An inconvenient truth
 

An Inconvenient Truth, a feature film from Al Gore promoting the idea that the global warming we're creating, will ruin everything....as in Earth.

Pat Bednard is an ex-Chrysler engineer, that has been a columnist and now editor, at Car & Driver magazine for 20 years. These credentials would qualify him as bias, to my mind. But, that said, he makes an interesting case against Al Gores position.

First he sums up what "An Inconvenient Truth" is... I'd accept that as a fair summary.
Next he describes the problem....... Then he describes the mechanism that's affected......OK, that sounds like he has a handle on how it works.
Now the meat of his disagreement with Gore....... OK, a little high profile name dropping....... or making good on a promise to mention some obscure Prof, in exchange for the interview?
Anyway, Bednard wraps it up with.......Well that's pretty clear, but is it right.
I welcome anyone to poke holes in the argument.



PS- I checked on Richard S. Lindzen.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences At MIT. Former Professor at Harvard and University of Chicago.
Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

A PFD entitled "Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001", is excellent reading. It outlines the interaction between science, public perception, funding and politics very well. It concludes...... Well, damn, that's kick in the head. :eek:

Dems saw how well the politics of fear worked for Bush & Co, and decided they wanted in on the action.

Your right. This also from that congressional testimony..... A taste of the politics of science and academia. :(

I'm too lazy to figure out the exact numbers but would guess that one large volcanoe probably puts more greenhouse gases in the air than all of mankind over the last 100 years.

I'm all for using our resources wisely and for not poisening our air and water but it seems that it would take a herculean effort and hundreds of billions of dollars (actual cost + economic loss) to produce a very small and potentially insignificant effect.

We are just pulling out of the last ice age and there will be more to come. We are a fly on the wall of this planet's geological evolution. The glaciers have been melting for 10,00 years and, as they do, ocean levels will rise, tectonic plates will groan and shift under the new weight producing new fissures and cracks giving rise to a spike in volcanic activity. As the atmosphere fills with dust and smoke, nuclear winter will set in and the water will again freeze, shores will receed and blah, blah blah.

The problem with Gore's theory, in my opinion, is that he seems to assume that our climate is a stable system that we are about to make unstable. Our climate has never been stable. And just as well-intentioned intervention in chaotic systems can produce unintended results, the effects of the changes we are making cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty.

But I don't really mind Al Gore's incessant drum beat. He reminds me of all those guys in the 60s walking around with signs warning everyone that "The End Is Near." You can't really say either one is wrong but they seem to be overstating the magnitude of the problem.

While Gore and Bush are both decent men, they are incompetent leaders. However, they both understand a simple truth. There are only two reasons why someone will allow you to lead them: hope or fear. Since neither has any qualities that inspire hope, they creat both fear and hope by creating an enemy only they can defeat. I tell my kids not to trust anyone who offers to help them when they don't think they need help.

Both men also understand another simple truth. People will defend and adhere to an idea not in proportion to its validity but in proportion to how much they have invested in it. So, in order to enhance and perpetuate the blind trust of the flock, both Bush and Gore require a sacrifice. Gore lemmings must burn their SUV while Bush lemmings must burn their copy of the Bill Of Rights. Once surrendered, the con is complete.

Problem is, I don't believe either of one of them. A simple truth that they might find somewhat inconvenient.

Mr. Bednard starts off by summarizing the problem pretty well, but then goes on to ignore what he first summarizes.

The problem with global warming and carbon dioxide is the increase in CO2 in the biosphere, mainly the atmosphere. He states "all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore’s lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp." That is false. All CO2 is not the same. The CO2 coming out of Al Gore's lungs and out of rotting plants was already there in the biosphere. It was extracted from the air, and then cycled through living organisms before returning to the air. It has a cycle just like water's evaporative cycle. The CO2 that comes out of the tailpipe of a Porsche was released from deep within the earth's crust. That CO2 is new CO2, and it was never part of the biosphere.

He goes on to mention water vapor as being the best warmer. That may be true, but water was already there in the biosphere - in the clouds and in the oceans. As water goes through its cycle of evaporation, no additional water is being created. It remains constant. So it won't be adding to the global warming.

As far as I know, there are only two things that are increasing the level of CO2 in the air and contributing to global warming. The first is the burning of fossil fuels by man. The second is volcanos. Beestie is absolutely right on that point. And they put out a lot of new CO2. Much more than humans do. It comes from deep within the Earth's crust, just like the fossil fuels, and it is clearly warming the Earth.

The Earth is warming. It will cause climate change, messing with our weather and causing problems for us. What do we do about it? Do we contribute to the problem caused by the volcanos, or do we just throw our hands in the air and say it's God's will?

Here's another inconvenient truth that must be acknowledged: as long as there is fossil fuel on planet earth, someone is going to burn it.

If the US, Europe and Japan stopped burning or buying crude tomorrow in favor of some technology that was implemented today (just an example) guess what would happen 48 hours later? The price of crude would plummet to around $10/barrell. Guess what would happen next. The third world would gobble it up and their economies would benefit tremendously from the windfall stimulating their demand for crude even higher. Is the third world subject to Kyoto? Nope. So, in the new world where the US, EU and JP stop burning oil, the amount of oil burned will drop at first but will soon (in geologic terms) resume at its present rate.

