J. Clarke writes:

On 26 Feb 2007 22:19:26 -0600, D Smith wrote:

J. Clarke writes:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
temperature rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.

How?

Determining the carbon isotope ratios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.

...and that quantity is about twice the current rate of increase in
atmospheric CO2.

So?

Are you really that dense, or do you just play an idiot on the net?

So if you want to argue that the atmospheric rise is NOT
the result of burning fossil fuels, you need to:

1) give an explanation as to why all (or at least most) the CO2 from
fossil fuels is being removed.

Huh? What does a removal mechanism have to do with identifying a
source?

If you want to pretend that the source (burning fossil fuels) is not
causing an increase in atmospheric CO2, you're going to have to find
somewhere else to put it, which requires removing it from the atmosphere.
You can't just ask Scottie to beam it out of there.

2) give another (currently unknown) source of CO2 that is adding enough
to the atmosphere to give the observed rise.

What source has prior to the advent of human industry brought about
the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere?

I don't care. I dont' have to. We're talking about WHAT IS HAPPENING
NOW. We can take measurements of what is happening now.

3) explain why the mechanism you postulate for 1) succeeds with CO2
from fossil fuels, but fails to remove the CO2 source you postulate in 2).

Again, what relevance does a removal mechanism have to do with
identifcation of a source?

...because if you want to claim that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is
from a DIFFERENT source, you need to explain why the source from fossil
fuels is NOT a factor (how it gets removed), and the one from your source
IS (why it doesn't get removed).

This is like examining the functioning of
the drain to determine whether the puddle in the tub came out of the
tap or the dog.

...which is exactly what you would have to do if you are claiming that
the drain knows how to get rid of the tap water but isn't removing the
dog's **** (or vice-versa).

Again, if CO2 from fossil fuels IS being removed (all or most, not just
the half I mention) from the atmosphere (which is implicit in your claim
that the observed increase is NOT attributable to fossil fuels), then
where does to extra CO2 come from and why is this other source _not_
subject to the same removal mechanism you postulate for CO2 from fossil
fuels.

4) demonstrate that the source you postulate in 2) has an isotope
combination that makes it look exactly the same as CO2 from fossil fuels.
(Note that this means it is difficult to develop an explanation for 3)
that is based on isotope ratios.)

First you need to demonstrate that the isotopic composition of
atmospheric CO2 is completely consistent with a human source bringing
about the observed increase. The Web site that was linked earlier
does not demonstrate this.

1) what do you mean by "complete"?

2) which web site? There have been two given - RealClimate.org, and Bob
Grumbine's. Please be specific with what you diagree with on those sites.
Saying nothing more than "does not demontrate this" just looks like more
"I disgree with the conclusion, so it must be wrong" from you.


It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
in CO2 levels in the past 150 years",

Well, it's easier if you put numbers on it. The increase is about 40%.
Do you consider that "massive", or are you using "massive" as a debating
tactic?

Straw man. It's a long way from the information in the site that was
referenced to humans causing the increase you claim.

So saying "massive" was just a debating tactic.


and it's an even bigger stretch
from there to "human should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2"

Who is saying that? Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
Besides, what to do about something is a distinct step from "is the
climate science right?"

Figured that out, did you?

I figured out that you are deliberately obfuscating the two.

and then there is the main point of the econuts which is that
"The United States should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2

A clear strawman.

To you perhaps, not to most of the econuts who rave about global
warming.

while China and the rest of the world massively increase _their_
pollution", which is basically what the "Kyoto accords" require.

The US produce about 25% of the WORLD total. Why shouldn't it show some
global citizenship and take the lead in trying to clean up a problem that
it has taken the lead in creating?

Why should the US be held to a different standard than China?

...oh, perhaps it is still interested in being a world leader?

Right now, the US looks like the older brother who has been stealing
cookies for years, and gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar by Mom.
He's claiming he shouldn't be asked to stop because his little brother
might steal some later.

No, he's claiming that he shouldn't be forbidden to eat cookies
forever while baking them in quantity for Junior.

Mom has her hands full dealing with the older son. Once he gets his
hand out of the cookie jar, Mom can start trying to sort out distributing
the coolies equally to all. Until then, the oldest son is just being
spoiled and acting like a brat.

It sounds to me like you're using the "I don't want to make any
changes, so I'll choose to ignore climate science" approach. Works right
up to the point that Mother Nature bites you in the ass.

Yep, I figured you'd get to that one eventually. Typcal econut, come
up with a bunch of irrelevancies, pretend that they are profundities,
and when challenged then launch a personal attack.

Coming from the person that dismisses anyone that disagrees with him as
"an econut", this is both ironic and hypocritical. Classic.


plonk

You're welcome.

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith wrote:

Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.

Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global COOLING.


Thanks for confirming that your knowledge is based on nothing more than
media speculation, which DID do write-ups on the subject in the 1970s.

...but that wasn't what the science was telling us. If you think that
you have a SCIENTIFIC reference for claims of global cooling in the 1970s,
feel free to go to the following web page:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

and tell William about it. He'd be interested in knowing about it.

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith wrote:

I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
with:

There is a greenhouse effect

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
the past 150 years

The source of that increase is human activity

Half credit on that one. The source of *part* of that increase is human
activity. Asserting that *all* of it is, is an article of faith, not science.

Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?


Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms

*** That one, right there. ***

The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm of
science and enter that of speculation.

Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?
The question is whether or not you agree that greenhouse gas
concentrations are ONE factor that affects climate (i.e., the response is
non-zero), and whether or not you agree that the effect is to increase
temperature when greenhouse gases go up (i.e., the slope of the
relationship is positive).

