An inconvenient truth

[headsplice]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
We won't have proof until the 'experiment' is complete. That is, until there's conclusive proof that we're causing major climatic change. Unfortunately, in all likelihood that will mean it's too late to do anything and everyone will be a BAD position (worst-case scenario: all of life on the planet dies). Now, we know that lots of particulate emissions are bad (they're bad for us breathing, in specific). So, if we can reduce the amount of particulate emissions in the atmosphere, while potentially saving ourselves from extinction, then why err on the side of extinction?

[Hippikos]

If that's true, it makes a big difference because the oceans don't vary nearly as much as the air and change much slower. I've got to look into this.

Bruce, have a look at this site.. It shows a number of Earth water temperature stats. Like these:

[Flint]

Originally Posted by headsplice

...why err on the side of extinction?

Because, as long as it doesn't happen in our lifetimes, it's not our problem.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

Bruce, you underestimate the importance of ocean temperatures. While the media seems to give more time to air temperature, it is actually the ocean temperature that interests us more. Ocean temperatures can be directly linked to precipitation over land.

You misunderstood or I wasn't clear, probably the latter.
I was having trouble reconciling the 420kyr graph with all the articles about regional fluctuations of considerable magnitude. The ocean temperature makes more sense because it's slower to react and smooths the fluctuations. It's like sitting in a warm bath when someone opens the door and lets in a draft for a brief time, then closes the door and turns on a heater. The bath won't change much.
That said, the 420kyr graph doesn't show me much, except the environment has never been static and cycles constantly. Also, I'm not convinced the neat, precise numbers are accurate, but I don't care because they are not important, unlike the trends.

BTW, I had a lengthy discussion with our senior scientist about you yesterday, and our on-going debate about global warming. I explained that you are a very smart guy, and an engineer, and that you want to see "proof" that Man is involved in global warming.

Hey now, don't be calling me an engineer...tw is an engineer...I'm just an average working guy that's skeptical of dire warnings from the media. Jaded if you will, by the predictions of dire consequences from a multitude of threats, that never come to fruition.

He said that there isn't any research that on its own actually says: "Man, you did it", which is pretty much what I tried to tell you once. You have to take all of the research and draw conclusions based on the bulk of evidence. He said that no one so far has been able to come up with a single experiment that will prove or disprove man's impact. That is how we work - how science works. You have an idea that you want to test, then design an experiment to test your theory.

Thank You, it's nice to hear that scientists, unlike engineers, admit there is an uncertainty they can't eliminate entirely. Of course, that position keeps them employed, but kidding aside, the future is a gigantic puzzle with many, if not most, pieces missing. All you can do is keep looking for the key pieces, based on what you do know and gut feeling.
Every time I hear of a scientist winning an accolade, I wonder how many dedicated scientists, his work was based on, got diddly squat recognition?

In one your posts you said that the world has been warming since the last ice age (12,000 years ago). I was reminded that in fact this is not correct. Air and ocean temperatures climbed to a height at about 10,000 years ago, and then gradually declined again. This continued until around 140 years ago when temperatures started to climb again. This is where the connection to man comes in. It ties in with the Industrial Revolution.

Is this where the predictions of a return of the Ice Ages came from?....or was/is that just media hype?
Hippikos pointed out there was a dip in temperature, mid 20th century, but I think that was explained as the accumulation of aerosols(dirt) in the air from inefficient coal burning during the previous 100 years. Back when the people in Pittsburgh, PA, never saw the Sun because of the smokestacks belching soot.

We also talked about the ozone hole over Antarctica. Did you realise that it is now at its second largest size? This also affects the Earth's climate.

I did not. I've read a considerable amount of information about the ozone layer and I think I understand how and why it works. I am under the impression that variation in that antarctic hole is pretty much out of our control once halocarbons were addressed. Not so?

If you want to satisfy your engineering need for complicated equations, have a look at this page. It discusses ocean currents in the Pacific.

UM,....this is not my vocation.....I'll leave the calculations to yuze guys.

