Albedo

The ladder debate is a far more dangerous place to be than the climate change debate Will. I like your posts though mate and I think your sincerity does come across:thumbup1:

Good honest post Will, perhaps this thread should take another direction. I had decided to stay out of it a bit tonight and let others have their say. And here I am again:blushing:

Evening pumpy I think that your first link just proves that the guy couldn't model the atmosphere in an actual 'greenhouse'. The second link is quite good and interesting. The first bit being about furnaces and thermodynamics. The rest being an extrapolation to the actual atmosphere. So mostly as you say not empirical. You do have a point though. Its all based on models as it involves predicting the effect in the atmosphere in the future. However there are all the empirical measurements from Mauna Loa in Hawaii for example, ice cores etc. Until recently climate change theory wasn't a big worry as the predicted climate change was deemed to be way into the future i.e. thousands of years Did we not start to get hot and bothered about it because the predicted effects started to actually occur much sooner than expected. Is there not a permafrost ice tundra in Russia somewhere that has reached its tipping point and is melting releasing methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas. Also is it not accepted that it is these gases in our atmosphere at their current balance that keep the climate liveable in the first place. If the sceptics alternative theory that its all natural cycles, is true then we are due another ice age... Do you have any empirical data as to where our ice age has gone? And Look... No links:sneaky2:

Cheers Stumpgrinder, it takes all sorts to make a world doesn't it, I guess Tony was right and I read you wrong. I don't agree with you though. I'm interested in this stuff but don't necessarily believe it all. Its hard to say what I think I have learned about it without appearing to be preaching it. I guess thats how us types come across. Thats why I think this thread should be about learning what the arguments are rather than pushing others to take one point of view or another:thumbup1:

This is a good point.... I wouldn't put it past them:001_smile:

Sorry thats the wrong link I have not seen that page at all. The Discovery of Global Warming - A History Hopefully, this is the right link Wasn't doing links but I threw this in just for reference for you pumpy if you click on this link then 'timeline of milestones' bottom right of page then 'radiation math' a few lines down.... you'll see where I've been all morning ... enjoy

The press have never understood climate science. To go by 'press release' is a waste of time. The press do not lead the climate change debate, they fail woefully to follow it... Re wickipedia and Arrhenius try The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources loads of good essays there and the history is the history when it comes down to it. Its good that you're raising proper sceptic arguments.... I've done quite a lot of work on one of your earlier ones this morning. I'm having trouble summarising for posting here as whilst I think folk reading the thread want to make informed choices. If we just post links to lengthy articles the thread won't have any flow to it. The point you make about climate always changed.... Thats a biggy ... but its the basis of the whole thing... Anthropogenic Climate change theory comes from an understanding of the ice ages and the fact that climate always changed. This is just a quick response, but there's a lot of big points in your post. I think we need to find a way to do digestible bite sized chunks. We could help each other out here because you and I both know the arguments. We need to present them a little bit better:thumbup1:

Here's a bite sized chunk to be going on with Pumpy:001_smile: "Arrhenius' calculations were disputed and subsumed into a larger debate over whether atmospheric changes had caused the ice ages. Experimental attempts to measure infrared absorption in the laboratory showed little differences resulted from increasing CO2 levels, and also found significant overlap between absorption by CO2 and absorption by water vapor, all of which suggested that increasing carbon dioxide emissions would have little climatic effect. These early experiments were later found to be insufficiently accurate, given the instrumentation of the time. Many scientists also thought that oceans would quickly absorb any excess carbon dioxide." I know this doesn't negate your argument Pumpy but there is quite a lot of this to read thru. The source is just 'History of Climate Change' on good old Wicki.

Nice post again Pumpy...you do know your onions. That C02 versus H20 absorption stuff follows on from the work of Arheniuss. They had jars with the above gasses in and shone light thru them. Its why the effects differ between the poles and the equator. Their jars didn't work well because of some other factor which I have forgotten. I had a good article on this on the old laptop, I'll search it out again. I think some googling on the history of climate change science will find this one so should be able to dig up both sides of this one without too much trouble:001_smile:

No wuckers mate. Long time coming this thread and I was gonna stay out of it. I just can't resist this one. Hope your well anyway me old mucker...

