Safe Speed Forums

So, are you trusting the AGW premise and hold it as true, or are you doubtful about it?
(there is a difference between 'accepting' and 'not denying')

Do you wish to continue with your ironic approach of 'not confining your response to what I was actually saying', or do you want to get back to debating the topic at hand?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I reiterate that I am agnostic about AGW. I think that it is imposssible to prove or disprove whether or not increased CO2 is causing the observed global warming.



Remind me what the topic in hanbd is

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

One more attempt at clarification: do you believe the AGW argument? (not that it really matters wha one believes, but the justification of it is critical)

I don't think it's impossible to prove AGW - anything will eventually be possible if enough resource is thrown at it. My own feeling from the digging I've done into the subject is that right now it must be really sodding difficult to make any simple claim and that it is fraught with a great many variables, relationships (non-linear) and confounding factors; the human factors already discussed makes things far worse.


...
I was going to quote the entire post within the link I gave you, but I suspect I need to break it down even further:

- Do you agree your airport analogy is irrelevant? If not, why not and how is my reasoning false?
- If the facts around the said stumbling block is true, does it cast serious doubt on a rapidly approaching AGW "tipping point"?
- Does the concentration of atmospheric water vapour (a much stronger contributor to the 'greenhouse' effect) also naturally fluctuate?
- Do you agree the relative effect will be large even if that fluctuation of water vapur is relatively small (compared to CO2)?
- Is the other main emission of fossil fuel burning was water vapour? So why has water vapour been discounted?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I am not convinced that the observed increase in global temperature is caused by the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. But I am not able to exclude the possibility that it is.


I introduce the analogy to counter jomouk's argument that the amount of man made carbon dioxide being introduced into the atmosphere is small compared with the natural equilibrium amount and thus cannot be responsible for a change in climate. The analogy is relevant to that argument and that argument alone. It certainly doesn't address your point that temperatures have been lower with higher carbon dioxide equilibriums, nor was it intended to


AIUI, and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, the "tipping point" would be the rapidly increasing positive feedback which would occur if the global temperature rose to the point where methane held in frozen ground was released. I give no credence to any aargument that there is a tipping point determined by the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere


The water vapour concentration does fluctuate but I think that the average level must be substantially constant rather than continually rising like the carbon dioxide. But I don't have a reference for that yet.


I don't know. That must go to the top of my reading list

This is from the Wikipedia article on Greenhouse Gases

"Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds.[8] However, the warming due to the greenhouse effect of cloud cover is, at least in part, mitigated by the change in the Earth's albedo. According to NASA, "The overall effect of all clouds together is that the Earth's surface is cooler than it would be if the atmosphere had no clouds." (cf. NASA Clouds and Radiation) Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. According to the Environmental Health Center of the National Safety Council, water vapor constitutes as much as 2% of the atmosphere.[31]
The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor.
When a warming trend results in effects that induce further warming, the process is referred to as a "positive feedback"; this amplifies the original warming. When the warming trend results in effects that induce cooling, the process is referred to as a "negative feedback"; this reduces the original warming. Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas and because warm air can hold more water vapor than cooler air, the primary positive feedback involves water vapor. This positive feedback does not result in runaway global warming because it is offset by other processes that induce negative feedbacks, which stabilizes average global temperatures. The primary negative feedback is the effect of temperature on emission of infrared radiation: as the temperature of a body increases, the emitted radiation increases with the fourth power of its absolute temperature.[32]
Other important considerations involve water vapor being the only greenhouse gas whose concentration is highly variable in space and time in the atmosphere and the only one that also exists in both liquid and solid phases, frequently changing to and from each of the three phases or existing in mixes. Such considerations include clouds themselves, air and water vapor density interactions when they are the same or different temperatures, the absorption and release of kinetic energy as water evaporates and condenses to and from vapor, and behaviors related to vapor partial pressure. For example, the release of latent heat by rain in the ITCZ drives atmospheric circulation, clouds vary atmospheric albedo levels, and the oceans provide evaporative cooling that modulates the greenhouse effect down from estimated 67 °C surface temperature.[5][33]"

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I'm catching up on outstanding posts.
Thanks for the direct answers.


I'll take that as a "no (but cannot deny the possibility of it)". I'm more or less in the same boat, with the additional factor:


The logic given within the bounds of your example certainly is reasonable, but it is obviously debatable to have used it at all.


I think you might be right about the use of the term "tipping point".
Being as we've apparently never had temperatures significantly higher than the known (for argument's sake) warm periods, additional warming beyond those levels (apparently possible if AGW is true and we continue as we are) could well be a bad thing. Then again, it might prevent the next ice ige; doing so could well be a good thing!


What makes you think that? (besides reading Wiki)
Remember, vapour levels doesn't have to rise like CO2 apparently has to for it to have the same effect.



