all this plastic and make something useful out if it - you know, park benches, tools, insulation, something practical?

This would solve part of the garbage problem, create jobs, save the environment, and yes, create a new product to consume. I don't see this "consumption" as a bad thing. People can raise their standard of living, be comfortable and simultaneously, still responsible. It is not the act of consumption, but the lack of responsibility that is the problem.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Politics forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
2389 33 minutes ago
Democrats have decided how to handle the situation in Ferguson--blame the innocent party. 13 30 seconds ago
Holder: The Department of Justice `stands for the people of Ferguson' 9 55 seconds ago
After further review I believe my intial assumption were wrong; it looks like Micheal Brown was indeed wrongfully killed 634 1 minute ago
Detroit experiencing drop in crime rate, police chief says it is because more citizens are armed. 48 1 minute ago
Officer suffered facial fractures 392 2 minutes ago
white Oregon Man Beats Off 12 Cops , a black man jaywalk and is death 113 2 minutes ago
all the shooters are democrats 58 2 minutes ago
ISIS Says It Beheaded Kidnapped Journalist James Foley 125 5 minutes ago
Will Obama Destroy the pretend Islamist State or allow it to exist? 27 5 minutes ago
35.4% of Americans Are on Welfare 2 6 minutes ago
St Louis Riots 542 12 minutes ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  115
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jan 29, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 2, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions