An inconvenient truth

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Talking about figures, the influence on climate by human is less than 5%.

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.

Now, let´s talk about the ozon hole.

CFCs were banned, and it has mostly stabilized. Could be coincidence , but it's certainly not evidence of hysteria.

[tw]

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:

... the Bush administration's impulse on global warming has been to wait for "something to turn up" - say the discovery of plentiful, noncarbon fuel or a technique to eliminate greenhouse emissions at low cost. Global warming has never been the priority it should be.

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

[Hippikos]

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.

[mrnoodle]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

From Scientific American of September 2006:

Over? Says whom, the editors?

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.

Where is the proof that CO2 levels are the cause or even an indicator of Global Warming?
From Dr Linzen's Senate testimony;

Some problems with the IPCC would appear to stem from the media and advocacy groups.
The media reports rarely reflect what is actually in the Summary. The media generally replace the IPCC range of ‘possible’ temperature increases with ‘as much as’ the maximum – despite the highly unlikely nature of the maximum. The range, itself, assumes, unjustifiably, that at least some of the computer models must be correct. However, there is evidence that even the bottom of the range is an overestimate. (A recent study at MIT found that the likelihood of actual change being smaller than the IPCC lower bound was 17 times more likely than that the upper range would even be reached, and even this study assumed natural variability to be what computer models predicted, thus exaggerating the role of anthropogenic forcing.) The media report storminess as a consequence despite the admission in the summary of no such observed relation. To be sure, the summary still claims that such a relation may emerge – despite the fact that the underlying physics suggests the opposite. The media’s emphasis on increased storminess, rising sea levels, etc. is based not on any science, but rather on the fact that such features have more graphic impact than the rather small increases in temperature. People who have experienced day and night and winter and summer have experienced far greater changes in temperature, and retirement to the sun belt rather than the Northwest Territory represents an overt preference for warmth.

So we need some honest examination of what is likely to happen, with and without a human effort to control the climate.

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.

Can you cite the "lawyers" claims of warmth and time frame?

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'.

You left out government issued between all and environmental in the last sentence

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).

STOP IT. This has nothing to do with Saddam, WMDs or Viet Nam. Stick to the point, which is Global warming/weather/environment, please.

There is no doubt mankind is creating global warming.

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?

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.

That doesn't sound much like the statement a communist would make, does it UG. :p

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.

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.

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.

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 testimony

Claims that man has contributed any of the observed warming (ie attribution) are based on the assumption that models correctly predict natural variability. Such claims, therefore, do not constitute independent verifications of models. Note that natural variability does not require any external forcing – natural or anthropogenic.
Large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years, and the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous. Neither do they do well at accounting for shorter period and less dramatic phenomena like El Niños, quasi-biennial oscillations, or intraseasonal oscillations – all of which are well documented in the data.

I 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.

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.

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?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

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.
~snip

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

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'.

[tw]

Originally Posted by tw

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 and that Chrysler engineer (who spent how long at Chrysler as an engineer doing what) 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'.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You're stuttering, what was that for?

Originally Posted by TW

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.

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?

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.

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".

Core samples also confirm that CO2 concentrations correlate with global temperatures.

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?

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.

"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.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling

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.

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.

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?

[mrnoodle]

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.

[Hippikos]

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.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

WE DON´T KNOW.

Spot on.

[Aliantha]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The deeper we go the less we know.

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?