Czech president: Gore is insane.

[Odin]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I think that you have missed something about greenhouse gases. The atmosphere are litteraly filled with them and CO2 is only a secondary contributor. The problem in current dispute is that it seem like the main culprit are considered stable and only changes in CO2 are considered to have an influence.

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

The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%. It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. (The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.)[2][3] Other greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons

If you don't think climatologists understand that water vapor is the dominant gas and CO2 is #2 into consideration you are dense. Kind of like how you dolts assume they don't add cyclical trends into their models because it fits your assumptions about climatologists having an agenda or somesuch.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, Odin, since Global Temperatures seem largely dependent on sunlight reaching the ground, I would suggest that periods when the Earth was warmer coincided with time when more land was receiving sunlight and was not covered by snow, and had little to do with tectonic activity and CO2 levels.

Have a source for this or did you pull this out of your ass?

[Solly]

Originally posted by Odin



climatologists having an agenda or somesuch.

David Deming wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

No hidden agendas there, then.

[Deity Dude]

Odin is a "believer" and no matter what you tell him or show him won't matter. Show him a climataoligist that doesn't agree with him; he is either a whacko, unqualified or on the payroll of an oil company.

Remember Odin called me "an ignorant moron" because I said there was debate on the subject.

In the long run Odin may be right, but he does no short term gain to his cause to dismiss the opposing point of view.

To summaraize an obviously whacko, unqualifed climatologist on the payroll of Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney and Exxon:

Mankind once again shows its hubris when it thinks that cars and smoke stacks effect the temperature of the earth more than the sun.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Odin
If you don't think climatologists understand that water vapor is the dominant gas and CO2 is #2 into consideration you are dense. Kind of like how you dolts assume they don't add cyclical trends into their models because it fits your assumptions about climatologists having an agenda or somesuch.

You get me wrong - I don't claim climatologists are ignoring this fact, I'm claiming that IPCC are ignoring it. When IPCC dismisses a potential source for change in the amount of water wapor as insignifcant without research and even says "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.", then the credibility of IPCC drops fast.

[Ned]

Odin, since CO2 follows temperature, 300 of the current 383 ppm is "natural." The 383 delivers 1.5 Watts (per square meter) of radiative forcing. Of this, the man-made portion 83 ppm delivers .32 Watts (per square meter). (All this from your linked Wiki article.)

Now, the global average of the sun is 164 Watts per square meter. The man made CO2 is .32/164 = .00198. Let's call it, 0.2% of the power of the sun.

Once would expect from these numbers that changes in the sun, or our orbit or clouds or aerosols that block the sun would predominate by a large factor over man-made CO2.

Even from your own article it says that you need 3.3 watts to change the Earth's temperature by 1 degree C. 0.32 watts would change the temperature by at most .1 degee C.

But that is not what we hear from the alarmists, do we?

But there are other articles that I have linked recently that shows a recent drop in sunlight reaching the Earth by as much as 18 Watts per square meter caused by aerosol polution. That is a lot more powerful by orders of magnitude than anything we have to fear from manmade CO2.

[Berzerker]

thats up to 10%, I wonder if China is suffering regional cooling because of all their coal plants

[DRoseDARs]

Edit: On second thought, let's see how this plays out...

[Ramo]

Odin, since CO2 follows temperature, 300 of the current 383 ppm is "natural." The 383 delivers 1.5 Watts (per square meter) of radiative forcing. Of this, the man-made portion 83 ppm delivers .32 Watts (per square meter). (All this from your linked Wiki article.)

Now, the global average of the sun is 164 Watts per square meter. The man made CO2 is .32/164 = .00198. Let's call it, 0.2% of the power of the sun.

Once would expect from these numbers that changes in the sun, or our orbit or clouds or aerosols that block the sun would predominate by a large factor over man-made CO2.

Even from your own article it says that you need 3.3 watts to change the Earth's temperature by 1 degree C. 0.32 watts would change the temperature by at most .1 degee C.

But that is not what we hear from the alarmists, do we?

But there are other articles that I have linked recently that shows a recent drop in sunlight reaching the Earth by as much as 18 Watts per square meter caused by aerosol polution. That is a lot more powerful by orders of magnitude than anything we have to fear from manmade CO2.

If your figure for solar power flux to the Earth were correct, the surface temperature would be about 50 K cooler than it really is. Similarly, the numbers you're pulling out for radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases and particularly the buffering due to aerosol look pretty far off. Word of advice, getting science from quacks on the internet is a bad idea.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo


If your figure for solar power flux to the Earth were correct, the surface temperature would be about 50 K cooler than it really is. Similarly, the numbers you're pulling out for radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases and particularly the buffering due to aerosol look pretty far off. Word of advice, getting science from quacks on the internet is a bad idea.

Ramo, my source is Wiki for all the data except the aerosol data. I used the artlicle linked by Odin, mainly. I have previously linked articles in other threads regarding aerosols. Here is a Wiki link that shows various studies that suggest the dimming effect is on the order of 9 Watts per square meter, which still is far greater than man-made CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

What I was trying to show in the above calculations is that "man made" CO2 has at best a very small effect on temperature and that we actually might have more to worry about from other kinds of polutants that are causing dimming.

If you have any major disagreement with the data, please do more than provide general criticisms.

BTW, what is the global average for solar radiation if the Wiki data, often repeated elsehere on the web, is wrong?

[Ned]

Here is a article that states the world solar radiation average to be 168 watts per square meter absorbed (depends on albedo of snow, etc.).

http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solrad.html

[Ned]

Also, here is a "quack" "whore" scientific paper that says exactly what I am saying:

"V. G. Kuznetsov

(1) Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas, Leninskii pr. 65, Moscow, 119991, Russia

Received: 23 March 2004

Abstract Insignificant role of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the total balance of this gas in the atmosphere is shown. Relationship of the atmospheric CO2 content with climate in geological history of the Earth and history of mankind is ambiguous. It is assumed that the influence of greenhouse effect on global climate was less significant than was thought previously. Its impact is governed by complex relationship of cosmic and terrestrial factors, including the position of continental massifs."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m4786338851vk572/

[Ramo]

1. The absorption by the atmosphere has to be accounted for. The albedo isn't 60%.
2. Again, your aerosol numbers are absurd. It's not 18 W/m^2 as you asserted earlier, nor is it 9 W/m^2. Note that the study you cited is an average of 50-20 years ago. We're putting out a lot fewer aerosols nowadays, which is partially why the warming due to greenhouse gases has been masked until the past couple decades. Your own link points this out. It's pretty negligible nowadays...
3. The literature points to radiative forcing due to the increase in greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times of somewhere around 2.3 W/m^2. A quick perusal of Google Scholar will tell you that...

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned
Here is a article that states the world solar radiation average to be 168 watts per square meter absorbed (depends on albedo of snow, etc.).

http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solrad.html

No offense Ned, but have you read all this guy writes ?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/medieval.html

[Ramo]

lso, here is a "quack" "whore" scientific paper that says exactly what I am saying:

It is? I don't remember you mentioning "the position of continental massifs" before...

I don't have access to this article. And I've never heard of this journal before (not a suprise that my school doesn't have access to it). Apparently it's Russian... Is this the first link that you got from google?

Peer-review doesn't work its magic with obscure foreign publications that no one cares about...