Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

[BrownOut]

I don't use it to provoke, degrade or side-step issues. In the context I've used denier, it only refers to those who deny, as defined by the dictionary excerpts. As I've said, come up with a less "provocative" word to use, and I'll use it. Besides, I never side-stepped the e-mail issue. I researched and made a detalied post about it. Guess you have to read the whole thread before you try to recount who said what.

Al Gore isn't interested in your money or your life. He has his own, on both accounts.

 

[HarveyH42]

I don't use it to provoke, degrade or side-step issues. In the context I've used denier, it only refers to those who deny, as defined by the dictionary excerpts. As I've said, come up with a less "provocative" word to use, and I'll use it. Besides, I never side-stepped the e-mail issue. I researched and made a detalied post about it. Guess you have to read the whole thread before you try to recount who said what.

Al Gore isn't interested in your money or your life. He has his own, on both accounts.

Just my observations. Have read the thread from the beginning, always amusing. Figure its pretty much run it's course, so figured I'd share my observations. Will admit, that after the first few pages, I stop going back, and reading all the edited posts, to see what was being 'hidden'. No sense bringing up that mess. Good thing quotes aren't adjusted along with the original post, could get confusing. For somebody so familiar with the use of a dictionary, and of high intelligence and education, one must wonder why, nearly all you posts have been edited. Maybe a parody of the Emails.

Al Gore doesn't want my money, I do agree. He only wants to control how I spend it. He wants a lot of adoring followers, he wants to lead. Personally, I think his presidential defeat touched him a little, just doesn't seem the same as when he was VP. Send my regards, next time you see him.

 

[tcmtech]

On the more on topic discussion.....
I spent some time at the local college library today and did some basic research and found a few things that are interesting I thought.
One was a few good books on the actual green house effects of specific gasses in relation to each other and also how their concentrations have changed over the years. The other was a very helpful student librarian who is operantly also a enviro geology student as well. He pointed me right where to look!

SO heres some points to consider taken from sites and agencies known to be impartial or of reasonable trustworthiness and neutrality on environmental issues. (The electronic versions of the books basicaly.)

Nitric oxides have a GWP (Global Warming Potential) 310 times stronger green house gasses than CO2.
Also as shown here View attachment Selected National Air Pollutant Emissions 1970 to 2007.pdf
from 1970 to 2007 the levels dropped from 26,880,000 down to 17,025,000. Also a number of other high level greenhouse gasses have dropped considerably in the last few decades as well as shown in the chart. CO2 has risen by 17% (estimated and weighted as referenced below) in a similar time frame however it has a GWP of 1.

Global Warming Potentials
[FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to the greenhouse effect both directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur when the gas itself absorbs radiation. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when chemical transformations of the substance produce other greenhouse gases, when a gas influences the atmospheric lifetimes of other gases, and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes that alter the radiative balance of the earth (e.g., affect cloud formation or albedo).[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]6 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]The IPCC developed the Global Warming Potential (GWP) concept to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times]The GWP of a greenhouse gas is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram (kg) of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kg of a reference gas (IPCC 2001). Direct radiative effects occur when the gas itself is a greenhouse gas. The reference gas used is CO[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]2[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times], and therefore GWP-weighted emissions are measured in teragrams (or million metric tons) of CO[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]equivalents (Tg CO[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]Eq.).[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]7,8 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]All gases in this Executive Summary are presented in units of Tg CO[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]Eq. [/FONT]
[/FONT]The UNFCCC reporting guidelines for national inventories were updated in 2006,[FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]9 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]but continue to require the use of GWPs from the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) (IPCC 1996). This requirement ensures that current estimates of aggregate greenhouse gas emissions for 1990 to 2007 are consistent with estimates developed prior to the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Therefore, to comply with international reporting standards under the UNFCCC, official emission estimates are reported by the United States using SAR GWP values. All estimates are provided throughout the report in both CO[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]equivalents and unweighted units. A comparison of emission values using the SAR GWPs versus the TAR and AR4 GWPs can be found in Chapter 1 and, in more detail, in Annex 6.1 of this report. The GWP values used in this report are listed in Table ES-1.[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]6 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]Albedo is a measure of the Earth’s reflectivity, and is defined as the fraction of the total solar radiation incident on a body that is reflected by it.[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]7 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]Carbon comprises 12/44[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]ths [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]of carbon dioxide by weight.[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]8 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]One teragram is equal to 10[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]12 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]grams (g) or one million metric tons.[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]9 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]See <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/sbsta/eng/09.pdf>.[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]Global warming potentials are not provided for CO, NO[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]x[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times], NMVOCs, SO[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]2[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times], and aerosols because there is no agreed-upon method to estimate the contribution of gases that are short-lived in the atmosphere, spatially variable, or have only indirect effects on radiative forcing (IPCC 1996).[/FONT][/FONT]

