quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Why do I dispute that additional co2 loading brings us cloaser to venus? Well, simply because there are hundreds of journal articles that say that the CO2 contribution to global warming has a finite upper bound.

Present one of these. Just one.

I've quoted it before. Quaternary Journal. The link is in this thread or the last. More or less said that there are 6 contributors to global warming, co2 is one of them, and contributes roughly 2.1 degrees.

But I'm not finding you links until you find a link for what I've asked you more than a dozen times so far. A link for the scientific formula for AGW.
Ie., given x concentration of Co2, the temperature is predicted to be y

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Why do I dispute that additional co2 loading brings us cloaser to venus? Well, simply because there are hundreds of journal articles that say that the CO2 contribution to global warming has a finite upper bound.

Present one of these. Just one.

I've quoted it before. Quaternary Journal. The link is in this thread or the last. More or less said that there are 6 contributors to global warming, co2 is one of them, and contributes roughly 2.1 degrees.

But I'm not finding you links until you find a link for what I've asked you more than a dozen times so far. A link for the scientific formula for AGW.
Ie., given x concentration of Co2, the temperature is predicted to be y

You know as well as I do that there are too many variables in the climate system

You're right. I do.

Which means that climate change is a function of MANY things, not MERELY CO2.
To borrow the term you alarmists use - there are many "forcings" that contribute to climate. CO2 concentration is only one.

Thinks like aerosol formation, are *bigger* drivers of climate change. Which is why we are seeing the pause at the moment, and which you can't explain if you think it is only a function of Co2.

So you used "arctic" ice's decline (up to 2009) as evidence of global warming, and yet ignore

a) Anartartic ice is at record volume.
b). Artic ice over the last few years has increased.

Why is that?

Why is it that cloud coverage in the equatorial areas has *decreased* and concomitantly median temperatures in the equatorial regions are *down* .16 degrees over the last decade.

I mean, how is that possible since the CO2 concentration has almost doubled in that period? Is it possible, do you think that something else might be at stake?

quote:



What you are *not* seeing is why the IPCC just recanted two of its more egregious predictions.

quote:


Now while we are at it, I looked up your supposedly unbiased skeptical science.

Interesting stuff, no? :http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html

quote:


And then of course, theres this:

Friday, March 23, 2012
From the Skeptical Science "leak": Interesting stuff about generating and marketing "The Consensus Project"
Comment from the leaker

I have collated some of the data in a more readable form.
http://files.molongo.ru/en/my/sks.zip [Note from Tom-I was able to get an unzippable file from this location earlier today; when I tried retrieving the file again this afternoon, I was unable to unzip the file.]
Why has SkS chosen to publish all this on the public internet? Is it the first step towards transparency, or a catastrophic error?

Skeptical Science Forum - Introduction to The Consensus Project

TCP is basically an update and expansion of Naomi Oreskes' survey of the peer-reviewed literature with deeper analysis. In 2004, Naomi surveyed 928 articles in the Web of Science matching the search "global climate change" from 1993 to 2003. We've expanded the time period (1991 to 2011) and added papers matching the search "global warming". We ended up with 12,272 papers. I imported the details of each paper (including abstracts) into the SkS database and set up a simple crowd sourcing system allowing us to rate the category of each paper using Naomi's initial categories (impacts, mitigation, paleoclimate, methods, rejection, opinion). We did find some rejection papers in the larger sample but the amount was negligible. The amount of citations the rejection papers received were even smaller proportionally, indicating the negligible impact of AGW denial in the peer-reviewed literature. Jim and I wrote these initial results up into a short Brevia article that we just submitted to Science (so please don't mention these results outside of this forum yet, lest it spook Science who freak out if there's any mention of a submitted paper before publication). Of course, Science have a 92% rejection rate so the chances are very slim - we'll try other journals if rejected there.
When the paper is published, we would announce it on SkS as the beginning of the public launch of TCP. It will also be promoted through the communications dept at the Global Change Institute although their press releases only go to Australian media so will have to explore other promotion ideas.

Skeptical Science Forum- The Consensus Project Marketing Ideas http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/03/from-skeptical-science-interesting.html

To achieve this goal, we mustn't fall into the trap of spending too much time on analysis and too little time on promotion. As we do the analysis, would be good to have the marketing plan percolating along as well. So a few ideas floating around:

Press releases: Talked to Ove about this yesterday, the Global Change Institute have a communications dept (well, two people) and will issue press releases to Australian media when this comes out. No plan yet for US media.
Mainstream Media: This is the key if we want to achieve public consciousness. MSM is an opaque wall to me so ideas welcome. I suspect this will involve developing time lines, building momentum for the idea and consulting with PR professionals like Jim Hoggan.
Climate Communicators: There needs to be a concerted effort (spearheaded by me) to get climate communicators using these results in their messaging. I've been hooking up with a lot of climate communicators over the last month and will be hooking up with more over the next few months so will be discussing these results with every climate communicator I can get hold of, including heavyweights like Susan Hassol and Richard Somerville, to discuss ways of amplifying this message.
Also Ed Maibach is doing research on the most effective way to debunk the "no consensus" myth so I hope to contact him and hopefully include our results in his research. The more we can get climate communicators incorporating our results into their messages, the better.
Blogosphere: The usual blogosphere networking. Note - Tim Lambert tried to do a similar crowd sourcing effort a few years ago but didn't succeed in generating enough support for the crowd sourcing - I'm confident we can get it done.
Climate Orgs: Also have been making connections with various climate organisations and occasionally talked about the possibility of collaboration so will use this project as a focal point as ways to work together. Have to think about this some more
Google: Coincidentally, started talking to someone who works at Google, specifically the data visualisation department. So I've been working with them on visualising the consensus data in sexy, interactive ways. This will be one of the X-factor elements of TCP - maybe they can even provide an embeddable version of the visualisation which blogs and websites can use.
Video: Peter Sinclair is keen to produce a YouTube video about the TCP results to publish on the Yale Forum on Climate Change.
Booklet similar to Guide and Debunking Handbook, explaining the results of the peer-reviewed paper in plain English with big shiny graphics (with translations, I suppose - they're a pain for me to convert but worthwhile doing).
Kindle/iBook version of Booklet (can you publish free books on Amazon?).
Embeddable widget: graphic showing the graph of strengthening consensus, updated each year, easily copy and pasteable into other blogs. I like this idea, can make TCP go viral and become ubiquitious on the climate blogosphere!

Skeptical Science Forum - The Consensus Project Required Reading

In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums "hacked" and the contents posted online. In these it was revealed that Skeptical Science members are organizing themselves into eco-strike squads to "drown out" those who do not accept their alarmist positions,

"I posted over at Politico just recently. Hey, we can tag team it a bit if you like, use time zone differences." - Glenn Tamblyn [Skeptical Science], February 10, 2011

"I think this is a highly effective method of dealing with various blogs and online articles where these discussions pop up. Flag them, discuss them and then send in the troops to hammer down what are usually just a couple of very vocal people. It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this. If we can coordinate better and grow the "team of crushers" then we could address all the anti-science much more effectively." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

"Rob, Your post is music to my ears. I've been advocating the need to create a "crusher crew" for quite some time. I was not however able to get much traction on it with fellow environmental activists here in South Carolina or nationally. Like you, I spend (much to my wife's chagrin) many hours each day posting comments on articles. One of haunts was the USA Today website [...] The bottom line, would you be willing to patrol articles posted on the USA Today website?" - John Hartz [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

This started a new forum discussion entitled, "Crusher Crew".

