The Nonsense That is Global Warming

[Gray-Wolf]

The argument that CO2 is so small it couldn't possibly be important has to be one of the most lame brained thoughts that an AGW sceptic can come up with. My suggestion for all people that somehow support this claim is a) invest in a good book or spend an hour in a room with the same levels of Sarin gas that CO2 exists in the atmosphere or acts as a greenhouse gas. A little of something can certainly have a very powerful effect....

I'd also suggest that those that read and believe such sites as Krings should seriously consider the state of their mental health. It's like going to your granny for an indepth dicussion on football tactics in the upcoming England/Russia match or reading the daily sport for an indepth analysis of the credit crunch.

The freedom to do so is yours however the intelligence probably isn't.

Yeah, 'tis a worry but as Orwell would have it " the future lies with the Proles......"

Edited October 15, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[The Eagle]

Some years ago a British newspaper arranged a square-off between a meteorologist, an astrologer and a woman with corns, to see who could best predict the weather. The woman with corns won..... snip

Very interesting. The hysterical media reaction to this in recent years (thankfully some sense might be starting to emerge) has been extraordinary and has been helped no end by the creation of that interesting breed of 'environmental journalists'. Of course the problem with this is that if AGW goes in the bin then so does your job. (this applies to the majority of climate scientist jobs too btw!) The reporting therefore becomes increasingly sensationalist and bizarre. Everything weather-wise that occurs has to have the words 'Global Warming' attached like an imbilical cord in some form even if its discounted as having anything to do with the particular event. The purpose is to subconsiously mix the theory of AGW with every puddle that appears outside your front door. It is not working, of course, and so you have this agenda now of finding any crumbs to keep 'AGW' theory near the front page.

[parmenides3]

It's nice to see that the usual standards of objectivity and reason are being maintained on NW environment threads. In the meantime, here is an example of reasoning.

I do not like cabbage, therefore cabbage does not exist.

All claims that cabbage exists are false or unprovable.

There is either something wrong with the evidence or the way the science is done, if it says that cabbage does exist.

I don't listen to the majority opinion; they are just jumping on the bandwagon. A lot of people saying something which contradicts me does not in itself show that I am wrong about cabbage.

people sometimes point to something and say 'look, there's a cabbage', but I just sigh and tell them they are mistaken, as cabbage does not exist, and any reasonable person would agree with me that this is the truth.

Under certain circumstances, I might consider the possibility that there could be something 'cabbage-like' which might exist, but not that this is demonstrable proof of the existence of cabbage.

Anyone who believes in cabbage is an idiot and is probably being fooled by a government conspiracy to make us change the way we live, or restrict our freedom, or make us pay more tax, because of this spurious cabbage claim.

Having decided in the first instance that cabbage cannot exist, the threat of being fed cabbage does not worry me. Furthermore, nothing anyone says will ever be adequate to persuade me that I might have made a mistake.

:)P

[Guest Viking141]

It's nice to see that the usual standards of objectivity and reason are being maintained on NW environment threads. In the meantime, here is an example of reasoning.

I do not like cabbage, therefore cabbage does not exist.

All claims that cabbage exists are false or unprovable.

There is either something wrong with the evidence or the way the science is done, if it says that cabbage does exist.

I don't listen to the majority opinion; they are just jumping on the bandwagon. A lot of people saying something which contradicts me does not in itself show that I am wrong about cabbage.

people sometimes point to something and say 'look, there's a cabbage', but I just sigh and tell them they are mistaken, as cabbage does not exist, and any reasonable person would agree with me that this is the truth.

Under certain circumstances, I might consider the possibility that there could be something 'cabbage-like' which might exist, but not that this is demonstrable proof of the existence of cabbage.

Anyone who believes in cabbage is an idiot and is probably being fooled by a government conspiracy to make us change the way we live, or restrict our freedom, or make us pay more tax, because of this spurious cabbage claim.

