Spotted at the Weather Network, and sent along by a reader who notes, that ” Al Gore must be visiting Newfoundland. The first of two pictures from Bay Roberts shows no ice in the harbour on 21 January 2008, while the second shows the harbour full on 2 April 2008.”
Samuel: Environment Canada quotes the IPCC report as stating that the total human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is less than 5%, with the remainder being from natural sources.
Environment Canada also states that in 2002, Canada’s contribution of CO2 was 2.4%.
What is the source of your “estimate” that more than 30% is from human sources?
Enquiring minds want to know.
I sit here in awe struck revulsion that there are still dogma-conditioned automatons out there that will reflexively chatter the mantras of AGW/GHG theological virtue every time there is evidence pointing to the fraud of AGW panic or the mistakes and unreliability of anthropic-effectuated climate science.
Yes there’s weather…good and bad and it has trends…but we didn’t make it so we can’t unmake it.
What IS it you climate doomers want so badly to be true?….a climatic dooms day for the human race? An catastrophic end to western Technology/culture/economy? Is your Luddite hatred for human progress so deeply seated that if AGW is proven out to be a fraud you will prey for an asteroid?
Careful, Eyeore. That 2.4% by Canada is 2.4% of the 5%, correct? Otherwise samuel might interpret that to mean that Canada supplied HALF of the 5% you are referring to, which 5% is over a much longer period of time.
Always be clear in how you phase things. I know from experience: once a leftist misinterprets what you said, THAT is the interpretation, not what you actually meant.
So I read all the comments here this morning. With some experienced science types argueing who’s numbers are correct. For me I get my weather by going outside. But only for an hour today. Why ? There is 6″ of snow where gravel was just Friday. Whew, and to think I was going to convert my tractor’s implement from the snow plow back to the mower. One more pushing of snow. -13 right now on the ranch.
I am no science guy. But for what it’s worth. The Dippers and Liberals dont really know or care what the science say’s. They are only going to be happy when Canadians $$$$ are going to China, India et al. NO matter the plan to curb GHG’s or pollution, if we are’nt sending billions, taxing billions then all bets are off. No plan will be good enough for the environuts. IMHO.
Sheesh, I even got what I wanted to say, Wrong. More coffee! But I hope you see my point, Eeyore.
Samuel: I would respectfully suggest that you not assume ignorance here. (We all know what assuming does, right?)
For instance, Vitruvius is very knowledgeable, as is John Cross, as are many others here. For a long list, check out Kate’s post about SDA readers and what we do for a living.
Heck, some of us might even be meteorologists and know that predicating climate forecasts on forecast models that use finite differencing schemes to approximate differentials (for merely one example) is not science–it’s science fiction.
Some of us might know that real science is never “settled”, in direct contradiction to what some “leading personalities” say, and that questioning and pointing out weaknesses in science is a good thing.
Some of us might know about how temperatures being measured are deeply flawed. Some of us might have pointed this all out again and again to the loud “lalalalalala” fingers-in-ears of many.
Some of us might have gotten that Kate’s postings about Y2Kyoto are more about the hypocrisy of “it’s a record-setting hot day–global warming!” by positing its diametric opposite.
But then again, what do I know. I’m just ignorant. And a little drunk from the Tanqueray (thanks, Vit!)
Proof there is God, Samuel, nothing more. And this God hates liars and theiveing liberals. Every time these snakes like Gore and Suzuki scream out about global warming, well God sits backs laughs and says watch this, Wham a big dump of snow and 20 below on April 20, I’m lovin it, still in front of my big screen, now sipping a morning coffee as I look out over 3 foot drifts of global warming. Funny how the very people that believe vehemently in evolution don’t evolve themselves, ie liberals.
And Vitruvius, I meant no disrespect for your modeling work. What I meant was this: that while models are useful tools, we must remember that a model solution is an answer, not the answer. As you well know, with chaotic systems, you tweak the input a little bit (measurement error) and over time, your answer looks nothing like the answer you got with the previous model run.
Don’t get me wrong. Less pollution? Absolutely. Technological innovation to develop new power sources in order to reduce reliance on fossil fuels? Definitely.
Destroying the Canadian economy because models suggest that we might be causing a tiny bit of warming and even so, other, much-more-emitting countries are exempt from reducing carbon emissions, thereby rendering our reductions meaningless? Not a chance.
when it comes to climate man will mitigate nothing. the clomate will change, warmer or cooler whether human beings are here or not. keep our water clean and all will be ok.
Thanks, Otter. Good advice…be precise. And don’t make a spelling or grammatical mistake, or they’ll jump on that to as a way to discredit what you say.
I just get frustrated when folks like Samuel and Hugger/Greg speak condescendingly about our sophomoric analyses while spouting unsubstantiated BS themselves. By the way, do you suppose they are just sockpuppets…Glen/Hugger sounds suspiciously like “Andrew”?
No wonder “Global Warming” is blasphemy to the zealots making big bucks on the sham. A proof is a proof and when it’s proven, it’s a good proof, or something like that there….
Samuel: Since my name has been invoked let me throw in some comments. I believe that Vitruvius brings me up since I am one of the regular “trolls” here on the topic of climate science. I comment on the science involved but as I have said many times here I am an engineer and have no official connection to any type climate analysis (I have written a few things which you can find on the net if anyone is silly enough to look).
You are correct there is a large number of uninformed people on this site who repeat the same discredited arguments. In addition there are a number of individuals who are not worth responding to as well as a number who tend to insult before they reason. That is true for almost any site, but where you and I post against the standard belief we probably feel it more than others. I have a collection of particularly creative insults thrown at me and one detailed psychoanalysis (all based on my posts of course).
However there are a number of thoughtful people who, while they will make as strong an argument as they can, can be convinced if you present a strong enough case. In analyzing their arguments I usually come to a better understanding of my own position, and – sometime – come to accept I have been wrong.
There is also a group on here who appreciate reasoned arguments reasonably presented and I have been defended by some of these people at times when others have insulted me and I think that that shows a true open mind attitude in this area. Heading up that list is Vitruvius (but there are a number of others). While I do not agree with everything he says, I do think his posts and analysis are interesting, reasoned and show that he is willing to spend time researching his arguments (he did a model of the cost of solar power a while back which I thought was fairly solid).
In regards to your posts, while I perhaps would not phrase the comments the same way as you do, I tend to agree with much of what you said. For example, I think that we both understand the flaw in the “you can’t transfer heat from a cooler body to a warmer one” argument. I did at one point explain this in great detail to ol hoss who then said that because I used wiki (to back up a point about infrared radiation) my whole argument was wrong and it was not worthwhile arguing with me.
I also note that your post at 3:13 gave me the best laugh I have had in a while (I am coming off a long and frantic project so not much time for fun recently, but just last week we got the hydraulics working so it is all down hill from here).
Best,
John
Eeyore: You said Samuel: Environment Canada quotes the IPCC report as stating that the total human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is less than 5%, with the remainder being from natural sources.
This is flat out wrong in the context of the total human contribution to the atmosphere (it may be correct of an annual contribution). Do you have a reference for it?
Thanks,
John
So Samuel, being a petroleum geologist makes you a climate expert eh? So obviously you can read but so can everyone else on this blog. The question is what do you read and what do you choose to believe. Climb down off your high horse! Your “expert” interpretation of what you have read doesn’t make it the unassailable ‘gospel’ (according to that wellknown scientist Gore) ‘truth’! You are just one more voice and opinion like the rest of us. The big difference is in this community you are allowed to speak, in yours we aren’t. Think about it!
Vitruvius: My favourite line from Dashiell Hammett is:
Damn, I have read nothing for the last few years except technical stuff! This summer I should pull out some old paperbacks!
Thanks for the idea.
John
Samuel, a petroleum question, if I may: your opinion on the availability of the 200 Billion barrels of oil in the Bakken Oil field?
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html
Record warm temperatures on the East Coast this past Friday.
As echoed above, in many parts of the East Coast you can have clear water one day and pack ice the next. Sometimes in the same day. It’s a tidal/wind thing that maybe land lubbers don’t know about.