"Badgersouth [John Hartz] and I were just discussing the potential of setting up a coordinated "Crusher Crew" where we could pull our collective time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

"May I suggest first on our list as being the *#1 Science Blog* "Watts up with that"? They get a few people come there to engage from time to time but rarely a coordinated effort." - Robert Way [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

"I think it might be better to start out with smaller fish. Build a community and a team. Find some methods and strategies that work. Then start moving up the denier food chain with our targets set on WUWT. I could see this expanding into a broad team of 100 or more people (outside the scope of this SkS forum of course). [...] We just need to raise our collective voices to drown them out. I would venture to guess that most people here know of 4 or 5 regulars on comments sections that would be interested in coordinating their efforts. I know probably 10 or 20 people who would like to help with this." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

This eco-strike squad was highly endorsed by John Cook,

"The Rapid Response Network would be a good way to coordinate this kind of activity, identifying new articles, logging responses, supporting each other. Can i suggest if a group engage in this, that they use the RRN as beta testers to he'll me develop and refine the system?" - John Cook [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``

So I suppose you're in favor of "just using our collective voices to drown them out" tactics, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

One of the worst things about our politically correct society is that you can no longer call them idiots when they blither.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Why do I dispute that additional co2 loading brings us cloaser to venus? Well, simply because there are hundreds of journal articles that say that the CO2 contribution to global warming has a finite upper bound.

Present one of these. Just one.

I've quoted it before. Quaternary Journal. The link is in this thread or the last. More or less said that there are 6 contributors to global warming, co2 is one of them, and contributes roughly 2.1 degrees.

But I'm not finding you links until you find a link for what I've asked you more than a dozen times so far. A link for the scientific formula for AGW.
Ie., given x concentration of Co2, the temperature is predicted to be y

If you think we need some nugatory math. formula...then you are simply being obtuse.

Before I go any further I want to make sure that I understand you correctly. Your source agrees and confirms that there are as many as 6 contributors to global warming of which CO2 is only one. So your source confirms what I posted about CO2 and by implication, confirms man's contribution to CO2 levels with the [his] use of petro fuels for energy and transportation and by implication...man's contribution to global warming.

Having conceded that CO2 is one of them, man having expanded exponentially his contribution of CO2 via a robust and ever-enlarging industrial rev. of some 120+ years in our time, man having since and during this rev., exponentially increased CO2 via the motor vehicle and nearly doubling that use of motor vehicles using petro fuels by 2035 and the atmospheric CO2 in addition to un-burnt hydrocarbons and another likely doubling of coal fired plants while conceding man already recognized and a confirmed contributor of some countless billion of tons of CO2 and then, while using our basic logic that while man will be long baked before we even get anywhere near the atmospheric conditions and temps. on Venus, your policy recommendation would be to do what ?

...ignore CO2, ignore the other 5...or ignore them all ?

My whole point is...IF man burns ALL of the oil we know of now...ALL of the coal we have now...mankind creates for himself...a world of shit, the likes of which weather-wise, clean-air wise and temperature wise...that if we do dream about, will be...a fucking nightmare. There's your mathematical formula.

How many years do we have left ? I don't know and won't be here I am sure but when man does burn all of his shit...maybe then [they] will know because they'll luckily...still be here. By then though, it will be too late to do anything about it. But maybe the kids or hey, at least the unborn...will evolve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Why do I dispute that additional co2 loading brings us cloaser to venus? Well, simply because there are hundreds of journal articles that say that the CO2 contribution to global warming has a finite upper bound.

Present one of these. Just one.

I've quoted it before. Quaternary Journal. The link is in this thread or the last. More or less said that there are 6 contributors to global warming, co2 is one of them, and contributes roughly 2.1 degrees.

But I'm not finding you links until you find a link for what I've asked you more than a dozen times so far. A link for the scientific formula for AGW.
Ie., given x concentration of Co2, the temperature is predicted to be y

You know as well as I do that there are too many variables in the climate system

You're right. I do.

Which means that climate change is a function of MANY things, not MERELY CO2.
To borrow the term you alarmists use - there are many "forcings" that contribute to climate. CO2 concentration is only one.

Thinks like aerosol formation, are *bigger* drivers of climate change. Which is why we are seeing the pause at the moment, and which you can't explain if you think it is only a function of Co2.

