[ridenrain]

Seriously N_Fiddledog. I can't understand why your not in prison yet for all your climate denial. It's clear the greenies have a fatwa against the heritics and true science.

[DrCaleb]

Annihilator Annihilator:

Man-made global warming has NEVER HAPPENED before and we don't even know if it is happening right now. So there is absolutely no statistic that can make you predict this because it NEVER HAPPEND.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Because it has never happen, does not mean it cannot happen.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Copenhagen is dead before anyone has even arrived--I'll put another case of beer on that. Red Stripe this time. The UN is a toothless bunch of self-important bureaucrats. At least when Copenhagen dies, we can move on to adaptation and do away with these pie-in-the-sky international agreements.

Edit:

But yes, I`d like to see it.

I'll just link you to Watts. You can link to the actual Copenhagen treaty from there. It's in PDF though, and it killed my browser, so if you decide to download the whole thing it's at your own risk.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/03/t ... y-penalty/

If you should decide to download it, check out this one...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/there-may- ... enhagen/2/

They'll show where to look for the global governance talk.

Here's another one from the Wall Street Journal

But yeah, I agree, Copenhagen is, if not dead, at least postponed. In fact the delay is already in the works. Nevertheless a world governance of climate was on Copenhagen's wish list. It's there. I'm thinking the main stumbling block right now is Obama's inability to get the American people online with his schemes and dreams of big government control of anything energy related.

Would the participating countries ever sign something like the Copenhagen treaty? I don't know, but they did (with the exception of America) sign Kyoto, and this agreement was supposed to be the successor to Kyoto.

Pajamas media? Isn't that where that horrid little beast Michelle Malkin hangs out? Your colouras are showing, Infidel Dog.

What impact did Kyoto have? Are we under a one-world government now? If anything, the influence of the UN has decreased since Kyoto was signed--but that probably had more to do wiht the American neo-conservatvie movement than the UN.

I wouldn't worry abotu the UN taking over the world any time soon.

As for big government control of anything energy related--that's the reality of the future, I'm afraid. The neoconservatives wanted to achieve it through conquest, Obama through more . Obama is playing the same game as Harper--lots of talk about caring about the issue, some make-work projects, but ultimately disinclined to hobble themsleves economically, especially relative to China.

Lots of optimistic talk about the environemnt, but without actually doing anything, has been a pretty successful tack.

[Zipperfish]

Annihilator Annihilator:

Nope, it has never happened before, because the simple experience of CO2 making air warmer is not sufficient proof to create a correlation between man-made gas and global temperature. It is so because CO2 emission is only one tiny factor in the whole equation.

Well the radiation physics demonstrates that, ignoring any feedback loops and such, doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should raise the surface temperature 1.1 deg C. Note this is an laogarithmic relationship, so the magntiude of the forcing is a function of the factor by which the concentration increases, not the absolute concentration of CO2 (which is why it doesn't matter that CO2 only makes up 385 ppm in the atmosphere (up from about 280 ppm in the pre-industrial age)).

The forcing of any doubling of CO2 is an additional 3.71 W/m2 or so. This is 3.71 W/m that previously would have radiated to space that is now "reflected" in the atmosphere. That energy increase has to be balanced. The most simple means of balancing would be an increase in temperature.

You can get more details onteh equations at wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing). And before you jump all over me for referncing wiki, you should probabnly note that most so-called skeptcis--including Richard Lindzen--accept this.

You posit another balancing mechanism. I'd be inertested to know what that is.

$1:

Basically, you're butchering science. You refuse to aknowledge that the question might be a little more complex than 2+2 and use little elements with very little effects on the question to create your theories. If you want to prove that global warming is inevitable you better come up with a better proof, but this proof doesn't exist because the whole scientific community isn't sure about the question and is still gathering data.

I was using my prediction as a specific example to counter your statement:

Annihilator Annihilator:

What really happens is that we're faced with the chaos theory. We could predict the future, but there are so many things invovled that we cannot create a model that will accurately predict what will happen.

The point is that, despite the atmosphere being a chaotic system, one could still make long-term predictions about it. That was the only point of that example, not to say that predicting future climate was as easy as predicting that summer will be wamer than winter.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The point is that, despite the atmosphere being a chaotic system, one could still make long-term predictions about it. That was the only point of that example, not to say that predicting future climate was as easy as predicting that summer will be wamer than winter.

Theoretically you could, if you could identify the broad, more powerful forcings, exactly how they work. how they interact, and how that mess affects smaller forcings (ie clouds, ocean cycles). At present we can't; at least there's no evidence of the ability.

For example identifying a 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2 does not necessarily mean that's what will happen in the real world. One bad solar or Milankovitch cycle can ruin your whole day, so to speak, there.

During the Ordivician there was 4 times as much CO2 as today, but we were in a glacial ice age, and I think the CO2 was rising as the world was getting colder.

Even if you try to identify cycles from the past, and extrapolate them to today it doesn't necessarily work. If it did we'd be in another glacial ice age right now. We're overdue.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Brenda Brenda:

Like the cooling of the 70's? Meh.

Except that bonafide scientists were not claiming that. The hype of an impending ice age due to particulate buildup wasn't being supported by the mainstream science that global warming is today.

James Hansen, the 'father' of AGW alarmism, produced the computer model for his colleague S.I. Rasool who was the principal in the published and peer reviewed paper Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.

And I will absolutely agree with your claim that James Hansen is not a 'bonafide scientist' and neither are the people he worked with in 1970/1971.

[Annihilator]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Annihilator Annihilator:

Nope, it has never happened before, because the simple experience of CO2 making air warmer is not sufficient proof to create a correlation between man-made gas and global temperature. It is so because CO2 emission is only one tiny factor in the whole equation.

Well the radiation physics demonstrates that, ignoring any feedback loops and such, doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should raise the surface temperature 1.1 deg C. Note this is an laogarithmic relationship, so the magntiude of the forcing is a function of the factor by which the concentration increases, not the absolute concentration of CO2 (which is why it doesn't matter that CO2 only makes up 385 ppm in the atmosphere (up from about 280 ppm in the pre-industrial age)).

The forcing of any doubling of CO2 is an additional 3.71 W/m2 or so. This is 3.71 W/m that previously would have radiated to space that is now "reflected" in the atmosphere. That energy increase has to be balanced. The most simple means of balancing would be an increase in temperature.

You can get more details onteh equations at wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing). And before you jump all over me for referncing wiki, you should probabnly note that most so-called skeptcis--including Richard Lindzen--accept this.

You posit another balancing mechanism. I'd be inertested to know what that is.

Those are still theorical speculations.

Even if on paper it makes sense, that doesn't mean that it will work in the real world. (you hear that, commies?)

As there are many factors involved, like water vapor, the sun and vegetation, predictions based on theorical assumptions are not sufficient. We are still gathering concrete data and material proofs about this subject.

Until we can gather proofs saying that the man is the direct and principal cause of global warming, we can't blame humans for it, and pretending to know that the global warming is caused by men isn't honest.