ES.2. Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
[FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]In 2007, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 7,150.1 Tg CO[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]Eq. Overall, total U.S. emissions have risen by 17 percent from 1990 to 2007. Emissions rose from 2006 to 2007, increasing by 1.4 percent (99.0 Tg CO[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]Eq.). The following factors were primary contributors to this increase: (1) cooler winter and warmer summer conditions in 2007 than in 2006 increased the demand for heating fuels and contributed to the increase in the demand for electricity, (2) increased consumption of fossil fuels to generate electricity and (3) a significant decrease (14.2 percent) in hydropower generation used to meet this demand.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]Table ES-1: Global Warming Potentials (100-Year Time Horizon) Used in This Report[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]Gas [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]GWP[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]CO[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]2 - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]1[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]CH[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]4[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]* - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]21[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]N[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]2[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]O - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]310[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]HFC-23 - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]11,700[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]HFC-32 - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]650[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]HFC-125 - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]2,800[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]HFC-134a - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]1,300[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]HFC-143a - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]3,800[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]HFC-152a - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]140[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]HFC-227ea - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]2,900[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]HFC-236fa - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]6,300[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]HFC-4310mee - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]1,300[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]CF[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]4 - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]6,500[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]C[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]2[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]F[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]6 - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]9,200[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]C[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]4[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]F[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]10 - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]7,000[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]C[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]6[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]F[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]14 - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]7,400[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]SF[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]6 - [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]23,900[/FONT][/FONT]
-------------------------------------

[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]Source: IPCC (1996)[/FONT]
[FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]* The CH[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]4 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]GWP includes the direct effects and those indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT][FONT=Swiss 72 1 BT,Swiss 72 1 BT]is not included.[/FONT][/FONT]


[/FONT][/FONT]

What does this mean to me? Well the GWP index for CO2 went up 17% but the GWP index for multiple high level pollutants dropped the net combined effects slightly. CO2 May Carry 20 times the volume but its a weak GWP compared to the other high level pollutants that have been substantially reduced.

On the larger scale of things heres what all of this level out at when compared to naturally occurring water vapor. Please see link below! Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Sort of takes the fun out of the whole CO2 argument now and could almost make a person worry about global cool down again?.!

Maybe we really do need to start sending water to the moon.

 

[ke5frf]

I don't use it to provoke, degrade or side-step issues. In the context I've used denier, it only refers to those who deny, as defined by the dictionary excerpts. As I've said, come up with a less "provocative" word to use, and I'll use it. Besides, I never side-stepped the e-mail issue. I researched and made a detalied post about it. Guess you have to read the whole thread before you try to recount who said what.

Al Gore isn't interested in your money or your life. He has his own, on both accounts.

Skeptic is a less provocative word. And more appropriate. Denier implies that questioning the idea has no justification whatsoever, that there can be no reasonable alternative, that the science is so established and proven that only a complete baffoon would challenge it. That there is no ambiguities, no potential for misinterpretation, that the science has been widespreadly reproduced and validated without any variability in the results.

Many "problems" have been admitted, even by the climate scientists. Climate science can not be lab tested, because the lab would have to be a guinea pig planet with an atmosphere with all the proper controls in place. We can't do that, so we have to rely on statistical analysis of the data from the world we live in. By its nature, the data is fragmented and correlated to the inth degree. Statistics have almost had be invented especially for this science, and computer models have been designed to crunch the numbers with varying results. There MAY BE A CONSENSUS among many scientists that the theory is good, but plenty of objections and concerns exist from REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS like Lindzen from MIT...and many others.

Therefore, this really isn't "flat Earth" science like the politicos and politicized scientists would indicate. Having questions and skepticism, especially to the degree of certainty (which is what most of us question) is more than reasonable.

Denier is a negative label, another example contrived by the eco-extreme wing of the whole mess to manipulate public opinion with shock-value rhetoric instead of standing on the data itself. THEY CAN'T because the foundation of the data is not strong enough.

 

[ke5frf]

A good example of a "denier" would be someone who denies that electromagnetic waves can be used to communicate. A "denier" might say that it is all a lie, that the "devil" makes sounds come out of those machines. Being a "skeptic" or "denier" of electromagnetic theory isn't reasonable. There is ample proof that it exists and can be used to communicate with radio waves. Every apparatus imaginable has been contrived to exploit it, measure it, manipulate it, etc. The only room for skepticism is in the finer details of the nature of atoms, protons, electrons and their scientific models...but this wouldn't be skepticism on the practical level, because our models do a superb job of practical explanation. It would be more of the "We can't see it so we REALLY don't know what it looks like" approach but this is a waste of time because we don't NEED to know what electrons look like to explain their behavior.

Climate science as it stands today is too ambiguous, has too many variables, too many sensitivities, etc to be categorized like electromagnetism. That's just the way it is. It can't be "denied" because there is nothing to deny yet. Well, the only thing that can't be denied is that the climate is changing, and that evidence points to a warming trend. That is reasonably certain and I would say that it is "denial" to not believe it. But anything past that, questioning the "Degree of certainty" as to the "degree of variability" and questioning the resolution of paleohistoric proxies such as tree rings and ice cores, and questioning the statistical methods and computer models being used are ALL within the bounds of healthy skepticism and worthy of debate among the public as well as scientists.

That this debate is being hijacked by political extremism is a travesty and a sad day for science.

 

[Sceadwian]

"Trying to silence my opinion would be a form of censuring no better than those scientists whom started this whole 'climategate' debacle in the first place. You should keep that readily in mind."

But isn't this exactly what you are doing by objecting to the thread?

I objected, and was accused of censureship egotism and directly attacked by a moderator. Every single point I brought up about this thread being a useless waste of time, including warnings and approximate time frames of it's demise have so far been correct. I have not seen one sane listing of point and counter point that could be easily surmised by any individual anywhere. If you contest that point, do so in a a few paragraphs. At this point that can't be done, there's so much trash floating around a consensus was impossible 5 or 6 pages of posts ago.


Objection is not censoring. My opinion is just as valid as yours even if you disagree with it. I am NOT attempting to censor your opinion, only stating my own giving my warnings and projections, all of which have currently been vindicated by these posts. Again, if you contest these points, feel free to do so.

Your post stateing my objectsions were censorship of your posting was exactly what I was saying was going to go wrong with this post, because you again have not answered that actual post only complained about a single point of it bypassing the main question completely.

What has been learned here, by whom, to what betterment of these forums?
If you can't state that succinctly then if you would care to scroll back in all of my previous postings you would see that there has so far been nothing to refute anything I've said, only arguments about minor point which again don't matter if the core question can't be answered, and more than a few post that were personal in nature, NONE of my posts were personal in nature.

You don't even have a core question to be answered. There is no debate occurring.

 

[ke5frf]

Scaed.

Do you mandate the rules by which people can hold conversations in every aspect of life?

If you walked up to two people having a conversation about, oh lets say the state of affairs in Iraq, would you demand that they not have the conversation on grounds that they can't agree so it is pointless?