So you used "arctic" ice's decline (up to 2009) as evidence of global warming, and yet ignore

a) Anartartic ice is at record volume.
b). Artic ice over the last few years has increased.

Why is that?

Why is it that cloud coverage in the equatorial areas has *decreased* and concomitantly median temperatures in the equatorial regions are *down* .16 degrees over the last decade.

I mean, how is that possible since the CO2 concentration has almost doubled in that period? Is it possible, do you think that something else might be at stake?

You do know that aerosols were banned by the 1987 Montreal protocol, that has already saved the equivalent of as much as 12 years of increases of CO2...right ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:



What you are *not* seeing is why the IPCC just recanted two of its more egregious predictions.

What predictions are these?

quote:


Now while we are at it, I looked up your supposedly unbiased skeptical science.

Interesting stuff, no? :http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html

So instead of letting deniers find the site themselves, they're taking the fight to the deniers themselves. I dont see how that's a terrible, oh so controversial thing. They want to get rid of uncertainty about climate change, and the majority of people who deny it aren't going to be on Skeptical science, hence yourself here.

quote:


And then of course, theres this:

Friday, March 23, 2012
From the Skeptical Science "leak": Interesting stuff about generating and marketing "The Consensus Project"
Comment from the leaker

I have collated some of the data in a more readable form.
http://files.molongo.ru/en/my/sks.zip [Note from Tom-I was able to get an unzippable file from this location earlier today; when I tried retrieving the file again this afternoon, I was unable to unzip the file.]
Why has SkS chosen to publish all this on the public internet? Is it the first step towards transparency, or a catastrophic error?

Skeptical Science Forum - Introduction to The Consensus Project

TCP is basically an update and expansion of Naomi Oreskes' survey of the peer-reviewed literature with deeper analysis. In 2004, Naomi surveyed 928 articles in the Web of Science matching the search "global climate change" from 1993 to 2003. We've expanded the time period (1991 to 2011) and added papers matching the search "global warming". We ended up with 12,272 papers. I imported the details of each paper (including abstracts) into the SkS database and set up a simple crowd sourcing system allowing us to rate the category of each paper using Naomi's initial categories (impacts, mitigation, paleoclimate, methods, rejection, opinion). We did find some rejection papers in the larger sample but the amount was negligible. The amount of citations the rejection papers received were even smaller proportionally, indicating the negligible impact of AGW denial in the peer-reviewed literature. Jim and I wrote these initial results up into a short Brevia article that we just submitted to Science (so please don't mention these results outside of this forum yet, lest it spook Science who freak out if there's any mention of a submitted paper before publication). Of course, Science have a 92% rejection rate so the chances are very slim - we'll try other journals if rejected there.
When the paper is published, we would announce it on SkS as the beginning of the public launch of TCP. It will also be promoted through the communications dept at the Global Change Institute although their press releases only go to Australian media so will have to explore other promotion ideas.

Skeptical Science Forum- The Consensus Project Marketing Ideas http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/03/from-skeptical-science-interesting.html

To achieve this goal, we mustn't fall into the trap of spending too much time on analysis and too little time on promotion. As we do the analysis, would be good to have the marketing plan percolating along as well. So a few ideas floating around:

Press releases: Talked to Ove about this yesterday, the Global Change Institute have a communications dept (well, two people) and will issue press releases to Australian media when this comes out. No plan yet for US media.
Mainstream Media: This is the key if we want to achieve public consciousness. MSM is an opaque wall to me so ideas welcome. I suspect this will involve developing time lines, building momentum for the idea and consulting with PR professionals like Jim Hoggan.
Climate Communicators: There needs to be a concerted effort (spearheaded by me) to get climate communicators using these results in their messaging. I've been hooking up with a lot of climate communicators over the last month and will be hooking up with more over the next few months so will be discussing these results with every climate communicator I can get hold of, including heavyweights like Susan Hassol and Richard Somerville, to discuss ways of amplifying this message.
Also Ed Maibach is doing research on the most effective way to debunk the "no consensus" myth so I hope to contact him and hopefully include our results in his research. The more we can get climate communicators incorporating our results into their messages, the better.
Blogosphere: The usual blogosphere networking. Note - Tim Lambert tried to do a similar crowd sourcing effort a few years ago but didn't succeed in generating enough support for the crowd sourcing - I'm confident we can get it done.
Climate Orgs: Also have been making connections with various climate organisations and occasionally talked about the possibility of collaboration so will use this project as a focal point as ways to work together. Have to think about this some more
Google: Coincidentally, started talking to someone who works at Google, specifically the data visualisation department. So I've been working with them on visualising the consensus data in sexy, interactive ways. This will be one of the X-factor elements of TCP - maybe they can even provide an embeddable version of the visualisation which blogs and websites can use.
Video: Peter Sinclair is keen to produce a YouTube video about the TCP results to publish on the Yale Forum on Climate Change.
Booklet similar to Guide and Debunking Handbook, explaining the results of the peer-reviewed paper in plain English with big shiny graphics (with translations, I suppose - they're a pain for me to convert but worthwhile doing).
Kindle/iBook version of Booklet (can you publish free books on Amazon?).
Embeddable widget: graphic showing the graph of strengthening consensus, updated each year, easily copy and pasteable into other blogs. I like this idea, can make TCP go viral and become ubiquitious on the climate blogosphere!

Skeptical Science Forum - The Consensus Project Required Reading

In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums "hacked" and the contents posted online. In these it was revealed that Skeptical Science members are organizing themselves into eco-strike squads to "drown out" those who do not accept their alarmist positions,

"I posted over at Politico just recently. Hey, we can tag team it a bit if you like, use time zone differences." - Glenn Tamblyn [Skeptical Science], February 10, 2011

"I think this is a highly effective method of dealing with various blogs and online articles where these discussions pop up. Flag them, discuss them and then send in the troops to hammer down what are usually just a couple of very vocal people. It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this. If we can coordinate better and grow the "team of crushers" then we could address all the anti-science much more effectively." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

"Rob, Your post is music to my ears. I've been advocating the need to create a "crusher crew" for quite some time. I was not however able to get much traction on it with fellow environmental activists here in South Carolina or nationally. Like you, I spend (much to my wife's chagrin) many hours each day posting comments on articles. One of haunts was the USA Today website [...] The bottom line, would you be willing to patrol articles posted on the USA Today website?" - John Hartz [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

This started a new forum discussion entitled, "Crusher Crew".

"Badgersouth [John Hartz] and I were just discussing the potential of setting up a coordinated "Crusher Crew" where we could pull our collective time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

"May I suggest first on our list as being the *#1 Science Blog* "Watts up with that"? They get a few people come there to engage from time to time but rarely a coordinated effort." - Robert Way [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

"I think it might be better to start out with smaller fish. Build a community and a team. Find some methods and strategies that work. Then start moving up the denier food chain with our targets set on WUWT. I could see this expanding into a broad team of 100 or more people (outside the scope of this SkS forum of course). [...] We just need to raise our collective voices to drown them out. I would venture to guess that most people here know of 4 or 5 regulars on comments sections that would be interested in coordinating their efforts. I know probably 10 or 20 people who would like to help with this." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

This eco-strike squad was highly endorsed by John Cook,

"The Rapid Response Network would be a good way to coordinate this kind of activity, identifying new articles, logging responses, supporting each other. Can i suggest if a group engage in this, that they use the RRN as beta testers to he'll me develop and refine the system?" - John Cook [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``

So I suppose you're in favor of "just using our collective voices to drown them out" tactics, eh?

Love how you're using the classic Argumentum ad hominem fallacy instead of actually discussing the science I listed previously. As I said before, they source and link all of their information. If you have a problem with them, then you have a problem with the science itself.

So am I in favour of the drown them out tactics? In a way, yes and no. In one way, it gets information about climate change out to people who wouldn't normally be on the skeptical science website and would put deniers in their place. In another way, swamping posters is mean, but when you have an entire news station *cough* fox news *cough* denying climate change on national television, it makes sense why there's this kind of push back on the internet.