Now, given that there is only so much oil left in the earth, who do you want burning it: CO2 conscious nations like the US, EU and JP that try to scrub the byproduct or the Kyoto-exempt third world who won't scrub the byproduct at all?

I don't think its even worth entertaining the idea that something magical is going to happen which will make burning fossil fuel economically disadvantageous so I think we better focus on who's going to do the best job of burning it conscientiously. We can cut our consumption all we want to but eventually all the oil is going up in smoke.

Never? I thought oil and coal were flora and fauna that were buried long ago? Weren't they once part of the exposed system?
New flora and fauna are constantly being sub-ducted, along with the co2 they contain and create as they decompose, but I suppose they weren't balancing.

If the fossil fuels were dragging out of the Earth contain co2 that was once part of the surface system, when it was, where was the co2 that's being sub-ducted today? Did the co2 level drop until we started bringing back up?

On the warming trend....since warmer air can hold more water and that's the biggest influence on the greenhouse effect, which causes warmer air that can hold more water, etc etc etc. We have to start building multi-national desiccate bags....ones so big you don't have to put "Do Not Eat" on them.;)

It was not a world of CO2. It was a world of methane. Plant and simple animal life converted this earth from a methane sphere into the one that could support advanced animal life. By that time, vast amounts of carbon was locked into earth or deep in the oceans.

One additional problem with melting ice caps - significant amounts of methane (another global warming gas) would be released.

Ten nations recently completed analysis of an 800,000 year ice core. It has again confirmed that increase in global warming gases is unprecedented in earth's history. In but 17 years, we have increased global warming gases in what previously took earth - during a most rapid change - 1000 years.

There is no doubt that man is changing the atmosphere. Only remaining question is how fast and how destructively. So George Jr's administration quashed a large number of environmental research satellites. Clearly science (environmental, quantum and nuclear physics, stem cell, public school education) is also on the George Jr enemy's list.

It would appear we've had an effect on the speed of warming, but I wonder if it's more from the fuels we burn or the plants, that convert CO2 into Oxygen, we've destroyed.
Of course much of the plant life we destroyed was burned, but it still may be the loss of their service that hurt the most.
I don't know.

I guess the people berating Hummer drivers will have to slack off the global warming and stick to the wars and suffering caused by the politics of oil.:lol2:

The complexity is why we need more supercomputers. Jet contrails contribute to change. Sulfur content of fuels contribute. Speed of Greenland ice melts affect the intensity of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Even plankton in oceans contribute half as much as land plantlife (an interesting study that suggests iron in the ocean may decrease global warming by creating more plankton.

That the earth is getting hotter faster and in direct agreement with a rapid increase in global warming gases is obvious. But each detail adds massive numbers to prediction equations making it a classic horse race. The clear favorite includes no Arctic Icecap in 50 years. Hopefully the favorite will break his leg.

Something about newly available beachfront property on Canada's northern 'resort' islands.

It's both. The plants could take up some of the slack from the oil we burn, but we don't even let that happen.

The climate change taliban has firmly taken possesion of the media for their hysteria. 90% of Earth lifetime climate was warmer than today and there were no industries, cars etc to influence the climate in the past 4-5 Billion years.

The influence of solar radiation has never been taken into consideration or even properly researched, let alone included in computer models. In fact scientists are not in the position to simulate the chaotic climate models.

I remember the acid rain hysteria 25 years ago, where has it gone? Greenhouse effect is a myth.

Scrubbers were installed on those power plants. Scrubbers that the George Jr administration (about four years ago) even considered making legal to bypass (eliminate). Acid rain is like the ozone layer problem. It still exists. But is not reported. Why? We are now in a 50 year program to fix the ozone layer. The ozone layer problem is not reported because the 50 years of recovery is now ongoing. That is not news.

Reasons for acid rain have been (and are still being) addressed. Therefore acid rain is a diminishing problem. Resulting damage still exists. But it is not getting worse and is slowly being fixed - therefore not news.

Hip? Don't come up with monikers for groups you don't like. You're really, really, really bad at it.
Personally, I don't think we'll believe the climate's changing as drastically as it is up until it's already too late. Say, for example, if the Ross Ice Shelf collapses and causes sea level to rise a meter or four in a couple of weeks.

Head, sorry but I´m a skeptic by birth. Proof me wrong. Nobody can proof the weather is influenced by human beings. Talking about figures, the influence on climate by human is less than 5%. We cannot influence "El Nino". We do know more about the surface of the moon than the bottom of the ocean with vulcano eruptions that are of a multiple factor of the eruptiones we know of. Actually we don´t no fuck about Mother Earth. All we know is based on computer simulations which are completely false because we simply don´t know which parameters we have to put in.

Now, let´s talk about the ozon hole.

It's probably even less than that, but cumulative. 5% here and 5% there and soon you're talking real damage. Adding a tiny factor into a positive feedback loop can be catastrophic.
CFCs were banned, and it has mostly stabilized. Could be coincidence , but it's certainly not evidence of hysteria.