If I did that in public, I might expect two people who previously were in disagreement to suddenly befriend each other and proceed to beat the snot out of me for being arrogant enough to attempt to control them.

In other words, we are what people in the South sometimes call "Gr'ups" (grown-ups). We don't need a baby-sitter or a self-appointed moderator to dictate the rules of our conversation. The moderator of the site represents the site owner. The moderator seems to feel the topic has been worth the bandwidth. That is all I need to proceed. Might I suggest you purchase your own domain and server with the heading, "Scaedwians forum: Only topics I approve are allowed". Then you can throw your fits and make demands all day long and nobody will complain. of course, I doubt you'd have much traffic if you attempted to control it as you do here.

 

[bryan1]

Scaed.

We don't need a baby-sitter or a self-appointed moderator to dictate the rules of our conversation. The moderators of the site represents the site owner. The moderators seems to feel the topic has been worth the bandwidth. That is all I need to proceed. Might I suggest you purchase your own domain and server with the heading, "Scaedwians forum: Only topics I approve are allowed". Then you can throw your fits and make demands all day long and nobody will complain. of course, I doubt you'd have much traffic if you attempted to control it as you do here.

WELL SAID....ke5frf; If my editing those huge stop signs and deleting a post where a forum member was openly attacked constitutes an attack by a moderator SCAD needs to have a reality check as his attitude on this forum is getting worse.

Now after reading this thread today some members are flaunting on the abuse button so guy's please keep this thread topic specific and leave the petty behavior out of it.

It is a valid discussion and it is in the ****-chat forum so lets just stick to the topic and sit back and have a laugh.

Cheers Bryan

 

[HarveyH42]

WELL SAID....ke5frf; If my editing those huge stop signs and deleting a post where a forum member was openly attacked constitutes an attack by a moderator SCAD needs to have a reality check as his attitude on this forum is getting worse.

Now after reading this thread today some members are flaunting on the abuse button so guy's please keep this thread topic specific and leave the petty behavior out of it.

It is a valid discussion and it is in the ****-chat forum so lets just stick to the topic and sit back and have a laugh.

Cheers Bryan

Started having computer problems last night, so missed a few things. Not sure if my post from last night was deleted or lost in the crash. Don't think I was being abusive, or on the attack, maybe a little offensive. The man need to take a look in the mirror for a change...

Anyway, not sure if it made last night, but believe this thread has run it's course. It's been fun and amusing, time to move on. Did get some good inspiration for a new project. Hopefully get my computer stable, and look into it more.

 

[BrownOut]

What does this mean to me? Well the GWP index for CO2 went up 17% but the GWP index for multiple high level pollutants dropped the net combined effects slightly. CO2 May Carry 20 times the volume but its a weak GWP compared to the other high level pollutants that have been substantially reduced.

You haven't calculated the forcing due to CO2 and compared it to forcing of the other gases. If you did, you would have a very different result. For example, the 17% rise in Co2 repersents a rise in the forcing that is approximately 1000 times the magnitued of the difference due to Nitrogen Oxide over the same period. Thus the effects of rising CO2 swamp whatever went on with the other greenhouse gases.

This, BTW, is an example of "peer review"

 

[shortbus=]

I know I'm a noob here and don't get much credit for my thoughts, but here's something to think on.

Although CO2 levels have risen and they are/aren't causing global warming what about the greatest known global warming?

The end of the Great Ice Age! What kind of cars and industry were the "cave men" using? Global Warming really happened then and humans weren't the cause.

But I do imagine that Og And Ug were siting around their fire (todays internet) arguing just like you guy's are!! Og on the side of warming caused by the change from spears to bow and arrow as the cause of the warming!

Cary

 

[tcmtech]

Dont know myself.
Thats basically the condensed analysis taken from one of the studies.
Go argue with the chemists and physicists who do the testing and determine how things react if you want to find out how they arrive at the numbers and meanings.

