Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

[dannno]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Thank ya..

 

[BenIsForRon]

OK I just have to pick this image apart to show how they show the facts but then present it in usch a way as to make things look alarming.

The entire scale of that map ranges from 370 ppm to 380 ppm. So we are talking a scale range of 10 ppm or 1 part per 100,000 The VERY lowest to the VERY highest ranges is from 37 parts per 100,000 to 38 per 100,000.

Another way they couldhave presented the map would have been, oh 300 ppm on the purple end of the range and 400 ppm on the red end of the scale...but if they did that, the entire planet would be a pretty much perfectly uniform golden color and you would be hard pressed to see any areas of differentiation.

CO2 is a much stronger green house gas than water vapor, on a molecule per molecule basis. That's why small increases in ppm can have a devastating effect, because you're actually talking about millions of tons.

This PDF explains it in pretty good detail.

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

 

[awake]

The globe warms and cools, it sometimes rains and other times the sun shines. Of course there is climate change, but the solution is not a global welfare scheme and world government.

 

[idirtify]

Seriously dude, you should probably think before you post something like that. If CNN had just posted a heat image, all your favorite websites would be ripping them apart right now. And industry doesn't produce heat like that. Heat islands do, but only on small scales, not on a regional basis like you think you're seeing there.

Here's another viersion of the image, taken for the AIRS satellite. Take prevailing winds into account here.

“Seriously dude”…it really IS only an infrared map, which I thought only showed heat differential. But in a way you have a point; that either way, it may not actually make much difference – and would get equally attacked. That’s because the colors have obviously been manipulated to exaggerate a very SLIGHT differential (of anything). IOW, it only shows a difference of around 0.25% (if my math is right). IOW, if blue corresponded to zero PPM and red to 390PPM, then the whole map would be a nearly indistinguishable shade of dark red. Or if blue corresponded to zero and red to 1000ppm, then the whole map would be similar shades of light blue.

 

[silverhandorder]

CO2 is a much stronger green house gas than water vapor, on a molecule per molecule basis. That's why small increases in ppm can have a devastating effect, because you're actually talking about millions of tons.

This PDF explains it in pretty good detail.

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

Um last I checked water vapor was far more potent then CO2.

edit:

The paper you linked contradicts what you said.

 

[BenIsForRon]

No, look at the table again. CO2 is not 26% of the atmosphere (less than 1% last I heard), but it contributes (up to) 26% of the greenhouse effect.

 

[silverhandorder]

That should be called into question considering the individual contribution is so low. Furthermore the following table shows contributions that are more like what I saw last time I checked this stuff out.

Maybe we are not reading it right? (26% contribution)

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Um last I checked water vapor was far more potent then CO2.

edit:

The paper you linked contradicts what you said.

This.

I object to the theory of AGW because I have studied the science. Seriously, I thought everybody who had looked at this knew that H2O vapor was a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Water vapor is many orders of magnitude more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and I am saying this (as did silverhandorder) without needing to look anything up, but from memory, because contrary to what Ben has been accusing us of, we oppose the theory because we have looked into the science, and not as we have been accused of on account of drinking from the trough of big oil.

Indeed, I would say that those who push AGW are more likely to be drinking the big-oil kool-aid as they seem to be the primary "men behind the curtain" for this Cap & Trade nonsense.

When I see genuine well-documented and open-sourced science...science that supports the theory of AGW, then I will reconsider. Until then I will not be swayed by empty rhetoric.

 

[BenIsForRon]

That should be called into question considering the individual contribution is so low. Furthermore the following table shows contributions that are more like what I saw last time I checked this stuff out.

Maybe we are not reading it right? (26% contribution)

I'm pretty sure I'm reading it right, though I'm not completely sure what the the mean by meter to the -2 power (square root of a meter). I think it means any given amount of space? Anyways if you read the text with the tables, they say that water vapor makes up 60% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 is 26%. Now we all know that CO2 makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere. A+B=C... CO2 is a stronger greenhouse gas on a molecule per molecule basis.