From Scientific American of September 2006: [quote] The debate on global warming is over. Present levels of cabon dioxide - nearing 400 parts per million (ppm) in he earth's atmosphere - are higher than they have been at any time in the past 650.000 years and could easily surpass 500 ppm by the year 2050 without radical intervention.[quote] Since then, a 10 nation consortium has completed analysis of ice cores 800,000 years back. Compared to the fastest increases ever in carbon dioxide, we have set new world records. The record increase in CO2 over a 1000 year period was achieved in the past 17 years.

Meanwhile, I have seen the lawyers interpreation of science. They claim areas such as PA were once so much warmer. They forget to mention where PA was located back then - on the equator.

To find contrarians, one finds simplist analysis from lawyers. Every science paper from the US government is now rewritten by White House lawyers. New rules. All environmental science papers must now be submitted to the White House for 'review'.

And why do some here hype myths about volcanoes without providing any numbers - as only a lawyer would do? Exact same reasoning used to prove Saddam was planning to attack the US (which always was a lie) and that Saddam had WMDs (again in direct contradiction to numbers).

There is no doubt mankind is creating global warming. And the nations that address the problem first will be the nations that sell and licenses all new products. Acid rain is a classic example. Whereas basic research on the topic was stifled in the US, the Germans moved agressively after acid rain was causing damage to the German's treasured Black Forest. Not only did Germany start reducing acid rain damage in the Black Forest. Now Americans pay big time to the Germans for that technology on American fossil fuel plants.

Those who fear innovation - lawyers who also must rewrite science papers to protect the status quo. A champion skeptic here who almost single handedly and therefore accurately challenged obvious Saddam and WMD myths also smells another rat from the same lying administration. Numbers and scientists now have the slam dunk facts that prove global warming is traceable to mankind. Only a fool would think the rare volcanoe does not output what billions of machine create constantly in mass quantitied every day.

From the Editors of Scientific American: And those who meet the challenge will be the new wealthy economies. Lawyers and MBAs who routinely fear innovation will even rewrite science papers to distort reality.

Another new problem with old models that may have been too conservative. As ice melts as the poles, higher concentrations of trapped methane are released in amounts so large as to now require additional calculations for 'how fast'. Just another reason why the question is not whether global warming exists, but why the 'how fast' question is so complex.

Research now indicates that those flying during the day decrease global warming whereas those flying at night, unfortunately, increase global warming. More variables for the 'how fast' question. But again, research does not contradict the fact that global warming gases are clearly increasing higher than ever in the past 1 million years AND at rates 59 times faster than ever. Numbers that somehow disappear when the White House rewrites NASA environmental studies.

About CO2, here´s another interesting article about examing ice cores that put things like levels of ppm in some other perspective:

Remarkably, levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over this 400,000 year period showed an almost identical rise and fall to the changes in temperature. This poses an interesting question. Did the level of CO2 in the atmosphere cause the temperature to rise, or was it the other way about?

One reason for believing the latter is the solubility of CO2 in water, as the domestic soda syphon demonstrates. The sea contains massive amounts of dissolved CO2 - over 1000 billion tonnes of it are dissolved in the surface water alone, according to UNEP estimates. But like most gases CO2 dissolves most easily in cold water. So if the sea warmed up one would expect CO2 to be given off. This could be a possible reason for the correlation between
temperature and CO2 level found in the ice cores.

Thirdly, the cores show that past CO2 concentrations have varied between 180 parts per million (ppm) in the ice-ages and 280 ppm in warmer times. Contrast this with the level in today's atmosphere of 358 ppm. On the basis of the ice core evidence this would suggest a temperature level some 8 degrees hotter than at present - a level which may indeed correlate with some locally observed phenomena in the Arctic.

What has caused this rise in the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 358ppm - an increase that has taken place at an accelerating pace over the past 100 years? The widely held answer is human activities; principally burning fossil fuels, which send 7 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This may seem a staggeringly large figure but the climate world is full of even bigger numbers. According to UNEP, the 7 billion tonnes of human-made CO2 pales into insignificance beside the 150 billion tonnes entering the atmosphere each year as a result of natural causes such as decay of vegetation, and the 750 billion tonnes already there. Most of this CO2 is, of course, absorbed by terrestrial and marine plants leaving an annual atmospheric increase of just 3.5 billion tonnes, or about 1.7 ppm.

Whether or not it is the prime cause of global warming, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will certainly make the situation worse. This was the reason for the Kyoyo Protocol now being discussed in the Hague which commits governments to reducing their CO2 emissions. In looking for ways to implement the Protocol governments are focussing to some extent not just on fossil fuel burning but on the process of natural absorption as well. After all, even if we were never to burn another lump of coal or to drive another mile that would only save some 5 billion tonnes per year: even if fully implemented, the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for stabilisation of emissions at the 1990 level, would deliver only a small part of this.

What I glean from all of this is that the planet is pretty much doing the same thing it's always done, but now we are measuring it. And typically, we are trying to micromanage the numbers that come up. The planet didn't know how badly it needed us until we told it so.

Over? Says whom, the editors?Where is the proof that CO2 levels are the cause or even an indicator of Global Warming?
From Dr Linzen's Senate testimony; So we need some honest examination of what is likely to happen, with and without a human effort to control the climate.Can you cite the "lawyers" claims of warmth and time frame? You left out government issued between all and environmental in the last sentence
STOP IT. This has nothing to do with Saddam, WMDs or Viet Nam. Stick to the point, which is Global warming/weather/environment, please.
Not true. Global warming is a natural cycle. The question is, how much is mankind contributing to Global warming and will it push the normal cyclic high beyond where it would normally peak? That doesn't sound much like the statement a communist would make, does it UG. :p
You weren't the only one that doubted the WMD claim, just one of the few that thought it had any bearing on whether there would be an invasion.
Now, stick to the point, please. Bullshit Alarm~ding ding ding. Slam dunk? Hardly. Can you back that wild claim up? Everything I read tells me they still don't know how all the pieces of information fit the puzzle. No two computer models can't come up with the same scenario.
Again, Senate testimonyI don't know if your claim that more super computers are needed, if we don't have the parameters to compute, but it can't hurt. As I see it, we don't fully understand how the earth and it's climate actually work. How, and how far, it cycles and at what frequency. Therefore it would be foolish not to try to reduce our(mankind's) impact on the environment, just because we don't know. That said I also realize there'll never be complete agreement from everyone.
Leadership? Bush isn't concerned with anything that won't have a major impact before 2009, that's the next guy's problem.
Probably the only way something will happen is if someone takes up the cause as a campaign issue, gets elected and the voters hold him to his promises. What's the chance of that? :eyebrow:

There are also great concentrations of methane (actually methane hydrate) all over the oceans, with no polar ice cap over them. They are even in the proposed oil drilling areas.
Therefore, I don't think the shrinking of the polar ice cap automatically dictates an increase in airborne methane. It does increase the possibility, though. :worried:

And then as ocean temperature rise only one degree, trapped CO2 and methane beneath the seas is released faster. Deep ocean currents that take generations to rotate back the surface and that have been absorbing CO2, have increasing levels of CO2 when returning to the surface. Even these natural sponges are slowly saturating. Just another in a long list of facts that White House lawyers that Chrysler engineer forget to mention.

Apparently many here somehow know global warming is not possible from a rather pathetic article from a Chrysler engineer. Numbers in that article were embarrassing as a fact.

Some here misinterpreted what was posted previously. As ice melts in Greenland and Antarctica, then large amounts of trapped methane is released. As noted, methane is even a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. That trapped methane confirmed but again, this time by an 800,000 year core sample. Data even back 800,000 years only confirms what all – every one – previous core samples demonstrate. Earth has never seen a temperature change this fast and this large when the atmosphere was sufficient for human life.

Core samples also confirm that CO2 concentrations correlate with global temperatures. We know that CO2 concentrations have not been this high and have never risen 59 times faster than the fastest previous CO2 level changes. Meanwhile scientists who do this stuff without ‘White House lawyer rewrites’ almost unanimously agree that the deep ocean studies completed but a few years ago by so many confirm that global warming is directly traceable to mankind. That part of global warming that was still debated up to a few years ago is a forgone conclusion. Mankind is the source of this rapid and never before seen global temperature increase.

Just like these extremists denied air pollution was a problem in the 1960s (and they used the same argument here), DDT, water pollution, arsenic in the drinking water, acid rain, and ozone depletion - in each case the science has prevailed as extremist political types continued to stop advancement. Even the World Trade Center dumped their sanitary sewers directly into the Hudson River because extremist insisted such dumping was not pollution (being a government entity, no one could sue to stop the WTC from dumping sewage raw into the Hudson).

Where extremists insisted otherwise and got their way, Americans now pay other nations for the technology. Where America, instead, owned up to environmental problem early, then Americans have those and future jobs.

Global warming does not just exist. Its solutions also mean energy problems, air pollution problems, and future unemployment are solved or minimized. Global warming is denied mostly by speculation, isolated numbers, half truths (such as that Car magazine editor) and by those who routinely fear innovation (ie lawyers with contempt for science). Meanwhile, speculation must deny even what Greenland and Antarctic core samples have proven - and is not disputed; just ignored. CO2 levels (and other greenhouse gases) are increasing at levels the earth has never before seen and at levels that are already causing the polar icecap to melt. Furthermore the changes are so large as to even be seen increasing and decreasing as energy consumption increases and decreases – summer to winter. Or do volcanoes only occur during the winter.

So does global warming cause deserts or swamps? How fast do the ocean rise and what are the consequences? We already know the earth's environment is changing so fast that many species are 'falling of the mountain' - as expression that if you don't know, then you have woefully insufficient knowledge make any conclusions on global warming science.

Where we find scientists, the debate on global warming as a man made phenomena is over. The only question is what are the consequences?

And yet at least one here posts unacceptable logic. Because we cannot say how much, then it is not happening? Logic that also proves why your transistors are not functioning. Global warming was not disputed. Global warming traceable to mankind has recently been 'smoking gun' acknowledged. Remaining question is quantitative - 'how fast'.