In an obvious exaggeration for the sake
of making the point, suppose that solar output were to diminish by fifty
percent at the same time that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising. Would you
still argue that "if concentration of greenhouse gases increases, climate
warms"?

I would argue that the increase in greenhouse gases will cause warming
that will offset some of the cooling caused by reduced solar insolation.

In the orignal question, there is an implicit "all other factors being
constant" in there.

Re-phrase the question:

"In the absense of other external factors causing off-setting
cooling...


The global surface temperature record shows the last 20 years to have
been warmer than the previous 100.

There's another one. That isn't true: *ground*-based temperature monitors have
shown an increase due to increased urbanization, but *satellite* temperature
monitors show a slight decrease.

That is only true if you use the satellite record that ended in the
early 1990s (around the time Mount Pinatubo erupted, which caused a
pronounced cooling spike), and which also had errors due to such things as
satellite orbital decay, which introduced a negative trend bias. More
up-to-date satellite data and analyses confirm the warming trend.

And attributing the ground-based record's warming to "urbanization" is
also a very weak case: analysis is done to reduce or eliminate an
urbanization effects in the record, and huge areas of the globe (northern
Canada comes to mind) show warming that is clearly not attributable to
"urbanization".

And even if it *were* true, it's still equally consistent with anthropogenic
and non-anthropogenic causes.

Please explain more fully. There are lots of other details that try to
distinguish between different sources of climate variation, but until I
know more about what you're thinking, I can't be sure what to say.

For example, as a first approximation global temperature rise could be
the result of changing greenhouse gases or solar output changes, but there
are subtle differences in the details that help distinguish between the
two. (There is also direct data showing that the output of the sun has not
changed significantly in the past 25 years or so, which is the easiest way
do eliminate solar output as the cause of the current warming.)

"Swingman" wrote:

Schneider is regularly sought-out by journalists

Once this sets in, almost anyone is doomed.

(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "Swingman"
wrote:

Environmental Scientist: Dr. Stephen Schneider

"Dr. Stephen Schneider, who received his Ph.D. in Plasma Physics from
Columbia University, served as a climate researcher for the National
Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado for two decades.

Maybe somebody can explain how a PhD in plasma physics qualifies
someone to be a climate researcher...


Fluid Dynamics.

D Smith wrote:

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:

Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been
one
of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.

Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global
COOLING.


Thanks for confirming that your knowledge is based on nothing more
than
media speculation, which DID do write-ups on the subject in the 1970s.

...but that wasn't what the science was telling us. If you think
that
you have a SCIENTIFIC reference for claims of global cooling in the
1970s, feel free to go to the following web page:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

and tell William about it. He'd be interested in knowing about it.



http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-06/rd/global-cooling/

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith wrote:

2) the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is about half the rate of
release from fossil fuels. Thus, increased uptake from the biosphere or
oceans is NOT succeeding in removing all the extra CO2.

It would be more accurate to say that it has not succeeded in doing so to
date.

What happens if the ratio gets smaller with time? So that a larger
proportion stays in the atmosphere? Uncertainty cuts both ways.

Clearly, any increase in plant growth in response to increased
atmospheric CO2 would not be an instantaneous response; IOW, plant growth, and
the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years:

Why? Chamber experiments with increased CO2 levels don't seem to need
to be run for years before showing results - the plants show increased
growth rates quite quickly. Where do you get the "many years" number from?

it takes a while to grow
a tree, you know.

...only when you are looking at the time it takes to reach full
growth. It's growing ALL of that time, and it's during the growth stages
that it acts as a carbon sink, not when it reaches maturity and growth
stagnates.

I'm not concerned that it hasn't happened yet; I would not
have expected it to.

How long do you think it will take? The biologists and foresters that
look at the details of plant and tree growth don't seem to share your
optimism. They worry that current sinks might reach a limit on how much
additional CO2 plants can take in. After all, there are other limiting
factors on plant growth - moisture, nutrients, etc.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:40:18 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"todd" wrote in message
...
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:43:04 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
m...

What do _you_ think it's about?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm

So you're all upset because economic growth might be slower? The
stuff people find to be worried about.

So what? Some eeeevil corporations might not make as much money? Sounds
like Christmas for liberals.

Okay it's boring to post a web link to someon els's article instead of
replying yourself I know, so you can both be forgiven for not bothering to
read the article. the gist of it was: global warming will be a catastrophe
for the already poor regions of the earth, Bangladesh, sub-Saharan Africa.

enough now.

The gist of it is that peoples' income would be 20% less than it would
otherwise be, and they from there he jumps to "it would be a
catastrophe" in areas where people don't have much income today.

Tim w

Mike Hartigan writes:

In article ,
says...
[...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.

Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
incentive to outsource.

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.

In article , D Smith wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:

I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
with:

There is a greenhouse effect

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
the past 150 years

The source of that increase is human activity

Half credit on that one. The source of *part* of that increase is human
activity. Asserting that *all* of it is, is an article of faith, not science.

Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?


Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms

*** That one, right there. ***

The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm of
science and enter that of speculation.

Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?

That's implicit in the phrasing of the claim: "if concentration of greenhouse
gases increases, climate warms" completely ignores any other factors that
might act to cause the climate to cool.

The question is whether or not you agree that greenhouse gas
concentrations are ONE factor that affects climate (i.e., the response is
non-zero), and whether or not you agree that the effect is to increase
temperature when greenhouse gases go up (i.e., the slope of the
relationship is positive).

In an obvious exaggeration for the sake
of making the point, suppose that solar output were to diminish by fifty
percent at the same time that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising. Would you
still argue that "if concentration of greenhouse gases increases, climate
warms"?

I would argue that the increase in greenhouse gases will cause warming
that will offset some of the cooling caused by reduced solar insolation.

Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
decrease in solar output?

In the orignal question, there is an implicit "all other factors being
constant" in there.

Not at all. In the original assertion, there's an implicit "all other factors
don't matter" in there.

Re-phrase the question:

"In the absense of other external factors causing off-setting
cooling...

That's better -- but it still assumes that you can know, and do know, what
*all* of those "other external [offsetting] factors" are.


The global surface temperature record shows the last 20 years to have
been warmer than the previous 100.

There's another one. That isn't true: *ground*-based temperature monitors have
shown an increase due to increased urbanization, but *satellite* temperature
monitors show a slight decrease.

That is only true if you use the satellite record that ended in the
early 1990s (around the time Mount Pinatubo erupted, which caused a
pronounced cooling spike), and which also had errors due to such things as
satellite orbital decay, which introduced a negative trend bias. More
up-to-date satellite data and analyses confirm the warming trend.

Ummm.... no, that would be if you use current data....
And attributing the ground-based record's warming to "urbanization" is
also a very weak case: analysis is done to reduce or eliminate an
urbanization effects in the record, and huge areas of the globe (northern
Canada comes to mind) show warming that is clearly not attributable to
"urbanization".

And even if it *were* true, it's still equally consistent with anthropogenic
and non-anthropogenic causes.

Please explain more fully. There are lots of other details that try to
distinguish between different sources of climate variation, but until I
know more about what you're thinking, I can't be sure what to say.

For example, as a first approximation global temperature rise could be
the result of changing greenhouse gases or solar output changes, but there
are subtle differences in the details that help distinguish between the
two. (There is also direct data showing that the output of the sun has not
changed significantly in the past 25 years or so, which is the easiest way
do eliminate solar output as the cause of the current warming.)

The point is that even if it is getting warmer, the temperature increase in
and of itself is proof only of a temperature increase -- not of what caused
it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , D Smith wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:

2) the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is about half the rate of
release from fossil fuels. Thus, increased uptake from the biosphere or
oceans is NOT succeeding in removing all the extra CO2.

It would be more accurate to say that it has not succeeded in doing so to
date.

What happens if the ratio gets smaller with time? So that a larger
proportion stays in the atmosphere? Uncertainty cuts both ways.

Clearly, any increase in plant growth in response to increased
atmospheric CO2 would not be an instantaneous response; IOW, plant growth, and

the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years:

Why? Chamber experiments with increased CO2 levels don't seem to need
to be run for years before showing results - the plants show increased
growth rates quite quickly. Where do you get the "many years" number from?

Bigger environment, obviously -- unless those tests have been conducted in
planet-sized test chambers.

it takes a while to grow
a tree, you know.

...only when you are looking at the time it takes to reach full
growth. It's growing ALL of that time, and it's during the growth stages
that it acts as a carbon sink, not when it reaches maturity and growth
stagnates.

Which was, if you think about it a little more, precisely my point. Thank you
for emphasizing it.

I'm not concerned that it hasn't happened yet; I would not
have expected it to.

How long do you think it will take? The biologists and foresters that
look at the details of plant and tree growth don't seem to share your
optimism. They worry that current sinks might reach a limit on how much
additional CO2 plants can take in. After all, there are other limiting
factors on plant growth - moisture, nutrients, etc.

That didn't seem to be a problem a few hundred million years ago when (or so
the geologists tell us) the planet was much warmer, and much more densely
foliated, than it is now...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , D Smith wrote:

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.

... and *that* makes it obvious that the motives behind Kyoto are primarily
political, not scientific.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
*entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
dimmer switch on the sun?

Actually, it's not totally out of the question. Theoretically you could
put one or more large mirrors between the earth and the sun and maybe
even use the reflected light for a power-generation plant.

Here's an article that discusses this and related concepts.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18175/

Chris

In article , Chris Friesen wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
*entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
dimmer switch on the sun?

Actually, it's not totally out of the question. Theoretically you could
put one or more large mirrors between the earth and the sun and maybe
even use the reflected light for a power-generation plant.

Yes, I'm familiar with the idea. But if it was practical... it woulda been
done already.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Feb 27, 6:21 pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
*entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
dimmer switch on the sun?

Actually, it's not totally out of the question. Theoretically you could
put one or more large mirrors between the earth and the sun and maybe
even use the reflected light for a power-generation plant.

Here's an article that discusses this and related concepts.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18175/

Chris

In article ,
says...
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith wrote:

Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.

Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global COOLING.


Thanks for confirming that your knowledge is based on nothing more than
media speculation, which DID do write-ups on the subject in the 1970s.

...but that wasn't what the science was telling us. If you think that
you have a SCIENTIFIC reference for claims of global cooling in the 1970s,
feel free to go to the following web page:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

and tell William about it. He'd be interested in knowing about it.

The problem is that the very same people who tried to choreograph our
collective guilt trip in the 70's over global cooling are now trying
to do the same thing with global warming. Surely you can understand
the cynicism. Indeed, the global cooling zealots were actually
putting their money where their mouths were WRT energy conservation
rather than consuming 20x the amount of energy that the average
American uses in a year like the head global warming disciple does
today. Which movement had more credibility?

In article ,
says...
Mike Hartigan writes:

In article ,
says...
[...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.

Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
incentive to outsource.

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.

If that was the plan, then why wasn't it part of the treaty?
(answer: because that wan't the plan) Why do you suppose that the
Democrats in the Senate (yes, even Al Gore) voted *unanimously* to
reject Kyoto? That's an 'inconvenient truth' that I think most
Democrats would prefer to disregard.

"rather than consuming 20x the amount of energy that the average
American uses in a year like the head global warming disciple does
today. Which movement had more credibility?"

Yah, and another global warming guru flying private jets all over the
country lecturing people about their SUVs. No, we don't have one. Of course
a former presidential candidate said that too, turned out they had the use
of several SUVs registered to other family members.

FACT, there was a glacier within 60 miles of where I live a few thousand
years ago. What happened to it? Global warming and there were no SUVs, no
coal burning electic plants, etc. We are likely not having a favorable
affect on the atmosphere at this time but what proportion of change is the
result is very questionable.

They now say cows contribute a lot to "green house gases". They will want to
put catalytic converters on cows. What I what to see is them catching the
squirrels and putting converters on them.

Walt Conner

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:27:57 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article .com, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:15 am, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Feb 27, 8:53 am, J. Clarke wrote:

And when you press the people whingeing about it online hard enough
they eventually almost universally go off on how the US is the Evil
Empire and Bush is the Antichrist. Period.

//there, fixed it for you.

Something else to chuckle about: Gore's house uses more electricity in
one month that the average familie in a year.... tsk,,tsk now
Allllbert!!!!

Sure! Makes perfect sense to me... that's why all the *rest* of us have to
scale back our energy usage -- so there will be more left for AlGore.

Bingo! Once again proves the statement that whenever one of these people
make a statement, you always need to add some variant "for me" to the end
in order to get their true meaning and intent.

Al Go "The US needs to reduce its output of CO2 and carbon footprint,
so that I can maintain and expand mine."


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On 27 Feb 2007 15:42:13 -0600, D Smith wrote:

Mike Hartigan writes:

In article ,
says...
[...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.

Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
incentive to outsource.

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.


You really don't understand how global politics works, do you?



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:22:13 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Bob Schmall wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

It's fun to go bird watching on the wreck. I've identified two species:
the large flightless who keep their head in the sand and the small
flightless who squawk about the sky falling.
As a committed centrist, I'm going to take the word of George W. Bush
and Bill O'Reilly, committed conservatives who acknowledge that global
warming is real and that we must do something about it regardless of its
cause.

The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
*entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
dimmer switch on the sun?


res ipsa loquitur.



pay attention to the core of the argument.



r.

In article , Tom
Terrific wrote:

In article ,
says...
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:

Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.

Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global COOLING.


Thanks for confirming that your knowledge is based on nothing more than
media speculation, which DID do write-ups on the subject in the 1970s.

...but that wasn't what the science was telling us. If you think that
you have a SCIENTIFIC reference for claims of global cooling in the 1970s,
feel free to go to the following web page:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

and tell William about it. He'd be interested in knowing about it.

The problem is that the very same people who tried to choreograph our
collective guilt trip in the 70's over global cooling are now trying
to do the same thing with global warming. Surely you can understand
the cynicism. Indeed, the global cooling zealots were actually
putting their money where their mouths were WRT energy conservation
rather than consuming 20x the amount of energy that the average
American uses in a year like the head global warming disciple does
today. Which movement had more credibility?

Does anyone have a list of the people, scientists, journalists and
politicians, who were screaming about cooling 30 years ago? I wonder
what overlap there is...

--
You can't PLAN sincerity. You have to make it up on the spot! -- Denny Crane

Lobby Dosser writes:

D Smith wrote:

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:

Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been
one
of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.

Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global
COOLING.


Thanks for confirming that your knowledge is based on nothing more
than
media speculation, which DID do write-ups on the subject in the 1970s.

...but that wasn't what the science was telling us. If you think
that
you have a SCIENTIFIC reference for claims of global cooling in the
1970s, feel free to go to the following web page:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

and tell William about it. He'd be interested in knowing about it.



http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-06/rd/global-cooling/


You didn't bother looking at the link I gave to William Connolley's web
page, did you?

The Rasool and Schneider paper (from Science in 1971) is already
discussed there. I'm not surprised that you mention it though - I figured
someone would.

I'll bet you haven't read the Rasool and Schneider paper, either. It
does NOT predict a global cooling. It does some speculating, but that's
about it. Connolley's web page has the full citation, unlike the opinion
peice that is at the discover.com site.

Want to try again?

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:

I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
with:

There is a greenhouse effect

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
the past 150 years

The source of that increase is human activity

Half credit on that one. The source of *part* of that increase is human
activity. Asserting that *all* of it is, is an article of faith, not science.

Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?



Second request, leaving lots of white space so it doesn't get missed.



Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?











Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms

*** That one, right there. ***

The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm of
science and enter that of speculation.

Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?

That's implicit in the phrasing of the claim: "if concentration of greenhouse
gases increases, climate warms" completely ignores any other factors that
might act to cause the climate to cool.

You wish to interpret the question that way.

For the purposes of determining the effect of "greenhouse gases", is it
not traditional to try to isolate that component of the system? Isn't that
the way science works? Isolate a component, figure out its effect, then
build it back into the composite system?


The question is whether or not you agree that greenhouse gas
concentrations are ONE factor that affects climate (i.e., the response is
non-zero), and whether or not you agree that the effect is to increase
temperature when greenhouse gases go up (i.e., the slope of the
relationship is positive).

In an obvious exaggeration for the sake
of making the point, suppose that solar output were to diminish by fifty
percent at the same time that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising. Would you
still argue that "if concentration of greenhouse gases increases, climate
warms"?

I would argue that the increase in greenhouse gases will cause warming
that will offset some of the cooling caused by reduced solar insolation.

Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
decrease in solar output?

Which part of "some" is so difficult for you to understand?

Or did you just miss it? Or did you just ignore it?

Look. I'm interested in trying to discuss this rationally. For you to
skip over my use of the word "some" makes it look like you want to argue
against a strawman rather than what I'm saying. I'm willing to accept
that you didn't mean to do that, but you're going to have to make a better
effort if you want me to continue to accept that. For that purpose, I am
willing to put some number on what I expect, so...