Were you trying to indicate that this was misleading, or intentionally misleading Kate? Most people who have any miles on them know that many try to push their own agenda. Even a good deal of the MSM, and MANY blog operators.
One other thing that was mentioned in another recent thread was the claim that we have not lost one single bit of land mass to rising oceans. As I work on my 6th decade, I can say with some authority that this is not true. Just yards from where I live there are examples.
Building lot’s of waterfront property that are no longer there. They weren’t included in the seawalls we built in the 60’s and 70’s and they have vanished. Gone, poof..like a politician’s promises.
So where did they go? Erosion you say. Ok, well how is it that the insidious ocean keeps getting farther and farther up and the waterline closer so that it can continue to erode more and more land if it’s not rising?
Now, my part of the Ocean, Me Ocean I fondly refer to it as, did not come with a dipstick, so I can’t check it like the oil in my car, so I am left to ponder the answer. Here is an excerpt from a web post on the subject.
“Since the end of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago, sea level has risen by over 120 meters.
* Geological data suggests that global average sea level may have risen at an average rate of 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr over the last 3000 years.
* However, tide gauge data indicate that the global rate of sea level rise during the 20th century was 1 to 2 mm/yr.
Along relatively flat coastlines, such as those of the Atlantic, or coastlines bordering fertile, highly populated river deltas, a 1 mm rise in sea level causes a shoreline retreat of about 1.5 meters. We are already seeing evidence of shoreline retreat in the U.S.:
* Along the marshy Gulf Coast of Florida, the effects of sea level rise can be observed in the number of dead cabbage palms at the seaward edge of the salt marsh.
* Along the Atlantic Coast of the USA, erosion is narrowing beaches and washing out vacation houses. As sea level rises and coastal communities continue to grow and pump water from aquifers, salt water intrusion into groundwater will become a greater problem.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/chanton.html
Any thoughts?
Hugger
Yes, John…I believe it is an annual figure. Just as I believe that Vitruvius’ calculation of Canada’s contribution was on an annual basis. The reference is: ec.gc.ca/climate/4th_Report_on_CC_e.pdf
I do not believe it is possible to assume that the rise in CO2 levels in the last 100 years is solely due to man’s activities. You would have to assume that the natural contribution is steady…and that would be a HUGE assumption.
Again, since CO2 levels have fluctuated in the past when man was not around…
Eeyore: If that is an annual value, then sure. My off the top of my head 30% was a total amount and Samuel seems to think it is more than 30% so I will have to check it out.
In regards to the C)2 increase, I can agree with you for the last 100 years. However we are able to attribute all the CO2 increase to humans for the period of time when we have good records that show that we produce more CO2 then is ending up in the atmosphere (perhaps the last 50 years).
Regards,
John
Lies, damned lies and statistics, John. I’m not gonna lose one millisecond of sleep over this silliness, regardless of your bank account theory.
Go into any university and be taught what the FACTS are…clear, unambiguous FACTS…about ANY subject you want. Then wait 10 years and be amazed at all of the FACTS that turned out NOT to be facts after all.
I’ll lay money on a bet that 10 years from now, the average global temperatures will NOT be higher than they were in 2002. Do you live in Ontario and want to take me up on the bet? Eeyore_1693@hotmail.com and we can find a place/time to firm up our bet (but my wife won’t let me put anything more than $100 on it).
I think that we both understand the flaw in the “you can’t transfer heat from a cooler body to a warmer one” argument.
Well then perhaps one of you could graciously explain to the rest of us what exactly this flaw is.
With apologies to Vitruvious,John C,lookout,etc. I have just been informed of why we here in the Hinterlands (central/southern SK/AB/BC) are getting this wonderful global warming snowfall. According to my betterhalf,it seems I PO’d Gaia and her high priests,the Goracle/Dr Fruitfly by having the audacity to actually put the blockheater cords to our vehicles away under the hoods this Friday(April 18)and stating we shouldn’t need them again until Hallowe’en,thereby exacting this revenge.
Ummmmmmmm…..makes as much sense to me as anything else out there that makes conclusions on the climate based on 20 years of so-so readings.
Its freezing in the West where GHG emissions are the highest. GHG is causing global cooling; cut them back!!
One can, Pd, transfer heat from the less hot to the more
hot by doing work ~ for example by using a refrigerator.
Except John Cross maintains heat can be transferred from from the less hot to the more hot with no work added. In effect, perpetual motion.
If only he would use his expertise to design a refrigerator with that feature.
The key is that there can not be a net transfer of heat from a cooler body to a warmer one. However every object above absolute zero emits thermal radiation. If an object is in the way it will receive that thermal radiation. The thermal radiation does not know if the object that emits is warmer than the object that receives, it just goes from point A to point B.
Now, next question, what is the consequence of this.
Regards,
John
Oh, and could someone explain this to ol hoss since the last time I went through it he didn’t accept it.
Don’t be silly, Hoss. A couple of other quick points: John, re 10:24, you are not a troll at all, at least by any reasonable definition of the word that I know of. And Johann, re 9:32, I see your modeling point and raise you this quote from the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper (sorry John 😉 “It should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clarified in the philosophy of science.”
It’s John Cross who’s silly to suggest the cooler atmosphere can heat the warmer earth.
EEyore, I am currently setting up a bet at Long Bets which should be public in a week or so. After that I might be interested in your bet.
While there are some things that do change, I am willing to back my bank account theory with my bank account. 😉
Regards,
John
Hmm, I don’t recall John ever saying that, Hoss, do you have a link?
Vitruvius: this all falls out of a discussion I had with ol hoss back in this thread (at the risk of being called obsessive) http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007137.html
I agree completely that a cooler body can not warm up a warmer body, but it can add heat to a warmer body.
Regards,
John
I agree completely that a cooler body can not warm up a warmer body, but it can add heat to a warmer body.
See how idiotic that is? To add heat to something is to make it warmer. duh
No it is not idiotic, Hoss. John is correct. Your mental model is oversimplified.
By the way, from Slashdot: “Professor Edward N. Lorenz, who discovered in 1961 that subtle changes in the initial conditions of a weather simulation program could cause very large differences in its results, died of cancer Wednesday at the age of 90. The contributions of the father of chaos theory, who discovered the Lorenz Attractor, are best summarized by the wording of the Kyoto Prize in 1991 which noted that his discovery of chaos theory ‘profoundly influenced a wide range of basic sciences and brought about one of the most dramatic changes in mankind’s view of nature since Sir Isaac Newton.'”
greetings from the left coast. april snow on vancouver island 6.4 centimeters by 11 a m april 19 last time we had snow like that was 1955 on 14 april with 5.1 centimeters most snow in april since 1940. big story is from nanaimo they had 24 centimeters april 19. previous record was 1981, april 12 with 4.9 centimeters. our tempertures are several degrees below average for this time of year. better get out in the driveway and start up that s u v and let ‘er idle take that screwsooki.
Bubba
Educated idiots.
Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body.
Consider this analogy, Hoss. Say I transfer two dollars of money (heat is the transfer, money is the energy) to you, as you transfer one dollar of money to me. Money flows (heat transfers) both ways, but only one of us gets net richer (more energy). The net energy transfer depends on which heat (energy flow) is higher. Heat is a measure of energy in transit, it is never possesed by a body. Hot is a measure of temperature, which is related to the internal energy (potential and kinetic) and enthalpy of a body. Heat is not the same as net energy transferred, energy is not the same as temperature. Remember, if we’re going to use words to do physics, we have to use the words as defined by physics.
Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body.
What part of “cannot” do you not understand?
Interesting analogy, Vitruvius, using transfer of cash in the AGW discussion; as one of the precepts of Kyoto was the transfer of carbon credits into cash (not to mention the curtailing of personal liberty by big government), it’s probably apt. Or a Freudian slip, maybe.
I find it fascinating that the global warming jihadists huff that “you can’t use localized cold weather as a contra argument to AGW”, yet they are the same numb-bots shrieking hysterically that AGW caused hurricane Katrina, and the spate of hurricanes that were to follow in 2005.
Oops, that didn’t happen. Forget that point, please. Also forget it for 2006, too, thanksverymuch. As the great Lileks observed (paraphrased), “Who would have thought that the path massive tropical storms could have been diverted by the signing of international treaties”.