Next time you reply, please discuss the science, if you can't then just admit defeat now, you're looking more foolish by the day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Give up, Phydeaux continues to be obtuse, disingenuous or simply lying to make some contrarian point. Arctic ice is Not increasing, the latest seasonally adjusted volumes measured to far better precision than ever before by satellite are alarmingly thinner And less area. Antarctic sea ice area is increased in some areas (NOT volume) because of the collapse of previously stable ice shelves and the unprecedented acceleration of flow of glaciers (Both moving ice to ocean to water, raising sea levels with net overall temp increases.) symptomatic of deep warming. The amount of transitional (Melting) ice floating free of the continent has no real comparison to the huge net loss of previously stable or slowly moving glacial and ice shelve which have thinned, disintegrated or retreated/accelerated alarmingly all through the 'pause', most to unprecedented degrees. NO caloric 'pause' planet wide is now evident since better measurements of previously undocumented Southern Ocean shallow and mid depths show where the 'missing' heat went. Water having grossly higher heat capacity, it easily balances the far smaller changes in atmospheric total calorie delta.
Greenland (Second largest fresh water impoundment on the planet) is showing the same alarming changes far more rapidly than ever predicted. A number of positive feedback forcings are being documented to better precision and increased fear among investigators. Tundra melting being the current 'with a bullet', methane releases from huge areas of fresh water lakes and wetlands are now expected to become a major net contributor as warmer water changes the chemistry of previously stable organic deposits in what used to be quite cold lake bottoms. . . Nobody wants to really think about the catastrophic nature of sea bottom frozen clatherate conversion to atmospheric Methane, that gas being more of a 'greenhouse' than CO2, and in huge volumes on sea floors planet wide. If the current mid level sea temp deltas migrate to the lower water columns, all that happens, a climate change that should take millions of years to return to anything recognizable as today's biosphere. Negative feedback mechanisms are also being detailed in finer precision, cloud formation from particulates likely the major one, it's scale isn't seen as approaching a number of positive feedbacks, follow this channel for breaking news.
The harping on a dead refrain, "What's the equation" is totally disingenuous of someone who pretends to technical knowledge in other areas of Physics. Climate change is quite clearly an immature science. The many fast evolving computer models are the 'equations' and improve with each new sets of data and with increasing precision of past metrics. Not having balancing equations doesn't mean processes and trends can't be characterized and predicted, with obviously undesiraeable yet significant ranges of values. Nobody pretends current studies are final or even include major factors we have yet to identify. But like a major structure fire, saying the building isn't burning because it hasn't collapsed yet is remarkable stupidity or self-serving confusion of the arguments for hidden agenda.
The Phydeauxs are claiming, "Nothing to see here, move along folks." Those in the field from song bird workers charting population movements Poleward and nesting dates to tundra inhabitants seeing whole mountainsides slip into valleys as frozen earth melts for the first time since before the Ice Age to people in marginal lands coping with wate levels rising planet wide want to slap these clowns into the Hell they say we aren't in danger of being consigned to. No serious worker knows of any effective remediation yet proposed that seriously changes the prognosis for massive and traumatic alterations of our environment through the 21st century. Limiting the damage is the best we can hope for, recognizing something actually NEEDS to be done is why these discussions have implications through all the remaining generations of humanity. Climate change workers want that to return those generations to 'indeterminate' if now 'infinite'. The climate Luddites seem aiming to keep those future generations living countable on both hands and both feet? At least living in anything recognizable as urban civilization for the shrinking mass of humanity. The depth of the changes of most of the positive feedbacks and the geologic time frames they mandate to return to recognizable climate keep many workers deeply pessimistic of finding any solutions that make a difference. The current international committee has ONE dropout objecting to the 'alarmist' tone of the current draft document. Far more investigators are disgusted by the reluctance to discuss the actual opinions of the people doing the work of characterizing how humanity will be living it's foreseeable future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Long diatribe. No links.

quote:


Its THE authoritative US source for ice and snow measurements.

quote:


I've actually quoted here many times that say the impact of ionizing radiation on aersosol formation (leading to cloud formation) is almost completely documented.