No, I can't forsee any increase in CO2 that would offset a 50%
reduction in solar output. That does not mean that CO2 does not have an
effect, though. For doubling of atmospheric CO2 (from 300-600 ppm), the
radiative effect (a positive forcing) would be roughly equivalent to
increasing the solar constant by about 23 W/m^2 (given current climate).
So, conversely, doubling CO2 would offset a reduction in solar output of
23 W/m^2 (about 1.7%). This would be a very large change in solar
constant, easily detectable by our space-based instruments. If the solar
constant DID change by this amount (in the absence of any change in
greenhouse gases, or "other external factors") then I would also expect a
change in global mean temperature somewhere in the range of 1-4C.

Now, are you willing to put some numbers on your estimates?



In the orignal question, there is an implicit "all other factors being
constant" in there.

Not at all. In the original assertion, there's an implicit "all other factors
don't matter" in there.

Let's go back to the original question:

Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms

The purpose of the sequence of questions is to isolate different parts
of the problem (call it "anthropogenic climate change", or whatever you
will). This is standard scientific method. Once we isolate a component, we
can examine its effect, and once we understand it we can look at it in
conjunction with all the other components again.

It is very difficult to assess the effects of "all factors" if we don't
know what any of them do individually. I am trying to find out what your
level of understanding is on several key components of climate theory.

Please note that this question says nothing about human effects - it
simply asks about "greenhouse gases" and global temperature (with a little
elementary physics qualifier thrown in).


Re-phrase the question:

"In the absense of other external factors causing off-setting
cooling...

That's better -- but it still assumes that you can know, and do know, what
*all* of those "other external [offsetting] factors" are.

When we eventually get back to the question of "what is happening to
our current climate?", then all those other factors DO come back in. But
at the moment, we are trying to isolate the role of one of those factors.
Does that make sense. Do you agree that isolating factors, for the purpose
of discussion and examiniation of effects, is a reasonable approach?



The global surface temperature record shows the last 20 years to have
been warmer than the previous 100.

There's another one. That isn't true: *ground*-based temperature monitors have
shown an increase due to increased urbanization, but *satellite* temperature
monitors show a slight decrease.

That is only true if you use the satellite record that ended in the
early 1990s (around the time Mount Pinatubo erupted, which caused a
pronounced cooling spike), and which also had errors due to such things as
satellite orbital decay, which introduced a negative trend bias. More
up-to-date satellite data and analyses confirm the warming trend.

Ummm.... no, that would be if you use current data....

Reference please? Most "satellite data shows cooling" sites only give
the information from Spencer and Christy's original work. I will try to
look up a reference, too. The IPCC 2001 assessment is getting rather dated
now (its graphs of satellite temperatures show warming), and I thought I
had some links to more recent things, but I'll need to dig a little more.

And attributing the ground-based record's warming to "urbanization" is
also a very weak case: analysis is done to reduce or eliminate an
urbanization effects in the record, and huge areas of the globe (northern
Canada comes to mind) show warming that is clearly not attributable to
"urbanization".

And even if it *were* true, it's still equally consistent with anthropogenic
and non-anthropogenic causes.

Please explain more fully. There are lots of other details that try to
distinguish between different sources of climate variation, but until I
know more about what you're thinking, I can't be sure what to say.

For example, as a first approximation global temperature rise could be
the result of changing greenhouse gases or solar output changes, but there
are subtle differences in the details that help distinguish between the
two. (There is also direct data showing that the output of the sun has not
changed significantly in the past 25 years or so, which is the easiest way
do eliminate solar output as the cause of the current warming.)

The point is that even if it is getting warmer, the temperature increase in
and of itself is proof only of a temperature increase -- not of what caused
it.

And that is the purpose of trying to isolate components of the system,
and examining eveidence that supports or eliminates a variety of causes.
For example, an argument that "the sun is doing it" is not very strong in
the presence of direct measurements of solar output that do not show an
increase in the past 20 years.

[trying to edit out some parts - hopefully without losing context]

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:


[snip]


Clearly, any increase in plant growth in response to increased
atmospheric CO2 would not be an instantaneous response; IOW, plant growth, and

the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years:

Why? Chamber experiments with increased CO2 levels don't seem to need
to be run for years before showing results - the plants show increased
growth rates quite quickly. Where do you get the "many years" number from?

Bigger environment, obviously -- unless those tests have been conducted in
planet-sized test chambers.


What difference does this make? How do the trees know how big the box
of air is that they are taking CO2 from? IIRC, at least some of these
types of tests have been done on trees outdoors, with a clear membrane to
trap air and allow CO2 enrichment. As close to nature as possible.



it takes a while to grow
a tree, you know.

...only when you are looking at the time it takes to reach full
growth. It's growing ALL of that time, and it's during the growth stages
that it acts as a carbon sink, not when it reaches maturity and growth
stagnates.

Which was, if you think about it a little more, precisely my point. Thank you
for emphasizing it.

No, your point was that you expect a time lag. Why do you think there
is a time lag between exposure-to-increased-CO2 and growth? What is it
about "more CO2 now" that helps the plant, but doesn't show up as growth
until later?



I'm not concerned that it hasn't happened yet; I would not
have expected it to.

How long do you think it will take? The biologists and foresters that
look at the details of plant and tree growth don't seem to share your
optimism. They worry that current sinks might reach a limit on how much
additional CO2 plants can take in. After all, there are other limiting
factors on plant growth - moisture, nutrients, etc.

That didn't seem to be a problem a few hundred million years ago when (or so
the geologists tell us) the planet was much warmer, and much more densely
foliated, than it is now...