Having decided in the first instance that cabbage cannot exist, the threat of being fed cabbage does not worry me. Furthermore, nothing anyone says will ever be adequate to persuade me that I might have made a mistake.

:)P

I'll add a couple of things to your list of reasoning if I may P3?

I disagree about cabbages but because I have received funding from pepper, who has been known to be fond of carrots, any culinary evidence or recipes I produce which questions the tastiness of cabbages is flawed and wrong. There is no possibility at all that my recipe might actually be right because Im in the pay of pepper and we all know how pepper affects the flavour.

If cabbages keep going at this rate there is only one possible outcome - lots more cabbage.This is the only possible outcome and I will accept no other. The possibility of it being carrots at some point in the future, despite the historical record showing periods of both cabbages and carrots in the past is not possible this time around. Carrots days are over.

If you do not believe the cabbage theory then you deserve ridicule and disdain because there is no other vegetable in town.

If you do believe in cabbages but dont accept its cabbages all the way, there may be another or more alternatives, you also deserve scorn. Its cabbages you fool!

Because there are many cabbages in the soup any influences from carrots, or indeed other vegetables such as turnips,onions, broccoli, cauliflower, peas, broad beans etc which may end up in the soup etc is negligable. There is no possibility that the soup may end up tasting altogether differently from what I expected. I have no idea what quantities these other vegetables may be in or what impact they may have on flavour or whether they enhance or detract from cabbages. That doesnt matter it'll be negligable believe me, my computer generated recipe says so. Its cabbages full stop.

Just because in the not too distant past they said it would be all carrots, we were all headed for a new "carrot age" and later it transpires they were all horribly wrong is immaterial. Theres absolutely no possibility that they've got it wrong this time. Remember, they didn't have computer generated recipes then and computer generated recipes are more valid, despite the fact that they dont have all the ingredients, than mere recipes.

[parmenides3]

This is much more civilised. Well done, Vikes. :)P

Now, here's a quandary: why do all these gardeners, cooks and bunny-rabbits keep harping on about cabbage? What's the big deal? The allotment is full of vegetables, and there's a lovely pie in the fridge; yet they keep going on about cabbage, cabbage, cabbage. When are they going to realise that simply repeating 'cabbage' doesn't make it so? I don't need to see the evidence, and I haven't got time to go through all those recipes and vegetable plots and all that dull stuff in Gardener's World magazine. Why bother? It would simply confuse me even more. I know where I stand and its nowhere near anything green, rotund and leafy. If I'm really pressed, I might concede that there could be such a thing as brussels sprouts. Bottom line is, my intuition tells me that there are no cabbages, and that'll do for me.

:)P

[dr.rioja]

I'll add a couple of things to your list of reasoning if I may P3?

I disagree about cabbages but because I have received funding from pepper, who has been known to be fond of carrots, any culinary evidence or recipes I produce which questions the tastiness of cabbages is flawed and wrong. There is no possibility at all that my recipe might actually be right because Im in the pay of pepper and we all know how pepper affects the flavour.

If cabbages keep going at this rate there is only one possible outcome - lots more cabbage.This is the only possible outcome and I will accept no other. The possibility of it being carrots at some point in the future, despite the historical record showing periods of both cabbages and carrots in the past is not possible this time around. Carrots days are over.

If you do not believe the cabbage theory then you deserve ridicule and disdain because there is no other vegetable in town.

If you do believe in cabbages but dont accept its cabbages all the way, there may be another or more alternatives, you also deserve scorn. Its cabbages you fool!

Because there are many cabbages in the soup any influences from carrots, or indeed other vegetables such as turnips,onions, broccoli, cauliflower, peas, broad beans etc which may end up in the soup etc is negligable. There is no possibility that the soup may end up tasting altogether differently from what I expected. I have no idea what quantities these other vegetables may be in or what impact they may have on flavour or whether they enhance or detract from cabbages. That doesnt matter it'll be negligable believe me, my computer generated recipe says so. Its cabbages full stop.

Just because in the not too distant past they said it would be all carrots, we were all headed for a new "carrot age" and later it transpires they were all horribly wrong is immaterial. Theres absolutely no possibility that they've got it wrong this time. Remember, they didn't have computer generated recipes then and computer generated recipes are more valid, despite the fact that they dont have all the ingredients, than mere recipes.

so everythings rosy then? phew.. and there was me thinking there s a problem. those pesky climate scientists, only in it for the money you know.

[Slinky]

This is much more civilised. Well done, Vikes. :)P

Now, here's a quandary: why do all these gardeners, cooks and bunny-rabbits keep harping on about cabbage? What's the big deal? The allotment is full of vegetables, and there's a lovely pie in the fridge; yet they keep going on about cabbage, cabbage, cabbage. When are they going to realise that simply repeating 'cabbage' doesn't make it so? I don't need to see the evidence, and I haven't got time to go through all those recipes and vegetable plots and all that dull stuff in Gardener's World magazine. Why bother? It would simply confuse me even more. I know where I stand and its nowhere near anything green, rotund and leafy. If I'm really pressed, I might concede that there could be such a thing as brussels sprouts. Bottom line is, my intuition tells me that there are no cabbages, and that'll do for me.

:)P

As if the subject of AGW was not confusing enough ......................

[pottyprof]

P3.. Viking.. You are both bananas..

A good point well put.. Very entertaining.. Now what can I have for supper??

[parmenides3]

Looks like bubble and squeak is out, for one...

:DP

[osmposm]

It is a complete myth that frosts in Britain were "only a memory" in the 1930s, even in the south: the record shows that although the decade was warmer than its predecessor and successor, hard frosts were a great deal commoner than today. It would have been madness to put the water supply on the outside, and despite a warming climate it still would be.

To put some figures on that, I suppose one might reasonably expect there to have been periods of hard frost when the month's CET average was 3.0 or less. In the 1930s there were seven such months, spread pretty evenly over the decade. In the 1990s there were only five, and so far in the 2000s there have been none at all - the last one was January 1997.

And just to blow Ken's no-frost hypothesis away completely, the 1920s had just four of those sub-3 months, two of them in the same year (1929). So it looks like 1930s winters in England may actually have been colder than those of the 1920s on the whole, though overall it was a warmer decade! (Sorry, I don't have time just now to calculate the average winter-month CET for both.)

[Guest Viking141]

This is much more civilised. Well done, Vikes. :)P

:)P

One does ones best B)

[Stratos Ferric]

Those figures were for the UK. Not sure exactly what's happening over there.

Ah but Ken drew the boundaries of the UK more creatively than some of us might choose to. As mentioned above I remember one particularly amusing exchange with him during which conditions in Iberia were being used to legitimise a (badly wrong) prediction for Blighty. I'm not sure that he actually knows where the UK is, other than that it's not near Oz.

[Gray-Wolf]

The oldies on here (like Oon and J.H.) may well be entitled to 'cold weather payments' and as such (even though the 'goalposts' for paying out the monies hve been moved since 1978)will tell you how many years it has been since the 'temps' have triggered the payments.

The Govt. even implemented a payment at the start of winter (to entice the crinklees to use their heating) in recognition that sub-zero temps were not needed to start folk dropping with hypothermia (and keep them off the wards in the craziness that is our NHS).

[Chris Knight]

Fact: Like CO and N2O, CO2 is heavier than air. By how much? The molecular weight of air is 29, that of CO2 is 44, nearly double. CFCs have a MW of 100. It is therefore utterly impossible for these super-heavy gases to rise to form a 'greenhouse cover.' Wind and diffusion can transport gases but that is to do with mother nature, not man, and the warmers are claiming a rising of gases is taking place due purely to humans and quite apart from wind, thermals, tornadoes and whatever else the processes of nature will do. Question is, what can possibly make heavier than air gases rise 20 miles to get above 99% of the atmosphere and significantly increase the constant water-vapor-dominated greenhouse cover that enables life to continue to thrive at an average temperature of 13-15degC on the surface of this planet?

CO2 does not rise. If it did, fire extinguishers wouldn't work. A party balloon blown up with the breath would fly straight upwards as if it was filled with helium. Moreover CO2 dissolves in seawater. More CO2 produced just means more is going to dissolve. Scientists are still trying to find out the finer points of how it gets from the sea to the trees. They know of the great cycle in which land goes under other land, heats and spews out as volcanoes. CO2 is thrown out and drifts with rain to ground, gets into trees as CO2 and into rocks as CO3, than finds its way back to the sea, then into chalk, which is compressed plankton, and then to the seafloor which becomes part of the continental drift which produces volcanoes at its extremities. CO2 is kept aloft by upper level turbulence. Otherwise it is always drifting down, not up. CO2 is found in centuries-old ice in Antarctica, way before any industrialisation on Earth. It is a natural part of the atmosphere and as such has a stable cycle of its own.

There are many sources of growing levels of anthropogenic CO2, including Aviation, which introduces this gas directly into the atmosphere, much of it above cloud level, and at an ever increasing rate as increasing numbers of us jet across the globe in our business and leisure travel activities.

We are all aware of the contrails that despoil what would otherwise be clear skies and the water vapour component of aviation fuel combustion is accompanied by carbon dioxide and other combustion by-products.

Some of these are greenhouse gases, others are aerosol or particulate pollution.

Like the helium balloon in reverse, these will eventually disperse to lower levels in the atmosphere, on a statistical probability, since the more buoyant major air molecules (O2, N2) will displace them to the lower atmosphere, as these lighter molecules are themselves displaced above the denser, more polluted air below. CO2, SO2 NO2 etc., will associate with water in the atmosphere and eventually be removed in the precipitation.

We have made some great strides in the efficiency of commercial aircraft:

http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/P..._efficiency.pdf

2005_12_nlr_aviation_fuel_efficiency.pdf

and the trend towards fuels that produce less sulphur pollution that cause some of the cooling aerosols:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/cleanair-airpur/caol/O...2001_sec4_e.htm

and

from Japanese Air Lines

Perhaps in order to see the role of aviation and ground based carbon emissions, it may be possible to deliberately label the carbon in aviation fuel with say Carbon 13, a stable, non-radioactive, naturally occurring isotope of Carbon to an excess of say, double the natural occurrence (1.1% to 2.2%) (or conversely reduce the levels of this isotope in aviation fuels by half) of the isotope in nature. There would be two main effects: the cost of aviation fuel would increase, and the contribution by this means could be determined, in relation to land based consumption. If this were done, the increased levels of this isotope in the atmosphere could be monitored to determine the contribution of aviation to the global CO2 levels as measured in the atmosphere, and effectively the aviation industry would be challenged to increase their efficiency even more for economic reasons.

If the net results of such a change showed that it was aviation or ground based carbon usage influencing the atmospheric increase of CO2 to lesser or greater proportions, then the plans for future control of carbon emissions could be more focussed.

[Gray-Wolf]

We are under the high level flight path for the U.S/Canadian runs as they head up to their turn over Lockerbie and, conditions being favourable (or unfavourable as I see it) there is a quadrant of the sky (between 11ish and 2pm) that is blighted by con-trails. As with cirrus or patchy high stratus you can note the temp fall back as the sun slides behind them. Flight paths varying a few tenths of a degree leads to a swathe of con-cover (if they didn't stray and laid down their trails in a narrow band it wouldn't be so bad!!!).

I remember, as a lad, feeling sorry for the folk downwind of Agecroft power station (when it was there) on sunny days as the plumes of water vapour blighted these areas in a similar way.......goodness knows how the Chinese in there 'yellow' skies cope!

Not that 'little old us' could ever have a direct impact on the climate you understand........not!