Thats what I said:sneaky2:

Pumpy pointed out that atmospheric CO2 rises predate the rise in temperature causing warming. This is the wrong way round if Climate Change Science is to be correct. If you guys want to hold strong opinions on whether this is happening or not you're gonna have to get up to speed. I'm not posting the link but I'll point for those of you who can be arsed to back up your strongly held.. for / or against views. Google... Vostock Ice Cores.... Click on "Climate Myths. Ice Cores Show C02 increases Lag Behind Temp Rises". Its an article from New Scientist. If you want your view on this matter to have any meaning whatsoever you are gonna have to do some work.

I've got one just like that:sneaky2:

Not that I'm the arbitrator ... but another good post this one.... were on fire this evening...think I'll go get another bottle of Carmenere:thumbup1:

Message to Pumpy. I was just going back to read the thread again as its been a bit fast, I noticed it was you to whom I answered no,no,yes. etc. I was being a bit dismissive because I thought you hadn't understood your own link. I thought you were some kid on a wind up. I was clearly wrong. I think we were at cross-purposes there so sorry about that:blushing:

nooo'p:sneaky2:

Best post in this thread yet. I've been waiting for someone who's looked into it properly and who can also be arsed to write long posts The lag factor you mention is one of the big sceptic arguments. I'm out of date and don't remember where I was up to on this but well done for raising it. Your last paragraph is kinda where I've been at for a few years. This thread is getting me interested again but I'm gonna have to do some homework. welcome to the thread though pumpy:thumbup1: edit: I guess you know what my arbtalk tag means as well

Thanks Catweazel thats the one:thumbup1:

I'm not a sceptic but wouldn't call myself convinced either. A good place to start is with Arheniuss in approx 1900. About the time they discovered glacial cycles and started to figure out the ice ages this led to the study of what affects climate over geological time scales. Arheniuss did some very interesting stuff with figuring how C02 can reradiate the suns heat back to the earths surface. I could post a link but you may as well just google it. I would add that I'm not going to post any links in this thread as I believe that the only way is to find out for yourself. If asked I'll find the info and point at it and thats my lot I'm afraid.

Fair enough mate. I had let it ride till you quoted him, and it did get my back up. As I am on best behaviour and in the interest of less derailing I'm happy to let it go. Feel free to have your say however Mr S.Grinder.

This is a real problem for me Pumpy. The issue is so vast that you can't answer this question without writing a lot and I mean pages and pages. If I thought I could I would. The only thing we can do on this one is to educate ourselves. I have been trying to think of ways of breaking it down into bite size chunks. It would be a bit like taking on Adams rigging thread.

Tony... I can see that you might have read this differently to the way I read it but I find it offensive. Why should those who are concerned and informed about modern day environmental issues be compared to 'religious zealots' of the past. Sorry but I don't find this acceptable.

Mr S.Grinder may well have read and rehearsed the arguments, I confess that I have stereotyped him here. But he did call names rather than contribute ... hence my stereotyping and I tried to refrain from being rude although my post was not complementary either. I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of your post Tony.... Could you put it in English Please:thumbup1:

I think most people are relatively ignorant of the complexities of the science involved. This doesn't stop them from holding strong opinions one way or t'uther which bemuses me. If we actually want to act on this particular issue. In my view Likeitorlumpit has come closest in this thread so far with his views and posts on lobbying the powers that be. Recycling my lager cans doesn't cut it mate. There are loads of pressure groups out there, but since I changed my laptop I lost all my links to my favourite ones. Does someone know the one thats named after the level of C02 they want to achieve?.... I've forgot and been googling and can't find it

I kinda live ... have lived... will live .... the way you describe Tony C. But its got little to do with what were on about.... nice for you or me ... but back to Tony S's question. Were talking global scale here not just me and/or thee and our yoghurt weaving skills. Also it will be easier to keep this thing on one environmental issue.