Here is a great Google resource for finding sites that look at global change. If you dig deep enough you will also find pages that discuss why reflection (reflectivity), is not as simple as some people have made out in this thread. There are many factors that interact, and by chopping down trees you do not automatically reduce air temperature because more sunlight is being reflected. You have to take into account the loss of the transpiration by the trees that no longer exist. Sorry if that sounds like double Dutch, but there is actually a complicated mathematical formula for working out the likely temperature change of a cleared area (we use it in our models).

Thanks for the link. No, it's not double dutch, it's the reality that things are very complicated because of interactions and dependencies in nature.
The other problem with turning the forest into a wheat field is the perspective. One side says look at this wonderful tool of food production, while the other side decries the loss of the bugeyed toad that lived there. Meanwhile, you are stuck in the middle trying to understand the real impact on the future, but neither side will listen to you.

I hope you will begin to see that we are not idiots. We don't publish papers with dire warnings just for the fun of it. A lot of work (and I mean a *lot* of blood, sweat and tears), goes into each and every research project.

Idiots? Never did, never will. The problem is, and has always been, the people that add hyperbole, pro and con, to your reports..... or ignore the reports and just spew the hyperbole.
You must admit, a long, difficult, even career spanning, research project that comes up with accurate data and correct conclusions, is still just a tiny piece of the big puzzle. You know, the work the guy that gets the accolades, is based on.

I really, really, really, appreciate you shedding light on a topic that's already seen enough heat from people that care more about defending their honor or making a political statement, than getting at the truth. Seriously, dude (good thing), you're a breath of fresh air.

Now, I'm not saying you're not using this thread to justify to your boss, hanging out in the Cellar when you should be working. Just that we're grateful.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by headsplice

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
We won't have proof until the 'experiment' is complete. That is, until there's conclusive proof that we're causing major climatic change. Unfortunately, in all likelihood that will mean it's too late to do anything and everyone will be a BAD position (worst-case scenario: all of life on the planet dies). Now, we know that lots of particulate emissions are bad (they're bad for us breathing, in specific). So, if we can reduce the amount of particulate emissions in the atmosphere, while potentially saving ourselves from extinction, then why err on the side of extinction?

At what cost is break point for determining imposed restrictions?
Make a rule/rules governing how much dirt you can generate?
People in favor will probably already be below the specified limit.
People that are not, will ignore or circumvent the rule.
What about people not in your juristiction?.....Third World countries or emerging economies?
Implementation of noble causes is always the problem with them.

Can we impact on the climactic changes that are already in motion?
If we have in fact caused it, is the pooch already screwed?
Are we kidding ourselves by saying if we do this we'll save mankind, when in fact we should have done that?

Face it, Global Warming isn't likely to kill me or you. Look at the time frames in the predictions....common numbers are 2050AD and 2100AD for milestones in changes..... even further for catastrophic events. What we're looking at is the future of the human race, not ourselves.

Now look around and ask yourself.......are they worth saving?

OK, I'm kidding..... but seriously, imposing changes because they make you feel warm and fuzzy, without knowing if the changes are actually doing any good, will meet stiff resistance.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

[Hippikos]

Hippikos pointed out there was a dip in temperature, mid 20th century, but I think that was explained as the accumulation of aerosols(dirt) in the air from inefficient coal burning during the previous 100 years. Back when the people in Pittsburgh, PA, never saw the Sun because of the smokestacks belching soot.

This thesis might hurt your Noble Prize nomination...

PS This article might undermine your thesis...

[Hippikos]

I am under the impression that variation in that antarctic hole is pretty much out of our control once halocarbons were addressed. Not so?

CFCs/halocarbons are inert, so they can't react with ozone. Has anyone asked him/herself why there's only a hole over Antarctica, when halocarbons were released all over the world?

Another fact is that from the produced CFC's only 1% was released whose chlorine content is about 7,500 tons. Mother Nature produces 650 MILLION ton chlorine annually, 90% comes from the sea.