Edited October 20, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Stratos Ferric]

Can we just correct some ongoing nonsense in this thread which is undermining what might otherwise be a reasoned thread.

First up: there is no such thing as the molecular weight of air - air is not an element or a molecule. Air comprises a number of constituents each of which exists on their own and has its own MW.

As to whether or not CO2 - which IS a molecule - would sink because it is heavier. Here there is, I think, some confusion of molecular physics with everyday rules of engagement. We are not talking about dropping marbles into water here; at the level of molecules other forces some in to play. I'm sure I'm not alone here in having seen the rudimentary experiments with Brownian motion, elementary physics in the days when science was taught as a series of split disciplines. I can't remember the MW of Bromine, but I know it isn't low, yet it will mix with air. Forces that don't apply well to marbles falling through water (cohesiveness etc.) are much more significant at the level of the molecule where absolute weight is negligible.

I haven't checked, but I suspect that the mix of CO2 at pretty much all levels of the atmosphere is more or less constant, certainly up to the height of half an atmosphere. Air flow will mix molecules, and they will bounce of each other to remain mixed.

It would be plausible, if the air did not move at all, to envisage the theory of heavy elements sinking playing out. Alas, the world just isn't like that.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Stratos Ferric

[Chris Knight]

Can we just correct some ongoing nonsense in this thread which is undermining what might otherwise be a reasoned thread.

First up: there is no such thing as the molecular weight of air - air is not an element or a molecule. Air comprises a number of constituents each of which exists on their own and has its own MW.

As to whether or not CO2 - which IS a molecule - would sink because it is heavier. Here there is, I think, some confusion of molecular physics with everyday rules of engagement. We are not talking about dropping marbles into water here; at the level of molecules other forces some in to play. I'm sure I'm not alone here in having seen the rudimentary experiments with Brownian motion, elementary physics in the days when science was taught as a series of split disciplines. I can't remember the MW of Bromine, but I know it isn't low, yet it will mix with air. Forces that don't apply well to marbles falling through water (cohesiveness etc.) are much more significant at the level of the molecule where absolute weight is negligible.

I haven't checked, but I suspect that the mix of CO2 at pretty much all levels of the atmosphere is more or less constant, certainly up to the height of half an atmosphere. Air flow will mix molecules, and they will bounce of each other to remain mixed.

It would be plausible, if the air did not move at all, to envisage the theory of heavy elements sinking playing out. Alas, the world just isn't like that.

Does this explain the behaviour of photochemical smog that hangs around cities in summer, and indeed is much in evidence over SE England today, in terms of haze, and some phenomenal sunrise and sunset photos? Wind might drift dense warm airmasses around, but these airmasses do not always tend to rise, they act en masse, as do storm clouds, which might logically be expected to be ripped to shreds when the winds within them reach phenomenal speeds, enough to carry balls of ice up to the size of golfballs at motorway speeds upwards.

Physics in the lab are hard to scale up to real phenomena, and the real phenomena are often hard to observe at close quarters.

Mathematical models no doubt have been calculated to predict how water vapour and condensates manage to remain in strata and other discrete masses in the atmosphere. Why not other molecular moieties? Would not a condensed cold cloud, extract soluble gases, such as CO2, NO and SO2 from the cloud's vicinity? Would not these concentrations be localised or varied when the cloud disperses due to evaporation or following precipitation? I haven't yet researched this possibility, I'll see what I come up with. Interesting.

[Stratos Ferric]

Does this explain the behaviour of photochemical smog that hangs around cities in summer, and indeed is much in evidence over SE England today, in terms of haze, and some phenomenal sunrise and sunset photos? Wind might drift dense warm airmasses around, but these airmasses do not always tend to rise, they act en masse, as do storm clouds, which might logically be expected to be ripped to shreds when the winds within them reach phenomenal speeds, enough to carry balls of ice up to the size of golfballs at motorway speeds upwards.

Physics in the lab are hard to scale up to real phenomena, and the real phenomena are often hard to observe at close quarters.

Mathematical models no doubt have been calculated to predict how water vapour and condensates manage to remain in strata and other discrete masses in the atmosphere. Why not other molecular moieties? Would not a condensed cold cloud, extract soluble gases, such as CO2, NO and SO2 from the cloud's vicinity? Would not these concentrations be localised or varied when the cloud disperses due to evaporation or following precipitation? I haven't yet researched this possibility, I'll see what I come up with. Interesting.

Your smog example actually makes my point neatly, being the exception that I pointed out. Smog absolutely requires static air to form. The other important factor, almost imperceptible, is that under HP air is actually descending from aloft. Hence, not only do we have little or no movement at the surface, we actually have a de facto lid on things.

Anyone who skis, or flies with any frequency, will occasionally notice the often marked layer of Nitrous gases that can be present even in fairly dynamic air.

CO2 is extracted from the air - hence the acid rain scare in the 1970s and 80s and the fitting of scrubbers on most coal power stations in the UK in the mid 80s - however, there is a limit to solubility. One feedback loop, however, build into climate models is that in a warmer world more gas can be dissolved and the acidity of rainfall increases slightly, increasing the dissolving of carbonates at the surface, and so releasing yet more CO2.

Some physics is hard to scale up, but the detail of molecular physics works at any level. Less a matter of scaling up, in fact, than scaling down our thinking!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/planet.in.peril/

CNN are running a two day 'special' to show you skeptic's what they think!

[Osbourne One-Nil]

National Geographic this month also covers the issue of Climate Change with a very good article on Biofuels. I can't remember the exact figures, but to convert maize into biofuel like is all the rage in the midwest, takes almost as much fossil fuel, plus loads of nitrates etc as it produces. It seems the best way would be to use the cellulose in non-food crops which can be grown on otherwise unproductive land, but it's some way off.

Yhe article is really quite scathing about the American way of life in a way which quite surprised me, coming from an American publication.

[Gray-Wolf]

The article is really quite scathing about the American way of life in a way which quite surprised me, coming from an American publication.

And I can just imagine how some Republicans will take to that level of self examination!!!

[rob48]

Another respected view: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle2709551.ece

[trevw]

Another respected view: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle2709551.ece

I'm afraid that since bellamys false claim that 555 of 625 monitored glaciers were growing when this blatantly wasn't supported by the facts (I think in the end it was discovered he misread a paper and it was 55 of 625 or something?) has rather dented my unwavering belief in what he says..

to read him flogging the old 'scientists said we were going into an ice age in the 70s' horse is also dissapointing. In addition I believe the hockey stick graph was left out from the IPCC, not because it has been proven incorrect, but because it was seen as too 'contriversial' (many re-analyses of the same data have confirmed the shape of the original graph even once any critisisms are catered for)

the comment that the hadley centre found the world hasn't warmed since 1998 is 'true' but disingenuous, why does he pick 1998 you might ask?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle...a/HadCRUT3.html

because it was a largeish peak in world average temps that hasn't yet been exceeded.. one would expect year on year variation and it 'could' possibly be that temps have now peaked and if so we will know in time but the trend on this graph is definitely upwards imho..

he berates those who believe the evidence for AGW as not trading in facts and then seems to misrepresent the evidence.. it seems a shame as he has been a scientist I grew up watching on TV and I would imagine there must be good reasons for him not to believe in the case for AGW and it would be good to know them but it is buried in rhetoric.

Trevw

[Osbourne One-Nil]

David Bellamy has a beard.

I rest my case.

[Roo]

I'm afraid that since bellamys false claim that 555 of 625 monitored glaciers were growing when this blatantly wasn't supported by the facts (I think in the end it was discovered he misread a paper and it was 55 of 625 or something?) has rather dented my unwavering belief in what he says..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1480279,00.html

I believe, and I'm still trying to find the source, that he had links to/was in the pay of a multinational which had a lot to lose if AGW was true.

Will find it and post here