You're stuttering, what was that for?
I'm not much interested in your opinion, I posted it to see if someone could shoot holes in the numbers.
Instead of ranting, why don't you tell us what's wrong with the numbers? I've only seen CO2 mentioned in the articles about core samples and articles about Methane Hydrate say it's frozen in/on the sea floor.
The polar icecap is surface ice and I don't believe it contains methane, at least no more than the trace amounts in the air.
I've got to call bullshit on that, unless you can cite a source of that "fact".
Yes, but they don't know if they lead or follow, wether the CO2 is cause or effect, from what I've read.
Care to cite a source that makes that correlation?"Foregone conclusions", that aren't just made up hoping people will buy it, have to be backed up with peer reviewed studies by qualified investigators.
How about telling us who they are and where their results are to be found. OK, that's not a real quote but you know what I mean.
I suspect that's probably true, but how fast and how hard?
Calling anyone who questions your conclusions, names, doesn't clear the air. And they are your conclusions, unless you can back them up.
Saying everyone that's not an extremist agrees, just doesn't cut it. Parroting speculation doesn't either. See, this is the bullshit that kills your credibility. That childish, I know something you don't know, nah, nah, trying to establish your superior wisdom and knowledge, just turns people off to everything you say. The way to impress and convince is explain, prove you're not just throwing out buzz words to try and sound knowledgeable.

So the bottom line is, everyone knows the World is going to hell in a handbasket and anyone that questions that "fact" is an unpatriotic, lawyer like, extremist? Why can't we all stick to the facts?:rolleyes:

Right on, Bruce. For being such huge fans of reason, we sure do put up with lots of deductive errors, begging of the question, false dilemmas, and other stuff that usually makes you all scream with rage, when The Environment is in question.

"As everyone knows, the planet is dying because of humans/is not dying because of humans, and any argument to the contrary has been proven to be false."

Ugh. Go outside and play.

Thing is the skeptics sound just as convincing as the doom thinkers. Both have reasonable arguments, both have computer models and graphs that proof their case.

For me I can only conclude: WE DON´T KNOW. The deeper we go the less we know.

It reminds me of Stephen Hawking admitting after 30 years that he was wrong about his black hole theory. His book "A Brief History of Time" was probably the most sold scientific book in history and who didn´t believe him?

Nothing is what it seems.

Spot on.

Unless people find more sustainable ways of living, there'll be no need to argue about global warming for much longer. We'll all either fry or freeze. Either way, it wont be pleasant.

That's what bothers me. I can't make up my mind which way to lean on this because I can't get straight answers. I don't think it's a conspiracy just lack of conclusive proof sufficient to get all the people that should know what their talking about on the same side of the fence.

If you tell me that can never happen because of the nature of science, then give me a head count, preferably with credentials, on each side. Isn't there somebody (organization) that is the voice of reason, somebody that doesn't have an agenda? We know it isn't and probably never has been, the feds.

I guess everyone in the field has their professional reputation staked on one side or the other. There seems to be a whole lot of opinion and not much meat...where's the beef? :blush:

Clearly a car guy, like the one who wrote the article in the first post, and oil companies, and politicians heavily supported by oil companies are going to have an agenda.

What is the agenda of Scientific American, other than to find the truth? I'm serious. I don't know of any agenda they would have. Do you?

Problem is that every scientist is paid by someone somewhere who has an agenda. A company might not directly say "you will publish these statements as scientific fact", but they'll make it known that people who don't publish results that make them look good end up spinning their wheels. So most aren't lying, they're being forced to adopt the slant that pays the rent.

Some scientists are true to their beliefs. I think you'll actually find that very few are 'paid by the man' to say what they want said in fact.

I happen to know a few experts in the field of environmental management, and the true figures are frightening...hence my views I guess.

Not all scientists work for companies.

My dad has reviewed grant applications for grants given out by the NSF. He's a college physics professor. He has no agenda. Not a political one anyway. His only agenda for the applications he reviewed was to make sure the area of science was worthwhile and that the money wasn't being wasted.

Who reviews NSF grant applications for the scientists doing climate research?

Of course he's most likely bias, I stated that in the original post. What struck me is, it's the first nay sayer that sounded like he had a logical thought pattern, made a case with something besides volume to back it up.
I brought it here to find out where the flaws in the argument were, that I was missing, but I didn't get that. What I got was...... all the smart people think like me so you're wrong......and I'm not buying that.

I think there has to be flaws in his case or this would have been settled long ago, but I don't have the background to see them. That said, nobody has been able to counter with facts, only rhetoric. Considering it's a pretty small pool of people that really understand how much we don't know, I shouldn't be surprised.

I don't know what Scientific American's agenda might be, but what are there sources? Summations of peer reviewed papers? Published articles or interviews by scientists they respect? Scientists that have always helped them meet their deadlines? Scientists that belong to the right clique? I don't know, but I'm skeptical of all sides on this issue, especially when they're venturing opinions.

Maybe we should stop worrying and hand it off to Haliburton. :lol:

Question on approving NSF grants. When there are more applicants than money, who gets it? Known people with a track record? Based on the outline of the request, regardless of who it is....presuming they have reasonable credentials?

