[freeztar]

Hey Turtle, I put VERY little faith in that article. First off, it was written over 5 years ago. Second, it was written by Monte Heib, which after doing a quick search on google, reveals that he has no climate credentials. It appears he works for the West Virginia Dept. of Miner Safety.
West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training TO: Davitt McAteer FROM: <b style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66">Monte</b> <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Hieb</b> DATE: July 11, 2006

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Hey Turtle, I put VERY little faith in that article. First off, it was written over 5 years ago. Second, it was written by Monte Heib, which after doing a quick search on google, reveals that he has no climate credentials. It appears he works for the West Virginia Dept. of Miner Safety.
West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training TO: Davitt McAteer FROM: <b style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66">Monte</b> <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Hieb</b> DATE: July 11, 2006

I can only wryly note that no contributors to this topic have climate credentials and therefore all are acting on faith. The question is then, are folks putting their carbon footprints where their mouths are? Keep up the faith; this too will pass.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I can only wryly note that no contributors to this topic have climate credentials and therefore all are acting on faith. The question is then, are folks putting their carbon footprints where their mouths are? Keep up the faith; this too will pass.

Interesting rhetoric, Turtle. However, it does nothing to support the validity (or, rather, overcome the invalidity) of the link you shared, which C1ay shared in another thread.


I bet my carbon footprint is smaller than yours!

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I can only wryly note that no contributors to this topic have climate credentials and therefore all are acting on faith.

I partially agree. I doubt anyone that has contributed to this thread is a professional researching climatologist. That being the case, the best contributions, imho, are those that reference credible sources. I don't care what anyone "thinks/feels" about climate change if they do not reference credible sources to support their argument. Scientific rigor demands this.

The question is then, are folks putting their carbon footprints where their mouths are? Keep up the faith; this too will pass.

You speak of it as a religion. Perhaps it is for some, but for the sake of this thread, I'd prefer to stick with credible scientific arguments based in fact, rather than faith.
I think we're on the same page here.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I partially agree. I doubt anyone that has contributed to this thread is a professional researching climatologist. That being the case, the best contributions, imho, are those that reference credible sources.
...
I think we're on the same page here.

No, I don't think we're on the same page at all. You have only moved the discussion to defining credible sources. We know how that's going to turn out, now don't we? Meantime, the big-time anthropogenic global warming proponents fly around the world spewing more 'stuff' in a year than I will in a lifetime and helping ensure their most dire prognostications. Nice lot o' work.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

No, I don't think we're on the same page at all. You have only moved the discussion to defining credible sources. We know how that's going to turn out, now don't we?

I'm not sure what you mean by the question in the last sentence.
I bring up the "credible sources issue" because I feel it is important to have a certain trust regarding the information presented. Peer-reviewed articles from scientists practicing in the field are much more credible than some guy's personal verizon site. (I personally re-learned a similar lesson in the "egg" thread (actually, it was you that pointed it out )

My intention is not to drift the thread off-topic by getting into debates on validity. My intention is to steer the thread back on topic by emphasizing the need for credible sources. That's all I'm saying.

Meantime, the big-time anthropogenic global warming proponents fly around the world spewing more 'stuff' in a year than I will in a lifetime and helping ensure their most dire prognostications. Nice lot o' work.

That's neither here nor there...

In regards to the article you posted, here's a quote from that article:

5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

TABLE 4a....

If you look at that table, you'll notice that CO2 is the major anthropogenic contributer at 0.117%. Conversely, according to the graph, we only contribute 0.001% to the water vapor (I'm dubious about this number, btw).
This is interesting if you think about it.

Also, it seems that the author's intent is too belittle Anthro-CO2's effect on the climate by saying phrases such as:

only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity.

To me this seems to be a statistical argument (and I'll admit that most of the climate debate is) that says that anything that contributes so little (of the whole) can obviously not have any significant effect. Unfortunately, the article falls short of quantifying this.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

...
To me this seems to be a statistical argument (and I'll admit that most of the climate debate is) that says that anything that contributes so little (of the whole) can obviously not have any significant effect. Unfortunately, the article falls short of quantifying this.

