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...
Gore’s “inconvenient truth” is that — there’s no tactful way to say this — we gas-guzzling, SUV-flaunting, comfort-addicted humans, wallowing in our own self-indulgences, have screwed up the planet. We’ve hauled prodigious quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground where they belong, combusted them to release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the sky where it shouldn’t be, and now we’re going to burn for our sins.
I'd accept that as a fair summary.
Next he describes the problem.......
The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse. Indeed, the whole greenhouse theory of global warming goes wobbly if you just change one small assumption.
Logic and chemistry say 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.
“Wrong,” say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.
Then he describes the mechanism that's affected......
Let’s review the greenhouse theory of global warming. Our planet would be one more icy rock hurtling through space at an intolerable temperature were it not for our atmosphere. This thin layer of gases — about 95 percent of the molecules live within the lowest 15 miles — readily allows the sun’s heat in but resists its reradiation into space. Result: The earth is warmed.
The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.
Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.
OK, that sounds like he has a handle on how it works.
Now the meat of his disagreement with Gore.......
Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.
They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”
When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.
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.......
If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.
In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning. But that’s an inconvenient truth that wouldn’t make much of a movie.
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......
The question of where do we go from here is an obvious and important one. From my provincial
perspective, an important priority should be given to figuring out how to support and encourage science (and basic science underlying climate in particular) while removing incentives to promote alarmism. The benefits of leaving future generations a better understanding of nature would far outweigh the benefits (if any) of ill thought out attempts to regulate nature in the absence of such understanding. With respect to any policy, the advice given in the 1992 report of the NRC, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, remains relevant: carry out only those 8 actions which can be justified independently of any putative anthropogenic global warming.
Here, I would urge that even such actions not be identified with climate unless they can be shown to significantly impact the radiative forcing of climate. On neither ground – independent justification or climatic relevance – is Kyoto appropriate.
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.....
Scientists associate public recognition of the relevance of their subject with support, and relevance has come to be identified with alarming the public. It is only human for scientists to wish for support and recognition, and the broad agreement among scientists that climate change is a serious issue must be viewed from this human perspective. Indeed, public perceptions have significantly influenced the science itself. Meteorologists, oceanographers, hydrologists and others at MIT have all been redesignated climate scientists – indicating the degree to which scientists have hitched their futures to this issue.
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.
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.
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.
[PHP]That CO2 is new CO2, and it was never part of the biosphere.[/PHP] 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.;)
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?
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:
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.
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 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.
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.
I remember the acid rain hysteria 25 years ago, where has it gone?
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.
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.
From Scientific American of September 2006:
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: [QUOTE]... 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.
CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming.
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.
From Scientific American of September 2006: The debate on global warming is over.
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.[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.
[/QUOTE]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? :eyebrow:
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. :worried:
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'.
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'.
You're stuttering, what was that for?
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?: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.
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.
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? :blush:
Isn't there somebody (organization) that is the voice of reason, somebody that doesn't have an agenda?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
--snip--
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.
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.
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.
Where is the proof that CO2 levels are the cause or even an indicator of Global Warming?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Source: National Center for Atmospheric Research Date: September 14, 2006
Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming~ huge snip
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
Global Warming: Bubbling Up From Below dated 6 Sept 2006
What they found, and report in this week's issue of NATURE, worries them.
... Katey Walter and colleagues from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, have been studying lakes in Siberia, which, historically, have spent much of the year frozen over.
When the lakes are not frozen, methane bubbles up from the bottom. Methane, you'll recall, is created as organic material decays. There's less methane than carbon dioxide--but molecule for molecule, methane is about 20 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere.
Here's the problem Walter and her colleagues found: the amount of methane blubbling from those lakes may be five times as much as existing estimates--and there's likely to be more of it as the climate warms. ...
And Siberian lakes are only part of the problem. There's permafrost all over northern Canada, the northern reaches of Europe, etc., that's not so permanently frosty anymore. The northern tundra may be less diverse than, say, tropical rainforests, but scientists say there's about as much organic material there.
That's it. I'm moving to Mars. Who's with me?
Global warming is a man made phenomena.
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?
That's it. I'm moving to Mars. Who's with me?
Sure, after the terraforming we'll be in charge of the climate. :)
snip~
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.
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?
From ABC News:
Quote:
Global Warming: Bubbling Up From Below dated 6 Sept 2006
What they found, and report in this week's issue of NATURE, worries them.
~snip
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.
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?
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:
I can't change Washington, but I can vote.
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.
There has been no reference to the influence of sun radiation. How can anyone neglect that phenomen?
The Sun is now off the hook...
Study acquits sun of climate change
OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study showed on Wednesday.
Researchers from Germany, Switzerland and the United States found that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 percent over 11-year sunspot cycles, far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.
"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," said Tom Wigley of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Most experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the main cause of a 0.6 Celsius (1.1 Fahrenheit) rise in temperatures over the past century.
A dwindling group of scientists says that the dominant cause of warming is a natural variation in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.
"The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible," the researchers wrote in the journal Nature of evidence about the sun from satellite observations since 1978.
They also found little sign of solar warming or cooling when they checked telescope observations of sunspots against temperature records going back to the 17th century.
They then checked more ancient evidence of rare isotopes and temperatures trapped in sea sediments and Greenland and Antarctic ice and also found no dramatic shifts in solar energy output for at least the past millennium.
"This basically rules out the sun as the cause of global warming," Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, told Reuters.
Many scientists say greenhouse gases might push up world temperatures by perhaps another 3 Celsius by 2100, causing more droughts, floods, disease and rising global sea levels.
Spruit said a "Little Ice Age" around the 17th century, when London's Thames River froze, seemed limited mainly to western Europe and so was not a planet-wide cooling that might have implied a dimmer sun.
And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.
"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial or even million-year timescales," the report said.
Solar activity is now around a low on the 11-year cycle after a 2000 peak, when bright spots called faculae emit more heat and outweigh the heat-plugging effect of dark sunspots. Both faculae and dark sunspots are most common at the peaks.
Still, the report also said there could be other, more subtle solar effects on the climate, such as from cosmic rays or ultraviolet radiation. It said they would be hard to detect.
Copyright 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
No, Global warming has been going on long before humans were a significant factor.
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.
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.
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.
snip~
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.~snip
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....
snip ~ The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.
Kyoto Warming
CO2 = 72%
Methane = 7%
Nitrous Oxide = 19%
Plus water vapor = a lot
snip~ CO2 sources - nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.
They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”
When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.
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:
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/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_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/news/2005/07/0727_050727_globalwarming.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/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming.htmlEven 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.
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.
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. :smack:
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.
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.
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. :rolleyes:
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. :lol:
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.
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. :eyebrow:
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.
And we have humans who take carbon from a hole in the ground and add it to the equation.
And . . .
his noodley appendage ( :fsm: ) returns that carbon to its earthly resting place!
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.
It's all a repubican conspiracy. Blue states on the coasts, melt ice caps, ocean rises, no more blue states!
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. :confused:
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. :confused:
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.
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? :confused:
I don't know and neither do you. Unfortunately the climate scientists don't either, apparently.
Why talk like George Jr. It is well understood that man has contributed to massive environmental change. Only an ostrich would deny that fact. The serious questions are how fast, and how destructive. Nowhere do those questions even imply what was posted and what George Jr lies to misrepresent. Mankind is without a doubt causing climate change. Furthermore, many solutions exist to advert so much of man's contribution. Somehow extremists spin that into 'we don't know if global warming exists'. That spin is akin to Saddam's WMDs - a lie. We know global warming exists AND we know mankind is contributing to the problem.
Where do we get the most bang for the buck? Many solutions from fifteen pie slices are possibilities we must attempt or study also for so many other reasons - ie thermodynamic efficiencies. But those same technologies that would also make America a future world leader are stifled by political extremists with an MBA attitude towards innovation. For example, use CO2 to backfill oil wells. Reduce the massive and wasteful energy consumption in buildings - because even gasoline at $3 per gallon is so ridiculously cheap as to discourage smarter solutions (and no, I did not even imply raising the price of gas - as an extremist would proclaim I said spin more lies and confusion).
You are screaming that a ship is sinking - therefore we should not do anything. Innovators instead say, "Maybe we should first close the water tight doors between compartments". Many of the solutions are that simple. Then you say, "Why? We are not really sinking?" Which is it?
Those who address global warming will have the new jobs and future wealth for all other nations dependent on those innovations. Global warming is also a new, future, and necessary industry - literally meaning new innovative buildings, machines, and products. Just another point that xoxoxoBruce ignores along with a reasoning that says, "Nobody in the Cellar can tell me exactly what we must do; therefore no solutions will exist." One who was smarter said
I don't deny we are contributing, maybe significantly, but how much and what can we do to make a significant improvement?
If science and logic was being discussed, then we would be quantifying how fast and how destructive. But that means science, innovation, jobs for people who are smart at the expense of dumb extremists. So what did the mental midget president do? Cancels innovation - from quantum physics and the Hubble Space Telescope. Canceled something like nine satellites that would better answer those global warming questions - for George Jr's legacy - a Man on Mars. The legacy of anyone who opposes a reality called global warming is 'ostrich'. Same ostrich now denies the US is attacked every 15 minutes in Iraq is somehow an expert on global warming?
George Jr and others just as anti-American would even stifle research to deny a reality - Global Warming. xoxoxoBruce - you would locate yourself with those fools? Apparently. Half your posts are, "we can't do anything and therefore should not try". Classic logic from an MBA named George.
Bruce, you seem to think that those involved in climate research are blaming you personally. That is not the case. There are filing cabinets bulging with scientific research, from around the world, that in total, point to man's involvement. Are you saying we should throw this research away, and just forget the whole thing (hoping that the problem will go away)?
As I said once before, you want engineering answers, and you are simply not going to get them. Unfortunately this fuels your pseudo-religious anti greenhouse beliefs.
I understand exactly the points you are making. Unfortunately there is no easy means of explaining how the research points to man. You have to process each piece of research, correlate them, and then draw conclusions. Often the research uses computer models with real data acting as the seed. I have to concede that sometimes the models get it wrong, but they are being improved constantly. It is unlikely that we will ever get to the point where we will have an equation that says: x=y, thus satisfying your engineering needs.
I know that you are a good man, and that you want answers, and that deep down you really want to take an active role in helping the planet. ;)
Unfortunately this fuels your pseudo-religious anti greenhouse beliefs.
wtf? Pseudo-religious? Believing the earth has it's own cycles and balance is pseudo-religious? Anti-greenhouse? What the hell is that?
I understand Bush is keeping the data in all those bulging file cabinets from being correlated, just to spite tw, but....;)
When umpteen dozen sources are saying there is a nebulous problem and proffering solutions they admit won't solve the problem, but might help the problem, and at least won't hurt the problem......that's pseudo religious.
The media shills that pass the information to the public are, writing/broadcasting stories at high volume with damn little substance, like a TV weatherman. Sideshow barkers competing for my attention.
Personally I'm tired of "Scientists say this" and "Researchers say that"..... bits and pieces that may be parallel but don't logically fit together and can't be quantified. Even if I take it on faith they are right, How am I expected to put it all together, translate into positive action?
Just saying, have no impact on the Earth is not only impossible..... it's Voodoo ecology.
Do something, do something! ................Do What???
Telling me, we(collective) should reduce our impact(vague) on Global warming, is worse than useless, it's tedious.
It just makes me say, Ho-hum, that old saw again, I'll wait for the "film at 11".....the meat, the details. But the details never come.
I don't feel I'm being personally blamed for Global warming, however I don't deny being part of the problem. That said, speaking only for myself, without being afforded some concrete solutions, I will continue to be...... I'm too old and jaded to run around in circles with no benefit.
- 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
That's my agenda and I'm stickin to it.
I am the same sceptical guy as Bruce here. It's not a proven fact that the current global warming is caused by man. Climate changes have been around the last 4,5 billion years. As for warming up of the Earth the last 300 years, I can remember the hysterica in the 70's about the start of a new ice age. Well there ya go.
Never the less I am in favor of conserving earth recourses as there is an end to that, and I am in favor of clean air if it was only for the health of the people.
Again, global warming statistics are mostly fed by cherry picked statistics, sensation sensitive tabloid journalists and producers of scare mongering films such as "The Day After Tomorrow". My 13 year old daughter saw this movie and is now afraid our low country will be flooded next year....
That's as clear as mud, but it covers the ground. :haha:
I just noticed Hippikos slipped in between UT and myself.
It was UT's credo I was referring to.
Actually, I was listening to NPR the other day(
On The Media's segment called, "
Mad Science"[that's an audio link, btw]), and non-scientific Americans are pretty much the only folks who
don't believe that global warming is a serious (EDIT) man-made problem. There's not any major scientific disagreement anymore, just
industry front groups.
I read Popular Science, Discover, and Scientific American fairly regularly, and I don't recall reading of any supposed debate over Global Warming any more than the supposed debate over Intelligent Design. [SIZE="1"]The dreaded Liberal Media Conspiracy has wrapped its insidious tentacles around science itself![/SIZE]
Actually, I was listening to NPR the other day(On The Media's segment called, "Mad Science"[that's an audio link, btw]), and non-scientific Americans are pretty much the only folks who don't believe that global warming is a serious (EDIT) man-made problem. There's not any major scientific disagreement anymore, just industry front groups.
See, it's broad statements like that, (the media, not headsplice), that make me nuts. There is obviously more to it, but when they blatantly lie like that how can I believe anything they say.
So they don't believe the glaciers melted in Ohio thousands of years ago and it's been warming ever since? And it's a man-made problem they can't quantify?
Seems to me it would be easy to quantify if there was nothing but man involved and the natural state was stable......but then the glaciers wouldn't have melted would they? When they did melt, there wasn't enough people in the entire world to make them melt, if every single person pissed on them.
Now we have enough people and technology to help it along quite nicely but to say it's man made is ridiculous. :eyebrow:
Now we have enough people and technology to help it along quite nicely but to say it's man made is ridiculous.
Depends on how you define Global Warming. Is it the total or just our "help" ...?[SIZE="1"] (Seriously, are people even talking about the same thing?)[/SIZE]
They (climatologists) can quantify the change (or rather, the rate of change of temperature, which is the real worry). I'm not sure about the attribution, but I'm pretty sure that they can make correllational proofs. I'll see what I can find on the intarnetwebs.
I understand Bush is keeping the data in all those bulging file cabinets from being correlated, just to spite tw, but....
You do know that the White House now has government science papers on global warming rewritten by White House lawyers. That has been reported separately by so many news services. 60 Minutes even provided the scientists original paper and the handwritten changes by the White House lawyer.
Why would the White House intentionally have lawyers rewrite science papers? xoxoxoBruce - it is called propaganda and you are falling for it. Global warming exists even though George Jr said it does not. Mankind is contributing to global warming as has been published in virtually every major and responsible science publication. Furthermore, it is necessary for Project for a New American Century and other extremists to deny such realities - as they also denied ozone depletion and the need for environmental restrictions on automobiles. Or are you going to tell us that environmental laws for autos were also unnecessary?
White House has a political agenda - which means anti-American. Why do you so hate America as to believe science promoted by lawyers?
Remember what those who deny global warming also said. They said torture, international kidnapping, wiretapping without judicial review, war with China over a silly spy plane, and six C-130s to rescue 1 million tsunami victims is sufficient - this to them is good. Would you align yourself with such people? You are only using logic that also said Saddam had WMDs.
Remember what those who deny global warming also said.
Nobody denies that average air temperature raised 0,4 degree the last 30/40 years, but the debate is about whether it is caused by man.
There's another thing, air temperature varies much more than water or ground temperature. I've never seen statistics with these parameters?
Nobody denies that average air temperature raised 0,4 degree the last 30/40 years, but the debate is about whether it is caused by man.
George Jr repeatedly declared that global warming did not exist. When polls suggested it was not working, then George Jr changed. George Jr said global warming exists, but that mankind could do nothing about it. Say anything to promote a political agenda - even deny science.
Meanwhile, the man who makes administration decisions - Cheney - continued saying global warming does not exist.
The debate is not whether man contributes. That debate ended in an obvious conclusion. The question is how much and how bad. To impede a solution, George Jr supporters even had science papers rewritten by lawyers to promote myths that we even see here. Some still insist that man is not complicit - when a chart for the past 400,000 years demonstrates how obvious the problem is.
But again, once we eliminate the politics - cut out propaganda from George Jr and other liars - the question is simply how much and how destructive. Yes, George Jr repeatedly insisted that global warming does not exist.
Why would the White House intentionally have lawyers rewrite science papers? xoxoxoBruce - it is called propaganda and you are falling for it.
tw, you are not allowed to accuse me of "falling for it" or anything else, until you have read
with comprehension, what I wrote.
1 - Global warming is part of a warming /cooling cycle that's been going on forever.
2 - Every time it's happened it has had a profound, if not devastating, effect on the flora & fauna.
3 - This time, human activity influences the natural cycle, but we don't know how much.... it has not been quantified.
4 - We don't know if human activities just speed up the cycle or will also cause the maximum to be more extreme.
5 - We^^ I, don't know what can be done about it, if anything, that's not a futile, feel good, plan.
These are my conclusions. If you have issue with them, care to debate them, you have the right...nay, civic duty....to do so.
But, that said, stick to the point, please. Bush and Cheney, while asshats, have nothing to do with my conclusions. :eyebrow:
The question is how much and how bad.
I call that a debate. The problem with the whole global warming debate is that it is not approached in a scientific way (as it should) but is poluted by politics, from both scientists and politician with their own agenda. In the current hyped world, accelerated through the Intarnet, all world events are turned into instant doom scenarios to satisfy the human sensation papillae.
Some still insist that man is not complicit - when a chart for the past 400,000 years demonstrates how obvious the problem is.
How
obviousis the problem? Are you suggesting that man is causing the global warming for the last 400,000 years?
...scientists...with their own agenda...
Science?
Science?
No, grant money.
Science?
No, grant money.
To do . . .
[SIZE="2"]science[/SIZE] ???I call that a debate. The problem with the whole global warming debate is that it is not approached in a scientific way (as it should) but is poluted by politics, from both scientists and politician with their own agenda.
But scientists don't have agendas. Science simply follows the facts and evidence. It is politicians who are acting as scientists with political agendas - even having White House lawyers now rewrite all NASA papers.
How obviousis the problem? Are you suggesting that man is causing the global warming for the last 400,000 years?
I am suggesting you look at the chart for the past 400,000 years that was posted earlier in this thread. And no, that chart is not sufficient as proof. That chart demonstrates to the layman what science has proven elsewhere. Notice what the chart provides and what xoxoxoBruce completely ignores - the numbers.
OK, show me the chart, bullshit artist.
I don't see any chart, I don't see any link.
Put up or shut up. :p
OK, show me the chart, bullshit artist.
I don't see any chart, I don't see any link.
Put up or shut up. :p
*cough* *cough* passes link from post #71 to Bruce under the table
"]http://www.cellar.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=841&d=1059007053]
*cough*
[whistles and walks away]
OK, then tell me what kind of thermometers they were using 400,000 years ago? F? C? K?
Did they write it down in pencil or ballpoint pen?
It's strictly speculation, they have no better idea what the temperature was than they do the color of the Dinosaurs.
Extrapolating from co2 levels doesn't work, because there are more variables involved than a direct correlation of temperature and co2 levels.
That's not science, it's voodoo. :eyebrow:
OK, show me the chart, bullshit artist.
xoxoxoBruce has just proved that he denies by ignoring numbers. He does exactly what a George Jr White House lawyer would do to become a science expert. He has ignored charts and numbers as science proof. The numbers (that chart) were provided which Bruce would have known if he did not routinely ignore numbers in multiple posts.
xoxoxoBruce posted on 2 Oct 2006 at 1255 hours Cellar time no facts (not a single useful number, just disparaging remarks). He said:
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?
Well apparently xoxoxoBruce does not know this by first learning numbers. His accusation is what White House lawyers have promoted - without numbers. Well if I was a lying lawyer, then I too would post accusatory and factually irrelevant Rush Limbaugh rhetoric. Bruce did not bother to look at the chart when post after post referred to that chart.
A reply to xoxoxoBruce was posted on 2 Oct 2006 at 1603 hours - using facts and numbers - and no disparaging comments. That reply referred to numbers and claims that xoxoxoBruce ignored. The reply noted important numbers which are appreciated by looking at the chart. Apparently xoxoxoBruce ignored the chart AND ignored numerical facts to keep making his global warming claims. Ignoring numbers is a classic Rush Limbaugh tactic.
xoxoxoBruce - you have posted claims without numbers as any junk scientist would do. Numbers from the chart demonstrated why your assumptions were wrong. Now we know why you deny. You ignored that 2 Oct reply. Following replies also referenced that chart ... and you still ignored the chart. Exactly what a White House lawyers must do to deny global warming – as Cheney ordered.
xoxoxoBruce - why should we believe anything you have posted when you did not even bother to look at that chart – and then posted insults?