Thus, localized weather phenomena are only acceptable in the AGW debate IFF they support the astonishingly arrogant theory that mankind is somehow powerful enough to affect global weather patterns and climate trending. Ecco! Q.E.D. (sort of).
Although I myself am only a mere mechanical engineer, I hereby promise to take the AGW hype more seriously when:
(i) Somebody is able to prove any facet of it via laboratory experimentation (sorry, Charlie: software models don’t “prove” anything)
(ii) The leading proponents of AGW are not individuals who stand to gain fabulously by the mindless acceptance of the theory, and by the economic-destruction plans required thereof (e.g., Gore, Strong, GE, the UN, governments, government-funded scientist shills, ad infinitum…)
(iii) Those same proponents of AGW actually begin to modify their lives to lead by example. That is, Scamzuki will eschew his two multi-million dollar homes in favor of a dinky little bungalow that’s “the same size or smaller than what his grandparents owned”, the Goreacle puts his 20-room mansion up for sale in exchange for something smaller that doesn’t burn 20x the average US family’s electrical usage (and dumps his “carbon credit” trading business, also), or that maurice strong divests himself of all chinese business interests and returns to live in a modest 2-bedroom townhome with postage-sized back yard in Etobicoke.
Ahh, well. At least I can dream, eh?
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
Heat, Ol Hoss, cannot pass at all! Neither can work. Only energy can pass. Heat and work are measures of the passage of energy. The measure of the passage of energy does not itself pass. Net energy transfer is always from the heater to the heatee +/- from the worker to the workee (heat and work being the only two measures of the transfer energy). Heat is not the same as hot (at least, not in physics; heat is a path function, hot is a point function).
Now to be clear, Ol Hoss, I know what you mean, and we all use that terminology colloquially, it’s just that when you get down to the nitty gritty details, the nitty gritty details matter, and in particular they matter once non-thermodynamic factors like electro-magnetic absorption spectra come up in the various atmospheric energy retention conjectures, theories, and models. Which is why (unless I’m mistaken) John wants to make the finer point.
Perhaps I can summarize it this way, Ol Hoss. In a purely thermodynamic system, the net argument can be factored out because it always adds up in practice, and your (mine, and everybody elses) simplified model works. However, once one adds non-thermodynamic considerations, such as electro-magnetic effects and chemical reactions, one has to (ahem) do more bookkeeping 😉
You still haven’t shown that the cooler atmosphere can add heat to the warmer earth. All you have is some disjointed theory in support of perpetual motion.
Nobody has said a cooler atmosphere can warm the earth, Hoss. As long as Sol is shining on us, perptual motion doesn’t enter into it. But it’s not just the temperature of the atmosphere and the earth that matter, you have to account for radiative energy transfers between differing substances.
Let’s return to the transferring dollars between each other analogy, Hoss. Now say we’re molecules of the same substance, and we’re at the same temperature, and so we’re throwing photons of a particular frequency at each other. Depending on what substance we are molecules of, our ability to catch those photons (and so absorb their energy) depends on their frequency, that is, our temperature. However, since we’re the same substance at the same temperature, it all nets out to a steady state.
But if we’re molecules of different substances, then we will not necessarily have the same ability to catch each other’s photons, depending on their frequency (our starting temperature). If one set of molecules catches more photons it will gain energy relative to the other set of molecules, yet the thermodynamics is still satisfied, because the escaped photons go on to transfer their energy to some other part of the system, such as space.
Our atmosphere, we have noted, contains molecules of multiple substances, all radiating photons, plus the inbound photons from Sol and the rest of the universe, minus the ones were shooting off into space. How these photons interact isn’t a matter of thermodynamics, thermodynamics is a model of the macroscopic system, which comes into effect after these photonic considerations are taken into account.
[quote]In regards to the C)2 increase, I can agree with you for the last 100 years. However we are able to attribute all the CO2 increase to humans for the period of time when we have good records that show that we produce more CO2 then is ending up in the atmosphere (perhaps the last 50 years). [/quote]
John Cross posted this statement of wisdom!