Where do you get this 1000 times magnitude reference?
No established research or creditable source I have yet to find mentions any thing like that. Nore even an unreliable or uncreditable one either. Just you and thats it.

If you had read or even looked at this link, Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers, you would have the answers your looking for.,
It even gives simplified charts and everything. Also it has a load of reference sources with point and click links to who you can contact for further information in regards to how they found what they did.

Even if your 1000 times magnitude effect was true just look at what percentage of the gasses and pollutants that you think may cause it and what percentage of those levels are man made. We still are only responsible for only minute fractions of all them.

Sorry but your not and expert or even a valid source of much of anything useful. I at least made a trip to the local college library and did a little up to date research for my information.

Some real detailed reference sources would be nice for once you know. Most of us are likely still waiting for you to show us where your vast wealth of knowledge comes from.
I have stuff from the Department Of the Interior, USGS, Federal Archives, Department Of Energy, The Energy Information Administration, and more are to be found in the actual attachments, quotes, and links as well now.

 

[BrownOut]

Where do you get this 1000 times magnitude reference?
No established research or creditable source I have yet to find mentions any thing like that. Nore even an unreliable or uncreditable one either. Just you and thats it.

I used your data and made the calculations. I did what you didn't do.

If you had read or even looked at this link, http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html , you would have the answers your looking for.,
It even gives simplified charts and everything. Also it has a load of reference sources with point and click links to who you can contact for further information in regards to how they found what they did.

I tried to read the paper he based his water vapor opinion on, but it's not available. His numbers appear to be inaccurate and don't agree with other, most reliable data. I'm preparing a response to the water vapor argument, with real physical data. It won't be putting up some chart with no idea where the data came from.

Sorry but your not and expert or even a valid source of much of anything useful. I at least made a trip to the local college library and did a little up to date research for my information.

And just what make you an expert or a valid source of much of anything useful? You state conclusions without doing any analysis. That makes your conclusion less than useless. The fact that CO2 levels has risen in correlation with the industrial age show clearly that this of the most important greenhouse gas accumulation is due to the activities of man.

 

[tcmtech]

I used your data and made the calculations. I did what you didn't do.

Which data? I have made no such calculations of any kind. I simply post what I find from creditable references. Those references are also open to anyone to confirm or prove wrong. So if they are wrong show us where.
We are willing to look and listen so just show us your , methods, and sources, numbers you used! (for once)

Care to show your math work? So we all can confirm your findings and methods?

 

[BrownOut]

That's the whole point, you stated your conclusions that the decline of other greenhouse gases dropped the warming effect slightly, and didn't every try to quantify the effect. If you actually tried the calculations, you couldn't come to that conclusions, as they show just the opposite. I'll post up my calculations a little later,but for now, I'll give you a chance to try it for yourself. It's nothing more than simple math.

 

[tcmtech]

I looked up CO2 forcing and found this as a fair example.
Forcing

The long and short if you read the whole article is that CO2 radiative forcing has a possible peak additional thermal effect of around 1.9 -4 watts per square meter. Normal sunshine has a average energy of around

The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.366 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²).[4][5] The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m² in early January to 1.321 kW/m² in early July) due to the Earth's varying distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than one part per thousand from day to day. Thus, for the whole Earth (which has a cross section of 127,400,000 km²), the power is 1.740×1017 W, plus or minus 3.5%. The solar constant does not remain constant over long periods of time (see Solar variation), but over a year varies much less than the variation of direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere arising from the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit. The approximate average value cited,[4] 1.366 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.96 calories per minute per square centimeter, or 1.96 langleys (Ly) per minute.

As taken directly from wikipedia reference and this can be confirmed from many other scientific sources as well. The solar panel people can give confirmation of these numbers and probably more accurate minimum levels by individual locations as well!

Somehow I got that CO2 radiative forcing is averaging 1.9 watts per square meter additional energy and that the present natural energy averages around 1366 watts per square meter.