Different environments. Different species of plants. Species adapted to
high CO2 levels (if we're talking about the same periods), whereas today's
vegetation has adapted to the current environment.

[and the "worry" aspect is probably partly the natural scientific
reluctance to ignore the possibliity that thewre will be surprises.]

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith wrote:

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.

.. and *that* makes it obvious that the motives behind Kyoto are primarily
political, not scientific.

No, it makes it obvious that the people who are concerned about
increasing carbon dioxide know that it is a global problem, and no single
country or subset of countries can find a complete solution in isolation.

In order to keep the pool clean, you have to stop _everyone_ from
peeing in it.

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , Chris Friesen wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
*entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
dimmer switch on the sun?

Actually, it's not totally out of the question. Theoretically you could
put one or more large mirrors between the earth and the sun and maybe
even use the reflected light for a power-generation plant.

Yes, I'm familiar with the idea. But if it was practical... it woulda been
done already.


I would first argue that the current changes in climate are only
slightly dependent on the observed changes in solar output,

....but treating the question as hypothetical, and accepting that you can't
prevent it, you continue to study climate and predict what the changes
will be, so that you have time to prepare and adapt. If you're lucky,
there won't be much to do, but if the changes are significant and costly,
an early start will help.

Tom Terrific writes:

In article ,
says...
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith wrote:

Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.

Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global COOLING.


Thanks for confirming that your knowledge is based on nothing more than
media speculation, which DID do write-ups on the subject in the 1970s.

...but that wasn't what the science was telling us. If you think that
you have a SCIENTIFIC reference for claims of global cooling in the 1970s,
feel free to go to the following web page:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

and tell William about it. He'd be interested in knowing about it.

The problem is that the very same people who tried to choreograph our
collective guilt trip in the 70's over global cooling are now trying
to do the same thing with global warming.

Is "the very same people" meant literally, as in "I have names of
people that said 'cooling' in the 1970s and 'warming' in the 1990s", or do
you mean it figuratively, as in "it's THOSE people - you know the ones".

Surely you can understand
the cynicism. Indeed, the global cooling zealots were actually
putting their money where their mouths were WRT energy conservation
rather than consuming 20x the amount of energy that the average
American uses in a year like the head global warming disciple does
today. Which movement had more credibility?

Hey, can I join "The Movement", too? Where do I get a membership card?
Do I get a discount at Walmart? Or perhaps at LL Bean?

Or do I just get assigned to it by you?

Mike Hartigan writes:

In article ,
says...
Mike Hartigan writes:

In article ,
says...
[...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.

Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
incentive to outsource.

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.

If that was the plan, then why wasn't it part of the treaty?

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Have you ever watched what goes on in even a simple contract
negotation between two parties? Sometimes you just decide to leave things
until later. Even getting a majority of countries to agree to something
like Kyoto is a major accomplishment.

(answer: because that wan't the plan) Why do you suppose that the
Democrats in the Senate (yes, even Al Gore) voted *unanimously* to
reject Kyoto? That's an 'inconvenient truth' that I think most
Democrats would prefer to disregard.

I don't know. You'd have to ask them. I'm not even an American, and
have never lived there. I live in a country that ratified Kyoto (and then
decided to not meet our targets.)

Mark & Juanita writes:

On 27 Feb 2007 15:42:13 -0600, D Smith wrote:

Mike Hartigan writes:

In article ,
says...
[...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.

Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
incentive to outsource.

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.


You really don't understand how global politics works, do you?



Um, let me see. Negotiate international treaties. Go back on your
word. When someone doesn't like you, ask UN to sanction them. When UN
doesn't, (or doesn't do it fast enough), send in the Marines and overthrow
foreign governments. When questioned, say "He started it!!" and let UN
know you'll use your veto if they try to do anything to you. Look puzzled
when other countries say they are unhappy with your behaviour, and say "we
want to bring them democracy! ...whether they want it or not!" Act as if
voting in other countries isn't "democratic" because you don't like the
people that got elected.

...and above all else, NEVER let them see that you're scared.

Howzatt?

Dave Balderstone writes:

In article , Tom
Terrific wrote:

In article ,
says...
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:

Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.

Horsepuckey. Back in the 1970s, the 'panic du jour' was global COOLING.


Thanks for confirming that your knowledge is based on nothing more than
media speculation, which DID do write-ups on the subject in the 1970s.

...but that wasn't what the science was telling us. If you think that
you have a SCIENTIFIC reference for claims of global cooling in the 1970s,
feel free to go to the following web page:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

and tell William about it. He'd be interested in knowing about it.

The problem is that the very same people who tried to choreograph our
collective guilt trip in the 70's over global cooling are now trying
to do the same thing with global warming. Surely you can understand
the cynicism. Indeed, the global cooling zealots were actually
putting their money where their mouths were WRT energy conservation
rather than consuming 20x the amount of energy that the average
American uses in a year like the head global warming disciple does
today. Which movement had more credibility?

Does anyone have a list of the people, scientists, journalists and
politicians, who were screaming about cooling 30 years ago? I wonder
what overlap there is...


How much would you expect there to be? 30 years is a long time in any
of these diciplines, and few people remain at the top for that long. Many
of the key scientists today were probably in high school or undergraduates
in the 1970s. Many of the key scientists from the 1970s are probably
slowly returning a lifetime of accumulated carbon back into the ecosystem
now.

If you haven't already got a copy of "the list", then it probably means
they won't let you into the club...

D Smith wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith wrote:

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.

.. and *that* makes it obvious that the motives behind Kyoto are primarily
political, not scientific.