Temperature changes over tens of thousands of years can explain a temperature change in but 100 years?
Where was the logic in that – your reasoning? Natural temperature changes occurred over tens of thousands of years – not 100 years. In the past 100 years, environmental changes were 59 times faster than any other in 1 million years. Changes that took tens of thousands of years now occur in only hundreds. Somehow, xoxoxoBruce claims that proves man was not complicit? He can only make that claim by not posting numbers and by ignoring a chart.
A chart referenced in so many replies to xoxoxoBruce is 2 Oct 2006 at 1603 hours. Same chart has been reposted in the Cellar repeatedly meaning that anyone denying global warming had to repeatedly ignore the chart – as xoxoxoBruce did. If I say xoxoxoBruce is the "bullshit artist', well at least I have posted proof. He even ignored the chart.
OK, then tell me what kind of thermometers they were using 400,000 years ago? F? C? K?
Did they write it down in pencil or ballpoint pen?
But again, Bruce. If you first learned science instead of accusing like a White House lawyer or Rush Limbaugh, then you never asked that silly question. Had you read studies and numbers before making conclusions, then you knew exactly "what kind of thermometers they were using". If you had bothered to first learn about global warning even from one issue of Scientific American - September 2006 - then you already had that question answered. IOW you post as if an expert – and do not even know how data is collected.
Your posts expose a reality. You know global warming does not exist just like a White House lawyer is a scientist. You have just met the definition of anti-American.
Why should anyone believe your accusations when you don't even know how data is collected? You never even bothered to first read any science - and yet somehow you are so knowledgeable? And you call me a 'bullshit artist"? You are better advised to insult yourself for not bothering to first learn numbers. You could not even bother to look at that chart. The word is called credibility.
To do . . . [SIZE="2"]science[/SIZE] ???
Opposed to what you think, many scientists are not as objective as they should be...
TW, you were wrong on Oct 2nd at 1603 hours and you still are. You link to a chart with nothing to back it up. Cherry picking an unsubstantiated chart, even if it shows what I've been saying all along about the natural swings in the temperature, is not evidence. It's bullshit, you keep telling the same lie over and over, hoping to convince people by repetition, just like Bush & Company.
How about some real evidence, if you believe that chart, back it up. Where do you get the temperature, 400,000 years ago within 5 degrees? One wild ass guess is not evidence. That's why there is only a chart and nothing to back it up. Ignore the numbers? Yes, when they come without evidence.
Show me the evidence, Rush. :p
Why is that chart an attachment, but linked to, like it was in an article somewhere other than here?
But scientists don't have agendas.
:lol:
Opposed to what you think, many scientists are not as objective as they should be...
That's why we have
peer review. Bad science will be exposed and dis-credited.
The scientific community is a self-correcting system with an expansive web of checks and balances.
In order to for "science" to have a "bias" it would require a monolithic agreement among 100% of all scientists, to "pretend" to have proven something and "fool" the rest of us. That's a laughable premise. Occam's Razor...
I know that and many reports used are not peer reviewed. And what does peer review means if peers themselves don't know? I remember Hawking's theory was widely peer reviewed and accepted, however he was forced to admit decades later that his theory was incorrect. Hawking's persona has been constructed and marketed, his story manipulated and controlled, for the purpose of his own glorification and selling his book, and this has occurred, as it could only occur, with his cooperation or at least acquiescence. Many scientists do have their own agenda, being it glorification or or for monetary reasons.
The scientific community is a self-correcting system with an expansive web of checks and balances.
To be correct, one has to be sure what's right and as far as I know re global warming everything is still out.
And what does peer review means if peers themselves don't know?
It means the chance of mistakes being discovered is statistically much greater when information is widely distributed.
I remember Hawking's theory was widely peer reviewed and accepted, however he was forced to admit decades later that his theory was incorrect.
Chalk one up for
the system working! Rather than hanging on to entrenched ideas, when they were found to be incorrect, they were rejected.
Many scientists do have their own agenda, being it glorification or or for monetary reasons.
And their public shame will be that much greater when their
science is found to be faulty. There is no Hollywood career for these guys.
The editors of the journal Science (2002), however, comment on the increasing number of publications that point to varying solar activity as a strong factor in climate change: “As more and more wiggles matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change. They have included solar variability in their simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering droughts and cold snaps.”
The impact of solar eruptions on weather and climate:
New Ice Age in 2030?It means the chance of mistakes being discovered is statistically much greater when information is widely distributed.
That took 20 years! And I remember those who doubted Hawking's theories were widely ridiculed same as those who currently question the "climate change" (many scientists changed from "global warming" already years ago).
And their public shame will be that much greater when their science is found to be faulty. There is no Hollywood career for these guys.
Well there ya go! Remember Fleischmann and Pons? They had their agenda....
Cool, you can <Ctrl+V>
Yep, that's why I mentioned the source...
That took 20 years!
Science doesn't happen overnight.
Yep, that's why I mentioned the source...
I didn't catch your point, you just dumped it there in the middle of our conversation...
To be correct, one has to be sure what's right and as far as I know re global warming everything is still out.
Here's the real problem:
climactic research is incredibly complex. There are literally millions of variables that make up global climatalogical changes, which are built on suppositions of regional climatological changes.
Earlier, when I stated that there isn't any causational proof, but there is correlational, this is what I meant:
There are lots of things that are changing on our planet extremely quickly (as such things go): receding glaciers (Mt. Kilamanjaro no longer has a white peak), increasing land and sea surface temperatures, increasing deep-sea temperatures. Simultaneously, there is also proof that the particulate count of CO2 is way higher than it's ever been, and THAT is a direct result of humans burning petroleum and petroleum-based products. So, you have Trend's A-Q (measurable environmental issues) and Trend Z (increase in SO2) and Trend Z
should affect the others. However, since there isn't direct causational proof, scientists won't say that's true (that's how science works). The fact that Trend Z is still the most likely cause of the others.
The lack of proof comes down to the fact that all of this data is interpreted and modeled on computers, and we won't get 'real' proof (i.e., more data to prove or disprove the modelling data) until our environment is well and truly fucked because that's how research works.
Oh, and here's some links for people to peruse (a warning, like most scientific data, IT DOES NOT DRAW CONCLUSIONS. It states the data and explains a lot of what I just said, in different language):
Woods Hole Research Center
NOAA's global warming FAQ
National Academies of Science
There's lots more info inside those links. Enjoy!
I didn't catch your point, you just dumped it there in the middle of our conversation...
I can read the paper and watch TV at the same time...
Science doesn't happen overnight.
For some people, it does...
and THAT is a direct result of humans burning petroleum and petroleum-based products.
Where's the proof? Man produces only 7 of 150 Billion tons of CO2 annually, which is only 4%.
BTW 1% more terrestrial vegetation could take the whole problem away.
So...your point was...???
Opposed to what you think, many scientists are not as objective as they should be...
Remember this? We were discussing the inner workings of the scientific community. Then you dumped a copy/paste about "the impact of solar eruptions on weather and climate" with no commentary as to how you feel this relates to the subject at hand, or explanation as to which subject you were commenting on, and I've asked you to clarify but you refuse. ...oookay...nice talkin' to ya :::wanders off:::
Where's the proof? Man produces only 7 of 150 Billion tons of CO2 annually, which is only 4%.
BTW 1% more terrestrial vegetation could take the whole problem away.
The problem being that the CO2 that mankind produces comes from outside the current carbon cycle (it's been locked underground for millions of years). So, 7 billion tons extra to the carbon cycle each year adds up quickly.
And, speaking as the SO of a scientist: NO. Science does not happen overnight (well, technically speaking, it does happen over the nighttime, but it doesn't happen in a single anything [day, night, month, year, whatever]).
Remember this? We were discussing the inner workings of the scientific community. Then you dumped a copy/paste about "the impact of solar eruptions on weather and climate" with no commentary as to how you feel this relates to the subject at hand, or explanation as to which subject you were commenting on, and I've asked you to clarify but you refuse. ...oookay...nice talkin' to ya :::wanders off:::
Oh... I'm sorry Flint dear, did you feel left out? For my intermediate message, please read the thread title.
So, 7 billion tons extra to the carbon cycle each year adds up quickly.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 4% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon, so adding up quickly is not really the case. Correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.
It's been a few pages since this question was asked:
So what?
What are we supposed to do about this menace? Stop driving? Stop heating our homes? Stop eating red meat? Where's the evidence that it would do any good, anyway?
I don't have a chart made by some omniscient group of scientists, but the whole issue feels manufactured, like one of those "clinical studies" done by a company that wants to sell beauty products on TV.
I realize that statement reveals what a lowbrow I am. But 99% of us don't care what levels of ADHSF4C9D2 are present in the 8th level of the atmosphere during a full moon. We care whether or not we should put on a coat when we go outside.
The only hard evidence I see is that despite our best efforts, we have failed miserably at destroying the planet. It just keeps doing its thing while we wail about how important and impactful we are.
Oh... I'm sorry Flint dear, did you feel left out?
No, sweetie-pie, I simply asked for clarification of your apparent
non sequitur. [COLOR="gray"][SIZE="1"] "lack of meaning relative to the comment
it follows"[/SIZE][/COLOR]
Correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.
Um...duh. I direct you to my
long-ass post.
We aren't going to prove anything either way until we have enough data to make that proof. Unfortunately, if we prove that global warming is, in fact, caused by man, it will (probably) be too late to do anything about it because we waited too long for proof. I'm in favor of erring on the side on continuing human existence, because, you know,
I like living.
I don't have a chart made by some omniscient group of scientists, but the whole issue feels manufactured, like one of those "clinical studies" done by a company that wants to sell beauty products on TV.
If it were real, how would they handle it differently?
Al Gore would take the proceeds of the movie and use them to buy as many people solar-powered bicycles as he could afford. They believe it enough to make political hay, but not enough to affect their own actions. Someone who yells 'incoming!' yet doesn't duck, is probably just trying to see if you'll jump.
The metaphor store was closed today.
Al Gore would take the proceeds of the movie and use them to buy as many people solar-powered bicycles as he could afford.
With the popularity of SUVs, affordability is not the reason for the lower popularity of fuel efficient vehicles. For the price of an SUV, you could get a hybrid and several bicycles. A bicycle giveaway would be nothing but a stunt if all of the bicycles went straight into the garage and were never used. The money has to be spent wisely. Education is what is needed.
They believe it enough to make political hay, but not enough to affect their own actions. Someone who yells 'incoming!' yet doesn't duck, is probably just trying to see if you'll jump.
Al Gore and the entire Inconvenient Truth movie production/promotion are carbon-neutral. All of Gore's profits go back into the education effort.
What is a
serious example of something Gore would do differently if it were real?
What is a serious example of something Gore would do differently if it were real?
Has he gotten his families money out of Occidental yet?
What are we supposed to do about this menace? Stop driving? Stop heating our homes? Stop eating red meat? Where's the evidence that it would do any good, anyway?
Wow - I thought myopic rationalization died back in the early 1970s when same MBAs were complaining how we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon. They did that because they were - by definition - anti-American. Also called quitters. mrnoodle, you are doing a same extremist and anti-American logic.
You were provided sources for answers. Even my short posts offered some solutions to your questions. Short? Yes. Sound byte posters hope you are as stupid as to, for example, not demand numbers and underlying reasons why. Those with a quitter’s attitude cried, "woe is me, we are doomed, so we should not try". That attitude is my exact definition of anti-American.
Like 1960s air and water pollution, 1980s water toxins, 1990s ozone layer depletion - in each case the 'woe is me' problem was solvable even as the liars among us denied the problem exists - because their anti-Americanism fears change, innovation, and solutions. Each solution created more jobs, more wealth, healthier lives, less energy consumption, less poverty, pdoucts that stopped failing ..... And yet still we have quitters who once said we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon.
Article in September 2006 issue of Scientific American called "A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check" defines a 15 slice pie. Any nation that provides any of maybe five slices will be a wealthy and well employed nation. Those who innovate will be selling the future to others with an MBA (quitters) attitude. Only thing that creates jobs, wealth, stability, and better lives is innovation. Those who deny global warming are same type who also said we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon. They also hyped fears of no more meat, stuffing into tiny boxes, homes without heat, and other lies. All this when, for example, homes were built without insulation. Zero – nada – none. Those who fear had to even proclaim that we could not insulate buildings – because they were that anti-American – and had no science knowledge.
Mankind is contributing adversely to a problem called global warming. Environmental changes are so great that this situation cannot be ignored. Notice how xoxoxoBruce ignores the problem by even denying a simple chart - and posts by never providing numbers. But again, the real questions are not found among those trained to be professional liars such as MBAs, salesmen, lawyers, politicians, communication and English majors, and anyone who sees answers in the words "conservative" and "liberal". The answer is among those whose job means no political agenda. Whose system is structured to find reality despite human nature. The answer is found in a question that only patriotic Americans would be asking: ie how fast and how destructive.
And still we have people lying to all - proclaiming what their peers also did in 1972. They said, using Rush Limbaugh logic, that we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon. Those were and are the classic anti-innovative, anti-Americans.
That's why we have peer review. Bad science will be exposed and dis-credited.
Peer reviewers have their own agendas, hobby horses, and pet theories, and woe be to the researcher who presents solid research that goes against conventional wisdom.
Most of those articles don't see print.
Peer reviewers have their own agendas, hobby horses, and pet theories...
I don't dispute that. However, statistically, the system is designed to root out flawed ideas (eventually).
I just read an interesting bit in Scientific American, in a review of two books which are critical of String Theory, which said that young Physiscists who don't even believe in String Theory, feel pressured to pursue it, because they feel they can get a Professorship that way. Apparently "that's the way the wind blows" by and large in the scientific community, right now. However, the fact that people are writing books expressly to criticize String Theory, and the books are getting press in Scientific American, indicates, to me, that a shift is taking place. In other words, science, the institution in principle, is rising above science, the institution in practice, exactly as it is designed to do.
...woe be to the researcher who presents solid research that goes against conventional wisdom.
I don't dispute that, either. Science, like all human endeavors, can move at a glacial pace.
However, another thing that happens alot is something like an untrained hobbyist claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine in his garage, and then complains that the scientific community won't take him seriously. Usually there are fundamental errors in this type of "research" that a first-year college student could spot from a mile away. (Not to say that the guy might not be right, and the college coursework might be wrong, and this might all come to light, eventually...)
Also, another thing that happens alot is that those who criticize science as having an "agenda"
have an even bigger agenda themselves.
Such as: religious dogmatists attacking evolution, etc. etc. etc.
OK, where were we, helped a friend celebrate her birthday last night and I see it’s been moving here.
Now I started this thread because of that magazine article claiming human contribution to Global warming was very small and had credible evidence to back it up. I couldn’t dispute it, even though it flew in the face of “common knowledge”, I figured you guys would shoot it down right away with something I didn’t know, but on the contrary I found nobody could really shoot it down, just poo-poo it. I also found there is much more disagreement than I thought and that the same numbers look big to some and small to others.
I tried to pin it down to some key points but no answers there either, only generalizations.
Some are entirely skeptical of the whole scenario having heard so many wrong predictions in the past which is probably the media’s fault.
Some buy the problem and are saying, yeah but, what do we do
Some think Global Warming is entirely man made.
I’m sure some think it’s God’s Punishment for queers and abortion.
I think it’s another normal upswing in the natural cycle of the Earth, that man has given a kick so it’s happening faster and probably go higher. But I don’t know if it’s all that bad that it does, and don’t know what if anything we can do about it.
Then there’s tw who reads scientific articles, grabs some buzz words, the starts yelling the sky is falling and it’s all Bush’s fault. Postulating that he, unlike us, is a true patriot and smarter than us because he thinks he’s the only person in the world that knew that Nixon was a crook and there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Tedious at best and I’m getting fed up with the personal attacks on me.
He’s probably got a good point, but posting a graph with no background is bullshit. It’s got to be validated
Being the warm and wonderful guy I am, I’m going to help him out here.
I believe the graph came from a Scientific American Magazine? Since I don’t subscribe and I’m not paying $40 to read it online or go to the library.
I found the source, CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Fort Knox) and OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) organized in 1960.
Every graph I could find refers to an earlier work and the daisy chain leads to Lorius et al. (1985) and amended as cores became available
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or dD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records.
Then this data was peer reviewed and accepted. That means nobody could find anything wrong with the method. The question is, does this Antarctic sample represent the whole earth properly since the Antarctic isn’t where the tracers are developed. Other samples using shorter spans agreed, mostly, but they should because they used his formula for calculation.
From Nature Magazine
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v364/n6434/abs/364218a0.html RECENT results1,2 from two ice cores drilled in central Greenland have revealed large, abrupt climate changes of at least regional extent during the late stages of the last glaciation, suggesting that climate in the North Atlantic region is able to reorganize itself rapidly, perhaps even within a few decades. Here we present a detailed stable-isotope record for the full length of the Greenland Ice-core Project Summit ice core, extending over the past 250 kyr according to a calculated timescale. We find that climate instability was not confined to the last glaciation, but appears also to have been marked during the last interglacial (as explored more fully in a companion paper3) and during the previous Saale-Holstein glacial cycle. This is in contrast with the extreme stability of the Holocene, suggesting that recent climate stability may be the exception rather than the rule. The last interglacial seems to have lasted longer than is implied by the deep-sea SPECMAP record4, in agreement with other land-based observations5,6. We suggest that climate instability in the early part of the last interglacial may have delayed the melting of the Saalean ice sheets in America and Eurasia, perhaps accounting for this discrepancy.
From Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council
Over long time scales, outside the time period in which humans could have a substantive effect on global
climate (e.g., prior to the Industrial Revolution), proxy data (information derived from the content of tree rings, cores from marine sediments, pollens, etc.) have been used to estimate the range of natural climate variability. An important recent addition to the collection of proxy evidence is ice cores obtained by international teams of scientists drilling through miles of ice in Antarctica and at the opposite end of the world in Greenland. The results can be used to make inferences about climate and atmospheric composition extending back as long as 400,000 years. These and other proxy data indicate that the range of natural climate variability is in excess of several degrees C on local and regional space scales over periods as short as a decade. Precipitation has also varied widely. For example, there is evidence to suggest that droughts as severe as the “dust bowl” of the 1930s were much more common in the central United States during the 10th to 14th centuries than they have been in the more recent record.
Temperature variations at local sites have exceeded 10°C (18°F) in association with the repeated glacial advances and retreats that occurred over the course of the past million years. It is more difficult to estimate the natural variability of global mean temperature because large areas of the world are not sampled and because of the large uncertainties inherent in temperatures inferred from proxy evidence. Nonetheless, evidence suggests that global warming rates as large as 2°C (3.6°F) per millennium may have occurred during the retreat of the glaciers following the most recent ice age.
I notice the climate wasn’t all sweetness and light before we came along, it’s been cycling for as long as they can tell, sometimes wildly and sometimes very quickly.
They think they know what temperatures were but that’s because nobody has been able to disprove Lorius’ guess yet. It’s not likely they will soon, first because I doubt that’s a high priority at the moment, and just because it’s almost impossible with no records.
Also the climate was far from uniform but highly regional with periods of deviation in different regions at different times. Deviation that may or maynot be reflected in the 400 kyr graph. :nuts:
btw, I'm amazed how much scientific information is available online that you have to pay to see.
Now we have a graph that show the mean temperature has been swinging up and down for as long as they can speculate. The actual temperatures are questionable because the data come from one place in the Antarctic and are accepted because nobody can disprove them, but we do know the temperature and precipitation wasn't uniform the world over, and the temp precip ratio determines the tracer.
That the co2 sample follows the temperature swings is not a surprise either, nor is it indicative of causation. :headshake
The honesty of the government has been called into question. From the Union of Concerned Scientists;
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/science-of-global-warming.html As Dr. Robert Watson, then Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in 2001,
" The overwhelming majority of scientific experts, whilst recognizing that scientific uncertainties exist, nonetheless believe that human-induced climate change is already occurring and that future change is inevitable."
UCS agrees with the world's leading climate scientists that the Earth's temperature is rising and that its climate has changed over the last century. The scientific consensus is clear that the rise in temperature and change in climate are being caused in part by human activities.
Mainstream media are beginning to reflect this scientific consensus. But after a decade of controversial reporting and public debate, some skepticism lingers in the public at large and is still rampant among industry groups and their proponents who fear adverse economic impacts from taking action on global warming.