So where again does this 1000 times effect come from? Or did you start at 19 -40 milliwatts and go from there?

 

[tcmtech]

That's the whole point, you stated your conclusions that the decline of other greenhouse gases dropped the warming effect slightly, and didn't every try to quantify the effect. If you actually tried the calculations, you couldn't come to that conclusions, as they show just the opposite. I'll post up my calculations a little later,but for now, I'll give you a chance to try it for yourself. It's nothing more than simple math.

Thats the whole issue here. I have not and did not make any conclusions so far. I just point out what I find and let others decide from that.
You keep inciting that all of this data and everything else comes from something I have done or wrote. I haven't wrote anything on these links, sites or other quoted information. I simply cut and paste (with references which you ignore) or use links when possible (which you apparently dont take much concern with as well).

I am not arguing for or against much of anything. I am pointing out what I have read and used to come up with for my personal beliefs. Thats it nothing more.

You say one thing and I go and research it to see if your right and then find that what you say has little scientific backing or merit or appears to be grossly out of proportion. Thats my only argument in this.

Prove your data! Prove your sources! What I see speaks well enough for it self. Why do you seem to find that everything that is solid scientific data needs another level of rework that cant be backed up with scientific evidence or justification?

 

[BrownOut]

I have not and did not make any conclusions so far.

You did when you wrote this:

Well the GWP index for CO2 went up 17% but the GWP index for multiple high level pollutants dropped the net combined effects slightly

Here is where some analysis would have been real good to have.

You say one thing and I go and research it to see if your right and then find that what you say has little scientific backing or merit or appears to be grossly out of proportion.

What have I ever said that you found to have little scientific backing or appear to be grossly out out propotion? What I've said is based on sound science, and I have yet to see anyone refute it in any way that resembles better science.

Prove your data! Prove your sources!

I didn't ask to prove your data, I asked for the details of how you come to your conclusions. It's shouldn't be all that hard to do. We demand to see the detalis and methods of the scientists working on the GW issues, why should we shirk from showing our own?

 

[tcmtech]

Seriously Brownout I am surprised neither of us has been questioned for basic trolling antics by now.

You did when you wrote this:
Quote:
Well the GWP index for CO2 went up 17% but the GWP index for multiple high level pollutants dropped the net combined effects slightly

Heres the context its in.
Quoted from myself minus the chart and referance text. Please reread it.

SO heres some points to consider taken from sites and agencies known to be impartial or of reasonable trustworthiness and neutrality on environmental issues. (The electronic versions of the books basically.)

Nitric oxides have a GWP (Global Warming Potential) 310 times stronger green house gasses than CO2.
Also as shown here Selected National Air Pollutant Emissions 1970 to 2007.pdf
from 1970 to 2007 the levels dropped from 26,880,000 down to 17,025,000. Also a number of other high level greenhouse gasses have dropped considerably in the last few decades as well as shown in the chart. CO2 has risen by 17% (estimated and weighted as referenced below) in a similar time frame however it has a GWP of 1.

Had you actually followed the charts and links you would have been able to easily see I have been having to cut and trim them considerably to fit here.
It a common and polite practice we do here so as not to make single posts that are 50 pages long.

As I have stated many times I just use a basic cut and paste for any of this information. Thats why its not my research, information or math thats in question. Far as I am concerned your arguing with Google and the local college library's Ecology reference section.
Your basically not even arguing with me your arguing with the sources of data I used.

And I am still waiting for you to give me solid scientific evidence to not believe them but to in fact believe you.

 

[ke5frf]

You haven't calculated the forcing due to CO2 and compared it to forcing of the other gases. If you did, you would have a very different result. For example, the 17% rise in Co2 repersents a rise in the forcing that is approximately 1000 times the magnitued of the difference due to Nitrogen Oxide over the same period. Thus the effects of rising CO2 swamp whatever went on with the other greenhouse gases.

This, BTW, is an example of "peer review"

Janitor A telling Janitor B that he missed a spot on the floor is an example of "peer review" as well.