An inconvenient truth

[xoxoxoBruce]

The National Geographic web site has a ton of links to articles on Global Warming. Most are predicting dire consequences for the future, floods, droughts, the usual scenarios, and many are pointing their finger at those damn dirty humans. A couple caught my eye....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l_warming.html

Global warming is a hot topic that shows little sign of cooling down. Earth's climate is changing, but just how it's happening, and our own role in the process, is less certain.
• Over the last million years the Earth has fluctuated between colder and warmer periods. The shifts have occurred in roughly 100,000-year intervals thought to be regulated by sunlight. Earth's sunlight quota depends upon its orbit and celestial orientation.
But changes have also occurred more rapidly in the past—and scientists hope that these changes can tell us more about the current state of climate change. During the last ice age, approximately 70,000 to 11,500 years ago, ice covered much of North America and Europe—yet sudden, sometimes drastic, climate changes occurred during the period. Greenland ice cores indicate one spike in which the area's surface temperature increased by 15 degrees Fahrenheit (9 degrees Celsius) in just 10 years.
• Since the 1860s, increased industrialization and shrinking forests have helped raise the atmosphere's CO2 level by almost 100 parts per million—and Northern Hemisphere temperatures have followed suit. Increases in temperatures and greenhouse gasses have been even sharper since the 1950s.
Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide also contain heat and help keep Earth's temperate climate balanced in the cold void of space. Human activities, burning fossil fuels and clearing forests, have greatly increased concentrations by producing these gases faster than plants and oceans can soak them up. The gases linger in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even a complete halt in emissions would not immediately stop the warming trend they promote.

This is why I object to people saying Global warming is man made. I don't deny we are contributing, maybe significantly, but how much and what can we do to make a significant improvement?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...alwarming.html

John Harte, an ecosystem sciences professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is already seeing possible future outcomes of global warming.
For 15 years, he has artificially heated sections of a Rocky Mountain meadow by about 3.6°F (2°C) to study the projected effects of global warming.
Harte has documented dramatic changes in the meadow's plant community. Sagebrush, though at the local altitude limit of its natural range, is replacing alpine flowers.
More tellingly, soils in test plots have lost about 20 percent of their natural carbon. This effect, if widespread, could dramatically increase Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels far above even conventional worst-case models.
"Soils around the world hold about five times more carbon than the atmosphere in the form of organic matter," Harte noted.
If similar carbon loss was repeated on a global scale, it could double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
Now, [the test plot] is just one ecosystem, and you can't make global claims from one alpine meadow," Harte cautioned. "But bogs, prairie, and tundra ecosystem studies are beginning to show similar results."

That's a surprise, the soil is losing carbon? I wonder if that was because of the loss of plants that mulch well? If the plants encouraged by higher temperatures don't return carbon to the soil like the plants that grow in cooler climes?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...7_warming.html

Even if humans stop burning oil and coal tomorrow—not likely—we've already spewed enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to cause temperatures to warm and sea levels to rise for at least another century.
That's the message from two studies appearing in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.
Researchers used computer models of the global climate system to put numbers to the concept of thermal inertia—the idea that global climate changes are delayed because it water takes longer to heat up and cool off than air does. The oceans are the primary drivers of the global climate.
"Even if you stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases, you are still committed to a certain amount of climate change no matter what you do because of the lag in the ocean," said Gerald Meehl, a climate scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

Of course they're making the assumption that what appears to be a comparatively small contribution from burning fossil fuels, has significant effect on the big picture. That would indicate the "balance of nature" is much more delicate than we suspected. More delicate also means less predictable. I've a feeling that humans have had a much larger effect on the changes in Global warming than the burning of fossil fuels. We've literally altered the earth and it's ecosystem in ways that can't be undone without eliminating billions of humans. Hopefully Bush won't do that.

[bluesdave]

Bruce, when I read this report I thought of you. Basically it says that dramatic changes in the Earth's climate have occurred in the past (in this study they are targeting the Cretaceous Period). Note that they are not dismissing man's influence on the current warming event.

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4057.html

Your error of logic is that you are trying to apply engineering methodology to climate study. You can't take a few figures and apply simple mathematics, and then draw a conclusion. It is just not that simple.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If I gave that impression, I misstated my thinking.