I wonder if your Dad is ever approached for favors...like, there's this young guy that I think has a future but he needs to get a grant to get his career started, kind of thing? Nothing dishonest or even unethical, just back scratching, old boy network, boosterism. :question:

aside..That got me thinking about grants. I know some High School teachers that got grants (not NSF) every summer for the damnedest things. One girl spent the summer, living well in Boston, researching 11th century erotic poetry. Wrote a 3 page report, that nobody read, in exchange for a summer in Boston. English teachers can do that.;)

Climate change is incredibly complex. We really won't know what effect car emissions and oil have on it without hindsight. Asking some people to consume less fuel must be equivalent to asking them to sacrifice their first born in the name of Ólvrårg. If the cost of fuel gluttony is mass extinction then I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. It's not like there is 0 pollution from vehicle emissions anyway.

What is more common is to have someone who is "paid by the man" to say what the man wants said, but who walks, talks and quacks like a scientist. But they're not scientists. And they're not ducks, either, but you're getting closer.

As mentioned previously, this 'huge' natural contribution is part of the normal carbon cycle. Carbon reserves locked up in oil and coal fields have not been part of the natural carbon cycle for millions of years, it's only human intervention over the last couple of centuries that has introduced this additional load into the cycle. The fact that we are seeing the highest atmospheric CO2 levels in almost a million years should be causing concern, for all we know we may have passed the tipping point already.

There is no 'proof' only correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and average Earth temperature, the fact that intelligent people can use this information and make an educated guess that it may be a contributing factor towards our broken weather is good enough for me. Destructive testing is not an option when there's nowhere else to run.

A quick Google for 'Frozen Tundra' might change your mind. If the Siberian, Ukrainian and Alaskan Tundra begins to thaw (as it shows signs of already doing) then we really are fucked I'm afraid.

There was a article on the Beeb news the other night about the Siberian tundra and permafrost de-icing. As it does so, it gives off high ratios of Ammonia and methane, adding fuel to the global-warming fire.

For those who do not believe that we are responsible...
 

Source: National Center for Atmospheric Research Date: September 14, 2006

Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming

Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States, Switzerland, and Germany.

The review, led by Peter Foukal (Heliophysics, Inc.), appears in the September 14 issue of Nature. Among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR's primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation.
"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness," says Wigley.

Reconstructions of climate over the past millennium show a warming since the 17th century, which has accelerated dramatically over the past 100 years. Many recent studies have attributed the bulk of 20th-century global warming to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural internal variability of Earth's climate system may also have played a role. However, the discussion is complicated by a third possibility: that the Sun's brightness could have increased.

The new review in Nature examines the factors observed by astronomers that relate to solar brightness. It then analyzes how those factors have changed along with global temperature over the last 1,000 years.

Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun's surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae. The sunspots act as thermal plugs, diverting heat from the solar surface, while the faculae act as thermal leaks, allowing heat from subsurface layers to escape more readily. During times of high solar activity, both the sunspots and faculae increase, but the effect of the faculae dominates, leading to an overall increase in brightness.

The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae affect the Sun's brightness. Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.

To assess the period before 1978, the authors used historical records of sunspot activity and examined radioisotopes produced in Earth's atmosphere and recorded in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. During periods of high solar activity, the enhanced solar wind shields Earth from cosmic rays that produce the isotopes, thus giving scientists a record of the activity.

The authors used a blend of seven recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past millennium to test the effects of long-term changes in brightness. They then assessed how much the changes in solar brightness produced by sunspots and faculae (as measured by the sunspot and radioisotope data) might have affected temperature. Even though sunspots and faculae have increased over the last 400 years, these phenomena explain only a small fraction of global warming over the period, according to the authors.

Indirect evidence has suggested that there may be changes in solar brightness, over periods of centuries, beyond changes associated with sunspot numbers. However, the authors conclude on theoretical grounds that these additional low-frequency changes are unlikely.

"There is no plausible physical cause for long-term changes in solar brightness other than changes caused by sunspots and faculae," says Wigley.

Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed.

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research under primary sponsorship by the National Science Foundation. Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Thank you. This is a new one on me, I'd never heard of the methane in the permafrost, only in the sea where a combination of cold and pressure kept it captured. :thumb:

The brightness of the sun may not have changed, but what it falls on sure has. Countless square miles of Walmart parking lots, asphalt roofs, suburban lawns, concrete highway, you get the picture. A far cry from the trees, bushes and tall grass of not that long ago in the Earths time-line.

I've noticed a local phenomenon that storms, both winter and summer, don't hit Philadelphia as hard as they do the suburbs. They seem to split and go around both sides of the city, merging again after they pass. As a matter of fact the point where the storms from the south or southwest would merge back together, usually gets the highest precipitation.

My own, non-scientific, can't back it up, probably occurred to me in an altered state, theory, is that the city is giving off so much heat there is a constant column that is strong enough to part the storms, many times. :crazy:

The question remains, Is the CO2 that we produce the principle culprit, or a pisshole in the snowbank of the change in climate? Just a small part of the whole boxcar load of pressure we've put on Mother Nature?

