Disagreements over the Science Behind Global Climate Change

[aegap]

The Greenhouse Effect is caused primarily by:
a) water vapor
b) carbon dioxide
c) ozone-destroying aerosol sprays

You are pretty good. Are you a climatologist?
Over 95% of the greenhouse effect is the result of atmospheric water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the greenhouse effect.
Any greenhouse warming, if it does occur, is limited to primarily increasing nighttime temperatures, which provides beneficial moderation of nighttime low temperatures, but no increase in daytime high temperatures. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, has demonstrated this phenomenon very effectively.
Did you know...
The world's natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by cobraboy

I have seen that before.

You have? Then you would know that that was an influential study, in its time, that put the results of global warming in economic terms. You would also know of its flaws as these were widely discussed in both the economic and scientific communities. Obviously you don't know, but that was not the purpose of posting that carefully selected link.

Originally Posted by cobraboy

I have read this one too, loooong before you posted it.

Amazing. Are you sure?

Anyway, this was also not the purpose of posting that carefully selected link.

Now to the purpose.

The Stern Review - We know at this stage that you do not accept anything that comes from the UN or anything around the UN. After rejecting the Stern review, we know that you don't accept anything that comes from the cousins across the water .. despite the fact that at least 6 economics Nobel Prize winners endorsed the review .. with flaws, with questions, but certainly a very worth-while framework for its time. A lot of more updated and refined work was based on this review. I wonder if you know of any of it?

Capturing the Energy Opportunity - This was kinda 'the red herring'. (Similar to your 'How Much Question'. If you know anything about this, you would know that that the red herring is the percentage as this does not in some magical way define the effects - check out, atmosphere, troposhere and stratosphere (and answer your coke can to boot!).

OK, so let's do a little count .. According to you ..

Out! - UN and its bodies (That includes a whole hell of a lot of groupings)
Out! - US Democrats or anything around that, especially Ms Clinton (as if I care)
Out! - Reputable Scientists from 40 countries in the world that worked for 20 years on climate reports
Out! - Nasa - not sure about Nasa but being a governmental body - Out I would think?
Out! - High flying economic experts from the land of the cousins
Out! - Anything with a hint of Governmental Funding attached to it
Out! - Al Gore and his cronies (as if I care)
Out! - Anything around Kyoto - flawed or not, initial effort or not, re-negotiations starting next week or not
Out! - India for sure
Out! - China for sure

I wonder what you would have said if I posted a study that was funded by that other political party? But this is a rhetorical question. I really do not want an answer.

In! - The Global Consumer (To use Nals' term - I'm more concerned about the Global Food Consumer that does not have sufficient food to consume per day! - you fellows better start 'producing' fast)
In! - Crighton, The Novelist
In! - Anything that smears Al Gore and his cronies and Ms Clinton to boot
In! - One lone journalist from "the Torygraph" (thanks Chiri for the local name!) who wrote this piece to attack Gordon Brown (not that I care)

From Gristmill, here is the list of worldwide scientific organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as scientifically well-supported. This includes every major scientific and climate institute in the world. If this is a conspiracy, the size of it boggles my mind. But, I guess this tells me that I should not pay any further attention to you. I'd much rather read these other people.

Up until the time that you are prepared to enter into a reasonable discussion and keep on topic, instead of using this site to push your own political views and your own pseudo religion, you will find me on RealClimate

[bob saunders]

Originally Posted by Chris

Your arguments are old and boring and I cannot bear 'splaining three-year-old debates - especially if they are not germane to my question. You don't want answers, you want argument. (Btw, y'all need to get bigger guns y'hear.) The messengers are getting restless and there are many of them. You've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that for you, it is all politics and that's the game that you play. You do forget what you are playing for and you've forgotten that the Global Warming landscape has changed from 'Is it Real', to 'What's to do about it'. The first question has been answered definitively to the best of the scientific ability in our world today. What's to do about it is indeed the real question which you seem to miss. But I guess there's always a few gators in the pond that forget to migrate.

What's to do about it in the DR was my opening question on this thread. Seems to me you don't know. Simple question, but the answers don't include Gore and Clinton - Yuck! And in the same vein you're telling me how educated you are. I really believe you. Thousands would not, but truly, I do. You go off now and listen to some Buffet, ponder them coke cans, watch the gators take a bead on a bird, and start reading or go and produce some food. Oranges are cool in your area for the next few years. The world is going to be needing food.

You could benefit from some Stephen Covey training.
Global warming or lack thereof

[bob saunders]

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...eB2C/Index.jsp

[Chris]

Did you post the correct link? This one was written 5 years ago with a little 'updated' commentary mainly dealing with ... yes, you have it ... Al Gore again! Yuck! Oh my heavens, because I'm interested, the Americans think I'm an AlGorite or something! The rest of the site sells websites and real estate. No, I won't benefit. You have wasted my time however. The Stephen R. Covey I know, wrote management literature. The 7 habits of Highly Effective People is the most well known. Yes, I've lectured a couple of training classes - not Covey specifically, but his compatriots - In Search of Excellence and Putting Excellence to work.

The 2nd link .. I'll read yours if you read mine.

[bob saunders]

I have read yours. You didn't read the sites, you looked at them. There is a difference. Chris if you want people to take you serious, and I assume you do, a little less sarcasm might help. You seem to take this as a win - loose thing. The only green most people involved in Global warming see- is greenbacks.

[bob saunders]

And Chris I'm not American, not that there anything wrong with that. The amount of resources the American government put into research on things like climatic change...etc far exceeds anything any other government does.

[Chris]

Sorry Bob, did not mean to go off at you. But I really don't understand the links that you've posted. The first on goes nowhere that is related to Stephen Covey and the 2nd one simply talks about the issues as best as those folks know how. I have no problem with that. It is just that stuff seems a little dated.

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by Chris

What's to do about it in the DR was my opening question on this thread. Seems to me you don't know. Simple question, but the answers don't include Gore and Clinton - Yuck!

And still, you never answered the questions about the % of CO2 man is responsible for, and the physics behind CO2 in suspension vs. temperature.

[cobraboy]

Speaking of NASA:

JPL.NASA.GOV: News Releases

NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
November 13, 2007

PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.

The team, led by James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, Seattle, used data from an Earth-observing satellite and from deep-sea pressure gauges to monitor Arctic Ocean circulation from 2002 to 2006. They measured changes in the weight of columns of Arctic Ocean water, from the surface to the ocean bottom. That weight is influenced by factors such as the height of the ocean's surface, and its salinity. A saltier ocean is heavier and circulates differently than one with less salt.

The very precise deep-sea gauges were developed with help from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the satellite is NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace). The team of scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006, equal to removing the weight of 10 centimeters (four inches) of water from the ocean. The distribution and size of the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990.

Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation.

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.

"While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the 'wet' part of the Arctic -- the Arctic Ocean -- circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s," he added.

(Hmmm...cyclical trends...)