While their main tactic now is to dismiss potential solutions to the problem -- in particular the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change -- climate skeptics continue to attack the science in order to undermine an essential and rational basis for cost-effective, sustainable action on this global problem.
But what does it mean to have scientific consensus about a future that is never certain in a world so utterly complex?
"The scientific consensus is clear that the rise in temperature and change in climate are being caused in part by human activities." I didn't think anyone disagreed with that, just wanted to have the effect quantified. How do we act unless we know what things we are doing are causing what?
Now the "government stooges" side.
http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/23.html Modification of the Scientific Text After Completion of the SPM (Summary for Policymakers)
The SPM results from a discussion between the lead authors and government representatives (including also some non-governmental organizations and industry representatives). This discussion, combined with the requirement for consistency, results in some modifications of the text, all of which were carefully documented by the IPCC. This process has resulted in some concern that the scientific basis for the SPM might be altered. To assess this potential problem, the committee solicited written responses from U.S.
coordinating lead authors and lead authors of IPCC chapters, reviewed the WGI draft report and summaries, and interviewed Dr. Daniel Albritton who served as a coordinating lead author for the IPCC WGI Technical Summary. Based on this analysis, the committee finds that no changes were made without the consent of the convening lead authors and that most changes that did occur lacked significant impact. However, some scientists may find fault with some of the technical details, especially if they appear to underestimate uncertainty. The SPM is accompanied by the more representative Technical Summary (TS). The SPM contains cross-references to the full text, which unfortunately is not accessible until a later date, but it
does not cross-reference the accompanying TS.
And at the same link a statement explaining how the IPCC works and sometimes can't get the brightest & best, on board.
The IPCC as Representative of the Science Community
The IPCC process demands a significant time commitment by members of the scientific community. As a result, many climate scientists in the United States and elsewhere choose not to participate at the level of a lead author even after being invited. Some take on less time-consuming roles as contributing authors or reviewers. Others choose not to participate. This may present a potential problem for the future. As the commitment to the assessment process continues to grow, this could create a form of self-selection for the participants. In such a case, the community of world climate scientists may develop cadres with particularly strong feelings about the outcome: some as favorable to the IPCC and its procedures and others negative about the use of the IPCC as a policy instrument. Alternative procedures are needed to ensure that participation in the work of the IPCC does not come at the expense of an individual's scientific career.
In addition, the preparation of the SPM involves both sci-enlists and governmental representatives. Governmental representatives are more likely to be tied to specific government postures with regard to treaties, emission controls, and other policy instruments. If scientific participation in the future becomes less representative and governmental representatives are tied to specific postures, then there is a risk that future IPCC efforts will not be viewed as independent processes.
The United States should promote actions that improve the IPCC process while also ensuring that its strengths are maintained. The most valuable contribution U.S. scientists can make is to continually question basic assumptions and conclusions, promote clear and careful appraisal and presentation of the uncertainties about climate change as well as those areas in which science is leading to robust conclusions, and work toward a significant improvement in the ability to project the future. In the process, we will better define the nature of the problems and ensure that the best possible information is available for policy makers.
So the government wants some of the Summary for Policymakers wording changed. That doesn't sound good.
But the scientists got the approval of the authors and the main document, the actual results, were unchanged. Eh, that's good.
It appears Wolf is right...
Peer reviewers have their own agendas, hobby horses, and pet theories, and woe be to the researcher who presents solid research that goes against conventional wisdom.
I've seen a ton of stories on PBS and in print about scientists starting with Galileo, that paid a heavy price only to be vindicated later. Not all persecution was from religious or secular leaders, but from peers, also.
There seems to be a whole lot of bias, politics and power base building going on...and it's not all from the government.
I'm guessing 99.9% of these scientists are decent people trying to do the right thing, but they have neither the ways nor means to do anything, without some organization to work for them. At the moment it appears to be two choices available;
1- The National Research Council (IPCC) who is compromising a little but has the governments ear.
2- The Union of Concerned Scientists who say they maintain the moral high ground but the policy makers don't listen to.
Of course any organization of people will be comprised of movers/shakers and the rest(read majority) of the members. The personal pride and prejudices of the leaders will have a heavy bearing on any organization.
This Chart showing things that have a heating or cooling effect and how well they are understood, comes from;
http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/13.htmlThat chart shows co2 to add 1.5 watts per square meter. What's that mean? It makes the air a little warmer. From
http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/12.html
CLIMATE FORCINGS IN THE INDUSTRIAL ERA
Figure 1 summarizes climate forcings that have been introduced during the period of industrial development, between 1750 and 2000, as estimated by the IPCC. Some of these forcings, mainly greenhouse gases, are known quite accurately, while others are poorly measured. A range of uncertainty has been estimated for each forcing, represented by an uncertainty bar or “whisker.” However, these estimates are partly subjective, and it is possible that the true forcing falls outside the indicated range in some cases.
TABLE 1 Removal Times and Climate Forcing Values for Specified Atmospheric Gases and Aerosols Up to the year 2000
Forcing Agent - Approximate Removal Times*- Climate Forcing (W/m2)
Greenhouse Gases
Carbon Dioxide.......................................... >100 years ........1.3 to 1.5
Methane.....................................................10 years ......... 0.5 to 0.7
Tropospheric Ozone......................................10–100 days......0.25 to 0.75
Nitrous Oxide ..............................................100 years......... 0.1 to 0.2
Perfluorocarbon Compounds (Including SF6).....>1000 years........0.01
Fine Aerosols
Sulfate ..................................................... 10 days...........–0.3 to –1.0
Black Carbon................................................10 days........... 0.1 to 0.8
*A removal time of 100 years means that much, but not all, of the substance would be gone in 100 years. Typically, the amount remaining at the end of 100 years is 37%; after 200 years 14%; after 300 years 5%; after 400 years 2%
So it's agreed that co2 is the biggest factor when it comes to man adding to warming. And from my first post, anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Dr Lindzen.
1-Man produces less than .01% of the greenhouse effect with what is far and away his largest contribution.
2-Man may have/has probably, pushed the natural swing of the climate along quicker and it may go higher because of that. But we just don't know.
3- Running around trying to put a guilt trip on people is sometimes effective for putting a guilt trip on people, but little more.
4-There are people using Global Warming as a tool to achieve political ends, or coerce people to do what the Chicken Littles think they should do.
According to the following graph, the rest of the world is taking a larger role, too. :cool:
According to the following graph, the rest of the world is taking a larger role, too. :cool:
Bruce, as I told you in my first post in this thread, I do work for a project that uses climate data. The project's whole reason for being, is research into climate change. No one is saying that America is doing the damage all on its own. The whole western world is, and the developing world is starting to increase industrial development (and thus, emissions), at an alarming rate. It does not end there.
You also have to look at the pollution we pour into the world's oceans, and forest destruction (you, yourself have acknowledged this in your posts). As I tried to explain once before, the story is not a simple one. You cannot just pull out selected figures and draw a conclusion. As you have discovered, there is not a great amount of the research (detailed reports), available on the web - especially up to date, current research. What you will find (as you have done, are "press releases" and summaries). Our research is still reported on paper. I am trying to find a web site that does show why man's contribution matters, but it is very difficult to find one that I am satisfied with. I agree with you in part, that some of the research is used for political ends. You have to remember that most climate research is either directly (government departments and agencies), or indirectly paid for by governments (grants to universities). So politics always comes into it.
If I can find a good web site, I will post its address.
Thanks bluesdave, yes, the more I read the less I know for sure.
Watching Nova's show on Supervolcanos last night, they were throwing our numbers like 75k years ago, one went off in the South Pacific. The magma blown out into the air was the equivalent of the water flowing down the Mississippi in two years time. The sulfuric acid cloud killed forests and critters all over and lowered the temperature of the oceans by 10 degrees. And we have two of those suckers in the USA. Damn, that makes our pollution look like a pee hole in a snowbank. :worried:
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a change. Just cuz I feel like it.
Okay, let's say that supervolcanoes ARE worse than human pollution. Why does it matter? All that means is that the planet is more doomed than we thought, because what we don't destroy, nature will. We're in a buggy headed for a cliff with no way to get off or stop, but that's no reason to whip the horses.
Or something. Nah, I still like the other side of the argument.
Let us take a look at the big picture: nature has a homeostasis.
There is a natural carbon cycle, and we are altering it. The only question is: how much?
The next fact we have is: fossil fuels will eventually run out.
The status quo of our infrastructure is guaranteed to have a dead end.
Should we be prepared, or simply let the momentum of big business carry us off the cliff?
Let us combine the things we know, and think about what to do next.
Of course, who do we believe. An author from caranddriver.com who coincidentally says what George Jr - well proven liar - says? Or from those who come from where the work gets done. This from Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences on 21 Jul 2005 before the US Senate (and I recall Rush Limbaugh mocking this man back then):
CURRENT STATE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE:
RECENT STUDIES FROM THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
...
Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. The degree of confidence in this conclusion is higher today than it was 10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainties remain. As stated in the Academies 2001 report, “the changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.” ...
Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for many decades and major parts of the climate system respond slowly to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. The slow response of the climate system to increasing greenhouse gases also means that changes and impacts will continue during the twenty-first century and beyond, even if emissions were to be stabilized or reduced in the near future.
Simulations of future climate change project that, by 2100, global surface temperatures will be from 2.5 to 10.4 F (1.4 to 5.8C) above 1990 levels. Similar projections of temperature increases, based on rough calculations and nascent theory, were made in the Academies first report on climate change published in the late 1970s. Since then, significant advances in our knowledge of the climate system and our ability to model and observe it have yielded consistent estimates. Pinpointing the magnitude of future warming is hindered both by remaining gaps in understanding the science and by the fact that it is difficult to predict society’s future actions, particularly in the areas of population growth, economic growth, and energy use practices. ...
It is important to recognize however, that while future climate change and its impacts are inherently uncertain, they are far from unknown. The combined effects of ice melting and sea water expansion from ocean warming will likely cause the global average sea-level to rise by between 0.1 and 0.9 meters between 1990 and 2100. In colder climates, such warming could bring longer growing seasons and less severe winters. Those in coastal communities, many in developing nations, will experience increased flooding due to sea level rise and are likely to experience more severe storms and surges. In the Arctic regions, where temperatures have risen more than the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are being altered rapidly. ...
The Earth is warming
The most striking evidence of a global warming trend ... show a relatively rapid increase in temperature, particularly over the past 30 years. ... records ... indicate that global mean surface air temperature increased about 0.7F (0.4C) since the early 1970’s. Although the magnitude of warming varies locally, the warming trend is spatially widespread and is consistent with an array of other evidence ...
