A Different Slant on Global Warming...

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by wilbert Perfect! So from now on Science is to take over and no more of " paid by the fossil industry " ad hominem ?

So let me get this straight:

1. You claim that scientists who are generally paid far less than $1/4 million per year are skewing their data and conclusions towards Global Warming for the money!
   
2. You make this conclusion while completely ignoring the fact that oil companies like Exxon make around $1 Billion per week in profits and that these profits give them an absolutely enormous incentive to deny Global Warming.
   
3. You conclude that pointing this out is an ad homonym!

Can you explain this?

[ArcticStones]

.
Let’s get back to discussing solutions.
Concrete suggestions?

(If you’re convinced that global climate change is fictitious, or that -- even if a reality -- human activity has no significant impact, then I fully understand if you refrain from posting.)

[cwtnospam]

The first step in solving any problem is recognizing that you have one.

[ArcticStones]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam The first step in solving any problem is recognizing that you have one.

Done. I’m suggesting we move on.

[wilbert]

trying to find a solution to a natural climate cycle is like getting a alarm system installed in your house to protect yourself against the tooth fairy. :-)
A sickness was invented and now we are suppose to spend billions to find a cure.
The Solution is simple keep the politicians out of it ( IPCC) ..remove the emotional science (Al Gore's power point presentation) back away from the climate models and only rely of observed data. If the Media report that the arctic summer sea ice is melting then the same media should report when "errors" like the "sensor drift" "Steig AWS " or the NASA's warmest October" etc. ...are discovered ,then the corrected data should also have been made public . Unfortunately good news is no news. There concrete enough? :-)

[wilbert]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam So let me get this straight: You claim that scientists who are generally paid far less than $1/4 million per year are skewing their data and conclusions towards Global Warming for the money! You make this conclusion while completely ignoring the fact that oil companies like Exxon make around $1 Billion per week in profits and that these profits give them an absolutely enormous incentive to deny Global Warming. You conclude that pointing this out is an ad homonym! Can you explain this?

like Professor Robert C. Balling Jr., PhD of the School of Geographical Sciences at Arizona State University on KVMR, Nevada City, California. as head of his department he accepts donations for student loans/grants. Exxonsecrets by Greenpeace attacks him as a shill for Exxon..that kind of ad homonym!

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by wilbert trying to find a solution to a natural climate cycle is like getting a alarm system installed in your house to protect yourself against the tooth fairy. :-) A sickness was invented and now we are suppose to spend billions to find a cure.

I thought ignorance was supposed to be bliss, but you strike me as being a bit aggressive to be truly happy.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones Done.

I didn't think so:

Quote: Originally Posted by wilbert like Professor Robert C. Balling Jr., PhD of the School of Geographical Sciences at Arizona State University on KVMR, Nevada City, California. as head of his department he accepts donations for student loans/grants. Exxonsecrets by Greenpeace attacks him as a shill for Exxon..that kind of ad homonym!

This in no way explains your position. I asked how you could explain your conclusion from statements made in this thread. Your response is to bring up unrelated alleged ad homonyms!

Let me ask it another way: Do you have any scientific evidence that humans do not contribute to climate change? Please note that I am not asking for evidence that scientists who you disagree with are either wrong or biased. That is not scientific evidence.

[Woodsman]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam This in no way explains your position. I asked how you could explain your conclusion from statements made in this thread. Your response is to bring up unrelated alleged ad homonyms!

Maybe we should have some Ad Houyhnhnms for a change. Some horsing around will do us good. Especially those of us who suffer from gulliverability. Then Mrs. Malaprop can make us some tea.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by Woodsman Maybe we should have some Ad Houyhnhnms for a change. Some horsing around will do us good. Especially those of us who suffer from gulliverability. Then Mrs. Malaprop can make us some tea.

oh. I don't know... I'm not sure I want osXHints to turn into Yahoo. plus, there's a danger of turning one's microcosm into a macrocosm, or one's macrocosm into a microcosm, which is merely cosm-etic, of course, but indicative.

[wilbert]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam I didn't think so: This in no way explains your position. I asked how you could explain your conclusion from statements made in this thread. Your response is to bring up unrelated alleged ad homonyms! Let me ask it another way: Do you have any scientific evidence that humans do not contribute to climate change? Please note that I am not asking for evidence that scientists who you disagree with are either wrong or biased. That is not scientific evidence.

Now! now! If I believe that us humans can not control the world climate and changes in climate / weather are cause by natural cycles then all the evidence are in front of our faces. scientific Evidence 1... Arctic summer sea ice melt in...summer.
2-Glaciers retreat and glaciers advance.
3-Water freezes at 0C
4-rising sea level is call High tide!
5- more ice does not mean less ice.
Unless you want some Peer-Review Papers Supporting Skeptism of "Man-Made" Global Warming?
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/d...018-2_Beck.pdf
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2004/26/c026p159.pdf
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16098488
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.c...n_PRL_2002.pdf
there are so many more...

The Question should have been " Since I (cwtnospam) believe in AGW here are my scientific proof" of course Without computer models.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by wilbert Now! now! If I believe that us humans can not control the world climate and changes in climate / weather are cause by natural cycles then all the evidence are in front of our faces. scientific Evidence 1... Arctic summer sea ice melt in...summer. 2-Glaciers retreat and glaciers advance. 3-Water freezes at 0C 4-rising sea level is call High tide! 5- more ice does not mean less ice.

lol - I hope you're being sarcastic, yes? because your logic here can be applied in so many bizarre ways. e.g. "people sneeze, cough, have fevers, and even die every day, so the whole idea of an 'epidemic' is just silly". c'mon...

[ArcticStones]

.
All right, here is some good news -- a concrete measure that may significantly reduce the pace of global warming. I for one had not been aware of the extent of the environmental impact made by these stoves, although I knew they were detrimental to health:

Third-World Stove Soot Is Target in Climate Fight. If you cannot access the New York Times by Elisabeth Rosenthal, the article also appears reproduced on this blog.

Here are some excerpts (my emphasis):

Quote: While carbon dioxide may be the No. 1 contributor to rising global temperatures, scientists say, black carbon has emerged as an important No. 2, with recent studies estimating that it is responsible for 18 percent of the planet’s warming, compared with 40 percent for carbon dioxide. Decreasing black carbon emissions would be a relatively cheap way to significantly rein in global warming — especially in the short term... Replacing primitive cooking stoves with modern versions that emit far less soot could provide a much-needed stopgap, while nations struggle with the more difficult task of enacting programs and developing technologies to curb carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. In fact, reducing black carbon is one of a number of relatively quick and simple climate fixes using existing technologies — often called “low hanging fruit” — that scientists say should be plucked immediately to avert the worst projected consequences of global warming... Better still, decreasing soot could have a rapid effect. Unlike carbon dioxide, which lingers in the atmosphere for years, soot stays there for a few weeks. Converting to low-soot cookstoves would remove the warming effects of black carbon quickly, while shutting a coal plant takes years to substantially reduce global CO2 concentrations. Doctors have long railed against black carbon for its devastating health effects in poor countries. The combination of health and environmental benefits means that reducing soot provides a “very big bang for your buck”... “Now it’s in everybody’s self-interest to deal with things like cookstoves — not just because hundreds of thousands of women and children far away are dying prematurely. The new stoves cost about $20 and use solar power or are more efficient. Soot is reduced by more than 90 percent. The solar stoves do not use wood or dung... Still, replacing hundreds of millions of cookstoves — the source of heat, food and sterile water — is not a simple matter. “I’m sure they’d look nice, but I’d have to see them, to try them,” said Chetram Jatrav, as she squatted by her cookstove making tea and a flatbread called roti. Her three children were coughing. ...if black carbon is ever to be addressed on a large scale, acceptance of the new stoves is crucial... “I’ll tell her about the lungs and her kids and I know it will help with climate change as well,” said Dr. Ibrahim Rehman, Dr. Ramanathan’s collaborator at the Energy and Resources Institute.

Let’s see... If it costs $ 20 per stove, that is only $ 2 billion per 100 million stoves. So if executive bonuses in bailed-out companies were used in this manner instead... Strikes me as a bargain!

-- ArcticStones

.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by wilbert The Question should have been " Since I (cwtnospam) believe in AGW here are my scientific proof" of course Without computer models.

No, the question is correct. The overwhelming majority of scientists say that Global Warming is real. You say they're wrong. It is therefore up to you to provide a competing scientific theory to theirs. (NOT mine)

Once again: I was not asking for evidence that scientists who you disagree with are either wrong or biased. That is not scientific evidence that the theory is wrong, because "Papers Supporting Skeptism" don't provide a competing theory. They simply question the existing theory, and while that's good for refining the theory, it does nothing to replace it.

I'm beginning to wonder if you don't understand or if you have an incentive to misunderstand.

[bramley]

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones . All right, here is some good news

While that's all fine and dandy, it is worth pointing out that the AR4 also identifies tropospheric ozone as a serious warming agent. It doesn't last a long time in the atmosphere either. And is responsible for health problems.

Most of that comes from your car, along with HC aerosols, and CO2.

No technological fix is needed. Drive less.

[ArcticStones]

.
As I understand it, the single largest contributor (sic) to greenhouse gases is coal-fired power plants. Making new ones unnecessary and replacing existing ones with renewable and greener energy sources seems the way to go. As I understood Prof. Drange, automobiles are much further down on the list of culprits.

I had not, however, been aware of the extent of the black carbon problem until reading the NYT article.
.

[cwtnospam]

Electric cars can make huge difference:
They require less energy to operate and less energy to produce. They also require less maintenance because they have no spark plugs or air filter to replace, no oil to change, no radiator to flush/refill/repair, no muffler or transmission to break, carburetor or fuel injector to go bad, and even the brakes will last longer because of regenerative braking!

Throw in a few solar panels and they can even get some of their energy from the Sun, which is a lot more than conventional cars get.

I certainly think that traditional energy producers like coal burning power plants need to do a lot to clean up their output, but it's hard to believe that the internal combustion engine doesn't contribute a huge amount of CO2.

[wilbert]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw lol - I hope you're being sarcastic, yes? because your logic here can be applied in so many bizarre ways. e.g. "people sneeze, cough, have fevers, and even die every day, so the whole idea of an 'epidemic' is just silly". c'mon...

Tongue firmly planted.

[bramley]

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones As I understood Prof. Drange, automobiles are much further down on the list of culprits.

Not according to AR4. I think your prof is only considering climate change in terms of CO2 levels. I suspect cooking stoves is even lower on HIS list.

Quote: I had not, however, been aware of the extent of the black carbon problem until reading the NYT article.

And the major source of black carbon in western countries is? Whoops! It's that automobile again.

[ArcticStones]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam Electric cars can make huge difference... I certainly think that traditional energy producers like coal burning power plants need to do a lot to clean up their output, but it's hard to believe that the internal combustion engine doesn't contribute a huge amount of CO2.

Oh, I’m sure they would. Two considerations here:

1. We need a radical improvement in battery technology. There is some recent research that I understand looks really promising.
   
2. The decisive issue with electric cars is how the electricity to charge them is produced. If it’s from coal-burning power plants, then we really and truly haven’t achieved very much.

.