Conclusive physical evidence for AWG?

[[email protected]]

What are the physical manifestations of global warming that we can
actually MEASURE and OBSERVE?

When it comes to making important policy decisions that effect all of
us, there needs to be a clear distinction between PREDICTIONS and
SIMULATIONS vs. physical MEASUREMENTS and OBSERVATIONS. To make an
analogy to electronics, are you going to make major decisions that
impact the economic health of your company based solely upon the
results of PSPICE simulations or are you going to build prototypes
and make real measurements?

1) CO2 CONCENTRATION
The measured increase in CO2 concentration is well established. The
CAUSE of the increase is not well established. The measured increase
is within the same order of magnitude as the amount of CO2
civilization is putting into the atmosphere therefore theory that the
CO2 increase is anthropogenic is a reasonable possibility but not a
100% certainty. The CO2 concentration has varied widely well before
the use of fossil fuels. The increase in CO2 concentration is
conclusive but the cause of the increase is not conclusive.


2) GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE
The measured global temperature increase we measure today is very
small and is within the noise of normal weather variations. There
are no conclusive measurements that can show the cause of this small
temperature increase is due to CO2 or to sun spots or to anything
else. Predictions that there will be dangerous climate temperature
increases in the future are based on simulations. The simulations
assume that the temperature rise is caused by the C02 concentration
increase and that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic. The cause of the
small measured global temperature increase is not conclusive.



3) SEA LEVEL INCREASE
The measured global sea level rise today is very small also. There
are no conclusive measurements that can show this small increase has
anything to do with CO2 or temperature or anything else. Predictions
that there will be dangerous increases in sea level in the future are
based on simulations. The cause of the small measured sea level rise
is not conclusive.


4) POLAR ICE
The measured decrease in Arctic polar ice is well established. The
measured increase in Antarctic polar ice is also well established.
There are no conclusive measurements or physical evidence that
indicate a dangerous trend.

If we did not have sensitive scientific instruments, we would not
even be aware of some of the small changes that have been measured.
These observations are interesting and worthy of further study.
However, there is no conclusive physical evidence that anything
dangerous is actually happening.

Does it make sense to base a national and world energy policy on
simulations without conclusive physical evidence?

Does it make sense to levy a carbon tax or establish a cap and trade
bureaucracy, without conclusive physical evidence?

Does it make sense to use resources to build large carbon capture
facilities to sequester CO2 underground without conclusive physical
evidence?

Does it make sense to forgo the use of our oil and coal resources
without conclusive physical evidence?


Regardless of the validity of AGW, we do need to address the issue of
our energy supply. We DO need to develop alternative energy
sources. We do need to develop renewable energy sources. We do need
to improve energy efficiency. We do need to consider nuclear energy.
These are all forward moving productive steps for civilization to
progress and improve the quality of life.

However, imposing taxes, building CO2 sequestration plants, creating
a cap and trade bureaucracy and demonizing oil and coal without
CONCLUSIVE physical evidence of a real problem just does not make any
sense.

Mark

 

[[email protected]]

Imagine that you're on a bus, having a party with beer and good looking
fellow party-goers.  The bus is hurtling down the freeway at 60 miles an
hour.

Now some egghead pulls a map out of his pocket, and on the map, printed
in big letters, is a note that the freeway ends at a brick wall.

So you have two options: pull over, stop the party, and let everything
cool down, or just keep going, possibly to drive into a brick wall at 60
miles an hour.

So which do you do?  The low-cost, extra precaution that reduces your
immediate fun but insures your survival?  Or do you just keep drinking
your beer and tell the driver to speed up, because _you_ haven't _seen_
that wall with _your own eyes_?

Enjoy your beer.

--http://www.wescottdesign.com- Hide quoted text -

what do YOU propose we do? totally stop the bus? following your
analogy that means stop all use of fossil fuel immediatly ? Did you
stop yet? Is the heat off in your house?

Mark


Mark

 

[StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt]

Enjoy your beer.

Don't forget to examine historical CO2 trends and climate trends of
millennia past.

BTW, the ice shelf is growing again, not shrinking.


Ooops! That one didn't last long!

 

[StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt]

Cool down?


The idea that a freeway would end in a *brick* wall, and that it would
be printed on a map, and that there would be no barriers, no
diversions, no warning signs, no cop-cars with flashing lights, no
common knowledge, is as absurd a conceit as AGW.

John

There are two sunken locomotives 5 miles off shore from New Jersey that
are in 100 feet of water. There are no lights or signs or buoys.

Just a reference on the Coast Guard navigational maps about the
"obstacle" to shipping traffic.

That is all that should be required.

I wouldn't believe a map that showed a brick wall on a highway either.
Now a rock slide is a different story, but how that would end up on a
printed map and remain accurate... hmmm...

 

[Capt. Cave Man]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:34:16 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:


What I would do, and what I'm going to do, is keep driving.

John

Jeez, just keep quoting the whole damned thing every post guys.


Casey Jones, you'd better watch your speed... :-]

(one important line skipped there).

Been riding a bike to work for over a decade. To the store...
everywhere.

My last big expenditure was a flight home for my mom's passing 4 years
ago.

 

[Don Klipstein]

If, as some claim, increased C02 in the earth's air causes
global warming, why is it that Mars is also warming?

Mars is in one of its own cycles - Mars has been in warming and cooling
ruts before lasting a few years. The Sun's output has been very well
monitored by satellites since 1979 with no decade-by-decade rising trend
since then.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[bw]

Imagine that you're on a bus, having a party with beer and good looking
fellow party-goers. The bus is hurtling down the freeway at 60 miles an
hour.

The OP stated facts. You respond with a fantasy.

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 8:56 pm, Jim Thompson

The Democrat theory is that spend.. spend.. spend.. and government
jobs will bolster the economy and employment will improve. If that
were actually true, wouldn't France have the world's best economy?

At the rate we are going, France might wind up with the best economy.

 

[[email protected]]

The OP wants to live in and endless party, and refuses to believe any
evidence that may lead to him having to stop.  So naturally he chooses
his facts carefully.

Enjoy your beer.

Excerpts from a group of 650 scientists that now doubt AGW:


"I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." --
Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving
any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain
skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first
woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of
NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among
the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... .
When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by
science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori
Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to
others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the
Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect
conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr.
Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-
supported International Year of the Planet.


"The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they
only are based on mathematical models and presented results at
scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor
Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of
the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there
is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global
warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B.
Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually
have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as
clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G.
Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials
Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.


"After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment
[comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." --
Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the
statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American
Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is
an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.


"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand
that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go
on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee
of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130
plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in
Sweden.


"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I
quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models
can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact."
-- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-
made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N.
IPCC committee.


"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly
(from promoting warming fears), without having their professional
careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of
the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.


"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous
nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of
social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle.
It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental
Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the
Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published
articles.


"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... .
Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global
warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat
and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-
chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at
Chubu University in Japan.


"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact
that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning
Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific
Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at
the University of La Plata.

The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and
analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments
that contradict the theory.

 

[Raveninghorde]

Mars is in one of its own cycles - Mars has been in warming and cooling
ruts before lasting a few years. The Sun's output has been very well
monitored by satellites since 1979 with no decade-by-decade rising trend
since then.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

That's a sloppy comment. Did you intend to be vague and mislead?

No rising trend of what? UV? IR? Total insolation? Magnetism? Sun
spots? Solar cycle duration?

 

[Raveninghorde]

Imagine that you're on a bus, having a party with beer and good looking
fellow party-goers. The bus is hurtling down the freeway at 60 miles an
hour.

Now some egghead pulls a map out of his pocket, and on the map, printed
in big letters, is a note that the freeway ends at a brick wall.

So you have two options: pull over, stop the party, and let everything
cool down, or just keep going, possibly to drive into a brick wall at 60
miles an hour.

So which do you do? The low-cost, extra precaution that reduces your
immediate fun but insures your survival? Or do you just keep drinking
your beer and tell the driver to speed up, because _you_ haven't _seen_
that wall with _your own eyes_?

Enjoy your beer.

There is no brick wall anymore than Iraq had WMD.

The politicians find it convenient to promote the brick wall as they
did WMD.

The IPCC is political, not scientific.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

/quote

The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the
promotion of the United Nations human development goals

/end quote

If you poke global warming you find CO2 is not a significant problem
in itself. The positive feedback mechanisms are triggered by a rise in
temperature not CO2. The indirect link is that CO2 raises temperature
which then triggers the feedback. So when the temperature rises for
other reasons the same feedback should be triggered. Yet the world has
been warmer than now. With temperature driven positive feedback how
did the world ever cool down?

Look at the historical temperature CO2 graphs.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

CO2 lags temperature by 800 years. How could temperature decrease
before CO2 if CO2 causes warming?

Please stop drinking the beer and leave the party you've obviously
drunk too much. Just don't expect the rest of us to join you or pay
for your paranoia.

 

[[email protected]]

Enjoy your beer.

So, you can't actually _see_ electrons and holes -- therefore you can't
design IC's then, right?

But we CAN observe conclusive physical evidence of the benefits of
electrons and holes. No one would build power plants or pay money to
the electric company otherwise. I ask that we hold AGW to the same
standard. Society should not be FORCED to pay carbon taxes or build
sequestration plants without similar conclusive physical evidence that
there is any real benefit.

Mark

 

[[email protected]]

The OP wants to live in and endless party, and refuses to believe any
evidence that may lead to him having to stop.  So naturally he chooses
his facts carefully.

Enjoy your beer.

The entire point of my first post was asking for real physical
evidence that AGW is a real threat to mankind.

Mark

 

[krw]

It troubles me deeply when I see supposedly good engineers go nutso
and join the current "religion" :-(

You don't think engineers can be weenies?

 

[krw]

I have 30 gauge and 12 gauge. I'll stick with them through thick and
thin.

The 12 gauge may be of help after others have burned their food to
stay warm.

 

[Charles]

Imagine that you're on a bus, having a party with beer and good looking
fellow party-goers. The bus is hurtling down the freeway at 60 miles an
hour.

Now some egghead pulls a map out of his pocket, and on the map, printed
in big letters, is a note that the freeway ends at a brick wall.

So you have two options: pull over, stop the party, and let everything
cool down, or just keep going, possibly to drive into a brick wall at 60
miles an hour.

So which do you do? The low-cost, extra precaution that reduces your
immediate fun but insures your survival? Or do you just keep drinking
your beer and tell the driver to speed up, because _you_ haven't _seen_
that wall with _your own eyes_?

Enjoy your beer.

The denialists fear additional government regulations, more than they fear
hitting the brick wall. Some of them are even into conspiracy theories.
Most are pissed at Al Gore (he is an attractive target ... don't much like
him myself).

Sometimes we have to regulate. Without regulations, we would still be
dumping and leeching filth and carcinogens into our rivers and aquifers.

 

[Raveninghorde]

The denialists fear additional government regulations, more than they fear
hitting the brick wall. Some of them are even into conspiracy theories.
Most are pissed at Al Gore (he is an attractive target ... don't much like
him myself).

Sometimes we have to regulate. Without regulations, we would still be
dumping and leeching filth and carcinogens into our rivers and aquifers.

I fear a massive waste of resources rather than regulation. I also
fear that most greenies are of the Pol Pot tendancy.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07050812.html

/quote

Watson who has unapologetically called human beings the “AIDS of the
Earth”, declared human beings must reduce the world’s population to
less than 1 billion people, dwell in communities no larger than
“20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness
areas,” and recognize themselves as “earthlings” dwelling in a
primitive state with other species.

/end quote

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth,
social and environmental."
-- David Foreman, Founder of Earth First!

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for
capitalists and their projects... We must reclaim the roads and plowed
land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled
rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres
of presently settled land."
-- David Foreman, Earth First! Confessions of an Eco-Warrior

 

[[email protected]]

I fear a massive waste of resources rather than regulation. I also
fear that most greenies are of the Pol Pot tendancy.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07050812.html

/quote

Watson who has unapologetically called human beings the “AIDS of the
Earth”, declared human beings must reduce the world’s population to
less than 1 billion people, dwell in communities no larger than
“20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness
areas,” and recognize themselves as “earthlings” dwelling in a
primitive state with other species.

/end quote

    "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth,
social and environmental."
    -- David Foreman, Founder of Earth First!

    "We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for
capitalists and their projects... We must reclaim the roads and plowed
land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled
rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres
of presently settled land."
    -- David Foreman, Earth First! Confessions of an Eco-Warrior

I'll bet this guy drives a car and takes a hot shower every day. From
what I have seen, these people think everyone else should sacrifice,
and then they get to enjoy a "pristine" earth.

Heck, most of these people are not religious, so what does it matter
if we totally ruin the earth anyway? It's all going to burn out
eventually anyhow.

 

[[email protected]]

It troubles me deeply when I see supposedly good engineers go nutso
and join the current "religion" :-(

Nonsense. If Jim were deeply troubled, he go an find out something
about the subject.

He obviously hasn't, otherwise he would be sharing Rich Grise's
foolish delusion that anthropogenic global warming is a religous
revelation, rather than the consequence of some fifty years of
scientiific investigation across a number of rather different
disciplines.

 

[[email protected]]

An engineer is supposed to have an inquisitive mind and question
unproven theories.  Leftist weenies have neither attribute.  Their
behavior is of a religious nature.

Thus, like all religious nutcases, they should be culled out and
disposed of.

Well, that would see Jim culled out and disposed of. He certainly
hasn't posted a word to suggest that he has ever looked any of the
experimental evidence for the theory he's claiming to be "unproven".

Pity isn't going to happen.