Laboratory measurements of gases trapped in dated ice cores have shown that for hundreds of thousands of years, changes in temperature have closely tracked with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Burning fossil fuel for energy, industrial processes, and transportation releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now at its highest level in 400,000 years and continues to rise. Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The degree of confidence in this conclusion is higher today than it was 10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainties remain. As stated in the Academies 2001 report, “the changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.”
Cicerone statements demonstrate reality. Mankind is contributing seriously to global warming. The questions that wacko extremists want to halt and distort: "how much and how destructive". Good people would ask such questions. Fools would insist that global warming does not even exist - as a mental midget president even tried to claim in 2001 and 2002.
Those who deny global warming have a political agenda as demonstrated by the pathetically bad rationalization in that caranddriver.com article. An article with such bad logic that a ferocious challenge is required. xoxoxoBruce I make no apologies for accurately defining the integrity of that article by challenging it accordingly - ferociously.
Thanks bluesdave, yes, the more I read the less I know for sure.
Watching Nova's show on Supervolcanos last night, they were throwing our numbers like 75k years ago, one went off in the South Pacific. The magma blown out into the air was the equivalent of the water flowing down the Mississippi in two years time. The sulfuric acid cloud killed forests and critters all over and lowered the temperature of the oceans by 10 degrees. And we have two of those suckers in the USA. Damn, that makes our pollution look like a pee hole in a snowbank. :worried:
Bruce, you are absolutely correct - we don't know it all. No one says that we do. It is what makes science research interesting - we are constantly being surprised (and frustrated too).
There are numerous factors that actually work against global warming, such as huge volcanic eruptions (as you mentioned), dust (a good article in last week's Nature), and reflection (that's where pollutants line the top of clouds and actually reflect some of the Sun's heat), to name just a few. That is why climate scientists talk in terms of "trends". It is impossible to accurately predict what next year's weather will be like, when we can't account for unforeseen events, but we can warn of trends, and likelihood. The trouble is that when climate predictions get it wrong, the anti greenhouse lobby then jump on this, and use it as an excuse to throw out all of the research. Understandably, the public wants straight forward, simple to understand, and accurate information, but climate change is an incredibly complex area of research, and we are still learning. Maybe one day we will have quantum computers that can do the job (use some ESP), but that day is still some time off.
The trouble is that when climate predictions get it wrong, the anti greenhouse lobby then jump on this,
and use it as an excuse to throw out all of the research.
...those who criticize science as having an "agenda" have an even bigger agenda themselves.
Such as: religious dogmatists attacking evolution, etc. etc. etc.
Well, one thing we do know, it's getting warmer and the weather patterns are changing. I know that sounds like two things but I think it's really one....actually part of one.
The things they keep coming up with, the previously unknown relationships in nature are fascinating. But yes, everyone (I'll bet including the scientists) wants to know how far it can/will go. Considering we can't get an accurate weather forecast, a climate forecast is asking a lot.
If we knew that, it would be possible to figure out what it's going to take to cope with the changes. At least a hell of a lot easier to figure out than actually getting it done, anyway.:D
Of course we can't worry about the Supervolcanos because there's nothing much we can do about them. If they erupt, millions, maybe billions, dead. Forget politics, Christmas and athlete's foot.....definately a whole new ball game.
Oh....bluesdave, if you figure it all out....you will give UT an exclusive, won't ya?
I´m surprised the Earth's net reflectivity, or albedo, hasn´t entered this discussion until now.
A 1997 UCLA study showed that Los Angeles is 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the surrounding areas. Because of the traffic causing more CO2 in the air? No, it´s because mostly due to dark roofs and asphalt. Cars and power plants contribute, but only a bit; at high noon, the sun delivers to each square mile the power equivalent of a billion-watt electrical plant.
A mere 0.5 percent change would solve the greenhouse problem completely. Problem is that 70% of Earth is water and that absorbs more light than it reflects.
Oh....bluesdave, if you figure it all out....you will give UT an exclusive, won't ya?
Uh, I wish I could. All communication with the outside world has to go through the public relations bureaucrats in the government. Anyone caught talking to the public directly, is chopped! :yeldead:
Hippikos:
A mere 0.5 percent change would solve the greenhouse problem completely. Problem is that 70% of Earth is water and that absorbs more light than it reflects.
As I have told Bruce, it's not that simple. We have learnt a lot since 1997. Also, don't forget that clouds cover part of the oceans too, but you are generally correct. Water makes up a huge percentage of the Earth's surface. The biggest problem with the oceans are the changes to the oceans' currents. Those changes directly affect precipitation over land (eg. the El Niño - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon). Another problem is the destruction of algae in the ocean, which we now suspect take out as much carbon from the atmosphere as all the plants on land combined.
I´m surprised the Earth's net reflectivity, or albedo, hasn´t entered this discussion until now.~snip
One of the things that surprised me about albedo, is that cutting down forests where there is snowfall, creates a more reflective surface and a cooling effect. I'd always assumed cutting forests always leads to a worse condition.
Of course there are a whole slew of effects from deforestation, (mostly bad), but this is one of the little quirks that comes up to show how complicated the science is. :smack:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesdave
The trouble is that when climate predictions get it wrong, the anti greenhouse lobby then jump on this,
and use it as an excuse to throw out all of the research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint
...those who criticize science as having an "agenda" have an even bigger agenda themselves.
Such as: religious dogmatists attacking evolution, etc. etc. etc.
How did I know there was an attack on religion coming. Hey, maybe I'm a prophet. :right:
But you're not quite at the level of scientist. That is the purest form of human, and is above reproach in all things. Prophet's pretty good though. You should still be able to get into the popular kids' parties.
In order to for "science" to have a "bias" it would require a monolithic agreement among 100% of all scientists, to "pretend" to have proven something and "fool" the rest of us. That's a laughable premise. Occam's Razor...
[SIZE="2"]The dreaded Liberal Media Conspiracy has wrapped its insidious tentacles around science itself![/SIZE]
...those who criticize science as having an "agenda" have an even bigger agenda themselves. Such as: religious dogmatists attacking evolution, etc. etc. etc.
How did I know there was an attack on religion coming.
It's not an "attack" - it's pertinent to my point, IE highly publicized criticisms of science, in our society today, which have a transparent agenda.
Of course, who do we believe. An author from caranddriver.com who coincidentally says what George Jr - well proven liar - says? Or from those who come from where the work gets done. This from Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences on 21 Jul 2005 before the US Senate (and I recall Rush Limbaugh mocking this man back then):
Cicerone statements demonstrate reality. Mankind is contributing seriously to global warming. The questions that wacko extremists want to halt and distort: "how much and how destructive". Good people would ask such questions. Fools would insist that global warming does not even exist - as a mental midget president even tried to claim in 2001 and 2002.
Those who deny global warming have a political agenda as demonstrated by the pathetically bad rationalization in that caranddriver.com article. An article with such bad logic that a ferocious challenge is required. xoxoxoBruce I make no apologies for accurately defining the integrity of that article by challenging it accordingly - ferociously.
Show where anyone posting in this entire thread...or even anyone quoted or linked by a poster......said Global Warming does not exist.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Can't find it? Well how about, show me where somebody claimed human activity has no effect on the climate, no contribution to Global Warming.
Take your time, I'll just paint my house, inside and out, while I wait.
No, huh? OK, an easy one. Show me where you disproved the numbers in my first post. Yeah numbers.....go ahead, disprove the numbers.
Interpretation of how significant very small numbers are, can be discussed ad infinitum, but neither you, nor I, have the background to really say for sure and as the myriad of input from all those scientists shows, mere logical thinking won't do it either, because they are being surprised by their Mother Nature, constantly.
As for your, "accurately defining the integrity of that article by challenging it accordingly - ferociously", that's bullshit, toothless ferociousness. Logical people don't challenge the validity by saying George Bush, (noted liar), agrees so it must be a lie, or claiming the author has no credentials when he cites expert testimony. Want to discredit? Disprove the numbers.
You keep preaching (9 out of 10 scientists agree) the sky is falling, but since I'm not as smart as you, I'll just keep asking questions.
Now, back in the 50's/60's internal combustion engines(primarily vehicles) were spewing a shitload of crap into the air. Over the subsequent 40 years, technology has reduced the nasty crap by something like 99%. Even though there's a lot more engines, the crap emitted is way down. That leaves co2 as the major pollutant, major greenhouse gas, from engines.
CO2 along with cement production seem to be our largest contributions at the moment. Since these human contributions appear to be a small percentage of the big picture, at most fueling the increase in
speed of Global Warming, it seems to me it would take a major change in lifestyle to have even a tiny effect.
Plus a major change in the lifestyle of the west might only offset the rapid increase in the east. You can bet China, and it's neighbors, will be a major contributors in the future.
There is a PDF from Technology Review, showing a graph of temperature, co2 and sea levels, for the last 400k years.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articlefiles/climatechart.pdf
NASA planetary scientist Jim Hansen says that if we continue to increase greenhouse-gas emissions, temperatures will rise between 2 and 3 ºC this century, making Earth as warm as it was three million years ago, when seas were between 15 and 35 meters higher than they are today.
That's interesting because all the articles/statements I've seen in the past, say sea levels will rise about 0.9 meters. 15 to 35 meters is mucho more lot biggerish than 0.9,....aw, call it 1 meter. I wonder where this ambiguity comes from? How does he know what the temperature was 3 million years ago? Is Hansen disconnected from the scientific community? Wasn't it Hansen that started, or at least one of the first involved with, this whole Global Warming debate?
One more thing....are we there yet?:D
Somebody commented on climate researchers having an agenda, and I pointed out that those who want to discredit climate research may have an even bigger agenda, IE business interests which benefit by maintaining the status quo. By way of example, the same way that some creationists hope to maintain their own status quo, IE strict Biblical interpretation, and subsequently attempt to discredit evolution research by exaggerating the disagreements among some researchers, or by focusing on the things that are not yet fully understood. Sound familiar?
Let me spell it out for you: my comment was that there appears to be a parallel, in methods, among those who attempt to discredit a branch of science which threatens their particular status quo. I felt this was worthy of comment, in this thread. If you feel this is unworthy of comment, then don't comment on it. Just move on and keep your childish jabs to yourself.
Why don't you keep your childish anti-religion agenda to yourself.