Sounds like the same objection(s) I put regarding the Sun's role in attentuating cosmic radiation, as well as what little or lot underwater volcanism and hydrothermal venting contribute to Earth's warming. Unfortunately no one yet has the proper quantification of the latter two.

I used the word faith because you did. Call it confidence, trust, or what-have-you. On the math side, please pardon my bias to my own understanding of the subject.

PS It is most certainly here, and it is most certainly now, significant to observe whether a rhetor's actions match their words when those words propose a call to action.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Turtle

On the math side, please pardon my bias to my own understanding of the subject.

Just because it is a tiny percentage does not mean it does not have an enormous effect (as this is what I perceived to be implied by your posts). Would you be okay with me changing the air in your bedroom to be composed of .117% weapons grade nerve gas? Probably not. Would it be appropriate for me to argue with you that, since it's such a tiny percentage, you should not be concerned? Absolutely not.

Atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ follows this same logic. Overall percentage of the makeup is not as important as the effect of exponentially increasing rate of contribution and overall amount.


Last... can we argue that you have no place pretending to know something about math because you don't have an advanced degree in mathematics? So, why do you assume credibility of your position by assuming nobody here has a degree in climate sciences? Which, btw... you should validate with Chris C anyway. Hence... freeztar's point about reputable scientific sources.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Sounds like the same objection(s) I put regarding the Sun's role in attentuating cosmic radiation, as well as what little or lot underwater volcanism and hydrothermal venting contribute to Earth's warming. Unfortunately no one yet has the proper quantification of the latter two.

The difference is that deep sea hydrothermal ventilation is not a defined variable at this point. I understand your argument that because it is not a defined variable, it renders all other contributions inaccurate. Unfortunately, we must amend as we go based upon our data at the time. I certainly have my eye out for data pertaining to other contributers.

So, the article you posted gave very precise numbers about contributions from different factors, but failed to quantify the effect other than to call Anthro-GHG's role "statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change".

We also have this closing statement:

The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!

.

Chances are for gamblers, not fact-finders.

Scientists can make the distinction between feedback and forcing. Here's a good explanation:
RealClimate » Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

I used the word faith because you did.

And in retrospect, that was a bad call on my part.

On the math side, please pardon my bias to my own understanding of the subject.

Of course we all have our own biases, and it is productive to air these early in a debate, as has been done. I'm confused about the "math" comment.

PS It is most certainly here, and it is most certainly now, significant to observe whether a rhetor's actions match their words when those words propose a call to action.

Awesome quote Turtle!
Unfortunately, I sense some directed intention in the undertone...

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

The difference is that deep sea hydrothermal ventilation is not a defined variable at this point. I understand your argument that because it is not a defined variable, it renders all other contributions inaccurate. ...

So it does.

Originally Posted by Frrezquisitor

Of course we all have our own biases, and it is productive to air these early in a debate, as has been done. I'm confused about the "math" comment.

I have little trust in most peoples' knowledge of the math involved in modeling a complex system.

Originally Posted by Freezecutor

Awesome quote Turtle!
Unfortunately, I sense some directed intention in the undertone...

I'm talking about the general case here. I directed that quote to whatever specific cases it applies to. You said elsewhere you are in the anthropogenic camp; the quote is for that group. If the shoes fit, wear them; if not, don't.

Here's a word or three on the unreliablility (reliability?) of the current computer modeling of climate. Never mind some of these models take five months to do a single run. Not to worry, it's covered by your carbon credits.

Research Tools: Climate FAQs

Originally Posted by Climate&GlobaDynamics

As our knowledge of the different components of the climate system and their interactions increases, so does the complexity of today's climate models. Also, many of the most pressing scientific questions regarding the climate system and its response to natural and anthropogenic forcings cannot be readily addressed with traditional models of the physical climate. One of the open issues for near-term climate change, for example, is the response of terrestrial ecosystems to increased concentrations of carbon dioxide. Will plants begin releasing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in a warmer climate, thereby acting as a positive feedback, or will vegetation absorb more carbon dioxide and hence decelerate global warming? Related issues include the interactions among land use change, deforestation by biomass burning, emission of greenhouse gases and aerosols, weathering of rocks, carbon in soils, and marine biogeochemistry.