This.

I object to the theory of AGW because I have studied the science. Seriously, I thought everybody who had looked at this knew that H2O vapor was a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Water vapor is many orders of magnitude more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and I am saying this (as did silverhandorder) without needing to look anything up, but from memory, because contrary to what Ben has been accusing us of, we oppose the theory because we have looked into the science, and not as we have been accused of on account of drinking from the trough of big oil.

Indeed, I would say that those who push AGW are more likely to be drinking the big-oil kool-aid as they seem to be the primary "men behind the curtain" for this Cap & Trade nonsense.

When I see genuine well-documented and open-sourced science...science that supports the theory of AGW, then I will reconsider. Until then I will not be swayed by empty rhetoric.

I don't think you actually looked at the paper. The authors say that water vapor is only 60% of the greenhouse effect. Do you think they are lying, or mistaken?

 

[silverhandorder]

I'm pretty sure I'm reading it right, though I'm not completely sure what the the mean by meter to the -2 power (square root of a meter). I think it means any given amount of space? Anyways if you read the text with the tables, they say that water vapor makes up 60% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 is 26%. Now we all know that CO2 makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere. A+B=C... CO2 is a stronger greenhouse gas on a molecule per molecule basis.

Well first of I know for a fact that water vapor contributes 90% of the green house effect. So you are definitely reading table 3 wrong. Not surprisingly table 3 refers to other studies and over all sounds like gibberish.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

If you continue reading on to table 4 we get more sense out of it.

The contribution of each gas absorber to the total atmospheric absorption is given in Table 4. For cloudy conditions, water vapor accounts for nearly half of the total atmospheric absorption, while the second most important absorber is ozone; the contribution by carbon dioxide is small.

To me it seems the scientists are exploring different properties here that have nothing to do with the total CO2 efficiency as a green house gas.

 

[sofia]

The science isn't a scam. Hundreds of institutions back it up with research, .

Hundreds of institutions and economists back up Keynesian economics too.

Hundreds of institutions and historians claim Wilson, FDR, World Wars etc were the greatest things since sliced bread

Hundreds of institutions and scientists told us H1N1 Swine Flu was going to be an epidemic this year...

get the point?

Put your faith in your own common sense...not in bought and paid for "intellectuals"

GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX

 

[MelissaWV]

My God. This is worse than I thought. Water vapor!

Well there's only one thing left to do. For our own protection, the Government must take control of water sources and ration them out, also capping them so that water doesn't evaporate maliciously. Thank God the Government is here to help. I'm willing to pay to get good, wholesome, clean Government water... and to help the earth cool off a bit. Without that pesky weather cycle, we should be in great shape?

 

[not.your.average.joe]

Do you know what the 2nd leading cause of death (behind auto accidents) for childrend 12 and younger is... Drowning

About 6,500 drownings a year total in the US, all ages...

I WANT SOMETHING DONE ABOUT ALL THESE DEATHS!!! Doenst the government realize how dangerous water is!!! Even the cleanest and freshest water on the planet will kill you with no remorse.

 

[NYgs23]

I try to remain agnostic on the question of global warming. My take is that even if everything they're saying were true, that still doesn't justify central economic planning. I think focusing too much on debunking global warming suggests that if it were true, that would be a knock-out blow for free market principles.

 

[NYgs23]

Hundreds of institutions and economists back up Keynesian economics too.

Hundreds of institutions and historians claim Wilson, FDR, World Wars etc were the greatest things since sliced bread

Hundreds of institutions and scientists told us H1N1 Swine Flu was going to be an epidemic this year...

get the point?

Put your faith in your own common sense...not in bought and paid for "intellectuals"

GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX

It is true that, despite how much the environmentalists complain about skeptical think tanks being "corporate astroturf," if you follow the money, you find that practically the whole of modern academia is government astroturf by the same standards. All those organizations are either arms of the government, or they're at least partially dependent on the government for funds (grants, student loan subsidies) and monopoly privileges (charters, licenses, accreditation). The storied and much beloved "peer review process" also strikes me as a cartelizing function, along with the very concepts of a "scientific community" and a "scientific consensus." True authority can only be discerned by open and uncontrolled competition in a free market of ideas, whereas the "intellectual class" of the modern world appears to have taken on the characteristics of a mystery cult, with the "experts" enthroned in the their ivory tower deciding who should be inducted into the circle.

 

[awake]

There are some who do no see 'it'. They look upon government as a child looks to his parent for approval and reward. But, the parent in this situation, the state, is a psychologically and physically abusive partner. When those who realize this fact try to leave it, they are threatened, attacked and robbed by its supporters.

 

[Dieseler]

My God. This is worse than I thought. Water vapor!

Well there's only one thing left to do. For our own protection, the Government must take control of water sources and ration them out, also capping them so that water doesn't evaporate maliciously. Thank God the Government is here to help. I'm willing to pay to get good, wholesome, clean Government water... and to help the earth cool off a bit. Without that pesky weather cycle, we should be in great shape?

I'm pretty sure Nancy and T. Boone Pickens have a plan for just that. Something to do with that wind energy thing.

 

[sofia]

This is a controlled "leak"

It does two things...

1. "Reassures" us people in the developed world that we aren't giving away the store to the third world..

2. Provides pressure for us to actually give away the store later on when no one is paying attention.

 

[jmdrake]

The science isn't a scam.

Yes it is.

Hundreds of institutions back it up with research, forget about East Anglia.

You've admitted you're not a scientist. I am. I have my name as a co-author on scientific papers. I'm married to a researcher. Here is how the game works. All major scientific journal articles must go through what is known as "peer review". Leaders in the field can torpedo an otherwise well written article just by giving it bad reviews. The CRU is (was?) the undisputed leader in the field. Plus there were collaborating with scientists AROUND THE WORLD in this fraud! You can't "forget about East Anglia". Not if you want to honestly look at what's going on.

Governments will take advantage of real problems for their own gain, like with world hunger.

And sometimes governments make up problems in order to advance their agenda. Take the Iraqi WMD fiasco. Our government and the British government made up data to fit the policy they wanted. The downing street memo proved this. But neocons held onto the belief of WMDs just like you are holding onto the belief of AGW.

Again I ask you the question I asked in another thread. If AGW on earth is real then what causes global warming on Mars and Jupiter?

So yeah, I agree with you guys that Copenhagen is a scam, I just don't think the concept of AGW is a scam.

AGW is a scam. The treaty being put forward at Copenhagen is the ends. AGW is merely the means. If CO2 is really a hazard then why isn't anyone demanding an end to carbonated sodas?

 

[BenIsForRon]

Well first of I know for a fact that water vapor contributes 90% of the green house effect. So you are definitely reading table 3 wrong. Not surprisingly table 3 refers to other studies and over all sounds like gibberish.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

If you continue reading on to table 4 we get more sense out of it.

To me it seems the scientists are exploring different properties here that have nothing to do with the total CO2 efficiency as a green house gas.

They are studying CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. The article you cited even concedes that CO2 is a green house gas. The difference is your article states water vapor is 90%, the one I quoted has it at 60% on a clear day, over 70% on a cloudy day.

Anyway, its crazy to argue this on this forum. There are about a thousand different theories... It's warming! It's cooling! CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas! CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it isn't that important!

Yes it is.

Nobody's suggesting a ban on soda because they're not a fucking power plant that burns hundreds of tons of coal everyday, stop being a demagogue.

As far as the other planets warming, I'm sure sun activity is one of the only factors that can cause them to warm, but earth has other factors, including CO2 emissions from industry. So we have to look at more than what mars is doing, because we're different.

And East Anglia, though it is one of the top researchers, is far from the only one. Many other institutions have gotten their own ice cores and other raw data, so it seems to me that you are suggesting that they are all in on it. So you might as well just give up on this whole liberty thing, because they've got us far outnumbered.