The ethical question no climate denier will answer

The Younger Dryas was a regional event.

 

I used the Younger Dryas as a example of sudden shifts in temperature, both the onset and emergence from Younger Dryas fit the bill for that even though it was primarily a northern hemisphere event. BTW I do believe in AGW, just that CO2 is just a political issue not one that has much to do with the warming

 

There is the answer to your question.

Money Trumps Ethics.

 

So it's caused by humans, but not by CO2? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

Bingo. Thanks for not only answering the question, but answering it correctly.

 

research molar absorption and tell me how much heat more heat is absorbed by an increase of .013% of CO2. Thirteeen one thousandths of one percent does not sound near as dire as 130 PPM does it Of course the CO2 crowd like to pretend that the Beers Lambert Law only applies in the lab and that in the atmosphere CO2 follows some strange exception and there is a linear heat increase not a logarithmic one .... Talk about deniers LOL


Want to see AGW for yourself, you don't need a lab or a billion dollar computer or a 6 year degree. Place your hand over an electrical appliance or your computers heat sink or fan and feel the heat, do the same with a radiator of a running car. Go to the airport on a sunny day and look at the heat shimmering off the tarmac. Look at any aerial photo and imagine how much forest and ground cover there was was 200 years ago compared to today. Think about all that heat billowing up from the roads, the cars, and the cities and how it is affecting the upper atmosphere and jet stream. Think about all the energy we transform from chemical energy to heat energy. That is your AGW, what you gonna do about it?

 

Yes, "regional". It only covered almost the entire Northern Hemisphere, as well as Antarctica. Very regional.

 

Incorrect. It is just a logical extension of Hansen's predictions versus reality, nothing more. If you think Hansen's predictions are lies, go tell him. I just reference this effect as a factual observation. Give it a whirl sometime, you might like it.

View attachment 20128

 

You think you are talking about the "deniers", but that statement applies quite nicely to the warmers as well.

A couple of percent of the global GDP "to save the earth" is quite a tidy little sum.

 

They want to kill the humans! Obviously. I wish they would just tell the rest of us why they hate people so much. At least the legions of lawyers who fly, and then SUV to environmental meetings to discuss how everyone (else) can find a way to cough up the money to fund the dictates of their clients (wish we could all get in on the ground level of carbon trading and then push people into believing it to help pass the legislation to make sure we profit from it) are up front about it. Thy don't mind offing the species because hey, the species isn't paying their hourly rate, Al Gore's friends are. I'm going to drop dead the day I wander into a meeting where somone got there via bicycle to pitch the room for the standard ineffectual solution. The ineffectual solution makes sense (and exactly which holding company do you own stock in, perchance?) but to date, not the honesty of the advocates.

 

Already been done, and a loooong time ago: See Callendar 1938. Oddly enough, Callendar uses and applies the Beer-Lambert Law, as well as a lot of other basic science you've ignored. Such as the fact that as CO2 levels rise, the altitude at which backradiation originates lowers, which means it comes from warmer air, which means it radiates more.

Now please find me a reference -- anywhere -- that shows a real scientist using a linear rather than a logarithmic equation to determine greenhouse gas forcing, as you apparently (but falsely) imagine happens all the time. Can't find one? LOL, talk about deniers? look in the mirror, jack.

I'm going to compute it, that's what. Let's start with waste heat. Total amount of energy used by human civilization: about 500 quads (that's quadrillion BTU) per year, or 5.3e20 Joules per year, which is 1.67e13 Watts. Surface area of the Earth: 5.11e14 square meters. Rate of warming from civilization's waste heat is therefore: 1.67e13 / 5.11e14 = .033 Watts per square meter.

Albedo: Human civilization takes up 2.5e6 square km (urban) and perhaps another 2e6 square km (rural). Sandy desert (the most reflective part of dry land) has an albedo of .4, which means it actually reflects less light than fresh concrete. Thus concrete actually causes a net cooling effect no matter where it is laid. But let's do a worst-case estimate: let's ignore the cooling effect of concrete, and pretend instead that every square inch of human settlement changes the albedo from a desert-like .4 to an asphalt-like .1. After accounting for cloud reflectivity, an average square meter of Earth's surface gets 198 Watts per square meter. The change from .4 albedo to .1 albedo results in 59.6 Watts per square meter of additional solar absorption, worst case. Multiply that by the entire footprint of human settlement, both urban and rural, and we get 4.5e12 square meters * 59.4 Watts per square meter = 2.67e14 Watts, divided by Earth's entire surface gives us an average of +.52 Watts per square meter, worst-case asphalt warming.

Agriculture will convert forest cover (albedo .1) into open land similar to grassland (albedo .25), giving a net cooling effect of -30 Watts per square meter. Multiply that by total human cropland (1.5e13 square m) for -4.5e14 Watts, divided by Earths surface gives -.87 Watts per square meter. Thus total land use/land cover albedo changes are +.52 and -.87 = -.35 Watts per square meter: a net cooling effect.

So we have:
Waste Heat: +0.033 Watts per square meter warming
Albedo: -0.35 Watts per square meter cooling
CO2: +1.9 Watts per square meter warming. And still rising.

Common sense should tell you the same. It's not parking lots that are causing the Arctic Ocean to melt. And it's not waste heat from air conditioners that is causing a rise in oceanic heat content.

 

read Callenders paper, including he discussion at the end. I wonder why you referenced it in table VI he predicts an increase of delta T of .39 C over 19th century temps to occur in the 21st century

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/pdf

as far as what the IPCC models use I don't have access to their source code as you well know . Do you know if the models have ever been verified and validated, as of a year or so back they had not.

you toss out a lot of impressive numbers and even assuming they are correct I have to disagree on your conclusion that adding that much energy to the atmosphere has no effect on the atmospheric temperature. Boggles the mind to think that adding 500 quadrillion units of energy more than we did 200 years ago has no effect on temperatures whatsoever. I can wander over to Weather Underground and without even looking at the names of the 20 or so stations tell you which are urban and which are rural for my area which makes your discounting of UHI hard to buy also. As of this post there is a 4 degree F difference between 2 stations appx 3 miles from each other, same altitude and one urban the other rural. Likewise it defies common sense to think that the thermals from cities do not affect upper atmosphere air currents. Yet you want me to buy into .013 % increase in a trace gas is going to cook the earth when there is tons of evidence that Co2 has been 10 times that in the past.

Now whether you are correct concerning CO2's contribution or I am really does not make a damn bit of difference since the only way to stop mankind from emitting Co2 is mass extinction of the human race. Kyoto treaty, alternative energy and the carbon taxes only resulted in lowering the CO2 .5 % from where it would have been had we done nothing at all. We have no replacement for carbon based fuels at the current technology levels. So whats your solution ? Should we all just find a cliff and make like a lemming ?

 

Oh, the data issues! To heck with tricky calculations, when those who gather data thought this was a good idea, that alone should disqualify them from ever being allowed to draw conclusions without attendant giggling.

 

You have certainly earned your avatar name.

 

I referenced it because it was early, and the Beer-Lambert Law is right in there for you to see. His estimation of future emissions was way off, but that was pre-war.

IPCC doesn't run experiments, scientists do. Not every climate model is open source, but quite a few are. If you're interested, you can start with the CESM (Community Earth System Model) http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/ or a list of others here. As a general rule, if model results have made it through peer review, the model must have gone through basic validation.

The effect isn't zero. It's just 2 orders of magnitude smaller than greenhouse.

People tend to put thermometers where people live, which biases the thermometer record (unless you remove the bias, which is done routinely by climatologists). The UHI effect is real, but its effect on warming trends is, once again, very small.

Put 100 ppm of India ink into a liter of pure water, and it has a huge effect on the light absorptive properties of the water. CO2 in the air is just the same at infrared wavelengths. Small things can have big effects, and often do.

What utter tripe and nonsense. Did you make that garbage up all by yourself, or did some talk-radio charlatan feed you a line that you swallowed?

Proving that we need enforceable treaties.

More utter nonsense. The technology exists now. This is not a technological issue, it's a cost issue. You can make jet fuel out of seawater for somewhere between $3 and $6 per gallon. But who's going to spend a dime building a synfuel plant to do that, when fossil jet fuel costs $2.50 a gallon? Nobody. But if fossil carbon were priced in a manner appropriate to its social cost, including climate change cost, fossil fuels would be priced out of the market and you can bet that somebody would build a synfuel plant to do just that. Civilization goes on, and nobody dies.

The only thing preventing us from doing this is the idiots on the right wing who see taxation as a moral evil on a par with murder. Those people are destroying civilization.

 

He is not the only one to blame. Notice how often they will pick apart a reply, meanwhile completely ignoring something that is very critical and they can't explain. Or completely ignore a post which shows how silly a great deal of their claims are.

Fairly typical from alarmists of all sorts from what I have seen though.

 

ahh so your solution is more of the Kyoto treaty on steroids. That worked real well didn't it...or maybe not

http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...ts/HHRG-113-SY18-WState-BLomborg-20130425.pdf

welcome to the real world.

I don't listen to talk radio so your assumption there is wrong,. I do read a lot and from a lot of different sources, I also have a great deal of common sense and when something does not work I don't double down on failed policies for the sake of social re engineering.

 

Kyoto was too weak to work, therefore a stronger Kyoto won't work either? Your logic is nonexistent.

If your common sense tells you that "the only way to stop mankind from emitting Co2 is mass extinction of the human race," then your common sense has no sense at all. Exhalation does not, ever, cause climate change, and cannot do so, because the carbon you exhale comes from the air to begin with. It is fossil fuel, and only fossil fuel, that's the problem.

 

Ridicule, conspiracy theories, strawman arguments and Lies is all you have left because reality is getting harder and harder to deny.

Yes we, know. You can't address my post so you take my post out of context and ignore the part you can't refute.
"What you call the "Hansen Effect" is evident only in the mind of pseudo-scientists. Hansen used a climate sensitivity (look it up) of 4.2C, a bit on the high side from what is accepted today. The only thing Hansen's paper shows is that his estimate on the CS was a bit on the high side. To match the observations since 1988, Hansen's models would have to bee run with a lower CS, about 3C. Problem is with a CS of 3C, we're still in trouble when it comes to warming.

So you ridicule the conclusions ( "kum-bye-yah international cooperation") but fail to refute the conclusions. Got it! You even fail to address the Review. Just Ridicule, conspiracy theories, strawman arguments and Lies."

 

That is a big part of a lot of arguments in here from a certain group, and I find it rather disturbing. Are their abilities to engage in rational debate really so limited that they can do nothing but throw up that we are drones of some kind of pundit on the radio?

For example, the "Talk Radio" station in my area is a little 20,000 watt station almost 60 miles away and across 2 mountain ranges from where I live. And since I actually work for a living, I can't simply sit back and listen to the radio, I actually work for a living. And on my morning commute to work, I listen to the "All News" CBS affiliate so I am informed of all traffic updates. My ride home I listen to the closest thing we have to an oldies station, a "Urban Oldies" one, that mostly plays 1980's R&B and funk.

And it is not like I can actually "listen" to most of what is played anyways. At any time the wind is strong or I am traveling above 60 MPH the radio pretty much becomes unintelligible.

 

Sorta like you, when I pointed out that science has already answered five questions that you claimed were "unanswerable".

 

Thy Kyoto Treaty is nothing but a big steaming pile of crap, and everybody knows it. Just like the bogus "Carbon Credits", it pretty much mandates reductions, largely through the phantom "carbon credit" scam, and allows countries to swap good carbon for bad in a kind of commodities exchange system.

And it is absolutely unenforceable. There is no real monitoring, no enforcement, all that can be done if somebody violates it is to prevent them from trading more carbon credits. It is a joke shell game and nothing but.

And what would a "stronger Kyoto Treaty" involve for enforcement? Invasion if a country violates it? Embargos and blockades? A slap on the wrist with a ruler? It is simply an unenforceable piece of bumf.



Oh, and you did not answer the questions, just threw out nonsense. You completely missed the set-up in that, in which Europe was having record rainfall and below average temperatures, at the same time North America was having a record drought and above average temperatures. Your typical answer I have seen generally goes "regional", even when something is not, or "global", once again when it is not.

 

page 10

want to see illogical , look in the mirror. You want to keep doing the same thing over and over even when it did not work and never will.

 

Apparently even us pseudo scientists know something you don't...if Hansen can't be counted on to build a decent projection, we certainly aren't required to take his word for it the NEXT time he claims to build a projection which, you know, is DECENT this time. What you effectively have said is, "when I know what the answer is, boy can I build the greatest polynomial equation to match the data!", which even you should know doesn't mean any more about the accuracy of his projection than the last one.

And for some reason, the modelers just don't seem to prove how well their models work by using all the data available in the past, say, 200,000 years? Isn't that a little strange? You do know what signal noise is, don't you? Do you think Hansen does?

 

A bit on the high side? His lowest range projection was wrong.