Can you, just to prove you've assiduously studied the subject, provide a graph of cloud coverage over the last 30 years?

I think you will find the results fascinating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

The montreal protocol banned HFC's and HCFC's. Those are fluorocarbons that attacked the ozone layer.

The idea of banning aersols is ridiculous on its face, and you should know better before commenting on science. Aersols are fine particles around 1 um in diameter and millions of tons of these are generated daily and by nature.

Aersols occur when radiation strikes the ocean. When lightning strikes. When wind blows over the desert.
Forests generate aerosols....

Next?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Not on point for global warming but it pushed an interest button...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

The montreal protocol banned HFC's and HCFC's. Those are fluorocarbons that attacked the ozone layer.

The idea of banning aersols is ridiculous on its face, and you should know better before commenting on science. Aersols are fine particles around 1 um in diameter and millions of tons of these are generated daily and by nature.

Aersols occur when radiation strikes the ocean. When lightning strikes. When wind blows over the desert.
Forests generate aerosols....

Next?

Speaking of CFCs (Freon - Dupont trademark)... I'm still not sure about the convoluted explanation of how a substance like Freon, which is heavier than air and settles into low pockets displacing air, gets up to the stratosphere to interact with the radiation produced ozone layer.
I read the studies back when the bans first came in and it still sounds like an extremely convoluted and counter intuitive theory.

One conspiracy theorizing shipmate came up with his own idea. The theory that freon hurts the ozone layer came about just before Dupont's basic patent on Freon was to run out. Guess who has the basic patent on R-134a, the freon substitute we now use?

Hmmm, wheels within wheels. I doubt there is ever a single reason that a government does anything. <grin>

______________________________

Definition of an aerosol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol

I think the linking of aerosol and HCFCs might be mistaking and aerosol with the propellant used in aerosol cans. Freon was once one of the most common propellants used in aerosol cans.

Now, read the fine print on your cans and see what they replaced the freon with. Have any that use butane or propane as the propellant. How about ether or carbon tetrachloride? Any say chlorofluorocarbon? BTW, chlorofluorocarbon is the generic chemical name for, guess what, Freon (Dupont's patented name for their brand of chlorofluorocarbon variants)

Anyway, Freon was banned for refrigeration use but still appears in a lot of aerosol cans, like my canned air for cleaning the computer. (Why does PAM just list "propellant". I may have to order a MSDS sheet)

Ah, there it is. Interesting, PAM from one factory is Canola Oil and Propane. PAM from another factory is Canola Oil, Alcohol, and Nitrous Oxide. I just googled "MSDS for PAM"

Aerosols (like clouds), suspensions (dust storms), and vapors (downwind of a geyser or volcano) exist in nature. Preface those with "toxic" and you get toxic aerosols (paint overspray), toxic suspensions (the air in a sand blasting booth), and toxic vapors (the evaporated metals from welding and plasma cutting).

Dang, my HAZMAT instructor would be proud. <grin>

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
.
Considering the fact that I supplied probably 20+ links on the last page, I'll let you do the heavy lifting on this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
.
Considering the fact that I supplied probably 20+ links on the last page, I'll let you do the heavy lifting on this one.

Verbatim lifting sections from someone commited to drowning out debate, is not science. The mendacity of the skeptical science site has already been established.
For example. Multiple published studies have now refuted the 97% figure. And yet skeptical science continues to push that number.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
.
Considering the fact that I supplied probably 20+ links on the last page, I'll let you do the heavy lifting on this one.

Verbatim lifting sections from someone commited to drowning out debate, is not science. The mendacity of the skeptical science site has already been established.
For example. Multiple published studies have now refuted the 97% figure. And yet skeptical science continues to push that number.

Present one. Just one.