I remember reading about a study once that found that statistically it rained more on the weekends than during the week. The theory was this was due to the lack of commuters putting off car exhaust on the weekends, but they couldn't prove that part of course.

You mean commuters?;)

It is the pisshole compared to say watervapor. But it is the principal element that we can control.

I can't change Washington, but I can vote. Little stroke fell mighty oaks, etc etc. It's the biggest part of what I can directly influence. Saying my part doesn't count because of --------, is lazy at best.

BigV...you may be right as far as some scientists go, but not all, and that was the general gist of my post. I have good sources for my information. In fact, I'm about to marry one in a week or so.

Bruce - show me wave after wave of research that support the 'no global warming' theory. Anyone can take pot shots at peer reviewed research. That is what you have done - take pot shots at details - to prove research does not exist. Others even speculated about volcanoes - without numbers - as if that was proof from a peer reviewed science paper. Show me the wave after wave of research. These waves keep coming to the same conclusions - global warming does exist and it is related to man's activities.

Even whole issues from major and responsible publications provide wave after wave of peer reviewed papers on numerous aspects of global warming. Instead - and this is the embarrassing part - you would agree with a well renown and honest scientist - George Jr? George Jr has an advantage. God is his peer reviewer.

It is a widely accepted fact because the evidence is so overwhelming. Global warming is a man made phenomena. Serious remaining questions are quantitative analysis. IOW 'how fast' and 'how destructive'. These quantitative questions are what responsible scientists are now discussing. This is where debate lies.

From ABC News:

That's it. I'm moving to Mars. Who's with me?

Where's the evidence? Earth has been warmer long time before man produced these current CO2 levels. There has been no reference to the influence of sun radiation. How can anyone neglect that phenomen?

CFC were responsible for the ozon hole. But CFC is 4-5 times heavier than air, how can they reach the stratosphere?

Sure, after the terraforming we'll be in charge of the climate. :)

No, Global warming has been going on long before humans were a significant factor.
Yes, how fast and how much, but also what part does human activity play? Are we driving the car or is it just a kiddie ride with a make believe steering wheel?
This is bad. The mud that results from melting the tundra permafrost is referred to as "gumbo" by the road construction crews. It's a gooey muck that will swallow vehicles, even cat-tracked ones, properties caused by the high proportion of organic material.
That said, this is a symptom, a result, of Global warming and not proof we caused or can prevent it.
There is two different ozone areas. The ozone that's in the "ozone layer", at the top of our atmosphere, is made by ultraviolet light and oxygen.... entirely natural. It protects us from ultraviolet rays from the Sun by blocking part of the A & B rays and virtually all the C rays.

The ozone associated with smog is also naturally produced by mother nature as a means of trying to clean up the hydrocarbons, (CO² CO, and SO²) that we're spewing. The media has painted ozone as the bad guy but actually it's the good guy. It's just more convenient, to use as a measure of how much crap is in the air, but not the real culprit.


You know, I'm really becoming a skeptical old fart. I'm becoming less trusting and more wary of the media getting it right.
They usually report the facts they're given, OK, but when they add the what does it mean part, or how does it fit the big picture part, they seem to be clueless in many cases. Either clueless or more concerned with ratings/sales than accuracy. :eyebrow:

You can also run a more fuel efficient car or, god forbid, use public transport.

Buy local, insist on less packaging and check the air miles on the food you're buying. Why buy apples or meat that's been flown half way around the world when it can just as easily be grown locally?

Switch energy suppliers to a company that sources from renewables.

Stick it to the man, buy what you want to buy not what they want you to buy.

The Sun is now off the hook...

Fine - let's see some facts, citations, dates, trends, and numbers. Again you are taking pot shots at details which is easy to do when you ignore the other details. This is but again, a classic Rush Limbaugh propaganda technique.

Again rash and blanket statements to twist and distort facts. There was no disagreement concerning the ozone layer - at least where science is discussed. CFCs were causing damage. Once we eliminated the politicians, then ozone depletion is a fact. Nobody painted anything except where English majors use word games to distort facts.

Ozone depletion was a serious problem - made worse because so many knew otherwise using Rush Limbaugh logic. A problem that may take 50 years to repair. Reasons for ozone layer depletion are being eliminated. The problem only 'magically disappeared' where people don't read science. We are monitoring the ozone hole. Growth of its depletion and slow repair so far follows model predictions. Therefore ozone depletion is no longer heard of by English majors who instead always hear about mythical Al Qaeda attacks and other hype.

Meanwhile, where is any serious research that says global warming is not a problem? Why do we have wave after wave of research that says global warming is a problem due to man's contribution? Instead of taking pot shots at the research (as only a nay sayer would), where is all this research that says global warming does not exist? Unfortunately, claims posted here denying global warming again use same Rush Limbaugh logic. No facts. Just pot shot speculations and accusations of science that said otherwise. That is classic Rush Limbaugh reasoning. Where is your research that says global warming does not exist? Why so much silence?

My god. Scientific American had a whole issue devoted to the science. Wave after wave of research – and where is research that says global otherwise – the damning silence? Rather than learn the science, some instead accuse Scientific American of a political agenda. Again, Rush Limbaugh logic. Accusation works just fine when preaching to the naïve. Meanwhile, mankind is contributing to a worsening global warming problem. So our ‘god advised’ scientist - George Jr - acknowledges the problem, declares we cannot do anything about the problem, and says we must give up – not even try to fix the problem. Classic anti-American. Instead George Jr stifles innovation with corporate welfare and goes on military crusades to secure our oil. Well that is the attitude I would expect from those who deny, deny, deny - and don't even provide basic research - complete with science proved by pot shots.

xoxoxoBruce, if there were ever a doubter, it is me. How many hear thought Saddam had WMDs. Most everyone except one who not only denied but also posted reasons after resons why that popular myth (also created by the mental midget president) was a lie. Do as I did. If you doubt, then you have reams – wave after wave – of research. Why so much silence? Why use same logic used to deny ozone depletion?

Bruce, you are a smart guy, and normally very wise. When you cite city car parks as a problem, even though you are saying it with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek (I suspect), you have inadvertently hit on part of the truth.

The issue of Global Warming is not a simple one. There are many factors at play, all interacting, and more research comes in almost every day. I am associated with a research group which uses research on climate change on a day to day basis. As TW points out, the scientific evidence is compelling, and it is *huge*. Of course there are heated debates going on, but that is part of the scientific process. What is becoming more and more evident, is that you cannot pin *one* cause on the problem. Climate change is an extremely complex thing. If you believe that humans did not cause the current warming phase, you must at least concede that we have increased the effect. We are witnessing changes that are occurring at a faster rate than ever before. We know this from various studies, especially those using ice core samples. Arguing against the human impact, ignores the mountain of scientific evidence.

Back off, Sucka! :p
Go back and reread what I wrote. The only thing I said about the ozone layer was it's way up there. [add edit] I also briefly explained it's benefit.
Everyone is well aware of the problem with chlorinated fluorocarbons and how that was addressed....it appears successfully.

Then I was describing the ozone that you hear about on the news all the time, that's associated with smog. You know, smog, ground level, Los Angeles, polution....nothing to do with the ozone layer.

Now, as for warming, I think the fact that the glaciers are no longer in PA is a pretty good indication. The glaciers have advanced and retreated for a long time.

bluesdave, I asked how much is the CO2 we produce, contributing to the speed of the increase, and will it push the increase higher than it would in a normal cycle?
I realize there's a shitload of stuff we don't know about how mother nature works. I also realize people are having an impact in a million different ways from cutting down trees to burning oil/coal to raising millions of methane producing cattle. The problem is figuring out what does how much and is their a better way. A simple cost/benefit relationship.

Say for instance, they decide that if everyone lives in a cave with no electricity or central heat, the average temperature will go to X instead of X+1, and it will go back down a year sooner. Not worth it

Now same scenario, but X+1 would cause 90% of the Earth to be unable to produce food for 10 years. Solient Green makes a big difference, no?

Of course by the time we get most of it figured out, it'll be over, but I think we should concentrate on what produces the most bang for the buck/effort/sacrifice.
Probably not mowing lawns and Golf courses would be a help, but there are consequences that people would object to, without knowing how much it would help the overall effort. Reasonable people don't want feel good programs that are of no real benefit.

Bruce, I had just written a lengthy reply, but hit some key on my keyboard and lost the whole damn thing, and I'm not feeling inclined to rewrite it all. It's not just CO2. You have to look at all the greenhouse gasses. Methane is approx 30 times more effective as a greenhouse gas, than CO2. The problem is that you get a snowballing effect - small changes accumulate, and lead to large scale change. Throw in a sprinkling of chaos theory, and you have the situation we are in now. The most serious concern at the moment (as highlighted by others in this thread), is methane. It's not just the methane being released from permafrost that is the problem - large quantities are being released from deep ocean reservoirs. This is many times the amount of methane being produced by man's activities, but there is little doubt now that man has impacted this cycle. A small amount of warming has produced a much greater than anticipated effect. That is the current problem.

We have to start dealing with a changed climate, and spend less time arguing about what caused it (and I am not saying that the latter is not important).

OK, take a look at the original post.... Kyoto Warming
CO2 = 72%
Methane = 7%
Nitrous Oxide = 19%

Plus water vapor = a lot

When you add water vapor......
CO2 ~Anthropogenic(human)= 3.2% = > 0.1% of total problem

CO2 ~American = 23% of 3.2% = 0.74% = > 0.023% of total problem

With the increase in methane, the CO2 becomes an even smaller part of the problem......and by extension, the solution.
So with methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor pretty much out of our hands, and the one thing we can do something about being less than 0.1%, and shrinking, of the problem. How in hell are we going to save the World?

This is what I've been asking throughout this thread. How much are we actually affecting Global warming?
Not in the golden age of pollution when you never saw the sun in Pittsburgh, or the post WWII boom when everything we did was dirty, but now...2006. How much are we causing natural cycle of Global warming, that started over 10,000 years ago, to accelerate, today?
I ask this because we can't do any more good, than we are doing harm. :smack: