Paella wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 12:33am:



Don't be such an anal retentive. He is saying that CO2 is a GHG. D'oh!

Your problem is that you wildly overstate its significance and say that it is the primary cause of whatever change is happening. This overstatement is called Antropogenic Global Warming=human CO2 causes global warming.

Lindzen is saying that precisely such categorical, panicky pronouncements are disputed and he certainly does not say that human CO2 causes global warming. The whole article is about how misplaced your overstatement is.

So he is does NOT accept your statement: "Point is: he accepts anthropogenic global warming. "



"I'm calling on you to either renounce Lindzen, or renounce AGW."    Renounce? Hey, Che,  that red star is rotting your mind.

Soren wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 10:44am:


- or CO2 plus CH4 plus N2O.........etc -  generated from human activities.

What's your reference for your claim that the effect of CO2 is "wildly overstated" ?

The IPCC Technical reports state that the Radiative Forcing for CO2 is given by the equation:

ΔF = 5.35 ln(C/C0) -  in Watts per square metre.

If you think that's overstated, what do you think the equation should be?

- and what's your justification for the change?

muso wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 3:55pm:



Every utterance that speaks of gloom and doom - and vica versa. Go on, pick any staement that says that we are doomed, that this is the greatest moral challenge, that we are past the tipping point, that polar bears are gonna fall out of the sky and so forth, and so on and ....   zzzzzzzzzzz................

All crap, all politically zealous, 'progressivist',  activist, 'let's change the world, it's our generation's turn, you old fuddy-duddies' sh!t. We are practically drowning in goddam wild overstemenets. The whole smacking issue is a back and forth of wild exaggeration. 

Soren wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 9:53pm:


Well what a shock, when asked for a scientific opinion, or study, to be referenced, to validate how he could justify his statement, the tactic changes from "let's talk about the science" to let's talk about media reactions".

That is the same type of evasion that you renounce as poor form, when others do it, on another topic Soren.

If you stuck to just talking about the science, with muso, I am sure you would eventually get it.

Presently the style of debate is follow a point, until you find it too challenging, then ignore it and swing wildly from another tack.

That is a shame, because following them through to logical, inevitable conclusions, would help you get it.

muso wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 3:55pm:



I have no doubt that the formula is sound under laboratory conditions.

What I have massive doubts about is that when the formula is apllied in the real world, it does not obtain because it is impossible to control all other variables.
As everybody is ready to admit, the climate is complex, there are many variables, most of them much more significant, and their interaction are not fully known. I haven't even mentioned the unknown vribles and the unknown interactions in such a complex system.

What is unknown does not automatically negate the value of what is known Soren.

Your point about other influences, and variables is absolutely valid, and irrefutable, we still have a lot to learn, but we need to make decisions now, and we must base those on what we know now, and all that we know now says we need to take every reasonable step possible, to reduce CO2 emissions.

It really is that simple.

We need to act now, on the best information available, because all those alarmist rants, are based on potential scenarios that we should best try and avoid, as much as is humanly possible, because while we are an evolving species, I would prefer not to have my grandkids needing to try and evolve a way to survive a mass extinction event, that we could have helped them avoid, if we had just taken action, in time.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 17^th, 2010 at 8:28am:



My view is that it is highly unlikely that CO2 is responsible to whatever changes are happening in the climate. Why be so worked up about something that is relatively insignificant in comparison to not only other GHGs but other climate factors (known and half-known)?

If you think you can control the climate, why not focus on that much more significant GHG, water wapor? It accounts for something like 70-80% of GHGs.
Because we cannot contol it. We can only control some of that tiny little thing, CO2. So we declare it to be THE reason for every and all change because this way we can beat our chests, sell induldences and repent. We don't care if it is true or not, or as you say whether we undesrtand it obnectively or not. And that makes us feel goood, this opportunity to repent. Atheists also yearn for that sweet, aching feeling that comes with repentance - the hope of becoming good from tomorrow, after we  publicly acknoledged our sins.

Soren wrote on Apr 17^th, 2010 at 5:25pm:


If the GHG contribution of water vapour was 70-80 percent as you argue, then the climate sensitivity would be between 2.5 degrees and 4.1 degrees C, which is actually a bit on the high side by most estimations, but let's not argue about it, even though your figures are a bit alarmist  

Take the 80% case. The relative effect of CO2 and other GHG's to water, is 4:1. For a 0.7 degree rise due to a doubling of CO2, you'd expect an additional 3.5 degrees due to water (3.5+0.7 = 4.1 degree warming)

In other words, a warming of 0.7 degree due to CO2 would increase the Earth's temperature such that the added water vapour would contribute an extra 2.33 to 4 times that of the CO2.

However if we take the view that the climate sensitivity is very low, then the predominant feedback (water related) must be very low, and not 70-80 %. (Lindzen's Iris effect)

So do you stick to the common view that water vapour accounts for anout 76% of the greenhouse effect?  - or do you believe that the effect of CO2 is overstated, and if so, by how much? 

Quote:


Given that the mean water vapoour concentration of the atmosphere is automatically driven by temperature, if we focus on reducing the cause of the temperature rise, then we are working towards reducing water vapour concentration too.

Make sense?