Is it because it so consumes you, it's impossible to consider any situation/problem without it affecting your position, I don't know. :confused:
I find your diatribes against me to be as unseemly as they are unsubstatiated.
Resorting to personal insults and "mind-reading" is bad form, in any setting. :2cents:
In that case I apologize from the bottom
You didn't do anything Bruce.
I watched the Nova show on Super Volcanos again and picked up on something new. They were talking about extrapolating temperatures from the oxygen-18 in the ice cores that I referred to earlier in the thread. They said not once but several times, the temperatures were not of the air, but the oceans. 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. :confused:
Somebody commented on climate researchers having an agenda, and I pointed out that those who want to discredit climate research may have an even bigger agenda, IE business interests which benefit by maintaining the status quo.
There was no discredit, there's only a different opinion. Those who are skeptic about man's influence on climate change are usually the ones who get discredited, especially by those wo have a political agenda.
Having said this, it does
not exclude that I'm fully aware of the limitation of the Earth Resources.
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.
That's what I said 5 pages ago:
There's another thing, air temperature varies much more than water or ground temperature. I've never seen statistics with these parameters?
Lies, damned lies and statistics...
...I apologize from the bottom
Hmmmmmm...is that like Homer presenting his rebuttal?
That's what I said 5 pages ago:
Lies, damned lies and statistics...
I wouldn't go that far, but I'd like to know whether that 420,000 year graph was actually indicating ocean temperature rather than air. It may be, they think they can extrapolate both from the ice cores and did so for different projects. :bonk:
I wouldn't go that far, but I'd like to know whether that 420,000 year graph was actually indicating ocean temperature rather than air. It may be, they think they can extrapolate both from the ice cores and did so for different projects. :bonk:
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
If you want to satisfy your engineering need for complicated equations, have a look at
this page. It discusses ocean currents in the Pacific.
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).
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.
What Uni are you associated with Dave? What's your field of study? Just curiousity here. A lot of what you've said correlates with what my husband keeps telling me. He's with UQ.
For those who don't first learn facts before knowing why, your executive summary is the last paragraph.
Quoting one who says global warming problem does not exist:
The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse.
You gave credence to a clearly distorted and naive editorial. But then you quoted another:
On neither ground – independent justification or climatic relevance – is Kyoto appropriate.
xoxoxoBruce quotes naysayers who disagree with a large and growing majority. Why ignore those from responsible science?
In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout.
Lindzen promotes ideas not supported by facts. You quoted someone from the Cato Institute and then insist he is not political? A word is credibility.
You quote Lindzen's congressional testimony whose former co-authors will no longer collaborate with him and who even took him to task, point by point, in the WSJ. You completely ignore congressional testimony from responsible scientists independent of political organizations?
Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences on 21 Jul 2005 before the US Senate
You call selective sampling credible? It's called a political agenda.
xoxoxoBruce - your author conceded that CO2 increases will double to levels never seen in earth’s history. Then he denies this is a problem. He says, a warmer earth then radiates more heat; therefore does not get warmer. You accept this nonsense? His own peers don’t. CO2 levels can quadruple and everything will be fine? This is your expert? Yes, xoxoxoBruce, you cite political type from the Cato Institute as an expert. Even his own co-authors publicly dispute his new agenda.
Your own citation - Lindzen - even tried to claim that money for dissident science - science that George Jr promotes - is drying up. Anyone with trivial knowledge knows that is a lie. George Jr – who perverts science for a political agenda – would deny money to those who promote his agenda? Of course not. But then you cited this Cato Institute ‘scientist’ as the only expert. Again, credibility and honesty is not in your first posts.
When asked where you got numbers, you said,
From Dr Linzen's Senate testimony;
That's it. You cite someone from a right wing political organization as science proof? Why do you ignore reams of congressional testimony from those who come from science – not a political organization? Such as
Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences on 21 Jul 2005 before the US Senate and others.
xoxoxoBruce - you openly derided whether global warming would create more methane releases. Why? You doubted. That’s it? Doubt without first collecting facts is sufficient for logic? Where is prerequisite science – what one grasps before doubting? Did you notice why I accurately doubted Saddam’s WMDs long before an invasion? Did you learn why George Jr’s claims of a Saddam / bin Laden conspiracy were obvious myths in September 2001? Did I just wildly speculate that the administration was hindering 10th Mountain in Afghanistan - and therefore why we did not get Osama bin Laden? I first learned facts. Your citations were mostly political agendas hyped as if science. - without first learning facts. Even your Nature citation was nothing more than a letter. Where is the peer review of a letter? Again, credibility.
You immediately doubt that temperature increases also increase methane.
Post #49 Your assumptions about methane says everything about where your doubts of global warming come from. Why do you doubt without first learning facts? Why do you doubt only because of White House propaganda – especially when this president – an MBA - is one of the world’s most prolific liars? When do you question irrelevant and clearly speculative numbers in a caranddriver.com editorial? Questioned was not that editorial. Questioned was why you cite a political statement as science? Questioned is why you have opinions and could not even spend $40 for the Scientific American issue. Questioned is why you have so many conclusions and yet would not even sit in a library long enough to read only one science publication. My post challenged (and without any insult) – credibility.
.
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 told you what was wrong with the numbers. Its credibility. Numbers you posted don’t come from science, are taken out of context, or make claims not previously heard – at least in science. Years ago, I posted a highly regarded chart – which you eventually acknowledged. Meanwhile you posted contrary to a chart that was provided days previously. After promoting myths contrary to that chart, you finally conceded to those numbers:
OK, show me the chart, bullshit artist. I don't see any chart,
You ignored facts because short posts were too long to read? You ignored real world numbers but posted nonsense from caranddriver.com ? Then post an insult (bullshit artist) only because you did not first learn facts? Remember that chart of 2 Oct 2006 at 1603 hrs? More denial:
TW, you were wrong on Oct 2nd at 1603 hours and you still are. You link to a chart with nothing to back it up. Cherry picking an unsubstantiated chart,
Even Lindzen of the Cato Institute does not deny numbers in that chart. Numbers that show something happening in the past 100 years that has never before happened on earth. Eventually, even Bruce acknowledged the Vostok chart has long been a basis for scientific discussion. But how long did it take to get him to accept reality? Again, so many posts (including the ‘bullshit artist’ insult) rather than first learning even numbers on that Vostok chart.
xoxoxoBruce quickly cited Lindzen as credible. But the Vostok chart? Six days and 61 posts later … xoxoxoBruce finally acknowledged data from a 1980s Vostok chart. Meanwhile Lindzen credibility even among his own peers is what? Cato Institute.
What I glean from all of this is that the planet is pretty much doing the same thing it's always done,
Again, a statement not possible if using data of 20 years ago and when we add data to what xoxoxoBruce’s chart does not show. Current CO2 levels go well off that chart – CO2 is rising that fast and is that far above any previous numbers. Temperature changes rose a massive 0.8 degrees in 100 years; 0.4 degress in 30 years; and the curve is rising faster – as CO2 numbers predict. Increases that took tens of thousands of years suddenly increase in only 100? How does mrnoodle say, “planet is pretty much doing the same thing it's always done,”. Only a mental midget president – who would go to CA for money as a Category 5 hurricane kills in New Orleans – would also make that statement. Make claims and never read the PDBs - or numbers in a chart. One would have to be George Jr stupid to believe nothing has changed. Even Lindzen from the Cato Institute admits to massive changes only in the past 100 years.
From 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.
Is that from Scientific American a political agenda? Obviously not. Demonstrated is where xoxoxoBruce’s doubts come from. From political sources masking as science, from an editorial that makes little science sense, by ignoring mainstream facts, by repeatedly denying the Vostok chart (even insulting the messager), and by not even spending $40 to get one issue of Scientific American dedicated entirely to the topic.
Mankind is clearly contributing to a major global warming problem. That is not disputed – except by wacko politicians such as scumbag president’s lawyers. Only question is “how much and how destructive”. Having so successfully made this personal by posting insults (bullshit artist) rather than facts, xoxoxoBruce did just what an anti-American president wants everyone to do. A mental midget needs us all to pervert science for his political agendas. Science has long since moved on to ask “how much and how destructive”. This thread demonstrates why so many in The Cellar believed a lying president’s WMD myths and that Saddam was complicit in 11 September. Too many don't demand the irrefutible fact before jumping to conclusions. xoxoxoBruce has just done that - even assuming a political figure from the Cato Institute would be honest.
It’s called knowing only because Rush Limbaugh, et al said so. That is why Americans are dying in mass numbers, now, in a country declared "Mission Accomplished". Science first demands the numbers and learning the whys – what Limbaugh types fear – such as data from the Vostok chart posted 2 Oct 2006 at 1603 hours. That date and time in this thread demonstrates how long some will deny facts and numbers to believe political myths – six days and 61 posts.
This is where the connection to man comes in. It ties in with the Industrial Revolution.
This corrolation is unproven*. The fact that it started at the same time doesn't mean it was caused by the industrial revolution. How can you explain the sudden drop in temperature between the 40's and 70's (scientists predicteda new ice age those days, remember?) when Industrial Activity was a zillion times higher than a century before?
(*another corrolation: 70% of school killers use chewing gum, therefore it's proven that chewing gum causes school killings...)
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.
It's another natural phenomenon.
PS: The only evidence for a role of Carbon dioxide in climate was the hockeystick theory,
which has been declared dead by now.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?
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:
...why err on the side of extinction?
Because, as long as it doesn't happen in
our lifetimes, it's not
our problem.
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.:o
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. :D
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. :lol: Just that we're grateful.
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?:unsure:
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.
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... :right:
PS This
article might undermine your thesis...
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...:right:
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.
Yeah, I'd also read it's importance was as a UV-C filter.:cool:
It's the reason we don't even bother mentioning UV-C on our sunblock.
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.
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?
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 :zzz:
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?
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.
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/Education/Ozone/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.
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.
Thank you. :D
tw, your a lying motherfucker, saying I said things I never said, stating positions I never took, and putting me in groups I don't agree with.
It's obvious you don't know jack shit and are just mimicking the sky is falling predictions from your precious magazines. This has nothing to do with Bush, Bin Laden, Iraq, Viet Nam, North Korea or Rush Limbaugh.
I posted Lindzen's speech because he was cited in the original article. I never said I agreed with him or the original article, only that I couldn't find the flaw.
I tried learned the facts and posted them, whereas all you've got is a graph that doesn't show a god damn thing significant and the testimony before Congress of a politician. Yeah, a former scientist turned politician, that's what the President, National Academy of Sciences, is. You would know that if you had read the statement by the IPCC, on time consumption of reports. Do you really think being President on the NAS and UC Dept. Chairman, plus coordinating scientists and politicians, leaves any time for research?
The IPCC process demands a significant time commitment by members of the scientific community.
As a result, many climate scientists in the United States and elsewhere choose not to participate at the level of a lead author even after being invited. Some take on less time-consuming roles as contributing authors or
reviewers. Others choose not to participate. This may present a potential problem for the future. As the commitment to the assessment process continues to grow, this could create a form of self-selection for the
participants. In such a case, the community of world climate scientists may develop cadres with particularly strong feelings about the outcome: some as favorable to the IPCC and its procedures and others negative about the use of the IPCC as a policy instrument. Alternative procedures are needed to ensure that participation in the work of the IPCC does not come at the expense of an individual's scientific career.
If you don't have anything to contribute besides the sky is falling, don't bother with the bullshit rhetoric. :eyebrow:
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/Education/Ozone/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.
You should try to get George Dobson’s great book, published in 1968 by Oxford University Press, “Exploring the Atmosphere”, and red Chapter 6, where you will find a beautiful graph: Figure 6.2 ANNUAL VARIATION OF TOTAL OZONE FOR EACH 10 DEGREES OF LATITUDE where is clearly shown the “normal” average ozone levels during different months, and different latitudes. This graph is for the northern hemisphere, but the ozone levels vary with the seasons, and we can see that ozone levels are quite low in winter and spring and recover during summer and fall (as in the southern hemisphere). The depletionists try to ignore this historic fact: Dobson and the French were the ones who discovered the “hole” back in 1957, and this show that the hole has a natural (dynamic) cause, and has nothing to do with chemistry.
Ciesin claims:
"Special attention is devoted to the evidence that most of the chlorine comes from the photolysis of CFC's and related compounds." Which of course is a blatant untruth. As I said above the Earth produces 100,000 times more chlorine.
From the Ciesin site:
"Catalytic destruction of O3 ”Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) themselves are not involved in the catalytic process; upon reaching the stratosphere, they are subject to higher levels of ultraviolet radiation that decompose the CFC and release atomic chlorine." As written above, CFCs to be decomposed by UV rays, they must reach altitudes higher than 40 km, where the energetic UV-C photons have the energy required for “splitting” CFCs molecules. And no CFCs have been found at such altitudes.
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Educat...one/ozone.html claims:
"The decrease of stratospheric ozone was first reported in 1974 and the decrease was quickly linked to the increasing presence of a class of manmade compounds called CFC's or Chlorofluorocarbons." This is also untrue, the "ozonhole"was already discovered in the 50's by Dobson, see above.
This is just a start. How can we know for sure that the rest is also blatantly untrue? The only holes people like former presidents of the National Academy of Science Dr. Frederick Seitz, or respected atmospheric scientists as Dr. Fred Singer, or Richard Lindsay, or Dr. Michaels, or late French vulcanologist Dr. Haroum Tazieff can find are the holes in the "Ozone Scare"...
Chlorine atoms can ONLY react with ozone on the hard ice crystals in the surface of the SPC (stratosphere polar clouds) in Antarctica. As SPC forms ONLY in Antarctica during the winter and spring (they do not form over the Arctic, because the Arctic’s stratosphere is not cold enough), the logical conclusion is that chlorine do not react with the ozone layer in the rest of the world. That’s a fact. But recognizing this fact would show the ozone depletion theory is a fake, and would deprive scientists milking the “ozone scare cow” of the so much needed money to survive.
I thought the argument was not that CFCs caused the hole, or it's seasonal fluctuation, over the Antarctic, but the extent of the fluctuation. And the seasonal maximum of the hole size (area of complete depletion) being much larger, indicated a general reduction of ozone overall, at high altitudes?
The hole itself wouldn't have many people directly under it.....even fewer sunbathing. But if it's an indicator of an overall reduction, then we'd all be subject to more exposure.
That said, I would think it would be fairly easy to measure the level of UV (A,B,C) reaching us everywhere else. :confused:
I thought the argument was not that CFCs caused the hole, or it's seasonal fluctuation
It was in most of the links.
There has not been the slightest abnormal increase of UV-B radiation on Earth, as most UV monitoring stations around the world prove it. The US has closed its network of UV monitoring stations when back in the late 80s and early 90s when Dr. Joseph Scotto, of the Biostatistic branch of the National Cancer Institute published his study in Science telling about a decrease of 7% UV-B radiation in the USA between 1974-1985. (Scotto J. et al., “Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation: Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974-1985, Science, Feb. 12,1988).
I made sure when I posted those links that I hi lighted the page that discusses both sides of the argument. The bulk of scientific evidence supports CFC's role in ozone depletion - that is why so many sites mention them. I have a background in chemistry, but no direct experience in CFCs and ozone depletion. Just like all of you I have to read the articles and reach an opinion. I admit that I was originally sceptical, but when so many people have backed the theory with experimental evidence (note: I am not saying that this *is* proof), then I must accept what they say. I do not have the resources to do the experiments myself.
Here is an Aussie site that also explains OD very well.
Note that the CSIRO started measuring ozone levels in 1956, but the hole as such was not discovered until the 1970s. Dobson's work is well recognised, and appreciated, but research has continued, and new light has been shed on the topic.
Science does not stand still. New evidence appears constantly, and opinions change. Hippikos, you are entitled to hold onto your opinion, and you have obviously gone out of your way to do your own reading on the topic. Even though we disagree, I tip my hat to you for showing an interest.
Sorry Bruce, I should say the same to you. Please don't feel left out! :D
Here is another site that seems to cover OD very well. I don't have time to go through the site properly though.
Science does not stand still. New evidence appears constantly, and opinions change. Hippikos, you are entitled to hold onto your opinion, and you have obviously gone out of your way to do your own reading on the topic. Even though we disagree, I tip my hat to you for showing an interest.
Respect is mutual bluesdave. Fact is that I never see Earth´s own production of chlorine (100,000 times more) coming into the equation by the depletionists, neither the fact that CFC´s are 4,5 heavier than air, so how can they show up 40-50 km up in the air?
There´s no such thing as a "hole", just a mere decrease in ozone levels at some altitude over the South Pole. Some years it is bigger and other years is much smaller, following the sun's activity, or the QBO direction.
Note that the CSIRO started measuring ozone levels in 1956, but the hole as such was not discovered until the 1970s. Dobson's work is well recognised, and appreciated, but research has continued, and new light has been shed on the topic.
NOAA states that the ozone hole was discovered in the 80´s, so take your pick.
Science does not stand still. New evidence appears constantly,
I´m interested to learn these. CFC and PCB´s are banned for decades, still ozone holes occur, exclusively over the Antarctic.
NOAA states that the ozone hole was discovered in the 80´s, so take your pick.I´m interested to learn these. CFC and PCB´s are banned for decades, still ozone holes occur, exclusively over the Antarctic.
I stand corrected. The decrease in ozone levels was being hilighted through the 70s and the "hole" actually discovered in the early 80s. It will take at least 50 years for the lost ozone to be replaced, and that is assuming that the developing world does not spew out CFCs and halons.
Here is a quote explaining how the hole occurs:
[SIZE="5"]
Why does the ozone hole occur over Antarctica?[/SIZE]
Human emissions of CFCs occur mainly in the Northern Hemisphere. Gases such as CFCs which are insoluble in water and relatively unreactive are mixed within a year or two throughout the lower 10 kilometres of the atmosphere (the troposphere). The CFCs then rise from the lower atmosphere into the stratosphere, mainly in the tropics. Winds then move this air poleward - both North and South - from the tropics. The meteorologies of the two polar regions are very different. The South Pole is part of a very large land mass that is completely surrounded by ocean. These conditions produce a very cold stratosphere which leads to the formation of clouds. The clouds that form lead to chemical changes that promote rapid ozone depletion. The North Pole lacks the land/ocean symmetry of the South Pole. As a consequence the stratospheric air is much warmer and fewer clouds form. Therefore the ozone depletion in the Arctic is very much less than in the Antarctic.Coincidently,
Goddard has just released a report that the ozone hole has just reached its largest area, and depth!
Sorry Bruce, I should say the same to you. Please don't feel left out! :D
What?...you haven't heard? I'm just a hand puppet of the Bush administration and a capitalist tool. :lol2:
snip~
There´s no such thing as a "hole", just a mere decrease in ozone levels at some altitude over the South Pole.
From Dave's "Goddard" link;
Scientists from NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., use balloon-borne instruments to measure ozone directly over the South Pole. By Oct. 9, the total column ozone had plunged to 93 DU from approximately 300 DU in mid-July. More importantly, nearly all of the ozone in the layer between eight and 13 miles above the Earth's surface had been destroyed. In this critical layer, the instrument measured a record low of only 1.2 DU., having rapidly plunged from an average non-hole reading of 125 DU in July and August.
That would seem to agree that the "hole" is a thinning, rather than an absence, we would normally associate with "hole". I suspect the use of the word "hole", was a media concoction.
I´m interested to learn these. CFC and PCB´s are banned for decades, still ozone holes occur, exclusively over the Antarctic.
From Dave's "this link";
CFC's take up to 15 years to reach the stratosphere but can stay in the atmospere from 50-200 years. This means that the relatively small depletions in ozone seen now will get much larger as CFC's that have already been released accumulate in the stratosphere.
Chlorine atoms can ONLY react with ozone on the hard ice crystals in the surface of the SPC (stratosphere polar clouds) in Antarctica. As SPC forms ONLY in Antarctica during the winter and spring (they do not form over the Arctic, because the Arctic’s stratosphere is not cold enough), the logical conclusion is that chlorine do not react with the ozone layer in the rest of the world. That’s a fact. But recognizing this fact would show the ozone depletion theory is a fake, and would deprive scientists milking the “ozone scare cow” of the so much needed money to survive.
Wouldn't that be like a swimming pool filter cleaning the water and dumping it in one spot? Eventually the water gets circulated throughout the pool and it all gets cleaner.
So just because the ozone is only being destroyed over the Antarctic, it's still depleting the total we have, unless it's being produced fast enough to make up for that loss, elsewhere.
Thanks to both Youze Guys for the insightful input.....and Dave, thank your boss for us. :thumb2:
I just read most of this thread and found it very interesting - any updates on the statistics... anyone?
It was 77 in Savannah today. Thank God for global warming.