We know the climate is changing.
We know the temperature is rising.
We know it's happened before.

We don't know how far it will go.
We don't know if it's really a bad thing.
We don't know all the natural interactions that cause it.
We don't know how much humans have contributed.
We don't know which things we do, if any, are significant.
We don't know if we can do anything about it.
We don't know if we ever could have done anything about it.

Because of all the things we don't know, when somebody finds something going on they can't explain, they invariably blame human activity. Everything I read makes way to many assumptions, on cause and effect.

I was looking at numbers that tell me, human generated CO2 is a very small contributor, and was looking for someone to poke holes in the numbers. That hasn't happened, so I feel we should be looking somewhere else for solutions. Solutions isn't the right word....maybe answers is. Answers to the question, what can we do to make a significant difference.

There's a lot of hand wringing and doom forecasting without much evidence we can do anything but go along for the ride.

[Undertoad]

You can use filtered water instead of bottled

The most important things we can do about this problem:

- promote the intelligence of humanity
- promote the education of science
- preserve and protect civilization world-wide, so that productive ideas are adopted and shared by all

With a greater intelligence level on the planet, and the political ability to make changes, we can solve this and any other problem.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

We don't know if it's really a bad thing.

While I'm far from a global-warming, the-end-is-near, hand-wringer I think we are in for some major unwelcome adjustments over the next 100-500 years. Earth was covered in miles-thick ice before we got here and it will be again. Heck, we can't even predict the weather 72 hours from now but we know enough to constructively intervene in order to alter the climactic cycles of the entire planet? Cycles that were already well-established when dirt was a toddler? Humanity's record of predicting the effect of intevening in chaotic systems is... well... we get an F.

I hate to burst anyone's bubble but not only are we not in charge here, I'm not even sure we have the slightest inkling of what we are up against. Earth is about 13,000 degrees on the inside and nearly zero degrees at the edge of our atmosphere. Any engineer will tell you that a temperature extreme of that magnitude is nothing short of a thermodynamic powderkeg. And the idea that such thermodynamic volitility can be fine-tuned to keep it in a state of indefinite equilibrium is as utterly unrealistic as the idea that we know which of the thousands of knobs to turn and which way to turn each knob.

Sometimes we just need to accept that we are not in control of everything.

[xoxoxoBruce]

With a greater intelligence level on the planet, and the political ability to make changes, we can solve this and any other problem.

That's certainly true....but....looking at New Orleans after a year, I'd say we have a better shot, hoping for a benevolent God, than counting on that happening.

snip~ the idea that such thermodynamic volitility can be fine-tuned to keep it in a state of indefinite equilibrium is as utterly unrealistic ~snip

Yeah, we don't even know extent or rate of entropy changes yet. They are discovering new cause/effect relationships that are contributing almost every day. Discovering may not be the right term....maybe are being revealed is more like reality.
With all due respect to the scientists and researchers working on this, I'm picturing a bunch of guys in white lab coats, standing around with jaws agape, saying, "No shit?....no SHIT?.....NO SHIT?, as the whole thing goes down.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

With all due respect to the scientists and researchers working on this, I'm picturing a bunch of guys in white lab coats, standing around with jaws agape, saying, "No shit?....no SHIT?.....NO SHIT?, as the whole thing goes down.

Bottom line is not refuted. Humans are creating global warming. Even the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has been abandoned by it strongest advocates who now admit more and stronger hurricanes are due to manmade effects.

The only questions remaining are how much and how bad.

Meanwhile, one need only return to the 1960s to learn who gets wealthy and more jobs from learning the science. America in the early 1960s admitted to massive air pollution and problems associated. Therefore America started solutions to that problem. Cleaned the air significantly AND created both jobs and wealth by selling those innovations everywhere in the world. For those who need an example: EGR valve - required on every car and an innovation that added to American wealth.

Same is true of those who confront global warming. Solutions to global warming also mean other advantages such as less energy dependency, more jobs, more wealth, and a longer life expectancy for mankind.

Reasons opposed to air quality standards in the 1960s are promoted in the same ostrich reasoning of another reality - global warming. You would think man would learn from history. But then how many here were cognizant when the 1960 environmental movement exposed the dangers we faced then? Today, those who insist global warming does not exist also do not have basic science reasoning and have names such as George Jr and Rick Santorum. Their ranks are dominated by the same wackos that insisted Saddam had WMDs, would destroy an anti-ballistic missile treaty to spend $billions on a system that does not work, almost got us into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane, completely ignored a million tsunami victims, and now advocate torture. Somehow political extremists know more than science - that mankind is not creating any global warming problem or that global warming does not exist?

An America that addresses global warming will also be a more prosperous America as the entire world comes to America for solutions. But then MBA mentalities fear science and innovation - automatically promote the status quo. MBA reasoning routinely destroys the innovations that solve problems and that create the new and future jobs.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Bottom line is not refuted. Humans are creating global warming.

Thank you Rush Limbaugh.
C'mon, tw. You know damn well the Earth has warmed and cooled over and over again. How many "Ice Ages" have there been? What was it, 15, 12, maybe 10 thousand years ago the glaciers melted in Ohio? The Earth's climate has been warming ever since.

Now we're pretty sure that Human actions have hastened the process in the last couple hundred years.
Whether Human actions will push the cycle further than it would have gone naturally, we don't know.
What we can do about it, beyond preparing for the onslaught of changes, has yet to be defined, except for "feel good" measures.

BUT, "Humans are creating Global Warming", is something a lying president or an MBA would say, not an engineer.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Whether Human actions will push the cycle further than it would have gone naturally, we don't know.

We can't predict the future, so technically you are right. But how can we not be making it worse than it would otherwise be? We are adding carbon to the equation that never would have been there otherwise.

You have the carbon cycle, where living things take carbon out of the "biosphere" and return it to to "biosphere" as they grow and die. This remians pretty much constant, although it does fluctuate some.

Then we have volcanoes which add carbon to the equation.

And we have humans who take carbon from a hole in the ground and add it to the equation.

If we are adding to the system, we have to be contributing to it.

I'll admit we don't know a lot. But that much we do know.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by glatt

And we have humans who take carbon from a hole in the ground and add it to the equation.

And . . . his noodley appendage ( ) returns that carbon to its earthly resting place!

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Thank you Rush Limbaugh.
C'mon, tw. You know damn well the Earth has warmed and cooled over and over again. How many "Ice Ages" have there been? What was it, 15, 12, maybe 10 thousand years ago the glaciers melted in Ohio? The Earth's climate has been warming ever since.

And in each case science has explained it. Meanwhile, why is this warming period 59 times faster than the fastest warming period ever on earth? You post half facts like Rush and ask questions manipulated to spin a lie. Those are damning numbers.

If your questions come from so much knowledge, then why is a shortage of scientists to agree with you? Not only is it a slam dunk fact that mankind is creating global warming. But the movement of those still with doubts towards that same conclusion is massive.

The earth’s climate has changed due to external events. Since these events took tens of thousands of years, the changes in less than 100 years are also explained by same reasoning? Get me a brain, Bruce. I cannot find a single logical reality in your assumptions - that are only assumptions and fly contrary to the massive amount of science and scientist.

Events that caused climate change over tens of thousands of years means same caused changes in but a hundred years? That is your reasoning that makes sense as long as we ignore numbers.


What was a gentle temperature increase and not much CO2 change is suddenly a massive temperature increase and CO2 levels never before seen on earth. Explain that? Tell us how man had nothing to do with these radical and unprecedented changes? To post as you have, then you must deny numbers. Temperature changes over tens of thousands of years can explain a temperature change in but 100 years? That is what you have just posted. Explain that since most of science does not understand your logic. Most of science slam dunk disagrees with what you are posting. Even your own numbers don't agree with your conclusions. Explain that?

Meanwhile, when you were posting more logically, you asked:

This is why I object to people saying Global warming is man made. I don't deny we are contributing, maybe significantly, but how much and what can we do to make a significant improvement?

A self defeating question. We cannot answer it right now, therefore in classic George Jr logic, we can't stop it. Bull. Entire issue of Scientific American for Aug(?) 2006 was chock full of ideas. Ironically most all those ideas also address other problems such as excessive energy consumption. Solutions that cannot happen with an extremist and defeatist MBA educated and lying president. Lying - he said global warming does not even exist. You don't even make that claim. But then to identify why enemies would stifle a solution - notice those who most dispute Global Warming also routinely lie.

A first article defined 15 slices to the pie. Something like 5 slices of that pie must be accomplished to obtain a useful goal. Goals and proposals all provided with numbers. Numbers not provided so that xoxoxoBruce can provide those numbers. You have much reading to do, Bruce. In Scientific American are some major numbers and targets that must be achieve AND that are achievable if we condemn those who think as your last post - and instead start innovating.

Innovation - you do remember the thing that solved 1960s air pollution, made jobs, and made so many patriotic type Americans (those who innovate rather than cry woe is me) wealthier. Whereas xoxoxoBruce advocates giving up, science instead advocates innovation and solutions.

[Spexxvet]

It's all a repubican conspiracy. Blue states on the coasts, melt ice caps, ocean rises, no more blue states!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

We can't predict the future, so technically you are right. But how can we not be making it worse than it would otherwise be? We are adding carbon to the equation that never would have been there otherwise.

You have the carbon cycle, where living things take carbon out of the "biosphere" and return it to to "biosphere" as they grow and die. This remians pretty much constant, although it does fluctuate some.

Then we have volcanoes which add carbon to the equation.

And we have humans who take carbon from a hole in the ground and add it to the equation.

If we are adding to the system, we have to be contributing to it.

I'll admit we don't know a lot. But that much we do know.

Yes, but we may be just making the Global warming happen faster and not making it more intense. You know, making the maximum more maximum.
We may never know that either, because we don't know how far it will go or how far it would have got without us helping it along.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yes, but we may be just making the Global warming happen faster and not making it more intense. You know, making the maximum more maximum.
We may never know that either, because we don't know how far it will go or how far it would have got without us helping it along.

Well Bruce, lets say that you are at least partially correct (for the sake of the argument). What effect would you think that greatly speeding up this warming event is having? None? I suspect that even you will admit that dramatic change is more drastic than gradual change. We already know that we are losing plant and animal species at a faster rate than ever before (outside of the famous cataclysmic events - eg. a comet or meteor hitting the Earth). In fact, some scientists are saying that we should be considering this warming event as one of the great cataclysmic events (on a par with the end of the Cretaceous Period, or worse still, the end of the Permian Period - predates the dinosaurs).

The problem with fast changes in the climate, is that plants and animals do not have the time to evolve in order to cope with the change. At least we humans have some chance of preparing. This is why I said at the end of one of my previous posts, that we need to get away from the arguing, and get on with dealing with the inevitable change, while still working towards improving man's impact on the environment, or course.

[xoxoxoBruce]

What effect would you think that greatly speeding up this warming event is having?

I don't know and neither do you. Unfortunately the climate scientists don't either, apparently.

In fact, some scientists are saying that we should be considering this warming event as one of the great cataclysmic events (on a par with the end of the Cretaceous Period, or worse still, the end of the Permian Period - predates the dinosaurs).

"Some scientists" are saying a lot of things. But even if those scientists are right, that doesn't mean we made it happen( which I doubt) or made it worse.

The problem with fast changes in the climate, is that plants and animals do not have the time to evolve in order to cope with the change.

As far as plants and in some cases animals not adapting, is that bad?
In one of the National Geographic articles I linked, they talked about plants migrating in test plots. They didn't like the plants that replaced the ones lost, as much, but said it was only a test plot and wouldn't be necessarily be the general case.
But other than the, some plant may prove to be the cure for cancer, some day, scenario, does it make a difference if the plant life as we know it changes? Hasn't that been changing continuously?

we need to get away from the arguing, and get on with dealing with the inevitable change, while still working towards improving man's impact on the environment, or course.

I agree, but by doing what? That's how this thread started....questioning just what we do that really impacts Global warming?
Where do we get the most bang for the buck in making changes?
What do we have to do to deal with the "inevitable changes"?
Do we even know what they will be, really?
I'm reminded of Mom standing on a chair screaming, Do something, do something.................... WHAT?