So, what did happen to all that warmth?

[tcmtech]

I have seen that water vapor even though being the greater player in the green house effects and also having the fastest climatic reaction times never gets brought into any of the positive side of the debates.

When temperatures rise even slightly on the surface more water vapor is produced by evaporation which helps cool things off slightly but still measurably. That warmer moist air tends rise until it reaches a cooler and much higher elevation where it slightly condenses just enough to create clouds which have a substantial solar energy reflecting ability in the infrared heat bands. That ability alone can reduce the effective solar heat energy that reaches the surface and lower atmosphere by half or at times more. That high level reflective ability of cloud cover has the capacity to greatly out weighs the added green house effects of any man made CO2 additions when present.

When the water vapor condenses and creates rain it also absorbs small amounts of CO2 and brings it down to the surface where its then either absorbed directly into the soil where plants can use it or it reacts with the other elements in the ground and is effectively neutralized and locked away as part of the natural CO2 cycle.

These are fairly unbiased links I found that give the basic concepts of how water vapor can have as much positive green house effect as it can a negative one. **broken link removed** and JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

We may be responsible for 1% of the total negative green house gases effects but water vapor still apparently has far greater self correcting capacity to make up for it. Also it should be noted that every major CO2 producing action we humans use also has a high level of water vapor as the balance of the chemical reactions.

 

[Mikebits]

They could have similar effects, which was my point.

Sorry I don't play football and I'm not religious either.

Well don't feel bad, he called me Goofy. Now Gosh, where did I leave Pluto's ball???

 

[Mikebits]

**broken link removed**

FOI2009.zip

Lots of sites hosting the file. Download at your own risk. There are sites that are hosting them in html as well. Google FOI2009.zip
Also, I was quoting the website when I used the term "et al". I know this isn't a last name Goofy Et al is Latin for "and others" (or something roughly similar) and is used to denote research conducted by a group under the namesake of the lead author/s. (Silly Wabbit.)

Yes I saw the quotes but it seemed like a good spot to insert a bit of my sardonic humor

So are you saying that you are using emails from a questionable and possibly iffy use at your own risk website as your source of information? Surely the validity of any text obtained illegally and from an illegal source must be questioned. Who is to verify that the text has not been modified in any way to sway ones argument?

 

[Pommie]

The university confirmed that they are genuine emails.

Mike.

 

[HarveyH42]

What you're leaving out is that "natural" sources of CO2 are less than what is absorbed by the earth, oceans, etc. Man made CO2 is partially absorbed and partially resides in the atmosphere. And so, although man made CO2 emissions are a small fraction of the total CO2 annully, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is 100% man made. So the increase in temperature by greenhouse gas is then 100% man made, although as a fraction of the total greenhouse forcing, it's 10 - 30%. See it here and **broken link removed**. The second one is jut a blog, but what's important is the DOE numbers. I argue that they support my idea that the accumulation of CO2 is all man made.

Now, this is a good point. CO2, is a compound, whether the source is man-made, or natural, there is no distinction in the atmosphere. It's simply CO2, it all acts the same way, regardless of the source. It's not good or evil, just CO2. I think it difficult to estimate how much CO2 we release anyway, since there are so many sources. The focus is on petroleum, but we burn many other things daily, we also use CO2 in the form of dry-ice in shipping, and tonight we will be releasing a considerable quantity of CO2 as we celebrate the New Year. Have fun and be safe.

 

[Pommie]

and tonight we will be releasing a considerable quantity of CO2 as we celebrate the New Year. Have fun and be safe.

And tomorrow lots of methane.

Have fun,

Mike.

 

[HarveyH42]

Yes I saw the quotes but it seemed like a good spot to insert a bit of my sardonic humor

So are you saying that you are using emails from a questionable and possibly iffy use at your own risk website as your source of information? Surely the validity of any text obtained illegally and from an illegal source must be questioned. Who is to verify that the text has not been modified in any way to sway ones argument?

I don't recall that anyone denied that E-mails were authentic, just mis-interpreted, and quotes were out of context. I downloaded them last night, 61 meg. Probably won't read them all. Doubt anyone would take the time to fabricate a thousand Emails, or creatively edit them to discredit, since the originals could be produced if needed. Since the science guys are being kind of low key, think they are real, and they hope it will blow over quickly. If they responded, it would be more publicity, greater interest, and deeper investigations.

 

[ke5frf]

Now, this is a good point. CO2, is a compound, whether the source is man-made, or natural, there is no distinction in the atmosphere. It's simply CO2, it all acts the same way, regardless of the source. It's not good or evil, just CO2. I think it difficult to estimate how much CO2 we release anyway, since there are so many sources. The focus is on petroleum, but we burn many other things daily, we also use CO2 in the form of dry-ice in shipping, and tonight we will be releasing a considerable quantity of CO2 as we celebrate the New Year. Have fun and be safe.

You guys are right on the money! Why didn't I think of this? CO2 is CO2, who cares where it comes from? Instead of worrying about manmade CO2, we should be lobbying to have all natural CO2 producers destroyed. Mother nature has no business dumping so much of that pollution in the air.

 

[BrownOut]

Because when the total amount of CO2 exceeds the amount that can be absorbed by the earth and oceans, it accumulates in the atmosphere where it is a greenhouse gas. If not for man-made CO2 emissions, then there would be no global rise in CO2 levels. The point is, the budget is exceeded and the overage resides in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter which gas, natural or man-made, they are the same, but the total budget is exceeded by man-made emissions.

As for water vapor, it makes absolutely no sense to say out of one side of your mouth that is an important greenhouse gas, and then say out of the other side of your mouth that it mitigates global warming. That just doesn't make any logical sense at all. Further, there is a measure of forcing for all greenhouse gases that accounts for feedback mechanisms, called the sensitivity. There is some disagreement what that exact measure is for CO2, but the consensus is that it is definitely not zero.

 

[tcmtech]

At this point I have read so much of both sides that I can feel reasonably confident in concluding that climate change will happen for good in some areas and for worse in others just as it has been doing for around 4.5 billion years. As far as what areas and how much each area changes, well that is what nature will decide.

The global warming and man made influences just have far too much inconclusive evidence to support it from what I see. The believers claim CO2 is so bad yet our entire Eco systems are based on it at all levels. They also claim that water vapor is not a contributer but then claim that it is through forcing or some other indirect reasonings. But then claim that cloud cover and other positive effects of water vapor dont count even though it has the capacity to reflect 10 - 20 times the estimated global warming energy levels associated with man made CO2.

Then there is their claiming that if a human uses a crop or plant or tree for their benefit the CO2 released during its use is detrimental but yet if a human doesn't use that crop or plant or tree and it just naturally sits in the field and rots but yet still releases its same CO2 into the air by natural decay its now not a contributer.
The believers also say they are right and all of their information and data are real and true yet they have earned themselves a solid track record of having lied, faked findings, manipulated numbers, falsified records, and have earned themselves a rather obvious reputation as being at best questionable and likely untrustworthy in there motives or at least morally questionable and likely inept at scientific research and data collection methods and cause and effect correlation.
Yet the skeptics have no questionable reputation and bad track record or associated proof of having done bad things associated with them. They just keep saying we dont exactly know but here is what we have found and suspect to be true at this point and it doesn't seem to say much of anything is absolutely conclusive. At most they say some things have shown negative declines but others have also shown increased positive gains as well. They do have a strong stand on the overall level of study needing to be far greater and far more encompassing being right now their general consensus is that the global systems are far to big and complex to accurately and reliably predict anything from at this point.

What I feel it comes down to is that if your area gets worse just find one of the formerly bad areas that turned better and move there then start building the local community from the ground up and in a more efficient and environmentally friendlier way this time.

As far as my maps show it Canada has about the upper half of North America and about 5% of the continental population! That sounds like a whole lot of land that can support a whole lot more people if the climate up there improves just a bit more! I think that the northern Russian providences have a similar land mass and population level in their northern continental regions as well. To me that sounds like it could be a whole lot of land that can become far more usable if the climate in those areas improved even slightly. And being its currently mostly frozen tundra it cant get colder or stay the same because that would then further offset the global warming numbers and evidence!
As far as things getting worse in the equatorial regions? Well its all ready hot, humid, and miserable there most of the time any way. So I say everybody who doesn't like it just pack up and move. After all it is how all of us got spread out over the last 25000 years anyway.
At least this time we wont have to walk over entire continents in hopes of finding a better places that we would like to live in. Now we can just web search for our preferred climate and location then pack up and drive there with the AC or the heater on depending on how we like it! Unless of course we already lived in one of the many areas that got better!

 

[HarveyH42]

Well stated TCM, migration really is the only rational solution, and proven too. Even if we could reduce or eliminate man-made CO2, it won't be enough to influence the changing climate. Politically, they are just opening the door, when there isn't any noticeable improvement, or a volcano or two, exceeds Brownout's budget, there will be a new bad gas, or some other cause to fight.

To be serious about CO2 control. It was never claimed it would stop the warming, reverse it, or really much of anything other than possibly slow it down (seems to be moving kind slowly anyway). We will still ultimately face the same climate change. There is a lot more to it, than CO2 is the reason for the warmer temperatures. I've got a hunch CO2 production has just a minor role. But consider the other side. Instead of reducing energy production, and halting transportation, both barely keep up with demand, not to mention developing countries that have been struggling to for some of what the rest of use waste. Why doesn't anyone consider improving the systems that take CO2 out of the atmosphere? We can still work on cleaner energy, but we need what we have already, and more. Manufacturing the new technology, to replace the old wasteful stuff is going to increase our energy needs. It's like trying to fry the egg, before the chicken lays it. You get a dead chicken, and a bloody mess.

Eventually, cities will have to move and be rebuilt. Let's spend the time to improve the design, we would be leaving are grandchildren a much better gift. If we waste our time and resources fighting a useless battle, we still have to relocate, but it will be a rush job, just thrown together with whatever we can salvage. Something barely functional, basically what we already have, or worse. How is that a better choice? Why fight to put it off for a few more years? We are all most likely to be dead, long before any of the gloomy prophecies come to pass.

 

[kchriste]

Then there is their claiming that if a human uses a crop or plant or tree for their benefit the CO2 released during its use is detrimental but yet if a human doesn't use that crop or plant or tree and it just naturally sits in the field and rots but yet still releases its same CO2 into the air by natural decay its now not a contributer.

Out of context. Just like those emails you go on about. The context was in regards to bio-fuels, but you simply choose to ignore that along with other facts.

Yet the skeptics have no questionable reputation

A lot of them have no reputation at all. Just a bunch of bloggers on the internet.

As far as my maps show it Canada has about the upper half of North America and about 5% of the continental population! That sounds like a whole lot of land that can support a whole lot more people if the climate up there improves just a bit more!

Now you really have me worried!

 

[tcmtech]

Out of context. Just like those emails you go on about. The context was in regards to bio-fuels, but you simply choose to ignore that along with other facts.

At what point have I ever referenced anything to or from any emails? And so far I and several others have produces substantially more confirmable and relevant information and links to it than you. Brownout has been doing a good job so far of giving his references and points of view on this and I respect him for it!

A lot of them have no reputation at all. Just a bunch of bloggers on the internet.

So far I have put a reasonable effort into making sure my information that comes from a source and has a link posted for it is from legitimate and well known scientific institutions, agencies and organizations.

Now you really have me worried!

Well if your wondering about the Canadian land area and population references the geographical center of North America is located a few miles south of Rugby North Dakota. Rugby is proximately 44 miles from the southern Canadian border. I have personally been there and its only an hours drive from my home.

Canada has a land area of 9976140 Square KM and a population of 33.3 million. The north American continent has a land area of 24256000 square Km and a population of 501.5 million.
Continent map - World Maps, Geography Facts -Worldatlas.com

By the numbers Canada Has 41.1% of the North American continents land area and 6.6% of the population. I was off a few percent based on a off the top of my head memory of approximate numbers being I did not include the Latin American land area or population numbers, but still not to far off given I did have the 'About' part in my statement.

As far as my maps show it Canada has about the upper half of North America and about 5% of the continental population!

kchriste you say your from Victoria, BC Canada and you dont know this basic information about your country??

 

[kchriste]

At what point have I ever referenced anything to or from any emails?

Ummm. Those emails that DEBUNK the entire climate science community that you keep referring to:

The believers also say they are right and all of their information and data are real and true yet they have earned themselves a solid track record of having lied, faked findings, manipulated numbers, falsified records,..... Blah blah blah......

Brownout has been doing a good job so far of giving his references and points of view on this and I respect him for it!

Exactly why I didn't try to duplicate his efforts. You didn't listen to him, so why should I waste my effort with you.

kchriste you say your from Victoria, BC Canada and you dont know this basic information about your country??

Gee you really are thick! What I was worried about was YOU coming up here to live!

 

[tcmtech]

Gee you really are thick! What I was worried about was YOU coming up here to live!

Why would I want to live there? My part of the country seems to be ranging from unaffected to likely improving as far as weather has been seen for the last two decades or more! If anything we like the thought of gaining about 10 more degrees F all the year round!
Our crops will grow faster and our winters wont be so cold!

 

[kchriste]

Why would I want to live there?

Phew! That's a relief!

If anything we like the thought of gaining about 10 more degrees F all the year round!
Our crops will grow faster and our winters wont be so cold!

Never heard about the Dust Bowl during 1930s eh? It is not an example of global warming but rather human arrogance and ignorance regarding how we treat the environment and land.

 

[tcmtech]

Never heard about the Dust Bowl during 1930s eh? It is not an example of global warming but rather human arrogance and ignorance regarding how we treat the environment and land.

Its part of my family history stories passed down over the years. My great grand parents spoke of it many times while they where still alive. I know the stories well. Having 3 feet of dirt show up in your yard over night is pretty convincing evidence!
Its also why modern farming doesn't use the same techniques that they used 80 years ago. No till and minimum till are the most common practices now along with many other more efficient land usage practices.

Now only certain crops require the deeper and harder work up of the soils and even then the field work is done differently when compared to what was done 80 years ago.
The dust bowl years are largely responsible for why tree rows cross fields every several hundred feet in most places and are placed in rows perpendicular to the more dominant wind directions.

Those drought years are also largely responsible for the large scale damming of rivers and water conservation methods that where put into general practice back in the 1940's and 1950's. That was done for the three main reasons of water storage, flood control, and power generation.

Now due to limitations in peoples income and the added costs of living being more energy efficient as the new step in our evolution as a society. Fossil fuels are becoming to cost prohibitive and alternative energy is getting cheaper every day. I expect that in 20 - 40 years the largest sources of energy will be clean sources and the present methods will be used far less.

 

[kchriste]

Fossil fuels are becoming to cost prohibitive and alternative energy is getting cheaper every day. I expect that in 20 - 40 years the largest sources of energy will be clean sources and the present methods will be used far less.

I believe you are correct here. Economics is what is going to change peoples habits.

 

[tcmtech]

Its the second of the largest factors in my decisions to use alternative fuel and energy systems. The first was just because I find it interesting and I liked the challenge of learning how to do it!

I now get over 90% of my annual heat from burning wood that comes from the normal yearly farm maintenance and cleanup and from local businesses for just hauling it home. Until I started using it for firewood some years ago we just put the farm stuff in piles and burned it when we cleaned up around the place. The local businesses normally had to pay to have it hauled to the local land fill where they too then also piled it up and burned it to reduce its volume before burying what was left.
Either way it got burned but this way I get free heat from it for very little added efforts or cost.

I also run my pickup on propane 90% of the time as well. Its far cheaper and cleaner than running gasoline too! Eventually my newest car and spare beater pickup will also be set up to run propane as well.

Lastly I have worked on wind power for many years and am now very close to having my electrical needs met by wind power. By some time next summer that will be producing around 90% of my annual electrical power needs.

 

[colin55]

It has taken me over an hour to read these 250 threads.
Never have I seen so much “intellectual thought” from electronics personnel, who (we) are generally rated as “non-caring” and totally incapable of describing their (our) thoughts.
It’s great to see such an involved discussion and it is obvious that many of the posters have put a lot of effort into their contribution.
But one point has been missed. The cost of implementing the “Carbon Scheme.”
In Australia, it has been costed at $600 per year increase in electricity bills per household. And this is just a starting point. All other materials will be increased proportionately as nearly everything (steel, bricks, concrete etc etc etc) require heating in some form to produce a product.
The whole Carbon-Equalization-Scheme is obviously a ploy to make someone filthy rich.
As Charlie Brown in Peanuts, said: I’ll sell you this bag of hot air for 5 cents.”
Placing a carbon tax on the middle-class is going to be an enormous burden when the real increase in fuel-burning is taking place in China and India.
Australia exports 250 million tons of coal each year and each ton of coal produces nearly 3 tons of carbon dioxide, when burnt. Australia is the 4th largest polluter in the world and it looks like the Australian government is going to make the “peasants pay.”
Someone is going to be in charge of “sucking the peasants dry” and it’s going to be another fiasco like: “Fannie Mac” and “Freddie Mae” (intentional).
This is the real issue and I think some of the brilliant readers of this post should put their minds to work and come up some suggestions on how to solve this issue.
I don’t have an answer other than harness tidal action, wind and hydro. All the other possibilities (solar and nuclear) use more energy and produce more pollution than the energy gained from the reaction.
It’s no good running around in circles with: “the temperature is rising” “the temp is falling.”
We need to suggest some combative measures and not be “taken for a ride” with massive cost increases to our basic supplies.