Besides ozone is a lousy UV filter, oxygen and nitrogen filter 99%, ozone: 0,000003%. I remember Al Bore saying the lambs in Patagonia got blind because the ozone hole...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

CFCs/halocarbons are inert, so they can't react with ozone.

Not in heavy UV light they aren't.

Has anyone asked him/herself why there's only a hole over Antarctica, when halocarbons were released all over the world?

Weather patterns. You might as well ask why water collects in puddles, when the rain coats an area evenly.

Besides ozone is a lousy UV filter, oxygen and nitrogen filter 99%, ozone: 0,000003%.

It's a bad UV-A filter, a good UV-B filter, and an excellent UV-C filter.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, I'd also read it's importance was as a UV-C filter.

[Happy Monkey]

It's the reason we don't even bother mentioning UV-C on our sunblock.

[bluesdave]

NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center has just put up a new web site which shows the current SST over the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast. It should be interesting for you guys living on the East Coast.

[tw]

Repeated warnings of 11 September were provided to Condi Rice and senior administration officials. But because a specific example was not provided, then no such terror threat existed? xoxoxoBruce uses same logic to proclaim global warming does not exist. Because no one can cite a specific threat or study, then the danger/problem does not exist. xoxoxoBruce - do you really have the intelligence of a mental midget president?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

it's nice to hear that scientists, ... admit there is an uncertainty they can't eliminate entirely.

Uncertainty proved bin Laden did not intend to attack the United States. Clearly the PDB was wrong because of uncertainty. Since probablility was only 80%, then uncertainty proves global warming does not exist. Classic Rush Limbaugh logic. No wonder so many great Americans were on the trail of and could have averted 11 September. But bosses used xoxoxoBruce's reasoning that proved the threat did not exist. Bosses therefore quashed every attempt to avert 11 September. Learn from history. After all, uncertainty means bin Laden and global warming do not exist.

Doubters first learn facts. Then are doubters who
when complexity is too difficult. xoxoxoBruce - engineers and scientists are saying same if you first bother to learn. You know so much that you could not bother to even read one issue of Scientific American? I expect that from Urban Guerrilla - not from you. Why do you fear to learn before knowing? Why do you do what Rush Limbaugh wants?

[Hippikos]

Not in heavy UV light they aren't.

CFCs measured at about 35 km altitude is about 0,1 parts per trillion (ppt), and that's because CFCs are about 4,5 times heavier than air. The UV radiation with the necessary energy for splitting the CFCs molecules are well above the 45 kms, where no CFCs are found. That UV radiation is known as UV-C. But even if those 0,1 pppt of CFCs release their chlorine atoms, the they cannot react with ozone due to the gaseous phase of chemistry.

Weather patterns. You might as well ask why water collects in puddles, when the rain coats an area evenly.

Nice try, but incorrect. Chlorine cathalytic reaction allegedly responsible for destroying ozone in the infamous layer has never been demonstrated in any lab essays. They tried many times, but nothing happened. It all relates to the "gaseous phase" of chemical reactions: chlorine only reacts with ozone over the solid surface of ice crystal in the polar clouds over Antarctica. Ask your chemistry professor.

It's a bad UV-A filter, a good UV-B filter, and an excellent UV-C filter.

UV radiation with the energy enough to split the highly stable CFC molecule is found well above the 40 km mark, the region where oxygen (although one of the strongest gas molecules –along with nitrogen- it is not as stable as the CFC molecule) absorbs almost all the UV-C radiation that could dissociate the CFC molecules.

Now, if you want to blame something, someone about the ozone hole over the Antarctic, blame the Mother Earth, it produces a hundred thousand times more chlorine than man every year. It's a natural phenomenon, already noticed back in the 50's.

[bluesdave]

If anyone wants to read some authoritative information on Ozone Depletion, have a look at these sites:

http://www.ciesin.org/TG/OZ/oz-home.html - Click on "Overview"

http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/solve/ - Click on "Mission Description"

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Educat...one/ozone.html

This link is off the previous page, and covers the "for" and "against" arguments.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/chemistry/ - NASA's Goddard Institute - Atmospheric Chemistry site.