Simple Logic:
The “Scale” used by the AGW group to measure Co2 produced does not match the measured Co2 in the atmosphere.
What am I to assume happened to the missing Co2?. I guess I am free to Speculate with an aggressive imagination
A) The Irish fairies come in the middle of the night and are stealing our produced Co2
B) The Missing C02 is the source of those annoying Wet Farts.
Why are we even using a production Scale that does not match or track the Co2 in the Atmosphere?
Nobody has said a cooler atmosphere can warm the earth, Hoss.
Look through this thread, that’s what John Cross says.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007137.html
Phillip G.Shaw: I don’t follow you when you say “The “Scale” used by the AGW group to measure Co2 produced does not match the measured Co2 in the atmosphere.” Are you talking about using gigatonnes of CO2 for production but ppm for concentrations? If so, they are not the same but they do match.
In regards to the missing CO2, it appears to end up dissolved in the oceans.
Regards,
John
Yes of course, Phillip, the scale used to measure CO2 produced does not match the scale used to measure CO2 in the atmosphere, the former being a first derivative of CO2 mass balance with respect to time, the latter being the integral of the former with respect to time. Mass flows (may) accumulate. You may have noticed that the CO2 produced scale is in units of moles per second, while the the total CO2 is measured in moles, which should have been more than enough of a clue that they aren’t the same scales. You have to multiply/divide by time.
An’ Ol Hoss, I don’t come here to argue, I come here to think. I don’t usually particularly care what particular phrasing was used in some previous argument, I care about what the words and ideas under consideration mean. And so it is I thank you, Ol Hoss, for challenging me to explain myself. Thanks to your feedback for helping me re-clarify my own understanding of what the words and ideas mean, now that I’ve had to think about it carefully again in order to not make a fool of myself 😉
ol hoss: the following is my comment from the thread you linked to. It shows that at the time I was making the same point that Vitruvius has made several times above.
ol hoss: everything at a temperature above absolute zero emits energy. If a body is in the way of this energy it will receive it and thus some warming will be imparted. A cooler body (call it body A) can’t warm up another body to a temperature higher than body A’s which is the case I think you were referring to.
Regards,
John
Posted by: John Cross at October 1, 2007 10:05 AM
How much contaminates has AL GORE put into the upper atmosphear with his private jets and 4 mpg limo SHUT UP AL GORE IM GETTING TIRED OF YOUR BLASTED BLABBERING SQUAWK SQUAWK
This is the innane comment made by John Cross that Vitruvious apparently agrees with…
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007137.html
But there is another side to the warming caused by CO2 which has nothing to do with saturation. Lets say that the earth’s atmosphere is separated into layers based on their CO2 content (i.e. so much CO2 per layer). As we go up through the layers we eventually reach a point where the radiation from CO2 can escape into space.
Now, if we look at what is happening in the layers below we can see that the bottom one is warming the earth a fair bit. However the next layer also provides energy to warm the earth (albeit it somewhat less than the first since the first is in the way). The same for the third and so on.
With educated idiots such as these two spreading such nonsense it’s no wonder this GW idiocy has taken such a hold on the young and impressionable.
Remember, they’re talking about energy that’s already been given off by the earth being reflected back and “warming” the earth. Then that same energy is once again given off by the earth is reflected back further “warming” the earth ad infinitum.
Educated idiots.
Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body.
Posted by: ol hoss at April 20, 2008 8:12 PM
Sure it can. That’s what happens when a guy who is not so hot, hooks up with a gal who is really hot. Warm stuff passes from the colder body to the hotter one.
This is not usually ad infinitum.
Pa…
ol hoss: The statement you quoted is true if you accept that the addition of heat is warming (which is the thermodynamic definition of warming). However using that as an excuse for your argument is transparent since when you brought it up I realized why you were confused and replied with:
It is this statement that you spent so much time arguing with. If anyone is interested in reading through that thread this is the point that I made repeatedly. For example I gave you a reference and this was your exact quote in response to it (your comment in bold):
I do not know if Vitruvius would accept my definition of warming but there is no way your statement above can be considered true.
If you don’t like the answers that were given here, ask a physics person to review the thread and see if they agree.
John