No, it makes it obvious that the people who are concerned about
increasing carbon dioxide know that it is a global problem, and no single

In this case, the "people concerned about increasing carbon dioxide" are principally
political hacks and other bottom-feeding scoundrels with minimal understanding
of actual science. This does not in any way speak to whether or not GW is
a real problem or not. But, Kyoto is a political cesspool, nothing more.

country or subset of countries can find a complete solution in isolation.

In order to keep the pool clean, you have to stop _everyone_ from
peeing in it.


Then why does Kyoto punish the people who are barely in the pool and who never
pee in it while requiring little or nothing from those using the pool as their
outhouse?

D Smith wrote:

Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?


"Accept" is not a scientific notion, it is a religious one. You might "accept" the teaching
of Jesus, Buddah, or Al Gore, but science is expected to *demonstrate* its findings such that
they can be *verified* by other specialists in the field in an open and transparent way.
Science does not depend on "consensus" or "acceptance". In fact, it is actually rooted in
*falsification* (at least in principle). So, when you ask questions like the one posed above,
you expose your position as being essentially mystical, not scientific.

I do not "accept" your line of argument. I await scientific confirmation and demonstration
which has yet to happen at anything near the breathtaking levels of confidence that
the rectal parasites like Gore trumpet...

D Smith writes:

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

[huge snip]

There's another one. That isn't true: *ground*-based temperature monitors have
shown an increase due to increased urbanization, but *satellite* temperature
monitors show a slight decrease.

That is only true if you use the satellite record that ended in the
early 1990s (around the time Mount Pinatubo erupted, which caused a
pronounced cooling spike), and which also had errors due to such things as
satellite orbital decay, which introduced a negative trend bias. More
up-to-date satellite data and analyses confirm the warming trend.

Ummm.... no, that would be if you use current data....

Reference please? Most "satellite data shows cooling" sites only give
the information from Spencer and Christy's original work. I will try to
look up a reference, too. The IPCC 2001 assessment is getting rather dated
now (its graphs of satellite temperatures show warming), and I thought I
had some links to more recent things, but I'll need to dig a little more.


Found it.

http://gristmill.grist.org/Story/2006/10/31/223318/86

Shows satellite records up to 2005, some of the recent changes in
analysis, etc. Also has a pointer to realclimate.org for more technical
details.

In article , D Smith wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:

I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
with:

There is a greenhouse effect

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
the past 150 years

The source of that increase is human activity

Half credit on that one. The source of *part* of that increase is human
activity. Asserting that *all* of it is, is an article of faith, not
science.

Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?



Second request, leaving lots of white space so it doesn't get missed.



Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?


I ignored that, because -- as I'm sure you know -- it's an irrelevant
strawman. You assert that global warming is entirely the result of human
activity; it's up to you to demonstrate the truth of that assertion.









Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms

*** That one, right there. ***

The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm
of
science and enter that of speculation.

Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?

That's implicit in the phrasing of the claim: "if concentration of greenhouse
gases increases, climate warms" completely ignores any other factors that
might act to cause the climate to cool.

You wish to interpret the question that way.

First off, it's not a "question", it's an *assertion*.

Second, it's not a matter of how I "wish to interpret" it; to anyone with an
ordinary ability to read and comprehend written English -- and withOUT an a
priori political agenda to push -- the meaning is quite clear. If you choose
to interpret it to mean something other than what it plainly does, it's your
responsibility, not mine, to explain why.

For the purposes of determining the effect of "greenhouse gases", is it
not traditional to try to isolate that component of the system? Isn't that
the way science works? Isolate a component, figure out its effect, then
build it back into the composite system?

Not relevant. Again, let me remind you that the phrasing of the assertion
clearly implies the a priori assumption that there are no other relevant
factors.


The question is whether or not you agree that greenhouse gas
concentrations are ONE factor that affects climate (i.e., the response is
non-zero), and whether or not you agree that the effect is to increase
temperature when greenhouse gases go up (i.e., the slope of the
relationship is positive).

In an obvious exaggeration for the sake
of making the point, suppose that solar output were to diminish by fifty
percent at the same time that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising. Would you
still argue that "if concentration of greenhouse gases increases, climate
warms"?

I would argue that the increase in greenhouse gases will cause warming
that will offset some of the cooling caused by reduced solar insolation.

Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
decrease in solar output?

Which part of "some" is so difficult for you to understand?

OK, let me rephrase that, since you seem to be having difficulty with it:

Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
decrease in solar output to any extent which would be meaningful to life forms
on this planet?

Sheesh.

Or did you just miss it? Or did you just ignore it?

Look. I'm interested in trying to discuss this rationally.

No, you're not. You keep erecting straw men, and misconstruing my statements
so wildly that it can only be deliberate.

It's clear that you are one of the global warming True Believers. You've left
the realm of rationality long ago, and won't listen to anything that calls
your Faith into question.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , D Smith wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.

.. and *that* makes it obvious that the motives behind Kyoto are primarily
political, not scientific.

No, it makes it obvious that the people who are concerned about
increasing carbon dioxide know that it is a global problem, and no single
country or subset of countries can find a complete solution in isolation.

Nonsense, absolute and utter nonsense. If Kyoto were about reducing CO2
emissions, it would have placed restrictions on India and China as well.

In order to keep the pool clean, you have to stop _everyone_ from
peeing in it.

OK, if that's so -- then why does Kyoto allow China and India to keep peeing
in the pool?

Like I said -- political basis, not scientific.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , D Smith wrote:
[trying to edit out some parts - hopefully without losing context]

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:


[snip]


Clearly, any increase in plant growth in response to increased
atmospheric CO2 would not be an instantaneous response; IOW, plant growth,
and

the attendant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, should be expected to lag
the increase in CO2 levels -- probably by many years:

Why? Chamber experiments with increased CO2 levels don't seem to need
to be run for years before showing results - the plants show increased
growth rates quite quickly. Where do you get the "many years" number from?

Bigger environment, obviously -- unless those tests have been conducted in
planet-sized test chambers.


What difference does this make? How do the trees know how big the box
of air is that they are taking CO2 from? IIRC, at least some of these
types of tests have been done on trees outdoors, with a clear membrane to
trap air and allow CO2 enrichment. As close to nature as possible.

I guess the concept of scale doesn't have any meaning to you.



it takes a while to grow
a tree, you know.

...only when you are looking at the time it takes to reach full
growth. It's growing ALL of that time, and it's during the growth stages
that it acts as a carbon sink, not when it reaches maturity and growth
stagnates.

Which was, if you think about it a little more, precisely my point. Thank you
for emphasizing it.

No, your point was that you expect a time lag. Why do you think there
is a time lag between exposure-to-increased-CO2 and growth?

I didn't say there was a lag between exposure and growth. The point is that
there is a lag between exposure and significant ability of the plant to
sequester carbon from the atmosphere. It's quite simple, really: a sapling
can't sequester nearly as much carbon as a large tree; the lag is the time it
takes for the former to become the latter.

What is it
about "more CO2 now" that helps the plant, but doesn't show up as growth
until later?

See above.



I'm not concerned that it hasn't happened yet; I would not
have expected it to.

How long do you think it will take? The biologists and foresters that
look at the details of plant and tree growth don't seem to share your
optimism. They worry that current sinks might reach a limit on how much
additional CO2 plants can take in. After all, there are other limiting
factors on plant growth - moisture, nutrients, etc.

That didn't seem to be a problem a few hundred million years ago when (or so
the geologists tell us) the planet was much warmer, and much more densely
foliated, than it is now...

Different environments. Different species of plants. Species adapted to
high CO2 levels (if we're talking about the same periods), whereas today's
vegetation has adapted to the current environment.

And if the environment changes, the vegetation will adapt.

So will we.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
says...
Mike Hartigan writes:

In article ,
says...
Mike Hartigan writes:

In article ,
says...
[...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.

Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
incentive to outsource.

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.

If that was the plan, then why wasn't it part of the treaty?

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Have you ever watched what goes on in even a simple contract
negotation between two parties? Sometimes you just decide to leave things
until later.

So let me get this straight - You let the two countries that account
for approx. half the world's population, one of which is poised to
pass the US in terms of fossil fuel consumption, completely off the
hook so that they'll sign on to the agreement (although, what exactly
they're agreeing to is a mystery to me). Then, at some indeterminate
time in the future, they'll go along with it because you just feel it
in your bones that they will? Is that how you go about saving the
world?

WRT your 'simple contract', neither party is held to anything that is
not explicitly spelled out in the contract.

Even getting a majority of countries to agree to something
like Kyoto is a major accomplishment.

Which of the major industrialized nations would that be? (China and
India don't count because they didn't agree to anything). What
percentage of the industrialized world's population do these
countries represent?

(answer: because that wan't the plan) Why do you suppose that the
Democrats in the Senate (yes, even Al Gore) voted *unanimously* to
reject Kyoto? That's an 'inconvenient truth' that I think most
Democrats would prefer to disregard.

I don't know. You'd have to ask them. I'm not even an American, and
have never lived there. I live in a country that ratified Kyoto (and then
decided to not meet our targets.)

Is that any more or less noble than not having ratified it in the
first place?

D Smith wrote:
D Smith writes:

(Doug Miller) writes:


Reference please? Most "satellite data shows cooling" sites only give
the information from Spencer and Christy's original work. I will try to
look up a reference, too. The IPCC 2001 assessment is getting rather dated
now (its graphs of satellite temperatures show warming), and I thought I
had some links to more recent things, but I'll need to dig a little more.

Found it.

http://gristmill.grist.org/Story/2006/10/31/223318/86

Shows satellite records up to 2005, some of the recent changes in
analysis, etc. Also has a pointer to realclimate.org for more technical
details.


Interesting, the chart shows average temperature changes from 1979 to
2001 of -- get this -- NOTHING! Actually, the chart indicates ground
measurement of about a tenth of a degree increase, and satellite
measurements of about a tenth of a degree decrease, with fluctuations
more than fifteen times that much. Which leads to the question, what is
the margin of error? Can we really measure whatever they're trying to
measure with enough precision to state with any accuracy that global
temperatures had a long-term trend that either decreased or increased
during those two-plus decades? And it makes me wonder, what would the
chart look like if we were able to accurately extend it back for, say,
5,000 years?

On 28 Feb 2007 15:46:47 -0600, D Smith wrote:

Mark & Juanita writes:

On 27 Feb 2007 15:42:13 -0600, D Smith wrote:

.... snip

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.


You really don't understand how global politics works, do you?



Um, let me see. Negotiate international treaties. Go back on your
word. When someone doesn't like you, ask UN to sanction them. When UN
doesn't, (or doesn't do it fast enough), send in the Marines and overthrow
foreign governments. When questioned, say "He started it!!" and let UN
know you'll use your veto if they try to do anything to you. Look puzzled
when other countries say they are unhappy with your behaviour, and say "we
want to bring them democracy! ...whether they want it or not!" Act as if
voting in other countries isn't "democratic" because you don't like the
people that got elected.

...and above all else, NEVER let them see that you're scared.

Howzatt?

Thank-you. That's perfect and provides the data point I was looking for.
You have established the position from which you are arguing. With that
worldview there is no reason for further discussion. Thanks for playing,
please stop by the lobby for your lovely parting gifts.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+