Then there is the issue of convection of the vapours. Warmer air indeed does hold more vapour, but it also rises and will eventually saturate when it cools, forming clouds, reducing albedo ... and so on.
Isn't it funny how this simple process, or any other vapour negative feedback process, isn't described even though the positive feedback one is
Jomukuk's latest post goes a long way to explaining that!


Returning to a more fundamental point: Would you agree that, right now, there is no reason for Average Joe to believe/accept the AGW argument (as presented).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

No more reason for him to be believe it than to doubt it. Average Joe (and Jane) does not have the education or intellect required to make an intelligent decision on the facts presented. I am quite well educated myself and I am struggling to make a decision. But I have no problem with the modest efforts being made, in the name of AGW, to reduce consumption of the limited supply of fossil fuels.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

My decision is based on different criteria.

Even if AGW exists (which I doubt) it is a long term phenomenon. I will die within the next 50 years. I don't care what happens after that.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/475-water-vapour-and-the-recent-global-temperature-hiatus.html

From:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488

Natural feedback.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

A good and fair answer I think. For this issue, the one any only position folks can or should take is scepticism.


Which is so telling, isn't it?
A issue of such critical significance, apparently based purely on science, communicated to the public for years, still has well-educated and intelligent scientific minds in a state of scepticism. How can this be?


I do - doing so gives a false illusory benefit/truth towards AGW .
I have no problem with the modest efforts being made to reduce consumption of the limited supply of fossil fuels, but I do have a problem with an unrelated project getting credit for it. It's much the same deception as installing a new pedestrian crossing at a camera site but giving only the camera site the credit for KSI any subsequent reduction.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... e_temp.pdf

Is the warming observed even real warming and not down to change in number and location of temperature recording stations? The whole argument is based on whether a) the world has warmed and b) whether it is something unusual and c) whether man is the cause. If the whole warming is down to a statistical bias then it doesn't matter about the rest as there is no global warming so maybe politicians should spend time doing something useful instead of pushing the poor into fuel poverty because of their adherence to cock eyed theories.

How accurate are temperature sensors anyway?

They are quite accurate.
Problems occur when there is a bias applied to them (heat island effect, local machinery/aircon), and when only certain sites are selected for the measurements, then when that data is adjusted to 'fix' it.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

The temperature sensors are [now] extremely accurate.
The major problem NOW seems to be of bias-on-selection of which ones to use, and extrapolation from one area to another (even though their distance apart may be thousands of kilometres)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/29/diverging-views/#more-15833

and:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/#more-15729

Fresh from the water-is-more-warming, we get CO2 is less [warming]:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-amplification-its-less-than-we-thought/#more-15791

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

In total -take a long look at the way this Gov't has proceeded on a lot of other items ,and the similarity is very real .
Somewhere in the mass of news today ,I saw a report that some "foriegn " power had hacked into e mails re AGW ,and modified them .Leastways think that'swhat was said -though can't find any mention on line

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

That is a fair and honest assessment. Many people share your sentiment but few are willing to espouse it so openly.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Because it is an extremely complex subject to understand. The fact that I don't fully understand another subject, for example the engineering behind the safety of nucleur reactors, doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy to conceal the facts from me.



A sentiment that I share.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

The report was that the leaks from the Hadley Centre had been engineered by some foreign power in order to upset the Copenhagen talks. I read it in the Indy today.

Quote tags corrected by Steve

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

The glaciers and icecaps are quite sensitive indicators of temperature. There is no doubt that the glaciers in the European Alps and in the Himalayas have receded in the last century - there is ample photographic evidence to prove that.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Thanks DCB -.

Now to some other things that don't ring true .Program with Billy Connely going from Atlantic to Pacific ,via North West passage - at one point ,the sea passage was blocked ,by pack ice -impossible -global warning has reduced this
All the action on CO2 ads featuring Polar Bears harp on about them being in danger of starvation as the pack ice retreats ( as it does in warmer weather ) -but on same program what do we see -Polar bears on a non ice /snow shore -forraging .
And in parts of the inhabited north ,on other problems -ther's problems in warm weather -the bears have found that human habitation means easy pickings .Not a CO2 generated problem ,but a problem caused by humans invading bear space .Or is that something the bear fear generating brigade would have us ignore .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

A fair comment. However, one can ask for it; based on that outcome one can derive a conclusion; but wait - why should we have to ask for it? It should automatically be given, wholly and without reservation (well perhaps not the nuclear info, but you know what I mean). We pay for it, the outcome will affect us (and our level of taxation), so we're entitled to have access to it - right?
It shouldn't take a hacker (or should that be an insider ) to leak it.

Not all the population has the intelligence and motivation of Joe/Jane Average. Some who claim to be better are currently having a field day. Had all the analysis been released for scrutiny (like it should have been) then there wouldn't even have been room for the uncertainty and debate we're having today.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign