Your Attention Please! There are now 4 kinds of lies!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 12 2007, 07:20 AM) [snapback]511245[/snapback]</div>

LOL! I agree - though I admit to stirring the pot on occasion myself. B)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 12 2007, 09:31 AM) [snapback]511361[/snapback]</div>

I'm not in complete disagreement with that. However, I think it may be an easier argument to sell most people on that we'd be a lot better off not funding both sides of the war on terror through our purchases of middle east oil. Kind of a patriotic / shame them into submission approach. The benefit then, for those so choosing to buy the argument, is that it also reduces prospects of CO2 induced climate change.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 12 2007, 07:20 AM) [snapback]511245[/snapback]</div>

LOL! I agree - though I admit to stirring the pot on occasion myself. B)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 12 2007, 09:31 AM) [snapback]511361[/snapback]</div>

I'm not in complete disagreement with that. However, I think it may be an easier argument to sell most people on that we'd be a lot better off not funding both sides of the war on terror through our purchases of middle east oil. Kind of a patriotic / shame them into submission approach. The benefit then, for those so choosing to buy the argument, is that it also reduces prospects of CO2 induced climate change.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 12 2007, 05:27 PM) [snapback]511651[/snapback]</div>

Are those numbers large enough for you F8L? Sorry but it's the best I can do on this board.
Wildkow
[/b][/quote]
Kow - again - besides the fact that you're being a bit obnoxious - I'm not sure you're entirely focused on the right thing here. The number is small - agreed. This could be an argument that it is insignificant. However, to be balanced, you should also consider that the potential atmospheric life of CO2 is (from what I've read) anywhere from 5-200 years. If it is closer to the latter, the cumulative effect could be significant even if the annual contribution is relatively small. And clearly, regardless of what you believe about the atmospheric life of CO2, the Mona Loa CO2 readings - if they are globally representative - indicate that there has been a steady climb in atmospheric CO2. Again, the human contributions being small relative to the total but enough to move the needle pretty significantly over time (from something like 280 ppmv to a bit shy of 400 I think). My understanding is that through isotope analysis they have confirmed that these increases are attributable in large measure to humans.

That said, and again, with my usual skeptics hat on, I'm not entirely convinced that this increase gives us the entire - or even the majority of the story on climate change. In fact, as I stated previously, I think CO2 probably accounts for something like 1/3 of observed temp. increases. If that is the case, even a dramatic reduction in future CO2 output will make very little difference in climate outcomes - particularly, since to my understanding - later increases in CO2 have an increasingly small effect on temperature (sort of a saturation effect, if you will allow the crude analogy).

So as I said, better to make the energy efficiency argument on the grounds of patriotism / war on terror -- where there is an unmistakable connection between what goes in ones tank and what American blood is spilled.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 12 2007, 05:27 PM) [snapback]511651[/snapback]</div>

Are those numbers large enough for you F8L? Sorry but it's the best I can do on this board.
Wildkow
[/b][/quote]
Kow - again - besides the fact that you're being a bit obnoxious - I'm not sure you're entirely focused on the right thing here. The number is small - agreed. This could be an argument that it is insignificant. However, to be balanced, you should also consider that the potential atmospheric life of CO2 is (from what I've read) anywhere from 5-200 years. If it is closer to the latter, the cumulative effect could be significant even if the annual contribution is relatively small. And clearly, regardless of what you believe about the atmospheric life of CO2, the Mona Loa CO2 readings - if they are globally representative - indicate that there has been a steady climb in atmospheric CO2. Again, the human contributions being small relative to the total but enough to move the needle pretty significantly over time (from something like 280 ppmv to a bit shy of 400 I think). My understanding is that through isotope analysis they have confirmed that these increases are attributable in large measure to humans.

That said, and again, with my usual skeptics hat on, I'm not entirely convinced that this increase gives us the entire - or even the majority of the story on climate change. In fact, as I stated previously, I think CO2 probably accounts for something like 1/3 of observed temp. increases. If that is the case, even a dramatic reduction in future CO2 output will make very little difference in climate outcomes - particularly, since to my understanding - later increases in CO2 have an increasingly small effect on temperature (sort of a saturation effect, if you will allow the crude analogy).

So as I said, better to make the energy efficiency argument on the grounds of patriotism / war on terror -- where there is an unmistakable connection between what goes in ones tank and what American blood is spilled.

 

Exactly. A gas contribution to a greenhouse effect is not directly proportional to its concentration in a mixture. For example NO2 and methane are still greater contributors to a greenhouse effect than CO2.

That is two thing we agree on Tim!

 

Exactly. A gas contribution to a greenhouse effect is not directly proportional to its concentration in a mixture. For example NO2 and methane are still greater contributors to a greenhouse effect than CO2.

That is two thing we agree on Tim!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 12 2007, 08:55 PM) [snapback]511723[/snapback]</div>

I think one must consider how the system works. Remember in chemistry where you could put 11 drops of one chemical into a solution and nothing happens but upon adding just 1 more drop the whole mixture changes spontaneously? Or the snowflake that causes an avalanche? Systems are known to only handle so much input before something changes drastically.

Tim, you completely understand my worries about exacerbating positive feedback loops (deforestation, methane hydrates, oceanic acidification, etc.) right?

Kow, there is nothing small about millions of metric tons that can last for centuries. Especially when you simultaneous destroy the very systems that cycle CO2.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 12 2007, 08:55 PM) [snapback]511723[/snapback]</div>

I think one must consider how the system works. Remember in chemistry where you could put 11 drops of one chemical into a solution and nothing happens but upon adding just 1 more drop the whole mixture changes spontaneously? Or the snowflake that causes an avalanche? Systems are known to only handle so much input before something changes drastically.

Tim, you completely understand my worries about exacerbating positive feedback loops (deforestation, methane hydrates, oceanic acidification, etc.) right?

Kow, there is nothing small about millions of metric tons that can last for centuries. Especially when you simultaneous destroy the very systems that cycle CO2.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 12 2007, 09:29 PM) [snapback]511742[/snapback]</div>

I understand your concern regarding feedbacks and you may very well be right F8L - though I believe these feedback loops are presently accounted for in most climate model temperature projections. And surprisingly, what has been characterized as one of the most pronounced feedback effects - cloud cover - has recently been brought into question.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases...That amplification is a positive feedback."

According to research just published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roy Spencer of University of Alabama / Huntsville "... in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system [there] was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space." BTW - this is basically the "Infrared Iris" effect that Richard Lindzen has forcefully argued in favor of for years - to much pooh-poohing by many climate alarmists. It appears now, based on observational data, that Lindzen is on to something.

Spencer goes on... "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Spencer said. "The big question that no one can answer right now is whether this enhanced cooling mechanism applies to global warming." See link. - so it appears the jury is still out to some extent.

In addition, I have recently read that the impact from methane release from permafrost melt is likely to be minimal and overstated by past studies (don't have the link handy at present but will try to find it). And from this USGS/Natl Academy of Sciences report "The possible role of gas hydrate in global climate change has been often overstated. Although methane is a ‘‘greenhouse’’ gas in the atmosphere, much methane from dissociated gas hydrate may never reach the atmosphere, but rather may be converted to carbon dioxide and sequestered by the hydrosphere/biosphere before reaching the atmosphere. Thus, methane from gas hydrate may have little opportunity to affect global climate change." See link.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned at all, but to my understanding the feedbacks you mention are presently accounted for - and perhaps overly accounted for in some instances - in the temperature projections of current climate models. But then, I'm not a model expert and am open to other interpretation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 12 2007, 09:29 PM) [snapback]511742[/snapback]</div>

I understand your concern regarding feedbacks and you may very well be right F8L - though I believe these feedback loops are presently accounted for in most climate model temperature projections. And surprisingly, what has been characterized as one of the most pronounced feedback effects - cloud cover - has recently been brought into question.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases...That amplification is a positive feedback."

According to research just published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roy Spencer of University of Alabama / Huntsville "... in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system [there] was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space." BTW - this is basically the "Infrared Iris" effect that Richard Lindzen has forcefully argued in favor of for years - to much pooh-poohing by many climate alarmists. It appears now, based on observational data, that Lindzen is on to something.

Spencer goes on... "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Spencer said. "The big question that no one can answer right now is whether this enhanced cooling mechanism applies to global warming." See link. - so it appears the jury is still out to some extent.

In addition, I have recently read that the impact from methane release from permafrost melt is likely to be minimal and overstated by past studies (don't have the link handy at present but will try to find it). And from this USGS/Natl Academy of Sciences report "The possible role of gas hydrate in global climate change has been often overstated. Although methane is a ‘‘greenhouse’’ gas in the atmosphere, much methane from dissociated gas hydrate may never reach the atmosphere, but rather may be converted to carbon dioxide and sequestered by the hydrosphere/biosphere before reaching the atmosphere. Thus, methane from gas hydrate may have little opportunity to affect global climate change." See link.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned at all, but to my understanding the feedbacks you mention are presently accounted for - and perhaps overly accounted for in some instances - in the temperature projections of current climate models. But then, I'm not a model expert and am open to other interpretation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 12 2007, 09:11 PM) [snapback]511731[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 12 2007, 09:11 PM) [snapback]511731[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

 

Still, gotta have respect for someone with such dedication to creating threads devoted to making themselves look a complete moron. Maybe it's performance art?

 

Still, gotta have respect for someone with such dedication to creating threads devoted to making themselves look a complete moron. Maybe it's performance art?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 13 2007, 12:14 AM) [snapback]511796[/snapback]</div>

I was thinking of methane hydrate stores in oceanic substrate specifically. Slow releases in soil could very well be cycled quickly enough that the impact is minimal but the vast stores in oceanic substrate could go in large expulsions. Remember that this is one of the major factors that some attribute to the permian extinction 250 million years ago.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 13 2007, 04:47 AM) [snapback]511827[/snapback]</div>

I stated that this COULD happen. Global climate is a system. Almost all systems I have ever learned about exhibit similar traits in this regard. This is common language with nearly all climate science papers I have read or heard from climate scientists.

You are missing the point or you are completely ignorant of science in general. It does not matter if the number was 28% or 5%. If WE overload the system then WE cause a change. Period, it doesn't matter how the percentages pan out. IE, if you get mugged and beating to near death then I come up and add 2 more punches and you die then I killed you. Had I not then you wouldn't have died. Make sense? lol

Sorry for being graphic but apparently scientific talk doesn't work for Kow.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 13 2007, 05:18 AM) [snapback]511840[/snapback]</div>

You just don't really understant science. You take 1 tiny bit of information and run away with it and fabricate ideas. Do you honestly think you know more than the thousands of climate scientists that study this stuff?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 13 2007, 12:14 AM) [snapback]511796[/snapback]</div>

I was thinking of methane hydrate stores in oceanic substrate specifically. Slow releases in soil could very well be cycled quickly enough that the impact is minimal but the vast stores in oceanic substrate could go in large expulsions. Remember that this is one of the major factors that some attribute to the permian extinction 250 million years ago.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 13 2007, 04:47 AM) [snapback]511827[/snapback]</div>

I stated that this COULD happen. Global climate is a system. Almost all systems I have ever learned about exhibit similar traits in this regard. This is common language with nearly all climate science papers I have read or heard from climate scientists.

You are missing the point or you are completely ignorant of science in general. It does not matter if the number was 28% or 5%. If WE overload the system then WE cause a change. Period, it doesn't matter how the percentages pan out. IE, if you get mugged and beating to near death then I come up and add 2 more punches and you die then I killed you. Had I not then you wouldn't have died. Make sense? lol

Sorry for being graphic but apparently scientific talk doesn't work for Kow.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 13 2007, 05:18 AM) [snapback]511840[/snapback]</div>

You just don't really understant science. You take 1 tiny bit of information and run away with it and fabricate ideas. Do you honestly think you know more than the thousands of climate scientists that study this stuff?