Kyoto Protocol

[Informer]

The models not reproducing reality is my opinion? No, that is a well known fact. We look at what is predicted, it does not match. We look at what is hindcast, it does not match nearly well enough to be comprehensive.

 

I need to go find a peer reviewed paper to tell you these things? These are plain as day facts, not my opinion. Do you need to turn on the TV to tell you that it is sunny outside?

 

The proper format is tit for tat.

[zerostao]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

[Informer]

[joeblast]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Many who post regularly at WUWT So as much as ralis claims its all the whimsical musings of a deranged weatherman, its actually one of the most popular climate science sites around and has broad contribution. Its not a comprehensive list, of course.

 

Almost all of which agree that the climate is variable, CO2 has some small net positive warming coefficient, and the models endorsed by IPCC betray the IPCC's mission statement, which starts with the premise that CO2 is a threat - something which hasnt been proved before being fully accepted as a premise. So is it any wonder that people like Mann were saying "it is very important that we get favorable people into the IPCC."

 

 

"If implemented (the Kyoto Protocol) will do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory business."

-Ken Lay, Enron

Edited December 22, 2011 by joeblast

[joeblast]

[Informer]

Yeah, go and read the climategate emails, plenty of evidence of groupthink having permeated the culture to such an extent that there were very active steps taken to crowd out any dissenting views - that's why it was so important to them to "get favorable people into the IPCC" - because if those whom are doing the reviewing do not want to see your work, they can simply decide to ignore it - sorta like ralis does with every single point of mine! So this entire 97, 98% business is yet another fallacious number, just like the unemployment rate.

 

zero gave you the answers available, and you still can't . . .see you are fighting against everyone.

[zerostao]

enron is still in bizness, well that figures

 

climate is variable, i agree:) there are many variables to consider with global warming.

 

i do respect you (joeblast) and ralis and your posts.

 

@informer "You make it look like one of those top 1% and their cronies vs everyone else."

i just provided a wiki link is all-_- it is probably coincidental about the 1 % thing

 

no, it is not a comprehensive list. however most agree that 49 of the top 50 climatologists do feel that global warming does have human influences.

 

i am just some kinda weird pro-eco/anarchist.

[Informer]

It's sad to have to make such a disclaimer imo.

[zerostao]

It's sad to have to make such a disclaimer imo.

 

hang in there!!!

 

those who do not know their opponent's arguments do not fully understand their own.

 

"let us then be what we are, and speak what we think, and in all things keep ourselves loyal to the truth."

longfellow

Edited December 22, 2011 by zerostao

[joeblast]

enron is still in bizness, well that figures

 

climate is variable, i agree:) there are many variables to consider with global warming.

 

i do respect you (joeblast) and ralis and your posts.

 

@informer "You make it look like one of those top 1% and their cronies vs everyone else."

i just provided a wiki link is all-_- it is probably coincidental about the 1 % thing

 

no, it is not a comprehensive list. however most agree that 49 of the top 50 climatologists do feel that global warming does have human influences.

 

i am just some kinda weird pro-eco/anarchist.

haha no, enron is long gone - but given their scruples, it is telling they were ecstatic about how much money they'd make from the implementation of kyoto here. typical "evil company out to rape whatever profits they may claw from wherever they may claw it."

 

At any rate, let me continue to poke holes. Because really, AGW proponents are ostensibly "the prosecution" here and must make their case beyond a reasonable doubt if we are to divert trillions worth of resources at "combating" "climate change" (or

"necessarily limiting the growth of the country/planet" or "putting a cover over the air intake of your car" for some apt analogies.) It is simply a matter of due diligence - if one is to set aside a *very* significant amount of resources for something, it had better be for a damned good reason!!!

 

If one is honest with himself, one must necessarily consider this correlation since "doing nothing" and letting the pace of the human race continue cannot in any way shape or form be proven, much less beyond a reasonable doubt, that it will lead to deleterious effects* - especially since all kinds of predictions being made are off - from the progression of the sunspot cycle to the ENSO progression (Hansen claimed we were to see a very strong el nino this year, and we saw a moderate la nina instead...but of course those are things shuffled to the bottom of the news pile) to the warming progression of the troposphere to the Antarctic glacial progression to the claim that when its warmer there will be more hurricanes (opposite)...every single one has recently found to be incorrect in some fashion or we're finding new aspects we missed that wind up affecting the larger picture - another reason why these bombastic claims made by the models never manifest.

 

 

So then a closer look is taken after some methodologies are revealed, and you see things like...oh so that's rest of the hockey stick - deleted data that may have "led to the wrong conclusions" or other things like "tweaking the probability distribution of values within possible ranges" (i.e. telling the model to give equal weight to probabilities of vastly different co2 sensitivities) to my aforementioned Hansen-esque "simply fix the coefficient if you believe the result to be implausible." Or even doing something like taking relatively recent climate changes on the Antarctic peninsula and simply extrapolating the rises over the entire continent - because many of these models treat Antarctica as a single climate zone so many of these "smoothing" operations that are performed that extrapolate a small part of the overall and overlay it on an entire continent.

 

Do you need "a peer review study" to highlight very basic logical inconsistences? Well, perhaps you do - but when one has an arbitrary definition of "peer review" that is more along the lines of "pal review" at "most places of publication relevant to the field"...well, that's the great thing about the internet. You cant suppress data. There ARE people out there that have the mathematical rigor and the interest to find these things out. They ARE qualified. In many cases being far more mathematically rigorous (*nods to McIntyre*) than the people who supposedly have "the big high level understanding of all this" (*spits on Hansen's shoes*) Many of which do these things out of sheer curiosity in their own time and receive nothing in return outside of a satisfaction for having upheld the scientific method and its due level of rigor.

 

Remember that other thread...thinking you know things that you dont? Hubris was my word, and Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Jones have it in spades. So absolutely confident in themselves and their models that they've gone ankle deep...knee deep....waist deep....neck deep in overstating the case and extrapolating, falsifying data (yes, omitting something "inconvenient" that changes your result away from its desired result is indeed falsification. AKA Lying.)

 

Perhaps "they dont intend to lie" like Corzine is doing in attempting to explain where all of MF Global's investor cash went!

 

 

(*just a note that we still are on the subject of CO2, not pollution )

Edited December 23, 2011 by joeblast

[Informer]

http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/getpdf.php?file=cqr19961101.pdf Edited December 23, 2011 by Informer

[joeblast]

[Informer]

dbl post

Edited December 23, 2011 by Informer

[Informer]

[joeblast]

I hope you realize that what I posted was more comprehensive than what you posted

[Informer]

I hope you realize that what I posted was more comprehensive than what you posted

 

Yeah sorry, mine doesn't have a technicolor spin-wheel.

 

 

There.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Informer

[joeblast]

Your posts are showing a lack of comprehension of the notions I am conveying - are you even attempting to understand them? Again I do not mean to sound condescending, I am speaking plainly.

 

Does it make sense to you that an increased polar vortex has a downstream effect of serving to limit the amount of atmospheric mixing between the polar/non-polar atmospheres? Your quote highlighted the process by which Ozone is made, backed up by my post...but the "old way of looking at it" simply assumed a direct link between human production of CFCs and the ozone hole, simply because the chemical correlation was discovered and no natural mechanism had been thought of or discovered at the time - not to mention the implausibility of such high anthropogenic concentrations finding their way up there. There is no true way to "fingerprint" this and one must assess the phenomena based on physics - i.e. up there, what CFCs are "man made" and what's naturally made - and another assumption, back then they did not really have a natural descriptor for the process. If one relies on the physics, you see that yes, some amount of anthropogenic CFCs makes it up there, but nowhere near even a ballpark quantity enough to cause such phenomena as the ozone hole. As usual, natural processes are dominating and this increased density of measurement is showing us outliers we hadnt have guessed would be there.

 

So in attributing the cooling experienced in the 70s to things like CFCs, combined with the coincidental "discovery" of the ozone hole, scientists at the time had their 2+2 and it went into their models...

 

...but once warming was experienced, their models were already poisoned by inordinately high cooling "attributable" to CFCs, so they had to artificially introduce a "source of warming" and make it fit into the models. Classic two wrongs dont make a right. You can see mention of these things in the climategate emails even. More things that were purposefully kept secret. I dont like it when a "scientist" refuses to share data or methodologies, especially when longer after the fact its shown that they cant even conjure up the original unmodified data.

[Informer]

 

...but once warming was experienced, their models were already poisoned by inordinately high cooling "attributable" to CFCs, so they had to artificially introduce a "source of warming" and make it fit into the models. Classic two wrongs dont make a right. You can see mention of these things in the climategate emails even. More things that were purposefully kept secret. I dont like it when a "scientist" refuses to share data or methodologies, especially when longer after the fact its shown that they cant even conjure up the original unmodified data.

 

Where is the evidence of this?

 

Anyone who can differentiate between cause and effect should be able to extrapolate the impact we can and do have on our environment. Your stance is that we don't have an impact or it is too minimal to be noticed, this shows your lack of understanding in regards to the complexity of our ecosystem. That is all you have proven or will prove to me.

 

The evidence of carbon pollutants are visible to the naked eyes, from smog to acid rain. You can deny it all you want, to see it all you have to do is open your eyes. Look at the smog ridden cities and the destruction of forest from acid rain.

 

 

These effects are visible for all of us to see. You want to argue the process and deny the evidence presented in plain sight. Plain and simple: Excessive Carbon Emissions = BAD.

[joeblast]

ROFL acid rain is from CO2??? whod'a thunk!!! hahahaha....seriously, if you believe CO2 causes acid rain, you really need to do some more investigation on these things. If it is important to you, of course.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

(note that only SO2 and NOx play a significant role in acid rain).

The overall goal of the Acid Rain Program established by the Act[40] is to achieve significant environmental and public health benefits through reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), the primary causes of acid rain.

 

CO2 is a very loose correlation, a contrivance at best, but they attempt to tie it right in but then state right at the very bottom (of course) that it is sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that are primarily responsible - so while for example a coal plant spits out a lot of the other stuff, its the tying it all in of CO2 that is contrived just to make it inclusive of "the bad guy." Funny if you looked five, ten years ago, you would not have seen CO2 mentioned much at all in such a context, but since anybody can edit wiki and make claims these days...

 

http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/acidrain/index.html

Acid Rain occurs when pollutants emitted into the atmosphere dissolve in cloud droplets. The most important are sulfur and nitrogen. When these fall to Earth as rain or snow, they can affect the chemistry and biology of lakes, streams, forests, and other ecosystems. Acid Rain was first noticed in the 19th century, but was not considered a serious problem until the 1970s.

 

In 1990, Congress directed EPA to create the Acid Rain Program when it amended the Clean Air Act. EPA's Acid Rain Program has employed a "cap and trade" program to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), a primary component of acid rain. The Acid Rain Program has required power plants, the largest single source of the pollutants which cause acid rain, to reduce their emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Since the start of the Acid Rain Program in 1995, the lower SO2 and NOx emission levels from the power sector have contributed to significant air quality and environmental and human health improvements.

 

Since 1995, EPA's Acid Rain Program has reduced SO2 emissions by over 5.5 million tons from 1990 levels, or about 35 percent of total emissions from the power sector. Compared to 1980 levels, SO2 emissions from power plants have dropped by more than 7 million tons, or about 41 percent. The Acid Rain Program has also cut NOx emissions by about 3 million tons from 1990 levels, so that emissions in 2005 were less than half the level anticipated without the program. Other efforts, such as the NOx Budget Trading Program in the eastern United States, also contributed significantly to this reduction.

even the EPA isnt making that claim, baised as they are in many regards these days.

 

 

 

Anyway, "where is the evidence" - it is anywhere you honestly search for it - look at predictions and models, what people wrote and thought at the time. Do you think I just pulled this stuff out of a hat? No, in doing my own due diligence and investigating with an unbiased eye for myself to figure out the root of the issue and what both sides of the issue had to say, I see inconsistencies left and right on the side of anyone calling CO2 a pollutant, and if one reads the history of the evolution of climate science these things are plainly laid out for you, so long as you're not willing to simply dismiss as irrelevant any explanation for why they're wrong and accept them anyway. Global cooling was quite a concern because they didnt know how the earth was cooling so they had to come up with plausible theories why it was cooling. Unfortunately confirmation bias and coincidence entered the picture with regard to the ozone hole and it was all too easy to blame industry, because concentrated localized microcosms have produced things such as acid rain.

 

You can see in the climategate emails Jones making a statement that "since we're getting the right amount of warming here there is no need to add in a soot fix" - i.e. "our models are giving us what we want, therefore no more tweaks necessary."

 

You are seeing evidence of other things and attributing it to carbon dioxide - fundamentally incorrect. No wonder you dont want to believe a thing I am saying - you do not understand the processes being spoken of and do not appear to be able to differentiate between a plausible outcome and a contrived one. If you have a predetermined bias to want to side with those whom purport to champion the environment, I can see where these good intentions have led many people astray.

[Informer]

"Pure water has a pH of 7.0 (neutral); however, natural, unpolluted rainwater actually has a pH of about 5.6 (acidic).[Recall from Experiment 1 that pH is a measure of the hydrogen ion (H+) concentration.] The acidity of rainwater comes from the natural presence of three substances (CO2, NO, and SO2) found in the troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere). As is seen in Table I, carbon dioxide (CO2) is present in the greatest concentration and therefore contributes the most to the natural acidity of rainwater."

 

http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/LabTutorials/Water/FreshWater/acidrain.html

 

Edited December 24, 2011 by Informer

[joeblast]

Sorry for having to take a break

 

"Pure water has a pH of 7.0 (neutral); however, natural, unpolluted rainwater actually has a pH of about 5.6 (acidic).[Recall from Experiment 1 that pH is a measure of the hydrogen ion (H+) concentration.] The acidity of rainwater comes from the natural presence of three substances (CO2, NO, and SO2) found in the troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere). As is seen in Table I, carbon dioxide (CO2) is present in the greatest concentration and therefore contributes the most to the natural acidity of rainwater."

 

http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/LabTutorials/Water/FreshWater/acidrain.html

 

and this person is "teaching students" - that's a sizeable assumption, this teacher should be ashamed of herself. You really have to make some contrivances to try and pin acid rain on co2. The contribution to the ph of the solution (gases have no intrinsic ph value) is nowhere near linear so simply stating that since X is present in the highest concentration it doesnt necessarily logically follow that it has the most contribution. That's why most places you look they arent even mentioning CO2 in the least - because you have to start abandoning the scientific method if you are to seriously assert such a thing. (Or, utilize the ol "treat-a-multivariable-function-as-if-it-were-simply-linear" trick that people will sometimes use to assert that there is "no safe exposure level" for certain substances.)

 

 

 

 

Well, if its something needing to be submitted for peer review you want, here you go:

 

A more unified theory of climate that actually makes note of the absence of convection in the AGW-friendly models. Heat transfer in the climate happens more from convection than it does radiatively - the former is just far more efficient. It goes right along with the polar vortex phenomenon I mentioned that suitably isolates the poles and allows for that ozone depletion - the mixing with non-polar air is significant if the polar temps are to stay in the relatively warm range. It also notes the propagation (re-emission of sorts) of heat simply from the atmosphere itself (=its almost like one of those little microbead pillows that gets warm just by you resting on it) and shows that "the greenhouse effect" is largely a function of albedo and atmospheric pressure. Basically AGW as depicted violates the laws of thermodynamics. (Another reason the AGW models predict preposterous things - its just that whole not-reality nature of them.)

 

http://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/posters/C7/C7_Nikolov_M15A.pdf

 

Expanding the Concept of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Using Thermodynamic Principles: Implications for Predicting Future Climate Change

 

Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. & Karl Zeller, Ph.D.

USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins CO, USA

Emails: [email protected] [email protected]

 

Poster presented at the Open Science Conference of the World Climate Research Program,

24 October 2011, Denver CO, USA

[joeblast]

specifically:

 

Role of Convection. The conceptual model in Fig. 1 can be mathematically described by the following simultaneous Equations (3)

 

 

where νa is the atmospheric fraction of the total shortwave radiation absorption. Figure 2 depicts the solution to Eq. (3) for temperatures over a range of atmospheric emissivities (ϵ) assuming So = 1366 W m-2 and νa =0.326 (Trenberth et al. 2009). An increase in atmospheric emissivity does indeed cause a warming at the surface as stated by the current theory. However, Eq. (3) is physically incomplete, because it does not account for convection, which occurs simultaneously with radiative transfer. Adding a convective term to Eq. (3) (such as a sensible heat flux) yields the system:

 

 

where gbH is the aerodynamic conductance to turbulent heat exchange. Equation (4) dramatically alters the solution to Eq. (3) by collapsing the difference between Ts, Ta and Te and virtually erasing the GHE (Fig. 3). This is because convective cooling is many orders of magnitude more efficient that radiative cooling. These results do not change when using multi-layer models. In radiative transfer models, Ts increases with ϵ not as a result of heat trapping by greenhouse gases, but due to the lack of convective cooling, thus requiring a larger thermal gradient to export the necessary amount of heat. Modern GCMs do not solve simultaneously radiative transfer and convection. This decoupling of heat transports is the core reason for the projected surface warming by GCMs in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations. Hence, the predicted CO2-driven global temperature change is a model artifact

[Dreamingawake]

Well I WAS going to make what would of ended up being a rather lengthy post about the obvious fallacies in the global warming/climate change scare/scam but a quick scan of the posts shows that I've already been soundly beaten to the punch by a number of apparently very thorough individuals. Instead I'd like to offer a round of virtual high-fives and pats on the back :D :D

[Informer]

specifically:

 

Role of Convection. The conceptual model in Fig. 1 can be mathematically described by the following simultaneous Equations (3)

 

 

where νa is the atmospheric fraction of the total shortwave radiation absorption. Figure 2 depicts the solution to Eq. (3) for temperatures over a range of atmospheric emissivities (ϵ) assuming So = 1366 W m-2 and νa =0.326 (Trenberth et al. 2009). An increase in atmospheric emissivity does indeed cause a warming at the surface as stated by the current theory. However, Eq. (3) is physically incomplete, because it does not account for convection, which occurs simultaneously with radiative transfer. Adding a convective term to Eq. (3) (such as a sensible heat flux) yields the system:

 

 

where gbH is the aerodynamic conductance to turbulent heat exchange. Equation (4) dramatically alters the solution to Eq. (3) by collapsing the difference between Ts, Ta and Te and virtually erasing the GHE (Fig. 3). This is because convective cooling is many orders of magnitude more efficient that radiative cooling. These results do not change when using multi-layer models. In radiative transfer models, Ts increases with ϵ not as a result of heat trapping by greenhouse gases, but due to the lack of convective cooling, thus requiring a larger thermal gradient to export the necessary amount of heat. Modern GCMs do not solve simultaneously radiative transfer and convection. This decoupling of heat transports is the core reason for the projected surface warming by GCMs in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations. Hence, the predicted CO2-driven global temperature change is a model artifact

 

O.k. then, don't be a sucker and try to live in symbiosis? I don't get your point.

 

You obviously copy/pasted this whole thing from here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/

 

and then acted as if it is yours. . . and presented it without the rest of the data, hardly amusing. You might fool everyone else but I'm not buying it.

[Informer]

Besides it has only been submitted for peer-review, hardly been found to be true. IE, it's hypothesis at this point.