PDA

View Full Version : OT/ What happened to "Global Warming"?



Pages : [1] 2

torker
06-07-2008, 10:22 AM
Yeesh! June 7th.. still pumping wood into the woodstoves. It feels like it wants to snow outside right now.
I really can't remember such a long winter or a colder spring.
Is it just me?

topct
06-07-2008, 10:59 AM
Same thing down here.

Lew Hartswick
06-07-2008, 11:06 AM
It's been a tad warm down here (low to mid 90s) . But is DRY heat.
:-)
...lew...

mochinist
06-07-2008, 11:10 AM
I really can't remember such a long winter or a colder spring.
Is it just me?I just notified the UN and a few science based organizations of your findings, global warming talk should be a thing of the past pretty soon, all because of you.

GadgetBuilder
06-07-2008, 11:41 AM
It's not just you, HADCRU admits the global temperature has dropped too, much as they believe in global warming: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/

Here's a competing viewpoint to global warming where the thought is the sun might have some influence: http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=130

Watching solar cycle developments makes watching grass grow seem exciting but the info is here: http://www.solarcycle24.com/

"The Black Swan" by Taleb says ignore forecasts (he's referring to the market but I think it applies here too) and forecasters. Mother nature certainly doesn't pay attention to their forecasts, no matter how loudly they insist that they're correct nor what tortured statistics they use to "prove" their point.

Stay tuned for Mother Nature's verdict, it should be obvious to even us untrained observers within a couple years.

I don't expect either the global warmers or the sun spot people to ever admit they're wrong. Already we're hearing the argument that the sudden drop in global temperature is "an anomaly", a fortuitous happening which gives us more time to handle the CO2 crisis -- warming will continue after a brief respite...

John

torker
06-07-2008, 11:52 AM
mo.. thanks for givin the UN a heads up :D
All the talk about C02... makes me wonder about the days before fire fighting.
We had a colossal fire here in 1985. It burned through a part of one mountain range, skipped across the Columbia valley and burned over a huge tract of the next mountain range. Destruction as far as you could see.
The smoke and ash covered the valleys for weeks.
The old timers said it was nothing compared to the fires in the old days. They went pretty much out of control, burning millions of acres of large trees.
Talk about harmfull emissions?

Milacron of PM
06-07-2008, 11:56 AM
I sometimes wonder if global warming due to increased CO2 buildup won't be essentially neutralized by global dimming due to increased particulates in the atmosphere ! Fight pollution with pollution I say ! ;)

doctor demo
06-07-2008, 01:11 PM
I think we have been seeing global warming since the end of the last ice age,maybe we are starting to head into another ice age. What we should do is keep a close eye on temps for the next million years and then compare notes to be sure.:D .
Steve

Davek0974
06-07-2008, 02:47 PM
I'd be happy if it just stopped raining!

Dave

Dawai
06-07-2008, 02:47 PM
100 here, now.. on the porch.
I went to save the picture of the thermometer and it won't upload to the computer.. I love computers somedays. I can remember jumping up and down on a $600 printer one day.. ever seen what a 300lb man loaded with adrenalin can do to plastic and rollers? Plastic Crap was stuck in the walls next to it.

Last night, the power supply in my new dual core (surveillance) machine died. today? the old 98SE P4 machine foo-barred.(bad sectors on the 12 year old drive) now gutted the "extra here" got parts and the wife's gamer linux box is here on the LCD so I can read it.. Just got the flashplayer in it working again.

Time for a tranqulizer and a hour off..

lwbates
06-07-2008, 02:53 PM
I too am still waiting for the warmth. I've been hyperventelating for 2 years now to produce more co2, but the warm front hasn't got here yet. When it does though, I'll be in the berries. About the time that southern California becomes uninhabitable, my property in northern Oregon should be worth a mint. Still waiting, but it's getting a little dizzy out.
lwbates

Carld
06-07-2008, 02:53 PM
Local Global Warming just got to Ky and it's in the 90's now. Probably stay that way untill the Global Cooling about November. Then we'll have Global winter for a few months, then Global Sudo Spring, then Global Summer Warming.

I hate Global Winters.

It seems to happen every year.

doctor demo
06-07-2008, 03:11 PM
I'd be happy if it just stopped raining!

Dave
Dave , The Govenor just declared a drought here in California.:( It sure is a good thing I drink whisky :D .
1. Fuel is for racing
2. Gasoline is for washing parts
3. Alky is for drinking
4. Water is for dust controll
Guess I'll be drinking dusty whisky
Steve

Evan
06-07-2008, 03:30 PM
The primary effect of global warming isn't hotter temperatures. It is higher AVERAGE temperatures and most of that increase is in the minimum temperatures, not the maximums.

What that means is the highs may be lower due to increased cloud cover but the lows at night are even higher for the same reason. That is exactly what we have been seeing here in BC. It just doesn't get as cold as it used to get, especially at night in winter. Instead of -40 or -30 the coldest we see these last dozen years or more is maybe -20 and even that for only short periods. It's the main reason we have a plague of bark beetles. It hasn't gotten cold enough in the last 15 years to kill them like it used to do.

Mcgyver
06-07-2008, 04:10 PM
i was in Hermosillo Mexico earlier in the week where a new record temp for that day was set, 46C/114F. Where we were the thermometer read 50C or 122F and something higher than that when you got in a car that was parked in the sun. Ouch. Global warming seems to be alive and well in the Mexican desert, beer was only cure.

Astronowanabe
06-07-2008, 08:59 PM
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/

Personally, I *think* climate change is currently accelerating as a result of human influence but like the author of the article in the link, I am not a climate scientist. I do however understand enough math to know NASA (my heroes) should be called to task for publishing unbalanced or exaggerated studies.

and yes. I live in the Pacific Northwest and this it the first year I can recall running the pellet stove in June.

wierdscience
06-07-2008, 09:14 PM
Man made global warming?Complete nonsense.

dp
06-07-2008, 09:16 PM
Just had lunch with a pellet stove salesman friend from Vancouver, WA and he says business has been good. If solar cycle 24 doesn't get started soon, business could get better.

Evan
06-07-2008, 09:37 PM
Man made global warming?Complete nonsense.

Six billion plus people and cows farting every day must be making some difference.

dp
06-07-2008, 09:49 PM
Six billion plus people and cows farting every day must be making some difference.

I wonder what things were like a coupl'a three hundred years ago or so when millions of bison, deer, elk, muskox, carabou, antelope, and termites were doing all that, entirely unregulated. Perhaps that is what ended the last mini-ice age? :rolleyes:

Rich Carlstedt
06-07-2008, 09:56 PM
The sun, the Sun, The Sun

Seems as they are not teaching folks these days that our heat comes from the Sun
The greenies give it no credence.
The temperature on Mars has increased .5 deg C in the past 30 years
But that of course has no relevance for those with agenda's or suedo-science accredidation (sic)

California WAS A DESERT Before the Terminator moved there
Another example of "educated Stupidity"
using GW logic, it became more Hospitable when the Earth Warmed up !
ANd now the SUV's are destroying it...
I hope these guys never learn to run machine Tools...they might hurt themselves.
Rich

The ultimate is of course 'acid rain"
Do you remember that ?
Thats when we had Sulfur Dioxide in the air and everone blamed lung Cancer on it instead of cigerettes.
Well we got rid of it,stopped burning coal and put catalytic convertors on cars and we don't hear about acid rain anymore..
Now one of the "brilliant geo-green scientists" said we should
put Sulfur Dioxide in the air to reflect the sunlight and cool the planet.

well Duhh !
Could it be that removing SO2 has caused GW..
Racheal Carson, roll in your grave !

wierdscience
06-07-2008, 09:58 PM
Six billion plus people and cows farting every day must be making some difference.

I pissed in the ocean once,did that make some difference?We contribute 8% last I heard of the .054% of the atmosphere that is co2.

The real story is water vapor.

lazlo
06-07-2008, 10:12 PM
The temperature on Mars has increased .5 deg C in the past 30 years But that of course has no relevance for those with agenda's or suedo-science accredidation (sic)

Rich, the Mars temperature increase is a fallacy perpetuated by wingers to add FUD to the Global Warming debate here on earth.

Here's an explanation of the Mars Global Surveyor data by Steinn Sigurdsson, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State University

Global warming on Mars?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Guest contribution by Steinn Sigurdsson.

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars. These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars. But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.

...

Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth…

deltaenterprizes
06-07-2008, 10:20 PM
According to a program I saw on The History Channel,there was"global warming" 10,000 yrs ago with no SUVs burning fossil fuel!
This reminds me of Bing Crosby in "A Conn. Yankee in King Arthur's Court" when he is going to make the sun go dark right before an eclipse in a challenge to Merlin to show who had the most power.

Evan
06-07-2008, 10:21 PM
Water vapor is self regulating. The amount in the atmosphere depends on temperature and follows changes, not causes them. It can't cause them becaue it will condense and rain out. The atmosphere is constantly adjusting the amount of water vapor to what the current temperature permits. Raise the temperature and the air expands making more room for water.

CO2 isn't the only story. Everything we do plays a role. Deforestation and farming change the albedo of the Earth generally to more heat absorption, especially farming. We also don't know how the atmosphere responds to small changes in greenhouse gasses. It probably isn't linear.

There is absolutely no evidence that the solar output has changed. Any changes that may have occured are below not only our ability to measure but also the ability to cause the observed changes.

lazlo
06-07-2008, 10:34 PM
According to a program I saw on The History Channel,there was"global warming" 10,000 yrs ago with no SUVs burning fossil fuel!

Huh. I watched the same documentary the History Channel, and they didn't say anything about global warming 10,000 years ago :)

The title of that show was "Earth at Risk:Global Warming." Here's the video summary from the History Channel web page:

http://www.history.com/states.do?action=detail&state=Global%20Warming&contentType=State_Generic&contentId=56815&parentId=earth

"Since 1900, the Earth's average surface temperature has climbed by over 1 degree Fahrenheit. At first glance, an increase of that size might not seem like a big deal. However, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, "Even a modest rise of 2°- 3°F (1.1°-1.7°C) could have dramatic effects.

In the last 10,000 years, the Earth's average temperature hasn't varied by more than 1.8°F (1.0°C). Temperatures only 5°-9°F cooler than those today prevailed at the end of the last Ice Age, in which the Northeast United States was covered by more than 3,000 feet of ice."

dp
06-07-2008, 10:40 PM
Rich, the Mars temperature increase is a fallacy perpetuated by wingers to add FUD to the Global Warming debate here on earth.
More fud?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

edit: Hmmm - looks like a trend. How many planets warming up does it take to not be fud?
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1998/23/text/

mayfieldtm
06-07-2008, 10:41 PM
I tend to support and like the idea that we are not the main cause for global weather mess-up.

I remember my great grand parents talking about weather much worse than I've seen.

However the downside is, if it's true that were not the cause, that means we probably have no control of the future weather, even if we reduce carbon emissions, and have to accept whatever mother nature has to throw at us.

Maybe its good that we have no control, I doubt we have the knowledge to pull it off and just end up making things worse.

On the other hand, I'd like to see the world move towards alternate energy, less waste, etc., etc. A little pain now might prove beneficial for our kids and grand kids.

Tom M.

dp
06-07-2008, 10:47 PM
On the other hand, I'd like to see the world move towards alternate energy, less waste, etc., etc. A little pain now might prove beneficial for our kids and grand kids.

Tom M.

You're getting your wish - we're now burning our food supplies for energy. And it's getting painful: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_06/b4020093.htm

lazlo
06-07-2008, 10:49 PM
More fud?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

Not FUD, but do you realize you're reading through Rush Limbaugh's list of why Global Warming is a hoax? :) The next winger argument is that Pluto has Global Warming too -- do you want to post that link too? :D

The new "Red Spot Jr." on Jupiter is truly fascinating, but if the new storm is a sign of climate change, and the climate change is global, and that global change is from warming, it still has virtually nothing to do with trends on Earth.

Since Jupiter has no external forcing function (i.e., there probably aren't aliens there dumping trillions of metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere), the only commonality between Earth and Jupiter is the Sun, and like Evan mentioned, the sun has not shown any trend in the last several decades, so it's not the cause of Earth's temperature changes.

Rich Carlstedt
06-07-2008, 10:51 PM
Lazlo
"according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, "
That is a political Group.
They are opposed to lots of issues like Military arms ,etc.
Their home page looks like Socialistitic Bible

When I tried to research their theories two years ago,
I got BS and no data , only "supposition"
Rich

dp
06-07-2008, 10:55 PM
Since Jupiter has no external forcing function, the only commonality between Earth and Jupiter is the Sun, and like Evan mentioned, the sun has not shown any trend in the last several decades, so it's not the cause of Earth's temperature changes.

I don't know what Rush says or thinks - never listen. I don't even know why people bring him up - he's an entertainer, not a scientist.

Regarding the sun, you're kidding, right? It's gone through huge changes in the past decade. Solar cycle 23 was incredibly explosive and it's still active long after 24 should have started.

So Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune are all warming and the only one in the group not affected by the sun is Earth. Making a note of it for my journal. :p

Evan
06-07-2008, 10:59 PM
The Sun isn't the major player in the "weather" on Jupiter. Jupiter radiates about 4 times more heat than it receives from the Sun. The heat of gravitational compression during formation is certain to play a much greater role in the formation of such phenomena as the red spot. Convection cells in fast spinning fluid systems can form stable geometric configurations that are nearly permanent.


Regarding the sun, you're kidding, right? It's gone through huge changes in the past decade. Solar cycle 23 was incredibly explosive and it's still active long after 24 should have started.

It's the average output that doesn't change. During the peak of the solar cycles the output drops ever so slightly. The average output since we have been taking satellite measurements (the only accurate ones) shows a variation that is only 1/10 of what would be needed to account for observed changes.

lazlo
06-07-2008, 11:01 PM
I don't know what Rush says or thinks - never listen. I don't even know why people bring him up - he's an entertainer, not a scientist.

But you and Rich are quoting his exact arguments, nearly word-for-word. I'm guessing these arguments are being passed around as email "debunking" the Global Warming "hoax"?


Regarding the sun, you're kidding, right? It's gone through huge changes in the past decade. Solar cycle 23 was incredibly explosive and it's still active long after 24 should have started.

From Wikipedia:

"According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.

There has been work on reconstructing past trends in solar irradiance over the last century before satellite records were available. Acording to the Max Plank Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century that coincides with the warming from around 1900 til the 1940's. This trend in irradiance is responsible for large portion of that trend, together with around the same portion from CO2 forcing. See this chart of the observed trend, the modeled trend and the variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate."

A picture is worth a thousand words. See the red line for solar radiation? Solar radiation hasn't changed significantly since 1940, but the period from 1940 - Present has seen the greatest increase in temperature. In other words, the increase in global temperature, whether it's from humans or not, isn't from the sun:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png

lazlo
06-07-2008, 11:05 PM
Lazlo
"according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, "
That is a political Group.

True, but you're quoting from the History Channel documentary. That explanation of why Mars isn't experiencing global warming is from an Astrophysicist from Penn State, not from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

chipmaker2
06-07-2008, 11:16 PM
Globe is warming oceans are rising?:eek:

Fact#1. If all the ice in the artic and all the ice around anartica were to melt the level of the oceans won't rise 1/16" (1.5mm).
Fact#2. In Central America (Guatemala) they call the rainy season winter. There are more clouds day and night. The rainy season is from May until the end of October which are the longest days of the year. When we have clear skys it is called summer from November to April. Why?
Fact#3.C02 is a non poiseness gas. Every time we or any other creature breaths out, out goes CO2.
Fact#4. C02 is heavier than air and the concentrations are highest near the ground(right where the plants need it for photosynthesis).
Fact#5. Air(nitrogen and oxygen) are green house gases.
Fact#6. Hot air holds more water than cold air. More clouds will be formed.
Fact#7. The Titanic ran into an iceburg that was from Greenland. In fact, that iceburg was part of a greater iceburg field that forms every year from Greenland since before records were kept.
Fact#8. Land or earth is a good insulator and it's temperature on the surface from day to day depends on whether or not it is being hit by the Suns rays.
Fact#9.The Antarctic continent's ice is not melting.
Fact#10.Hot always flows to cold. Even if you have clouds at night. Yes, the clouds act as a blanket and slows down the the passage of heat but the heat will always get through. Remember to ask the pilot what the temperature is a 35000 feet when its 100 degrees at ground level.
Fact#11. We should drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars and better insulate are homes.
Fact#12. A lot of people will be mad at me for presenting these facts.:mad:
Have a good day.
Chuck

dp
06-07-2008, 11:17 PM
If you assume that solar radiance is the only operator then the numbers may work. But that's not all that the sun produces:

The early days:
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2000/split/513-2.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5599/1732
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133.stm

Today:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1368920.ece

What is missing from the climate record is any indication that temperature rise was preceded by an increase in CO2. Before we spend 45 trillion dollars on a wasted cause we should look closely at these alternatives and plan to deal with the change instead of waging a futile fight against it.


The fact that Jupiter produces 4x times more heat than it receives does not in any way suggest it is immune to changes in solar sunspot patterns.

Rich Carlstedt
06-07-2008, 11:18 PM
Lazlo
Siggrud is about 4 years out of the cycle.(2004)
We have a Mars Rover on the planet now and the new data is not what the illuminated Pennsylvannia Professor says.
------------------------------------------------------
This was a year ago
From The Sunday Times April 29, 2007

Climate change hits Mars
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
-------------------------------------------------

Evan,
Surely you jest ?
"The sun has no influence on Jupiter ?"
I respect your intelligence, but if you are right, tell me what planets without the Sun have weather ?
If you claim it is the latent heat of the core, how come no greenie looks at that...and volcanos.....and tides...and patterns.
What about Cycle 24 ?

------------------------------
NASA knows more about this than most
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

lazlo
06-07-2008, 11:26 PM
From The Sunday Times April 29, 2007

Climate change hits Mars
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

But you left out the most important quote from that same article:

"The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds."

So scientists have discovered a different warming mechanism on a different planet with a different climate that also produces global climate changes.

How is that related to Earth? :)

wierdscience
06-07-2008, 11:32 PM
What is missing from the climate record is any indication that temperature rise was preceded by an increase in CO2. Before we spend 45 trillion dollars on a wasted cause we should look closely at these alternatives and plan to deal with the change instead of waging a futile fight against it.




In fact the historical record shows that increases in co2 levels lagged behind increases in temprature by as much as 800 years.

lazlo
06-07-2008, 11:33 PM
By the way, a serious question for the Global Warming skeptics: there's no argument that humans are generating 8 Trillion Metric Tons/year of Greenhouse Gases, and that's increasing at a compound annual growth of around 3%/year.

Do you really think that's not going to have an impact on the environment?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png

wierdscience
06-07-2008, 11:34 PM
variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.[/B][/COLOR]"



How is that related to Earth? :)

The exact same mechanism as here on Earth.


I think you and Evan have bought some carbon credits and are experiencing buyer's remorse:D

lazlo
06-07-2008, 11:36 PM
What is missing from the climate record is any indication that temperature rise was preceded by an increase in CO2.


In fact the historical record shows that increases in co2 levels lagged behind increases in temprature by as much as 800 years.

Uh, are you reading this chart differently than I am? :)
Look at the blue line, and look at the black line. See a trend?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png

lazlo
06-07-2008, 11:40 PM
How is that related to Earth?
The exact same mechanism as here on Earth.
...

"The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth."

I'm actually just hoping we can convince the Martians to stop dumping Greenhouse Gases before it's too late ;)

Rich Carlstedt
06-07-2008, 11:53 PM
Lazlo
"But you and Rich are quoting his exact arguments, nearly word-for-word. "

Its nice to know that someone is listening to me.
I didn't think Limbaugh did that.
I have been debunking GW talk for a lot longer that Limbaugh has been around I believe.
And by the way Laslo..I speak for no man.!
The GW crowd is embarked on a political agenda.
They want Governmnent funds to spend on 'their" projects.
"Publish or Die!" is the motto and the Professors are all running around like Chiken little.
Where do you want to start Lazlo ?
Do you want to defend Mann's Hocky stick chart .. The BS one?
Do you want to defend his reason for not recording the Middle ages Warm period ? Do you know why he does not recognise that the Vikings found "GreenLand" when it was Green or that England grew Grapes during that period.

Well Lazlo you don't have to answer.
He does not share his 'models" with real men or give answers.
He does it in Secret.
Do you have any idea about what Scientific Method is all about ?

THE GW CROWD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA ABOUT THIS.
They Defy The reasonable approach we have had for100's of years
with their Cock and Bull "Consensious"

Defined by Wikepedia
SCIENTIFIC METHOD
refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Laslo ...So let me say this, Who do you believe ?
Al Gore, or Albert Einstein ?

Did you know that Alberts "Theories " are only that..theories !
But the Brilliant Gore's are not theories...THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN
AS FACT...
Baloney !

The other Political Garbage they spew is that if you are not with them, you are a "Denier of GW"
They cannot comprehend that reasonable men want to debate the issue , instead of running off with heads screaming about polar bears..
Want to argue that ?
Rich

PS
" Concensus" has never made good Science
Concensus said the world was flat ( Columbus Ridiculed)
Concensus said the Sun revolved around Earth ( Nicolaus Copernicus expelled-Founder of Scientific Method)
Concensus said Ulcers were not disease related (AMA !)

Ahhh yes,
The above is printed without the approval of Mr R. Limbaugh beforehand.
He has my authority to use it if needed

wierdscience
06-08-2008, 12:06 AM
By the way, a serious question for the Global Warming skeptics: there's no argument that humans are generating 8 Trillion Metric Tons/year of Greenhouse Gases, and that's increasing at a compound annual growth of around 3%/year.

Do you really think that's not going to have an impact on the environment?

]

When we started putting out forest fires and killed off the buffalo in the late 1800's how much co2 did we stop from going into the environment?

Did reducing the amount of particulate going into the atmosphere change anything perhaps like the amount of sunlight actually reaching the surface?

You do know that coming out of the 19th century the loading of particulate from industry began to decrease and about that time the oceans began to warm which produces an increase in co2?

And you do know that surface temperatures don't reflect an accurate picture of atmospheric temperature?

MAYBE A READ AT-

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878

wierdscience
06-08-2008, 12:10 AM
Uh, are you reading this chart differently than I am? :)
Look at the blue line, and look at the black line. See a trend?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Obviously ,since you ignored the numbers in RED

dp
06-08-2008, 12:17 AM
Uh, are you reading this chart differently than I am? :)
Look at the blue line, and look at the black line. See a trend?


The blue line is green house gases - a minor green house gas is CO2. A more prevalent green house gas is water. The blue line does not help us determine which ghg is driving the line.

The chart lacks sufficient resolution to determine if the ghg precedes the temperature or follows it. Historically it has followed it. We understand the relationship between temperature rise and ghg rise because of the historical evidence. We are making a leap that ghg's will lead to an increase. It is a leap because we have no record of it happening. The scope of the chart is a blip in time and does not provide the kind of time line a true climate change requires.

29,000 years ago the sea level was 90 meters lower than it is today. The result of that is the current state of the world you would have us freeze in place by preventing the natural climate changes that have always happened and always will. There is no evidence it was caused by creatures that live on the earth's surface, but people lost their homes and had to adapt. The result is us. For reasons I cannot fathom, we don't seem to have the intelligence the people of 29,000 years ago had. We're trying to fight it. It makes not a lick of sense.

I'm growing very concerned that you know what Rush is saying and are actually using it in a debate to make a point. I have no idea what he's saying but would never use what he says even if I did, and never in a debate. It is not good for a conversation to bring up irrelevant radio talk show hosts, and makes you look bad.

lazlo
06-08-2008, 12:23 AM
Obviously ,since you ignored the numbers in RED

Eh? The red numbers are flat (on average) Wierd. Solar radiation hasn't increased since 1940:



From Wikipedia:

"According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.

There has been work on reconstructing past trends in solar irradiance over the last century before satellite records were available. Acording to the Max Plank Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century that coincides with the warming from around 1900 til the 1940's. This trend in irradiance is responsible for large portion of that trend, together with around the same portion from CO2 forcing. See this chart of the observed trend, the modeled trend and the variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate."

dp
06-08-2008, 12:29 AM
As long as we're all huddled around Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Note the interesting discussion regarding non-radiant solar activity and climate variation.

lazlo
06-08-2008, 12:35 AM
I'm growing very concerned that you know what Rush is saying and are actually using it in a debate to make a point. I have no idea what he's saying but would never use what he says even if I did, and never in a debate. It is not good for a conversation to bring up irrelevant radio talk show hosts, and makes you look bad.

Dennis, the reason a lot of people know Rush Limbaugh's list is because his list is quoted so often (Chipmaker quoted serveral items nearly verbatim). Since you and Rich happened to be quoting Rush's arguments in sequence (Global Warming is caused by the Sun, Mars has Global Warming, Pluto has Global Warming, there's no correlation in the data between C02 and global temperature, there's no consensus among scientists, consensus is not part of the scientific method, water is a greenhouse gas, ....) I assumed you were quoting Rush.

Here's Rush Limbaugh's complete list of (highly flawed) arguments against Global Warming:


There is no real evidence of warming, just model predictions.
Global Warming is nothing but an environmentalist hoax.
One warmest year on record is not global warming.
The surface temperature record is so full of assumptions and corrections that it only says what the scientists want.
In the 1970's they said a new ice age was coming.
Global temperatures over just one hundred years doesn't mean anything.
Glaciers have always grown and receded. A few glaciers receeding today is not proof of Global Warming.
Climate scientist are trying to hide the dominant role of water vapor in Global Warming.
H2O is the only significant greenhouse gas.
There is no proof that CO2 is what is causing the temperature to go up.
The current warming is just a part of natural variations; humans have nothing to do with it.
It was even warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as it is today.
All in all, a warmer climate sounds like a good thing.
Reducing fossil fuel usage is mass suicide.
Even if we fully implemented the Kyoto protocol it would have virtually no effect on the temperature even by mid 21st century.
Why do India and China get a free pass? That's not fair, no wonder the US did not join.
But there is Global Warming on Mars, without any SUV's or human influence at all.
It was very cold in Wagga Wagga today, this proves there is no Global Warming.
The ice core records show clearly that CO2 rising is an effect of rising temperatures, not a cause.
There is no consensus yet on the cause or even the reality of Global Warming.
Ice sheets in the Antarctic are growing which proves Global Warming isn't real.
Volcanoes emit way more CO2 than people, so emissions controls would be useless.
Global Warming is an illusion caused by the Urban Heat Island Effect.
We can't even predict the weather next week, forget about 100 years from now!
Greenland used to be nice and warm and the vikings lived there happily until the Little Ice Age.
Climate is a chaotic system and just like the stock market, forget about predicting where it will go.
The models are unproven and therefore unreliable.
Satellites are more reliable and they show cooling.
But the temperature dropped all through the 40's and 50's while CO2 rose, there must be something else going on.
The Null Hypotheis says the warming is natural.
Geological history is full of periods where CO2 was high and temperatures were low and vice versa.
The climate is always changing, no reason to think it is our fault.
Natural emissions of carbon are 30 times bigger than human emissions, so any reductions are useless.
CO2 is measured on Mauna Loa, which is an active volcano. That is why the levels are so high
Global Warming began about 20,000 years ago, humans have nothing to do with it.
Even if the ice caps melt, the water will go into the ground underneath.
CO2 has risen on its own before, no reason to assume it is our fault.
The Hockey Stick is broken, global warming theory falls apart.
No one knows how confident the models really are.
There is no historical precedent for CO2 causing warming, it is the opposite.
James Hansen is being an alarmist, just like before.
Position statements hide legitimate scientific debate.
Climate Models don't even take cloud effects into consideration.
Global Warming stopped eight years ago!
Global warming is caused by the sun, of course.
The United States actually absorbs more CO2 than it emits.
Most of the glaciers are growing, just a few are shrinking.
If we don't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
Global Dimming is stronger in the north, so how come it is not warming more in the south?
"Probably", "likely", "evidence suggests". Even the scientist aren't sure AGW is real!
Sea ice in the Antarctic is growing.
This alleged consensus is just because scientists are afraid to speak out.
Some locations are actually cooling, which shouldn't happen if there is global warming.
The small observed warming shows that the climate models are overestimating CO2's importance.
Sea level measurements in the Arctic Ocean show that it is falling, not rising!
Today's warming is just a natural rebound from the Little Ice Age.

lazlo
06-08-2008, 12:41 AM
As long as we're all huddled around Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation.

Thanks for that Dennis -- that's a great link:

"A 2006 study and review of existing literature, published in Nature, determined that there has been no net increase in solar brightness since the mid 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming."

dp
06-08-2008, 12:46 AM
Several items in that list are in fact true. Just because Rush has espoused it does not make it otherwise, and he's not the source of it in any event. Even a blind squirrel will find a nut, as they say.

Do a search for the age of snout ice in the glaciers that feed rivers in India - the snout ice was laid down at the end of the Maunder minimum (little ice age). Guess what - those glaciers are receding. Surprised? Not me. Guess what else happened during the Maunder minimum? Solar activity all but disappeared and the world cooled. No SUV's involved, no green house gases leading up to it.

dp
06-08-2008, 12:49 AM
Thanks for that Dennis -- that's a great link:

"A 2006 study and review of existing literature, published in Nature, determined that there has been no net increase in solar brightness since the mid 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming."


Apparently you stopped reading:


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


And then they go on to present stunning graphs that track solar activity and weather and the Maunder minimum is an incredible fit and not the only incredible fit.

mwechtal
06-08-2008, 12:58 AM
Has anyone else caught that the only observed data on that chart is the black line. All the others are "Modeled" and "Modeled Forcing Response". What model? This graph is absolutely worthless, and a perfect example of lying with statistics. You have to plot the actual data, and plot it on appropriate scales. I analyze data for a living, and if I pulled crap like that, I'd get fired.

Personally I think that since Al Gore invented the internet, he also invented global warming. I mean, how do you get an average global temperature? How do we ensure that all the sensors are calibrated? Do we have weather stations evenly spread across the earth? Does urban spread surround weather stations and influence the temperatures they record?

On the other hand getting the air and water cleaner is a good thing. I just don't think we need to be bullied into doing it in a quick and sloppy manner without considering other consequences. For instance, all those CFL lights save fuel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they have small quantities of Mercury in them. Our county does not recycle them, so the Mercury goes into the landfill, and into the ground water.

Mike

oldtiffie
06-08-2008, 01:00 AM
There seems to be a lot of apparently self-appoined Guru's, Messiahs, Apostles and quoting/citing of "texts", bibles, Gospels supporting a lot of "Sermons on the Mount" and "I have a dream" etc. bits too.

I sense a lot of "Doctrinaire" matter driving this lot.

There is a lot of talking "at" rather than "too" each other/s.

Fair bit of intimidation and brain-washing as well.

Perhaps we are all likely candidates for the "Darwin Awards".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=darwin+awards&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

I am mindful of advice given in case of Atomic attack when I was in the Navy during the "Cold War" which too was heating up very quickly as well:
"Sit on your behind, pull your knees up to your chest, clasp your legs with your arms, put you head between your knees and kiss your ar*e good-bye".

lazlo
06-08-2008, 01:03 AM
Several items in that list are in fact true. Just because Rush has espoused it does not make it otherwise, and he's not the source of it in any event. Even a blind squirrel will find a nut, as they say.

Agree Dennis -- in my opinion, Global Warming is not a slam-dunk case, and it's not easy for a layman (like myself) to weed through all the climatology data. To make matters worse, it's become an incredibly politically charged topic, with Democrats and Republicans picking sides like a football game, with seemingly no care or concern for the actual data.

Myself, I look at that 8 Trillion Metric Tons (and rising), and I think that's how Carl Sagan described terraforming in his books.

A different way of looking at it is Pascal's Wager (paraphrasing): it's safer to believe in God and be right than it is to disbelieve and be wrong. Put in Global Warming terms: it's safer to believe in Global Warming, and make some attempt to stop polluting the atmosphere, than it is to believe there's no such effect, and find the planet doomed in 100 years...

oldtiffie
06-08-2008, 01:17 AM
.

.................................................. .........

A different way of looking at it is Pascal's Wager (paraphrasing): it's safer to believe in God and be right than it is to disbelieve and be wrong. Put in Global Warming terms: it's safer to believe in Global Warming, and make some attempt to stop polluting the atmosphere, than it is to believe there's no such effect, and find the planet doomed in 100 years...

Wow laslo, you seem petty certain that you will be around in 100 years to see what happens.

You must have Methuselah's genes in you!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=methuselah&spell=1

And from the age he was at when he sired all that progeny, he must have been in a lot of other peoples jeans at the time too.

So given that - I guess - you are in your 40's I'd say you've got a lot of work and time ahead of you, which too, if done properly, will also cause a lot of huffing and puffing as all those "issues" are created.

In that case, even if you don't get to be King there will be an awful lot of people who will have to acknowledge and address/recognise you as "Sire".

Sorry - couldn't resist it.

dp
06-08-2008, 01:30 AM
Put in Global Warming terms: it's safer to believe in Global Warming, and make some attempt to stop polluting the atmosphere, than it is to believe there's no such effect, and find the planet doomed in 100 years...

45 trillion dollars is a lot riding on a toss of the dice and a prayer. I think we should be feeding the hungry and moving people out of New Orleans and then breech the dikes and let that hell hole die.

We need to deal with health care and provide better education for our new immigrants, illegal or otherwise. TB is making a comeback in San Diego because of bathtub cheese. That can only be fixed with education.

We need better tsunami warning systems all over the world. We need to help the people of Kiribati evacuate their sinking island. Same with Tuvalu. Putting up sea walls and pumping fresh water out of the ground is about the worst thing you can do on an atoll and that, not global warming, is causing those people to lose their homes and their islands.

We don't have 45 trillion to throw away on a hunch that we can reverse climate change. We need to organize and learn what must be done to adapt. The IPCC data keep changing so we don't know what to expect regarding sea level change, but regardless we need to know how to adjust to it. If sea levels should drop we need to deal with that, too.

We need to admit that the IPCC was right when they said we cannot reverse climate change and act accordingly should the climate actually change dramatically. CFL's are not part of the solution and are as assinine as this Seattle nonsense:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/366025_bonfire06.html

Evan
06-08-2008, 02:43 AM
Evan,
Surely you jest ?
"The sun has no influence on Jupiter ?"
I respect your intelligence, but if you are right, tell me what planets without the Sun have weather ?
If you claim it is the latent heat of the core, how come no greenie looks at that...and volcanos.....and tides...and patterns.
What about Cycle 24 ?
Don't misquote me Rich. I said the sun isn't a major player in the weather on Jupiter. The Jovian atmosphere, which is almost the entire planet, is driven largely by internal heat, not the action of solar heating. I don't "claim" it's the latent heat of the core. That is something that was discovered by the early Pioneer flyby missions I believe. Once you have instruments that can image in the infrared nice and close it's easy to measure a discrepancy that large. There aren't very many other explanations for why Jupiter radiates more than it receives.

The same effects don't happen on Earth. It isn't composed of gas. There is a reason that Jupiter is called a "Gas Giant". Convection from the interior is the big source of atmospheric heat.

As for (sub)planets without the sun, Pluto comes close. Even more remote are the recently discovered Kupier belt objects. It has been determined that the reflectivity of Pluto changes from time to time. It is thought that it may have a surface temperature that is very near a critical point for the formation of nitrogen fog. It's unlikely that the sun drives this as the solar radiation at that distance is only .87 watt per sq meter and isn't close to being enough to account for the changes seen. Pluto and other planets may be warming but is doesn't appear the sun has anything to do with it.

Evan
06-08-2008, 03:00 AM
Has anyone else caught that the only observed data on that chart is the black line. All the others are "Modeled" and "Modeled Forcing Response". What model? This graph is absolutely worthless, and a perfect example of lying with statistics. You have to plot the actual data, and plot it on appropriate scales. I analyze data for a living, and if I pulled crap like that, I'd get fired.

No more worthless than tomorrows weather forecast. It's done exactly the same way using models. Do you pay attention to the weather forecast at all or are they completely worthless as well? In the prediction business you don't have data to plot until it's no longer a prediction.

The modeled forcing response is predicated on one thing. The input vs the output has to balance precisely or we will freeze/fry. The balance has to be within parts per million or better which makes it very hard to measure in the short term. We can be pretty certain that it doesn't take much to throw the balance out of whack. Even an imbalance of one thousandth of a watt per sq meter (one part per million) works out to a very large number of gigawatts per day of gain or loss.

dp
06-08-2008, 03:01 AM
We can be pretty certain that it doesn't take much to throw the balance out of whack. Even an imbalance of one thousandth of a watt per sq meter (one part per million) works out to a very large number of gigawatts per day of gain or loss.

Except, apparently, on Jupiter?

Evan
06-08-2008, 03:04 AM
No, the climate on Jupiter is determined by the internal heat. It is much greater than the solar contribution. The issue is one of balance. Jupiter is a notable exception because it isn't even close to being in balance so those considerations can't be applied.

dp
06-08-2008, 03:17 AM
Now you've got me curious - I'm not aware of any systems that ignore external input of energy so I'm curious enough to look it up. Any chance you have a trail head for this?

Interesting discussion here a while back:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-jupiter.htm

What happens to solar influence when that influence changes over time? It can't just be ignored - Jupiter has no ability to be arbitrary.

oldtiffie
06-08-2008, 04:24 AM
Let's stop avoiding the issue and address it.

"Climate Change" and/or "Global Warming" etc. seems to be a pseudonym or "code" for survival of the human species - or selected/elite parts of it - in a manner of its choosing.

Dante's "Inferno" perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante%27s_Inferno#Inferno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Comedy

If we or our successors or progeny are not here - so what?

"Love's Labour Lost"?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loves_Labour_Lost

What is so damn special about "Us" as we are only another evolved and evolving creature/animal on the planet.

Many or most other species that have evolved have gone their way to or toward the end of their development process and have either become extinct or are heading that way.

We are neither divine, omnipotent, God or God-like nor necessary in the evolving scheme of things so far as I am aware.

I'd suggest that to think we are otherwise is as stupid and egocentric and as selfish as it can be.

When I die, I expect to rot or be burned - perhaps both - end of story. That is how it is and will be no matter how it is embellished, ritualised or evaded.

As I understand it, climate change in its various forms and manifestations has occurred and "cycled" many times in the history of the planet - without our presence, approval or effects. On the occasions, we and other species had to adapt or perish. Perhaps it is all only part of the evolutionary process for the planet and its "tenants".

I seem to recall similar discussion and hysteria regarding "nuclear winter/s", "Domino Theory", "Yellow Peril", "Reds" and what-ever else those that "know best" and are (usually self-appointed) "acting (directing??)" and interpreting/"Leading" in our best interests ie Lawyers, Politicians, main-chancers and Clerics and the like.

Its amazing how many of our "betters" and valiant/intrepid "Leaders" not only act in our best interests (they say) and in the middle of attacking each other with diametrically opposing views and aspirations but invoke "God" as being on their side in the process.

Perhaps its time to "clean the slate and start all over" anyway.

Its happened often-times before.

Good idea.

Evan
06-08-2008, 04:49 AM
Dennis,

As I said, solar isn't a major player on Jupiter. The evidence is that the gasses circulate vertically and that circulation is powered by internal heat. The effect of the sun is overwhelmed by the much greater driver of the internal heat. Since heat from the bottom vs heat from the top tend to have very different effects you get to see one or the other depending on which dominates.

I don't have a handy link but I am sure it shouldn't be hard to find something. Try space.com
[edit]
Ah, I see that the link you supplied confirms it although my information on the ratio is out of date.

wierdscience
06-08-2008, 07:14 AM
Eh? The red numbers are flat (on average) Wierd. Solar radiation hasn't increased since 1940:

But it has increased since 1900 and it is FACT that co2 lags temperture rise not the other way round as Big Al puts it.

The most daming arguement against global warming is where the theory comes from,not from sicentists,but the crunchy granola crowd.

Evan
06-08-2008, 09:59 AM
That isn't where the "theory" come from. The fact that "they" have embraced it as a Cause Célèbre doesn't mean the data or the evidence are flawed. The evidence is very real and the data are much less controversial than the idea.


Fact#1. If all the ice in the artic and all the ice around anartica were to melt the level of the oceans won't rise 1/16" (1.5mm).
That ice is already floating. It displaces the same amount of water as ice as it does when melted. Of course it won't raise the sea level.


Fact#2. In Central America (Guatemala) they call the rainy season winter. There are more clouds day and night. The rainy season is from May until the end of October which are the longest days of the year. When we have clear skys it is called summer from November to April. Why?
We have the clearest skies in winter from September to March. What was the question?

Fact#3.C02 is a non poiseness gas. Every time we or any other creature breaths out, out goes CO2.

If the CO2 content of your body rises only a tiny amount you will die. That is why your body must get rid of it. CO2 also cannot support life. In Africa a lake saturated with CO2 "turned over" and killed an entire village full of people and animals in minutes.

Fact#4. C02 is heavier than air and the concentrations are highest near the ground(right where the plants need it for photosynthesis).

The gasses that make up air do not separate into layers. If they did we would all die because there would be a layer of argon on the surface of the Earth several hundred feet deep. Argon makes up about 1 percent of the atmosphere and is the heaviest elemental gas it contains in any quantity.

Fact#5. Air(nitrogen and oxygen) are green house gases.

Good thing too or the Earth would be a frozen ice ball on the surface. It's a question of balance.

Fact#6. Hot air holds more water than cold air. More clouds will be formed.
Water vapor is an invisible gas. During the days after 911 the skies cleared over the US and Canada to an amazing degree that was easily measurable. The exhaust from jet aircraft provides nucleation sites for water to condense from the atmosphere. Water vapor is invisible. Clouds are made from droplets of liquid water, not water vapor.

Fact#7. The Titanic ran into an iceburg that was from Greenland. In fact, that iceburg was part of a greater iceburg field that forms every year from Greenland since before records were kept.

The ice cap on Greenland is melting at a record pace. Soon those pesky icebergs won't be a problem.

Fact#8. Land or earth is a good insulator and it's temperature on the surface from day to day depends on whether or not it is being hit by the Suns rays.

Plowed land is a good absorber of visible solar radiation. It converts that visible energy input to heat that cannot escape as easily as it arrived due to the greenhouse effect.

Fact#9.The Antarctic continent's ice is not melting.
Yes it is.

Fact#10.Hot always flows to cold. Even if you have clouds at night. Yes, the clouds act as a blanket and slows down the the passage of heat but the heat will always get through. Remember to ask the pilot what the temperature is a 35000 feet when its 100 degrees at ground level.
The air becomes thinner with altitude. The less dense it is the less heat it can hold. Radiant heat is reflected from clouds. They act as a mirror, not a blanket.

Fact#11. We should drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars and better insulate are homes.
True.

Fact#12. A lot of people will be mad at me for presenting these facts.:mad:

Only because you got just #11 right. The rest are not facts. That's a failing grade.

oldtiffie
06-08-2008, 10:25 AM
Fact#1. If all the ice in the artic and all the ice around anartica were to melt the level of the oceans won't rise 1/16" (1.5mm).
That ice is already floating. It displaces the same amount of water as ice as it does when melted. Of course it won't raise the sea level.

My physics may not be what they might but an iceberg as fresh water has a lesser density that sea/salt water hence (I think) only 6/7 is under the sea surface. The remaining 1/7, when it melts, will add to the sea volume and will raise its level.

The Antarctic has a "rock" continental structure underneath the ice. As the ice melts its volume is added to the sea water and even though it dilutes the sea water the net volume and surface level will rise.

I expect that the Arctic will be similar. There is a lot of ice that is on "land" that is not (yet?) "floating" in salt-water as do ice-bergs.

There is a lot of ice on land that is in neither the Arctic nor the Antarctic. Siberia, Russia, China, Japan, Canada. Alaska and some of Continental USA and Europe are in that category as well. There are significant others as well.

I have no "axe to grind" in this debate as I will just have to "wait and see" and try to adjust as best I can to or for whatever may or may not happen.

Milacron of PM
06-08-2008, 11:21 AM
My physics may not be what they might but an iceberg as fresh water has a lesser density that sea/salt water hence (I think) only 6/7 is under the sea surface. The remaining 1/7, when it melts, will add to the sea volume and will raise its level.


http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps2zv.html

lazlo
06-08-2008, 11:33 AM
We need to admit that the IPCC was right when they said we cannot reverse climate change and act accordingly should the climate actually change dramatically.

Dennis, I'm reading the IPCC report right now, and not only do they confirm that Global Warming is caused by greenhouse generation by humans, but they have the charts showing the projected global temperatures given differing greenhouse gas emission trends (i.e., if we stay flat at 8 Trillion Metric Tons, or increase by 3% a years, ...:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/Greenhouse1.gif

Not only does the IPCC say that we can reverse Global Warming, but their report is entitled "Mitigation of Climate Change" and includes 15 "chapters" of recommendations for mitigating climate change "in the short and medium term (until 2030" and mitigating climate change "in the long term (after 2030):

The short term solutions that IPCC recommends to reverse Global Warming include new energy infrastructure investments for cleaner energy, changes in lifestyle and behavior patterns, subsidizing 3rd world expansion to include scrubbers on their factories/coal plants, ...

There's a whole chapter on "Multiple mitigation options in the transportation sector" which includes encouraging higher efficiency cars, biofuels, shifting transportation from road to rail, ...

Here's the IPCC recommendations' charts of potential global warming reversal based on the short-term and long-term recommendations:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/Greenhouse2.gif

Here's the IPCC report:

"Mitigation of Climate Change" (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-spm.pdf)

oldtiffie
06-08-2008, 11:44 AM
Originally Posted by oldtiffie
My physics may not be what they might but an iceberg as fresh water has a lesser density that sea/salt water hence (I think) only 6/7 is under the sea surface. The remaining 1/7, when it melts, will add to the sea volume and will raise its level.


http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps2zv.html

Many thanks Don - and in my own back yard as well.

Pretty well what I anticipated.

As long as I don't get "snowed" by some of the commentary or "Commentators" I should be able to make like an ice-berg and keep my head above water (and "dog-paddling" - like hell!!).

Or to quote a quote on the desk of the best boss I ever had - a Commander in the OZ Navy (when I was a civilian Facilities Officer working for him).


THINK
(or thwim).

oldtiffie
06-08-2008, 11:58 AM
...................................
....................................

The short term solutions that IPCC recommends to reverse Global Warming include new energy infrastructure investments for cleaner energy, changes in lifestyle and behavior patterns, subsidizing 3rd world expansion to include scrubbers on their factories/coal plants, ...
...............................................



Well, well after all these years of thinking I'd done the wrong thing with those "scrubbers" and "life-styles" that I had in the "developing world" when I was in the Far East when I was in the Navy all those years ago.

The performance of some of those scrubbers was quite outstanding (as was I) - but not in a factory or a coal plant (as I recall).

I must have left a pretty good "carbon foot-print" though as I was quite "burned out" as those scrubbers had a good work-out.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scrubber

GadgetBuilder
06-08-2008, 12:05 PM
The notion that total irradiance of the sun defines its effect on earth isn't true. The effect of the sun's magnetic field on the earth vs cosmic rays and the effect on clouds is an important effect that was not considered until relatively recently. In fact, the models purported to predict climate don't handle this appropriately.

The idea that CO2 causes global warming is mostly based on the correlation of a rise in CO2 levels coincident with the rise in global temperature. The difficulties in explaining the obvious lack of correlation at certain points in the chart shown several times in this thread leads to many reservations.

Consider this chart for correlation of temperature rise with sunspot cycle length:

http://webpages.charter.net/balplanman/GlobalWarming/CycleLength.jpg

Correlation doesn't prove causation, of course. But sunspot cycle length seems to be a leading indicator of global temperature and it is very simple to measure, no complex statistics needed. It isn't clear exactly what the underlying variables (beyond total irradiance and magnetic field) are but it seems to somehow predict fairly well.

Like all leading indicators, it works great analyzing history but if we don't understand the underlying mechanism it might not work in the future -- for reasons we don't yet understand. However, cycle 23 is already longer than any recent cycle (and is still going) while the global temperature has dropped noticeably in the last year: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/

Global warming has become so politicized that it is nearly impossible to find information that has not been spun and interpreted so that the underlying information is unrecognizable. The spin machine is already at work explaining the obvious drop in global temperature that isn't predicted by the GCM's. One nice thing about the sunspot cycle length is that it is so simple that it is hard to spin it very much.

Tiffie's thought that he will "wait and see" is a nice approach except that political forces are at work such that the first thing he'll likely see will be economic rather than climate related.

John

lazlo
06-08-2008, 12:26 PM
The notion that total irradiance of the sun defines its effect on earth isn't true. The effect of the sun's magnetic field on the earth vs cosmic rays and the effect on clouds is an important effect that was not considered until relatively recently.

Scientists are considering the possible role of magnetic influence on the Earth's temperatures, but even the leading researchers in that field are careful to explain that most of the global temperature increases are due CO2 emissions.

This is from Dennis' link:

Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany said:

The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact

Nevertheless, Solanki agrees with the scientific consensus that the marked upswing in temperatures since about 1980 is attributable to human activity.

"Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."

The general scientific consensus seems to be that solar effects are not paramount to the steep rise in global temperatures since 1980. From the same article (from Dennis):

"More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in September 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, and downplays the likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time.

Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.


The idea that CO2 causes global warming is mostly based on the correlation of a rise in CO2 levels coincident with the rise in global temperature. The difficulties in explaining the obvious lack of correlation at certain points in the chart shown several times in this thread leads to many reservations.

CO2 causing global warming is not a hypothesis, it's a proven scientific theory, even amongst the most staunch global warming skeptics. Venus' atmosphere is 95% CO2, and the average temperature is 750° K -- the melting temperature of lead.

Look at the chart from the IPCC report that Dennis mentioned -- they have a very accurate model for the global temperature according to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

When dreamy-eyed scientists propose terrforming Mars, they're talking about building massive CO2 generators to warm up the planet enough to melt the polar caps and permafrost...


Global warming has become so politicized that it is nearly impossible to find information that has not been spun and interpreted so that the underlying information is unrecognizable.

That's true, but on both sides. Notice in this thread how the GW skeptics are quoting Rush Limbaugh's list nearly verbatim...


Tiffie's thought that he will "wait and see" is a nice approach

I seem to remember that Tiffie is 72 years old. No offense to Tiffie, but he won't have to deal with the problems. But his grand-children will...

oldtiffie
06-08-2008, 12:27 PM
..............................................
...............................................

Tiffie's thought that he will "wait and see" is a nice approach except that political forces are at work such that the first thing he'll likely see will be economic rather than climate related.

John

Thanks John.

My aspirations are a bit more basic than that at present.

It seems from at least one post that pissing into the ocean will do neither much good nor harm either - and I can live with that.

There is a lot of "pissing into the wind" here too, and that if nothing else is a sure way of "getting your own back" as some purveyors of charts and citations seem to be doing to all and sundry.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pissing+into+the+wind

My life would be a lot easier if all of those "pissers in(to) the wind" would not only remain down-wind of me but would desist from pissing in my ear and my pocket.
[Edit: changed "up-wind" to "down-wind" - for obvious reasons.]
And as they - figuratively at least - have themselves "in hand" perhaps they will lead and conduct themselves and their activities else-where.

There are other ways of giving someone a "spray".

If nothing else, we will all be considerably relieved.

lazlo
06-08-2008, 12:38 PM
There is a lot of "pissing into the wind" here too, and that if nothing else is a sure way of "getting your own back" as some purveyors of charts and citations seem to be doing to all and sundry.

That's pretty rich for a guy who's famous here for jumping into a thread and posting random, unrelated Wikipedia links.
So anyone who disagrees with you is pissing into the wind?

You jumped into the "None of the Above" thread and plied the same argument: any "complaining" about the quality of the presidential candidates is "pissing in the wind" in your estimation.

And again, on the "Peak Oil" thread you jumped into the discussion to state that everyone was just "pissing in the wind," and more specifically to Evan that he couldn't change anything anyway"


None of all this posturing or pontificating etc. here is going to one bit of good - at all.
Wierdscience, DP, Rich, Gagetbuilder, Evan and I are presenting evidence and discussing the issues intelligently and civilly.

If you have something substantial to add, please do, otherwise, please don't interrupt the discussion we're trying to have...

dp
06-08-2008, 01:02 PM
Dennis, I'm reading the IPCC report right now, and not only do they confirm that Global Warming is caused by greenhouse generation by humans, but they have the charts showing the projected global temperatures given differing greenhouse gas emission trends (i.e., if we stay flat at 8 Trillion Metric Tons, or increase by 3% a years, ...:

Do a google search on ipcc tipping point. This was introduced into the conversation to provide a greater sense of imperative.

Then ponder this: Every solution that has any chance of making into law includes a carbon trading scheme. Carbon trading schemes do not result in lower quantities of carbon. The current methodology of the beneficiaries of carbon trading plant trees. Trees cannot reverse the trend of CO2 accumulation.

Ergo: If a tripping point exists we are doomed to reach it because politicians are in charge, not engineers, and we need to be ready with engineering solutions that do not include putting out fires at beach parties.

lazlo
06-08-2008, 01:09 PM
Do a google search on ipcc tipping point.

Thanks Dennis. I'm heading out to the shop right now, but I'll look for that when I get back. There are a bunch of interesting publications on the IPCC web page.


Ergo: If a tripping point exists we are doomed to reach it because politicians are in charge, not engineers, and we need to be ready with engineering solutions that do not include putting out fires at beach parties.

Agree completely (including the beach fires). I also think the rising oil prices may slow the carbon emissions by virtue of economics. 2007 was the first year in many that the US didn't increase oil consumption by 3% (we were flat in 2007). Also, the bottom has fallen out of the SUV market, and people are buying more efficient cars not because they care about the environment, but because they can't afford a 14 MPG behemoth.

But the Fed can do a lot to help too -- I think it was just flat-out stupid to allow up to $100,000 tax credit on SUV's weighing more than 6,000 lbs. That single bill sold more gas guzzlers than any other factor...

dp
06-08-2008, 01:23 PM
That's true, but on both sides. Notice in this thread how the GW skeptics are quoting Rush Limbaugh's list nearly verbatim...
I honestly doubt anyone is quoting Rush's list verbatim. I wouldn't even know where to find Rush's list except on some moonbat left wing blog, perhaps. Regardless, Rush's list is only a compilation of valid warming skeptics ideas. To ascribe each list item as being a "Rush List Item" is to poison the conversation. Many very qualified scientists can and have argued many if not all the items on that list.

The IPCC reports are controversial because the conclusions reached are controversial. There is certainly not consensus on the meaning of the data, and the solutions proposed are simply not deployable.


Here's a conspiracy theory for you: The IPCC reports are the first step in creating a taxing body for the UN. This is the holy grail of any political body, and the UN has never had a tax based economy. They have tried for years to find a way to achieve this milestone and GW is their newest and most likely successful method.

They have been very clever to exclude from the process those nations they know ahead of time will never accept this (China, India, et al) and this was done to ensure success. The entire scheme is intended only to redistribute wealth.

GadgetBuilder
06-08-2008, 01:37 PM
...
Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany said:

The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact

Nevertheless, Solanki agrees with the scientific consensus that the marked upswing in temperatures since about 1980 is attributable to human activity.

...
CO2 causing global warming is not a hypothesis, it's a proven scientific theory, even amongst the most staunch global warming skeptics. Venus' atmosphere is 95% CO2, and the average temperature is 750° K -- the melting temperature of lead.

Look at the chart from the IPCC report that Dennis mentioned -- they have a very accurate model for the global temperature according to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That's true, but on both sides. Notice in this thread how the GW skeptics are quoting Rush Limbaugh's list nearly verbatim...

...

Hi Lazlo,

A couple observations: note that Solanki says that it isn't possible to determine whether CO2 or the sun has a greater effect ... then contradicts himself. This is one part of the politization I mentioned: the scientist as activist.

A pedantic observation is that it isn't possible to "prove a theory", only to disprove it. At one time the theory was that all swans were white, then a black swan was found in Australia.

As I noted above for the correlation of sunspot cycle length vs global temperature, correlation doesn't prove causation. And this applies to CO2 vs global warming too: it's a nice theory but there are a number of wrinkles that require a LOT of arm waving with few facts to explain. For example the GCM's get things wrong on the CO2 signature at the equator, as I noted some time ago here: http://webpages.charter.net/balplanman/GlobalWarming/GlobalWarming.html
This is an ongoing problem with the GCM's that hasn't been really explained.

On a simpler level, the GCM temperature predictions in the IPCC's AR4 seemed shaky when they made them, just looking at the rate of change in observed temperature but the predictions look worse when compared to newer data.

http://webpages.charter.net/balplanman/GlobalWarming/AR4Trend2.jpg
Where black is observed temperature, orange is if CO2 were maintained at the existing level (it wasn't and still global temp matches it better than any of the GCM scenarios).

Predictions of variables that change over time generally have larger error bars as time from the prediction increases. The GCM's purport to predict temperatures 25 years in the future yet observed temperatures disagree with the GCM's in 3 years. Hard for me to believe the GCM's are credible given these results plus the difference in observed troposphere temperatures at the equator vs the GCM predictions.

There is considerable political spin applied to anything which tends to contradict the CO2 causes GW theory. Politicians like this theory because they can save the world by making bold decisions. Many scientists on the GW bandwagon are "greenies", not a bad thing per se, but if it causes your interpretation of data to be affected (e.g. Solanki above) it makes accepting their results difficult for thinking people.

I expect Mother Nature will provide some clear input on global warming in the next 3-5 years. The initial input may be the recent drop in global temperature, dismissed as an anomaly by GWers and taken as a portent by non-GWers. All will be revealed but in the interim, I think Taleb's "The Black Swan" provides good advice: don't believe the forecasters.

While I don't know much about Rush Limbaugh and his views, I'd be cautious of discarding all of his points without investigating in more detail. He's part of the loyal opposition to the spin machine but that doesn't automatically discredit everything on his list - investigate yourself to minimize confusion from the spin. The IPCC is one of the most politicized groups around so check any facts from them carefully.

John

Norman Atkinson
06-08-2008, 03:02 PM
I do love statisticians. Well, somebody other than their mothers has to!

I can go back clearly to 1949 when as a young man kitted out an Antarctic Expedition. I can go back to the ice shelf Larsen B and Quarland when old Riiser Larsen and I skied together and Leslie Quar and I were fellow NCO's.
I doubt that the average statisticians would be allowed the luxury of old age- like me.

So I took a place from a modest 30 odd years back and an identical time in the Mediterranean. I have a bicycle and get around( joke) but my wife and I go to our little place for her birthday. Done it for all of 30 years in May.

This time, it was the coldest that we had experienced. We put unheard duvets on the beds and lit the gas fire.

I have a house in the Highland of Scotland but the average atatistician couldn't his head around such skewed existences! So I'll leave it out

Cheers

Norm

Evan
06-08-2008, 03:15 PM
My physics may not be what they might but an iceberg as fresh water has a lesser density that sea/salt water hence (I think) only 6/7 is under the sea surface. The remaining 1/7, when it melts, will add to the sea volume and will raise its level.

How? Water shrinks when it melts. However, as ice it still weighs the same and displaces it's own weight in water when floating. When it melts and mixes with the salt water the amount it can raise the sea level is only to the extent that it dilutes the entire ocean and lowers the density overall.

The items mentioned in the points in that list are very specifically phrased to fool those without a good science background. The point about water ice is intended to mislead you into thinking the sea level won't rise even if ALL the ice melts. It is however worded so that it only applies to the ice that is floating.

dp
06-08-2008, 03:22 PM
The items mentioned in the points in that list are very specifically phrased to fool those without a good science background. The point about water ice is intended to mislead you into thinking the sea level won't rise even if ALL the ice melts. It is however worded so that it only applies to the ice that is floating.

The next thing that happens to all melt water in the sea is that it begins to heat and so expand, and of course the density changes. A consequence of this is the El Nino effect can actually produce changes in sea level in a region without affecting sea level globally. It plays hell on atolls and other low lying islands.

lazlo
06-08-2008, 04:05 PM
A pedantic observation is that it isn't possible to "prove a theory", only to disprove it.

Not pedantic at all -- I expected that statement to draw some criticism, but I chose those words because people not familiar with the scientific process often see the word "theory" and presume that it's a hypothesis instead. The same arguments are often made in the Intelligent Design debates, where layman point out that the Theory of Evolution is "just a theory", meaning it's just a hunch, or a guess, and not supported by decades of evidence. When you show, as a counter-example, Newton's Theory of Gravitation, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity, things get even more chaotic...

Climatologists have precise models that predict planetary temperatures according to CO2 content, and these models are used by NASA, among others, to accurately model and predict the temperatures of Jupiter and Venus. There's a strong correlation between Co2 content and planetary temperature.


There is considerable political spin applied to anything which tends to contradict the CO2 causes GW theory. Politicians like this theory because they can save the world by making bold decisions.

Indeed. As another example, on your website, you quote Christopher Monckton's paper "Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?"

Christopher Monckton is with the Science and Public Policy Institute, which is a Republican think tank founded by former Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop. The Science and Public Policy Institute is funded almost exclusively by Exxon Mobil.

dp
06-08-2008, 04:35 PM
Christopher Monckton is with the Science and Public Policy Institute, which is a Republican think tank founded by former Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop. The Science and Public Policy Institute is funded almost exclusively by Exxon Mobil.

This is not the best way to make a point. It cannot be assumed that Exxon Mobil is wrong. The conversation has to show Exxon Mobil is wrong by examples and proofs. Anything less is prejudice. A visit to Robert's Rule of Order and refresher of principles of debate might be needed.

lazlo
06-08-2008, 06:51 PM
This is not the best way to make a point. It cannot be assumed that Exxon Mobil is wrong. The conversation has to show Exxon Mobil is wrong by examples and proofs.

I disagree Dennis. John (Gagetbuilder) was making the point that it's very difficult to find any unbiased publications on either side of the Global Warming argument, since the issue is so politically charged. Would you not be equally suspicious of a Global Warming paper written by Al Gore?

Rich mentioned that the intro to the History Channel documentary on Global Warming referenced the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is an environmental activist group. His concern was duly noted, and like John says, you definitely have to filter data according to the source.

Exxon Mobil, being the world's largest oil company, is not in the business of funding think tanks, and since they have vested interest in stopping any restrictions on greenhouse gas emission, their funding of the Science and Public Policy Institute is more than a little suspect:

Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming
New York Times
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E1D91131F93BA15756C0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Exxon Mobil has publicly softened its stance toward global warming over the last year, with a pledge of $10 million in annual donations for 10 years to Stanford University for climate research.

At the same time, the company, the world's largest oil and gas concern, has increased donations to Washington-based policy groups that, like Exxon itself, question the human role in global warming and argue that proposed government policies to limit carbon dioxide emissions associated with global warming are too heavy handed.

Exxon now gives more than $1 million a year to such organizations, which include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research and the American Legislative Exchange Council.

The organizations are modest in size but have been outspoken in the global warming debate. Exxon has become the single-largest corporate donor to some of the groups, accounting for more than 10 percent of their annual budgets. While a few of the groups say they also receive some money from other oil companies, it is only a small fraction of what they receive from Exxon Mobil.

''We want to support organizations that are trying to broaden the debate on an issue that is so important to all of us,'' said Tom Cirigliano, a spokesman for Exxon. ''There is this whole issue that no one should question the science of global climate change that is ludicrous. That's the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a lot of trouble.'' He also noted, ''These are not single-agenda groups.''

The organizations emphasize that while their views align with Exxon's, the company's money does not influence their policy conclusions. Indeed, the organizations say they have been sought out in part because of their credibility. ''They've determined that we are effective at what we do,'' said George C. Landrith, president of Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative group that maintains that human activities are not responsible for global warming. He says Exxon essentially takes the attitude, ''We like to make it possible to do more of that.''

Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents. But Mr. Landrith said the growth was not as sharp as it appears because the money is actually spread over three years.

The increase corresponds with a rising level of public debate since the United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, some of the groups said. After President Bush rejected the protocol, a treaty requiring nations to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases, many corporations shifted their attention to Washington, where the debate has centered on proposals for domestic curbs on the emissions.

''Firefighters' budgets go up when fires go up,'' said Fred L. Smith, the head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Myron Ebell, an analyst from the institute, spoke at last year's Exxon shareholders' meeting, where he criticized a renewable energy resolution proposed by a group of shareholders.

Exxon's backing of third-party groups is a marked contrast to its more public role in the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group formed in 1989 to challenge the science around global warming. The group eventually disbanded when oil and auto companies started to withdraw. As companies were left to walk their own path, Exxon shifted money toward independent policy groups.

''Now it's come down to a few of these groups to be the good foot soldiers of the corporate community on climate change,'' said Kert Davies, a research director for Greenpeace, which has tried to organize an international boycott of Exxon.

Exxon's publicly disclosed documents reveal that donations to many of these organizations increased by more than 50 percent from 2000 to 2002. And money to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group that works with state legislators, has almost tripled, as the policy debate has moved to the state level.

oldtiffie
06-08-2008, 08:19 PM
Originally Posted by GadgetBuilder

..............................................
...............................................

Tiffie's thought that he will "wait and see" is a nice approach except that political forces are at work such that the first thing he'll likely see will be economic rather than climate related.

John

I agree John.

I think that the current pending potential financial "melt-down" may well overtake this "private discussion/debate" and make the select (elite??) "focus group" focus change somewhat. If this is the case then GW and CC may be less an issue for some who find themselves up to their ears - or out of their depth (and homes??) in the mundane business of day-to-day rather than potential long-term survival.

The not entirely unrelated subjects of shortage of food, fuel and potable water are or may be of more immediate concern.

We have had a couple of close calls in the matter of Global Pandemics - ("Bird flue" was one) perhaps there are some more "in the wings" (as it were). We certainly were not prepared for that or those.

I hope that some of the surfeit of e-Coli here is neither causative nor effective.

As some may see this as a private or privileged debate/discussion/forum and give that this HSM is an open forum for HSM-related matters, perhaps those that "want to be alone" and have the debate restricted to them only talking and the rest of us relegated to a listening/learning role will take themselves off to the privacy of continuing in a PM environment so that I at least - a mere mortal and part of the "great unwashed" - can get on with the more mundane pursuit of information related to HSM/"machining" matters.

It seemed to me that recent topics have HSM stuff on the decline and the so-called "OT" stuff in the ascendancy to the extent that it may well become "main stream" such the pure HSM stuff is reduced to being "OT".

You will understand - of course - as my great age (71 still - plus 1/2) and advancing years, declining intellect and limited time (11 years if I reach my actuarial age) I try as best I can to do as best I can with what I have left to me while I am on this mortal coil.

dp
06-08-2008, 08:24 PM
I disagree Dennis. John (Gagetbuilder) was making the point that it's very difficult to find any unbiased publications on either side of the Global Warming argument, since the issue is so politically charged. Would you not be equally suspicious of a Global Warming paper written by Al Gore?

I have no repect for Al Gore for a number of reasons but I do know that not everything he says is wrong. Same for Exxon. You can't broadbrush sources you don't believe in.


Rich mentioned that the intro to the History Channel documentary on Global Warming referenced the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is an environmental activist group. His concern was duly noted, and like John says, you definitely have to filter data according to the source.

No, you don't. You have to filter what the source says and evaluate their proof. You cannot toss out data because you don't like the source. That is not science, that is politics.

If Jack the Ripper knew the cure for cancer and we tossed it out because we don't like Jack the Ripper we would lose a great opportunity.



Exxon Mobil, being the world's largest oil company, is not in the business of funding think tanks, and since they have vested interest in stopping any restrictions on greenhouse gas emission, their funding of the Science and Public Policy Institute is more than a little suspect:

Cite specific examples of positions you disagree with and we don't have a problem. But to suggest that everything Exxon says is wrong is, well, wrong. Don't forget that Al Gore is heavily invested in the carbon credit industry and if anthropogenic global warming is the scam I think it is he stands to lose a fortune. He has a very big financial interest in this. He's also a well-known liar, but that still does not allow me to discredit everything he says. And most importantly he has no scientific training. He is a politician.

Ask yourself: Who has created more jobs, more opportunity, more products for health care, more affordable energy; Al Gore or Exxon?

Now ask who has invested more in self-cleanup: Al Gore or Exxon? Al Gore's carbon footprint is huge and growing. He claims it is balanced by purchasing carbon credits. Interesting that he is in the carbon credit trading business and it's not a great leap to presume he's selling himself carbon credits.

Now follow the carbon credit money: What happens to monies spent on carbon credits? That is your homework :) You will be amazed.

I happen to think the IPCC is heavily jaded and has an agenda driving its interest in GW, and I can list hundreds of qualified scients who agree with me, but if I said everything the IPCC says is hogwash you would be correct to think me a fool.

It wouldn't hurt a darn thing if the global climate were actually warming, but it's not according to a growing number of qualified scientists, and has not for about 10 years. When you toss out the hockey stick and look at the long term data the current climate does not look remarkably different than data for several thousand years.

And if you look at the long term cycles it is very obvious we are poised for a deep cooling period, not a warming period. And for another data point, read this page: http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/

"During most of the last 1 billion years the earth had no permanent ice...."

Say what? No ice? Who's to blame for that??

Rich Carlstedt
06-08-2008, 08:58 PM
Double post

general observation about the " ego of man"
Name one weather event that he can control...

One Volcano can cool the Earth for years
There are not enough Nuclear weapons to even approach the forces to
induce with such a castastrophie
The December 25 Tidal wave 2 years ago exceeded over 1000 times the energy of
all such weapons fired together.
And yet we know !
Such Arrogance !

Rich

Rich Carlstedt
06-08-2008, 09:06 PM
You know fellows.. I am reading just a bunch of Cra_ here.
Lets look at the REAL AGENDA
If you have the guts to analyse what is being done or said, then
you may be ahead of the game
First the argument is Same old, same old.

We have a group of people who feel they are right in warning the Earth of Possible destruction,
or at least imparement .OK ?

You have another group which I will call a Political party.
They have found 2 things which they desire greatly
One is "Control" and the second is ....surprise ? "Money"
So these two groups have melded together.
Now when you invent a " perpetual motion machine"
what do you do ? .. you keep everyone from seeing whats under the covers !
Witness the recent postings right here on HSM BB

So these guys took temperature measurements and put them in a computer using a program
that no one can see (OH" The Machine is covered to keep out radiation...or some other BS)
and based them on suspect data
( sorry Laslo, but any program that ignores the warm period of the middle ages is BOGUS)
So thats the first part.

The second is control, if you can control people to do what you want and make it sound like
it is for their own bettermment.. Great. (Now this control will cause a huge loss of jobs, and
impose economic hardship, but the way to do that is make it sound like a War.. You must be commited !
and anyone not in the group is a traitor...urrrr non-belliever... or label them as ignorant of GW )

The third phase is money, or Taxes to be truthful, but lets call that.. not a tax, but "an INVESTMENT" in your kids future.
Best yet , if the tax is a new tax..which means no history..we do not have to see what the real cost is ( IN JOBS AND COL !)
That way it goes down easier.
And better yet, get the energy companies involed by telling them how much they can "earn" by helping..

Thats it folks, and if you don't believe it, read what the IPCC report says that Laslo had us follow

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-spm.pdf

Note page 9 C-5 quoted
"Both bottom up and Top down studies indicate that their is substantial economic potential for
the mitigation of GHC emissions over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth
of Global emissions OR reduce emissions below current levels "

THIS IS A DYNAMITE STATEMENT
but before you analyse it, think about this.
We have the highest standard of living in the world
Most any Country would love to have our level of living.
Witness the illegal problem (No other County has that ! )

Transposition is when the haves transfer to the have-nots.
Now read the report. it says in my words.
Studies show that substantial money can be made by creating controls and enforcement
of CO2 emissions to offset growth of GHG .. OR....
Reduce GHC BELOW current Levels

How can any mature person not understand that they want money ?
How can you even suspect this is on the up and up, knowing Al Gore
is involved in selling Carbon Credits. We have GE and the Oil companies now all getting on the bandwagon to make money.
We have lost our steel industry
We have lost our Foundries
We have lost almost all our Appliance operations
We haven't done anything in 30 years, but Bitcx and moan.
And we should embrace the TOTAL END OF ALL MANUFACTURING IN AMERICA ?

Laslo, I said it once and I repeat.
Forget all the details like ice and polar bears

How do you ignore the Scientific Method ?
How do you ignore Middle Ages Warming ?
How do you ignore scientific inquirey ?

The word is ....AGENDA
Rich

When you realize this is a political, and not a scientific case, it becomes clearer

lazlo
06-08-2008, 09:27 PM
I have no repect for Al Gore for a number of reasons but I do know that not everything he says is wrong. Same for Exxon. You can't broadbrush sources you don't believe in.

Dennis, you've written a long list of Ad Hominem attacks against Al Gore, and then accuse me of the same for Exxon. :rolleyes:

I'm not criticizing Exxon. It's a corporation, not a person, and it's sole reason for existence is to make money. I'm actually an Exxon investor, by the way. But I'd no sooner believe a paper on Greenhouse gases that Exxon paid for than I'd believe a paper written by Microsoft on how it's impossible to separate the browser from the OS :)


It wouldn't hurt a darn thing if the global climate were actually warming, but it's not according to a growing number of qualified scientists, and has not for about 10 years.

Dennis, everyone on both sides of the argument agrees that the Earth has warmed by ~1.8° in the last 100 years. The debate is whether the cause is humans or not. Christopher Monckton like to use the flowery expression "anthropogenic" :)

Christopher Monckton (Exxon's) paper starts as follows (capitalization is his):

"THE FACT of warming tells us nothing of the cause."


Al Gore is heavily invested in the carbon credit industry and if anthropogenic global warming is the scam I think it is he stands to lose a fortune. He has a very big financial interest in this. He's also a well-known liar, but that still does not allow me to discredit everything he says. And most importantly he has no scientific training. He is a politician.

Actually, most of the crap I'm seeing posted on the Internet is written by camouflaged politicians. Christopher Monckton, the author of the Exxon paper, is not a scientist. His degree is in Journalism, and he was a reporter for the British Tabloid Evening Standard.

He wrote a highly controversial article entitle "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" in which he suggested that the U.S and the U.K. should round-up and intern anyone testing positive for HIV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_B renchley


Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician and business consultant, policy advisor, writer, and inventor. He served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher's policy unit and has attracted controversy for his public opposition to the mainstream scientific consensus on global warming and climate change.

lazlo
06-08-2008, 09:34 PM
general observation about the " ego of man"
Name one weather event that he can control...

We have enough nukes to turn the whole planet into a cinder several times over. Does that qualify? :)

Seriously Rich, we're dumping 8 Trillion Metric Tons (and rising)of carbon into the atmosphere every year.
In the mean time, everyone on both sides agrees that the Earth's average temperature has increased by 1.8°

If you want to argue causality or the accuracy of vertical temperature profiles from satellites, as John is suggesting, I find that interesting. But it seems a bit too easy to wave off the scientific debate off as a liberal conspiracy.

I'm educated, and I'm a conservative (and vote conservative), and I'm concerned about Global Warming.

lazlo
06-08-2008, 09:40 PM
Rich,

To clarify, this is the paper that Dennis (DP) referenced, not me. I'd never seen that paper before Dennis mentioned it earlier today.


Thats it folks, and if you don't believe it, read what the IPCC report says that Laslo had us follow

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-spm.pdf

Note page 9 C-5 quoted
"Both bottom up and Top down studies indicate that their is substantial economic potential for the mitigation of GHC emissions over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth of Global emissions OR reduce emissions below current levels "
THIS IS A DYNAMITE STATEMENT

The section to which you're referring is listing the costs of the various mitigation options to reduce carbon emissions. They list the potential financial upside as a way of offsetting the mitigation costs, not as some financial venture.

Evan
06-08-2008, 09:43 PM
It wouldn't hurt a darn thing if the global climate were actually warming, but it's not according to a growing number of qualified scientists, and has not for about 10 years. When you toss out the hockey stick and look at the long term data the current climate does not look remarkably different than data for several thousand years.

You have got to be joking, except it isn't the least bit funny for us. The warming trend in our climate here in BC and the rest of Canada, especially the north, is blatantly obvious. While Canada isn't the entire planet it's pretty hard to propose a reason why just Canada is warming and not the rest.

As for "It wouldn't hurt a darn thing", that is perhaps the most incorrect statement made yet in this thread Dennis. The cost to British Columbia alone is already over the $20 billion mark and is projected to possibly top 50 to 100 billion dollars over the next decade. If you consider that the entire population of the province isn't as big as some US cities then you can see that the per capita cost to the economy goes beyond crippling, beyond punishing and far beyond anything seen before in the industrial age. It's a disaster of unprecedented magnitude as the entire BC ecosystem is changing dramatically, practically overnight, as the forest dies throughout the entire central region of the province. With it go jobs and products and it will even result in damage to the US economy, something that most certainly isn't good.

There is no doubt that the climate is warming here, has been and still is. All you have to do is take a drive and look at the endless miles of dead forest. That isn't the worst of it either. Just wait and see what happens when it burns. The ground will be sterilized and nothing much will grow there for decades. That is what happens when huge tracts of standing dead wood burn. It's nothing like an ordinary forest fire but more like a nuclear attack.

John Lawson
06-08-2008, 09:48 PM
If you have taken Geology and have examined core samples from various locations, or if you have studied the rings in trees, you already know that global warming has ALWAYS preceded an approaching ice age. The earth's ambient heat is cyclical and it repeats over and over. An ice age can completely change the face of a continent in as little time as one generation.
Dixy Lee Ray was a former head of the Atomic Energy Comission; she wrote a book that discussed the cyclical nature of worldwide heating and cooling cycles. Read it before you form your opinions on non-scientist's prattlings.

GadgetBuilder
06-08-2008, 09:54 PM
...

Climatologists have precise models that predict planetary temperatures according to CO2 content, and these models are used by NASA, among others, to accurately model and predict the temperatures of Jupiter and Venus. There's a strong correlation between Co2 content and planetary temperature.

Indeed. As another example, on your website, you quote Christopher Monckton's paper "Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?"

Christopher Monckton is with the Science and Public Policy Institute, which is a Republican think tank founded by former Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop. The Science and Public Policy Institute is funded almost exclusively by Exxon Mobil.


In my post I showed a graph of the temperatures output by the climatologist's "precise models" as pulled directly from IPCC's AR4 document. The point of showing that graph was that the models are clearly wrong as of the publication date and they have gotten "wronger" since, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

Another pedantic point: On my site I did not quote from Moncton's paper, I linked to it because he happens to come to the same conclusion I came to by simply examining charts from AR4. In arriving at my conclusion I used only information from AR4 while Moncton used additional data I did not have access to. The point is that AR4 is not internally consistent when you compare information from different sections.

Saying that you can't believe an argument because of the person presenting that argument is an "ad hominum", a logical fallacy (I'm on a pedantic roll here :)

My point throughout is that if you look at the data provided in AR4 (and elsewhere) carefully you can come to your own conclusions by canceling most of the spin.

John

Evan
06-08-2008, 10:00 PM
If you have taken Geology and have examined core samples from various locations, or if you have studied the rings in trees, you already know that global warming has ALWAYS preceded an approaching ice age.
Never before has an animal living on the planet been able to change the global ecosystem to the degree we have done. The situation is unprecedented so previous data on natural climate cycles isn't of much help or predictive value. To turn your statement around, which is logically valid, you are saying that it's always warmer before it became colder. Since it cannot be otherwise that isn't a very helpful observation. In particular, it places no limits on how warm it may become or for how long. Venus will eventually grow colder but it will be a while.

dp
06-08-2008, 10:09 PM
You have got to be joking, except it isn't the least bit funny for us. The warming trend in our climate here in BC and the rest of Canada, especially the north, is blatantly obvious. While Canada isn't the entire planet it's pretty hard to propose a reason why just Canada is warming and not the rest.
That isn't global warming. That is regional warming. South of the equator it's a very different story.



As for "It wouldn't hurt a darn thing", that is perhaps the most incorrect statement made yet in this thread Dennis.
And what is the warmest year? Corrected for Y2K errors it is 1934. In the time since, what has happened to CO2 levels? It's gone up. There's a disconnect here in the statistics. The world today is not as warm as it was in 1934. It's not even as warm as it was in 1998.



There is no doubt that the climate is warming here, has been and still is.
That does not translate to global warming. There was a frost warning in Oregon a few days ago. It's June. I don't recall there ever being frost in June. But Oregon is not the world, either. It's regional.


All you have to do is take a drive and look at the endless miles of dead forest. That isn't the worst of it either. Just wait and see what happens when it burns. The ground will be sterilized and nothing much will grow there for decades. That is what happens when huge tracts of standing dead wood burn. It's nothing like an ordinary forest fire but more like a nuclear attack.
The beetles have been on the move for decades - long before global warming was an issue. The cleaned out Eastern Oregon long ago and are munching their way across Washington, too. Meanwhile, glacier ice is accumulating in the Andes and Mt. St. Helens, and sea levels are not rising anywhere in any unusual amounts.

dp
06-08-2008, 10:34 PM
Dennis, you've written a long list of Ad Hominem attacks against Al Gore, and then accuse me of the same for Exxon. :rolleyes:
It is not ad hominem when there is a sound basis for the criticism, and in Al's case, there is a lot of basis. The difference between you and I on this is that I'm willing to debate Al Gore's statements and not just write them off as unworthy solely because they come from Al Gore.


I'm not criticizing Exxon. It's a corporation, not a person, and it's sole reason for existence is to make money. I'm actually an Exxon investor, by the way. But I'd no sooner believe a paper on Greenhouse gases that Exxon paid for than I'd believe a paper written by Microsoft on how it's impossible to separate the browser from the OS :)
That is prejudicial, plain and simple. There cannot be honest and open debate on this complex issue if we don't consider the expert opinion of all the experts.


Dennis, everyone on both sides of the argument agrees that the Earth has warmed by ~1.8° in the last 100 years. The debate is whether the cause is humans or not. Christopher Monckton like to use the flowery expression "anthropogenic" :)

It is not established on any scientific basis that this change in temperature is natural or unnatural. It is certainly not established that it is caused by humans. It is nowhere in the historic record that CO2 increases leads to temperature increases. The record in fact demonstrates that CO2 level follows temperature change by a very long time. Since it is not based on science it is based on something else. Many of us think it's based on wishful thinking.


Christopher Monckton (Exxon's) paper starts as follows (capitalization is his):

"THE FACT of warming tells us nothing of the cause."

I'm not seeing any error in that statement. The earth has been cooling and warming for a very long time. The absolute trend for the zillions of years the proxies are considered reliable is that the earth is cooling and that is exactly what you expect from a formerly molten rock spinning around a star that is slowly burning out.


Actually, most of the crap I'm seeing posted on the Internet is written by camouflaged politicians. Christopher Monckton, the author of the Exxon paper, is not a scientist. His degree is in Journalism, and he was a reporter for the British Tabloid Evening Standard.
Don't give up!! There's a lot of good science out there, and don't be afraid to study that which which you don't agree with.


He wrote a highly controversial article entitle "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" in which he suggested that the U.S and the U.K. should round-up and intern anyone testing positive for HIV.
You are giving him too much credit for being important to the debate. Don't ponder him - ponder what he has written and who his sources are and debate the merits or fallacies. Going after the messenger is bad form. And for the record - AIDS is an unusual case where people infected with a deadly disease that is easily transmitted have not been quarantined. That was a social solution, not a medical decision. To wit: http://wcbstv.com/health/bird.mites.bloodsucking.2.741942.html

It is a legitimate question to ask: How many people are now dying from this disease because officials failed to do what was common place for controlling measles? My brother-in-law would be alive today if his partner had been isolated from society, but that was in 1988 and it wasn't yet understood the nature of the beast.

Time to get back to machines, though, don't you think? In and out of this debate I've gotten a good amount of work done on my shaper restoration. Just in time for my retirement - I resigned last week and now every day is Saturday!

lazlo
06-08-2008, 11:10 PM
In my post I showed a graph of the temperatures output by the climatologist's "precise models" as pulled directly from IPCC's AR4 document. The point of showing that graph was that the models are clearly wrong as of the publication date and they have gotten "wronger" since, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

John, if I understand your argument, the satellite data in Chapter 9 of the IPCC report correlates well with the climatology models for all regions except for a band in the troposphere around the equator.

It sounds like you're questioning the whole premise of global warming because of potential difference in the climatology model in a small band of troposphere data? There are plenty of other sources (terrestrial measurements) that have confirmed the global warming trends.

You probably know this, but the NOAA MSU satellites don't directly measure temperature. They are passive microwave radiometers that measure microwaves emitted when oxygen in the atmosphere decays, and the data is in the form of radiances in various wavelengths. You then have to mathematically process the data to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The MSU data is also spliced together from a long series of satellites that have been in orbit since 1978, each with different sensor capabilities, calibration, and orbital decay.

So not surprisingly, the different groups (RSS and UAH) analyzing the same MSU data, can derive slightly different long-term temperature trends from the same data. The differences are mostly in the overall trends, rather than the monthly or annual variability.

Here's an explanation of the discrepancy and the fix from RealClimate (where you posted your question):

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

There have been three principle MSU products: Channel 4, Channel 2 and the 2LT records. MSU-4 is a record of lower stratospheric temperatures, MSU-2 is mainly mid-troposphere combined with a significant chunk of the lower stratosphere, and MSU-2LT is an attempt to use more viewing angles to try remove the stratospheric influence from MSU-2 and leave a lower-tropospheric record. (Recent upgrades to newer satellite instruments with more channels have lead to the 2LT record being renamed the TLT record).

The disagreement with the models related mainly to the MSU 2LT record. Models do quite well at matching the history of MSU-4 (whose variability is a function mainly of ozone depletion and volcanic aerosol effects), and models also match the lack of significant trend in MSU-2 (which is affected by stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming which cancel out to some degree) (i.e Hansen et al 2002). So the problem has been principally with MSU 2LT, which despite a strong surface temperature trend did not seem to have been warming very much - while models and basic physics predict that it should be warming at a slightly larger rate than the surface.

In the first Science Express paper, Mears et al produce a new assessment of the MSU 2LT record and show that one of the corrections applied to the UAH MSU 2LT record had been applied incorrectly, significantly underplaying the trend in the data. This mistake has been acknowledged by the UAH team who have already updated their data (version 5.2) so that it includes the fix. This correction (related to the drift in crossing times at the equator) mainly affects the tropics, and was most important for one particular satellite (NOAA-11).

The satellite/model discrepancy in the troposphere data in that small band over the equator is popular among GW skeptics forums to cast doubt on the models. But now that NOAH, NCAR, RSS and UAH have reconciled the sampling, splicing and analysis methodology, NCAR and ICPP are reporting excellent correlation between the satellite data and the climatology models.

lazlo
06-08-2008, 11:15 PM
Time to get back to machines, though, don't you think? In and out of this debate I've gotten a good amount of work done on my shaper restoration. Just in time for my retirement - I resigned last week and now every day is Saturday!

Congrats! Lots more time to spend in the shop! :)

I spent the day fighting to fit DRO scales to my Millrite. It was a heck of a lot easier on my Mill/Drill -- the damn Y and Z axis' on the Millrite don't have a single flat spot anywhere.
I thought I was making it harder than it needed to be (cutting spacers with compound angles), but MickeyD came by and couldn't suggest any obvious fixes.

Bridgeport was smart enough to leave large flat areas in places where you'd normally mount the scale :rolleyes:

Edit: I just got done doing something extremely dangerous, and probably flat-out stupid: the only place I could conveniently mount the DRO reader head was on the cast iron nut carrier for the Y axis (which is exposed on the Millrite). Unfortunately, it was rough-cast, and when I bolted the reader head plate on it , it tilted in several directions.

So I got out my Slugger magnetic drill press, stuck it to the side of the knee, put a 5/16" HSS endmill in the drill, and feed the y-axis screw back and forth until the nut carrier was flat. Got 'R Done! :D

I'll post a series of pictures when I'm done. The Z-axis is even worse on the Millrite...

Rich Carlstedt
06-08-2008, 11:49 PM
Yepp..
The learned weather forecasters have been 2,000 % wrong
about predicting Huricanes in the Gulf for the past two years
and yet they know what sea level will be 50 years from now.
They can't even tell what the Federal Deficeit will be next year, let alone
what 5 years will bring.
They know all because they are ??????? learned men..(sic)

Sorry Evan, but the absolute egotism of man is reflected in your quote
" Never before has an animal living on the planet been able to change the global ecosystem to the degree we have done."

How do you know that ?
Have you been around for 5 million years?
Do you know about dinosaurs and de-forestation ?
Its typical of Computer Scientists who think
that computers can tell you anything !
Complete and utter arrogance !
Remember "Shix in....Shix out !
Remember Y2K ?
We STILL DON"T have the Program written by these guys like Mann
to look at.
Sure , I can agree to some weather temps or situations,
but I will never aggree to arrogance

We have now gone on for some time, and no one has answered the
True question I have repeatedly posted.
Why was the temperature of the Middle Ages ignored ?

The answer fellows is ....... arrrogance

If included, the whole "supposition" falls

Still like you however Evan ...just knocking off the rough edges
Rich

aostling
06-09-2008, 12:09 AM
All you have to do is take a drive and look at the endless miles of dead forest.

It looks like the forests are dying in Siberia too. The orange regions might be dead conifers.

Last week was the 100th anniversary of the Tunguska Blast. I wanted to see what the region looked like today. I don't have the scale for this shot, but if you are curious, just go to Tura, Russia on Google Earth and you can see for yourself.

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u183/aostling/Tunguska.jpg

Evan
06-09-2008, 01:10 AM
That isn't global warming. That is regional warming.
The region in question is a sizeable portion of the land area of the planet. There isn't an explanation for the warming trend that doesn't include the rest of the planet. A cool spring and a frost warning in June someplace is not a sign that the planet is cooling any more than a hot summer day is a sign it is warming. That isn't what make or breaks the evidence for a warming TREND. A trend towards a warmer climate will have even more variability in the weather than a cooling trend and that variability will include cold weather as well as warm. It's just that in the longer term the warm outweighs the cold. As I said earlier in this thread, the main sign of the warming trend is higher minimum temperatures, not higher maximums. Higher minimums are much less noticable but that's why the bark beetles haven't been killed off in the last 15 years.

Sure, pine bark beetles have been around for eons. But, the climate normally keeps them in check as it has in this area for centuries. That is easy to tell since there were plenty of large and mature pines, entire forests of them. They are mostly dead now and the kill rate is estimated to be as high as 95 percent which will effectively eliminate pine as a species in this province. All of my pine trees have died in the last three years, there are none left.

But that's not all. The junipers are dying and my Douglas Firs are under heavy stress from a fir moth that attacks new growth. They can only withstand that attack for about 5 to 10 years and they will die as well unless the moth larvae freeze in winter. That requires -35 to -40 for a few days to two weeks depending on when it happens. We haven't seen even one day of -40 since the 1980s.

The Fraser River is warming up and the salmon runs are being wiped out because of the warm water. The ice fields in Bowron Lake park have dissapeared since 1982 when I first saw them. New species of birds are moving into this territory. We are being overrun by deer as they are surviving winter in record numbers. We have never seen so many Canada Geese as we have in the last few years. Grizzly bears are being reported on Vancouver Island, a sign of population pressure on the mainland.


And what is the warmest year? Corrected for Y2K errors it is 1934. In the time since, what has happened to CO2 levels? It's gone up. There's a disconnect here in the statistics. The world today is not as warm as it was in 1934. It's not even as warm as it was in 1998.
Yet the last ten years have something like 8 of the warmest ever recorded. One outlier in 1934 followed by cooler years does not constitute a trend. There is no disconnect in the stats. The inertia of the global ecosystem is so great that change is slow and imperceptible on a year to year basis. It adds up though and over decades it becomes visible. It really makes a difference in regions like here where very small changes in average temperature make a big difference. What may appear to be regional warming happens because some regions are much more sensitive to small changes than others. Raising the temperature in Death Valley a few degrees makes no visible difference. Raising our temperature 1/2 degree is often the difference between rain and snow.


Sorry Evan, but the absolute egotism of man is reflected in your quote
" Never before has an animal living on the planet been able to change the global ecosystem to the degree we have done."
Point out an animal that has released the carbon of millions of years of previous growth in just a few decades. We are special in that we are able to manipulate the environment in a wholesale manner. A beaver may dam a stream, we reverse the flow of entire river systems. It is unprecedented. Only humans can do this.

Pissing in the ocean makes no difference, 6,500,000,000 pissing in the ocean is a different story.

dp
06-09-2008, 01:40 AM
The region in question is a sizeable portion of the land area of the planet. There isn't an explanation for the warming trend that doesn't include the rest of the planet. A cool spring and a frost warning in June someplace is not a sign that the planet is cooling any more than a hot summer day is a sign it is warming. That isn't what make or breaks the evidence for a warming TREND. A trend towards a warmer climate will have even more variability in the weather than a cooling trend and that variability will include cold weather as well as warm. It's just that in the longer term the warm outweighs the cold. As I said earlier in this thread, the main sign of the warming trend is higher minimum temperatures, not higher maximums. Higher minimums are much less noticable but that's why the bark beetles haven't been killed off in the last 15 years.


But none of this points to human-caused warming. All the respected temperature data are averages. The intention is to identify the energy state of the planet. The energy state determines how much energy is radiated into space vs how much arrives from the sun. When the difference is positive the earth warms. And for the analysis to be applicable on a global scale, global data are used.


That requires -35 to -40 for a few days to two weeks depending on when it happens. We haven't seen even one day of -40 since the 1980s.

In Siberia in 2005 it was the big theme that global warming was freeing up the tundra which microbes were converting to methane such that lighting a match was risky. This past winter it was consistently in the -50's much of the time. Your problem is regional, not global. Not to say it isn't a problem, but I don't think the rest of the world should go broke because of it.


The Fraser River is warming up and the salmon runs are being wiped out because of the warm water. The ice fields in Bowron Lake park have dissapeared since 1982 when I first saw them. New species of birds are moving into this territory. We are being overrun by deer as they are surviving winter in record numbers. We have never seen so many Canada Geese as we have in the last few years. Grizzly bears are being reported on Vancouver Island, a sign of population pressure on the mainland.

The glacier inside Mt. St. Helens' crater is growing. It is encircling a growing mound of lava. There are going to be these regional differences. The globe is not doing what Cananda is doing and it is global warming we're kicking around, not a local weather problem.

I've had the electric blanket on for the last week and that has never happened in June. The good news is the arctic ice has made a dramatic comeback, and even though it is mostly first year ice, all ice started out as first year ice. It's a good sign. The IPCC is predicting cooler weather for the next decade so maybe things will cool off in BC.


Yet the last ten years have something like 8 of the warmest ever recorded. One outlier in 1934 followed by cooler years does not constitute a trend. There is no disconnect in the stats.

The dust bowls years hardly represent an outlier. That lasted as long as the current record. It just happened to peak in 1934. It caused the largest migration of humanity in anyone's memory. And then it cooled off for a very long time. So long, in fact that it has yet to repeat. Nobody is moving anywhere today because of the weather.

Evan
06-09-2008, 06:02 AM
But none of this points to human-caused warming.

It is very difficult to explain in the context of global cooling though. Regardless of the cause it is much more than an isolated data point. There is no viable explanation for such regional warming that doesn't include the rest of the planet.


In Siberia in 2005 it was the big theme that global warming was freeing up the tundra which microbes were converting to methane such that lighting a match was risky. This past winter it was consistently in the -50's much of the time. Your problem is regional, not global. Not to say it isn't a problem, but I don't think the rest of the world should go broke because of it.

See above. A cold spell for a winter also does not constitute a trend or even an outlier in the context of a warmer planet. Perhaps Siberia would have been -60 instead of -50. That is also a warming trend.



The glacier inside Mt. St. Helens' crater is growing. It is encircling a growing mound of lava. There are going to be these regional differences. The globe is not doing what Cananda is doing and it is global warming we're kicking around, not a local weather problem.

Of course it's growing. It's cold on the top of Mt. St. Helens. Perhaps not quite as cold as it used to be but still cold enough for permanent ice to form. That is a specious argument and not an indicator of cooling or warming or an argument for or against regional variations. We still had snow this last winter too and it was much cooler than in many recent years. However, it wasn't as cold as it used to be on an average basis.


've had the electric blanket on for the last week and that has never happened in June. The good news is the arctic ice has made a dramatic comeback, and even though it is mostly first year ice, all ice started out as first year ice. It's a good sign. The IPCC is predicting cooler weather for the next decade so maybe things will cool off in BC.

A single data point does not constitute a trend. Even a decade of cooler weather doesn't if it's still warmer than it was before. There are cycles to the climate and even if the climate is warming overall it doesn't mean those cycles will go away.

One of the biggest indicators that the planet is warming is the increasing incidence of extreme weather variability. Weather is an energy driven phenomenon. The more energy available the more extreme the excursions and that includes both hot and cold. A warmer planet is still going to be colder at the poles than the equator and will still have seasons with snow and ice unless we are truly doomed and the climate runs away into a Venus scenario. I don't think that is likely at all.


The dust bowls years hardly represent an outlier. That lasted as long as the current record. It just happened to peak in 1934. It caused the largest migration of humanity in anyone's memory. And then it cooled off for a very long time. So long, in fact that it has yet to repeat. Nobody is moving anywhere today because of the weather.

Oh? Have you checked out Africa lately?




Experts Say Climate Change Drives Migration in Sub-Saharan Africa


By Nancy Palus
Dakar
20 March 2008
The effects of climate change are increasingly driving people in sub-Saharan Africa to migrate in search of better living conditions, according to experts who gathered this week in the Senegalese capital, Dakar. Nancy Palus reports for VOA.

Migration and development in Africa were the themes of this week’s conference. Climate change was a major topic. It is being seen as one of the leading causes of migration. Al-Hamndou Dorsouma, with the Tunis-based Sahara and Sahel Observatory, says climate change worsens weather extremes in the region, including flooding, drought, and desertification. He says even if more research is needed, the link between desertification and migration is clear. He says the phenomenon is simple. First, soil quality breaks down. Then people produce less food and poverty deepens. He says this leads to social tensions and forces people to move - some to urban areas, some to other countries.

http://desertification.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/sub-saharan-africa-climate-change-drives-migration-google-voa-news/

GadgetBuilder
06-09-2008, 11:01 AM
John, if I understand your argument, the satellite data in Chapter 9 of the IPCC report correlates well with the climatology models for all regions except for a band in the troposphere around the equator.

It sounds like you're questioning the whole premise of global warming because of potential difference in the climatology model in a small band of troposphere data? There are plenty of other sources (terrestrial measurements) that have confirmed the global warming trends.
...


Lazlo,

Apparently I haven't been clear on my conclusions (or lack thereof).

The page on my site notes the fact that AR4 is internally inconsistent and that the report that addresses this seems biased. While RC may say this issue is settled they're still having some difficulty explaining it. But, this part of my argument is only to show what led me to conclude that you can't trust conclusions unless you can trust the underlying data and the person drawing the conclusions. Much of the data underlying AGW is hard for a non-statistician to accept at face value because of the political spin and this was my introduction to the spin machine - I assumed initially that AR4 would be unbiased so this was an eye opener. And you provided another example of the politization of AGW with your Solanki quote.

AR4 is the only easy source for model projections so I extracted this from that source:
http://webpages.charter.net/balplanman/GlobalWarming/AR4Trend2.jpg

Where measured global temperature data is in black, "committed" CO2 warming is in orange, and the other colors are various warming "scenarios".

I noted that the measured data at time of publication show a decelerating upward trend that is well below all of the model projections and is only slightly above the "committed" warming (assumes CO2 is held constant, which we know didn't happen).

Then, I looked up what has happened to temperature since AR4 was published, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

Clearly, the decelerating trend in global temperature continued after AR4 publication and the global temperature has been trending slightly downward for at least 3 years. The blue line at the most recent update indicates this trend is continuing and may be accelerating. A few years data isn't conclusive but then, it can't be ignored either. The CO2 causes global warming theory (as reflected in the model trends) is continuing to move farther from observations -- which makes me look for an alternate explanation.

Moncton's paper alerted me to the possibility of solar cycle length as a predictor for global temperature so I started watching for info on solar cycles and came across this: http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=130

The following graph from the above site seems to be from a 1991 paper by Friis-Christensen et al:
http://webpages.charter.net/balplanman/GlobalWarming/CycleLength.jpg

While the graph stops prior to the current solar cycle, it is clear that cycle 23 is dragging on and will be at least 11 years and possibly more. If the graph is correct, this indicates that cooling is in the solar pipeline or may have begun.

Is the solar cycle length theory correct? Is it better than the CO2 theory?

Hard to say for a non-expert like me and hard to un-spin what the experts say. Based on looking at the observed data on global temperatures vs predictions based on the two theories, at present I think the cycle length theory is doing better. Others may look at the same data and draw other conclusions.

My point throughout is that you can't rely on climate "experts" who may have an axe to grind - better to go to the data and draw your own conclusions.

Mother Nature will have the last word, of course:D

John

Mad Scientist
06-09-2008, 11:19 AM
Is climate change going on? Of course. But then there has always been climate change going on!
The question is, are we now adding to it or causing it? That all depends on which group of “experts” that you want to listen to.

To help sort that out it helps to follow the old adage about following the money.

lazlo
06-09-2008, 11:44 AM
The point of showing that graph was that the models are clearly wrong as of the publication date and they have gotten "wronger" since, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm


John, what is the "wronger" part of that graph? It's actually showing the same global temperature trend as the Wikipedia graph I posted earlier: the double lightning bolt, with the first warming trend from 1910 to 1940 (attributed to solar irradiation), and the second warming trend from 1950 - present (that we're enthusiastically discussing :) ).

By the way, that's a neat web site: the School of Environmental Sciences, in Norwich, UK. They have a great FAQ page here, each one of the Facts is a hyperlink with a great layman's explanation of each:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

Climate change - the big picture

Climate change is a complex subject, with genuine areas of uncertainty and scientific controversy. There are also a number of misunderstandings which are recycled, often by non-climate scientists, and portrayed as scientific fact. As one of the world's leading centres on climate change we believe it is important to address all the issues. On this page you will find the known facts about climate change.

Climate change facts

Fact 1: Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it

Fact 2: Temperatures are continuing to rise

Fact 3: The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle

Fact 4: Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone

Fact 5: If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix

Fact 6: Climate models predict the main features of future climate

Climate change myths

Myth 1: The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate

The mechanism by which cosmic rays might affect climate is as yet purely speculative and unquantified. While it has long been known that radiation could form ions and, in theory, ultimately lead to cloud formation, the importance of this process compared to all the other major sources of particles and cloud condensation nuclei has not been proven. Indeed, there is no evidence that the flux of cosmic rays has decreased over the last 30 years.

Even if cosmic rays have a detectable effect on climate (and this remains unproven), measured solar activity over the last few decades has not significantly changed and cannot explain the continued warming trend. In contrast, increases in CO2 are well measured and its warming effect is well quantified. It offers the most plausible explanation of most of the recent warming and future increases.

Allan Waterfall
06-09-2008, 12:32 PM
To help sort that out it helps to follow the old adage about following the money. Right on the money,no pun intended.

Thousands of people have got jobs and are earning good money from the CO2 scam,bit like the King's clothes really.

Diesel engines put out less CO2 than petrol engines,if the government in the UK were really interested in CO2 emmissions they'd make diesel a cheaper fuel than petrol,until that day I'll contine to believe it's all a scam for people to make money out of.
The fact is, the rise in CO2 comes after global warming and isn't the cause.

Allan

PaulF
06-09-2008, 01:13 PM
Yeesh! June 7th.. still pumping wood into the woodstoves. It feels like it wants to snow outside right now.
I really can't remember such a long winter or a colder spring.
Is it just me?


Just heard the weather for the north Olympic peninsula (The little notch on the NW US across from Victoria B.C Canada)

" Warning to hikers in the Olympics, Snow level to 2500' -12" of snow and winter storm warnings!!"

I live in the woods at 1000' it was 39 deg F last evening.

AHHHHH Summer!
PaulF

Evan
06-09-2008, 01:45 PM
Allan,

" The fact is, the rise in CO2 comes after global warming and isn't the cause."

The fact is, that isn't a fact. Even though there is some data that indicates that rises in CO2 levels may follow rises in temperature there are mechanisms that account for that. Initial increases in CO2 levels will be followed by biological activity that results in increased CO2 emission after the initial rise in levels. Plants grow better when CO2 levels are higher, especially algae and phytoplankton in the ocean. During the growth cycle plants consume CO2 and keep the levels down but when that biomass dies and rots the carbon is released and contributes to the increase in CO2.

It's a feed back cycle that builds on the underlying preceding CO2 emissions and amplifies them with built in time delays as long as several centuries. The plants can't absorb infinite amounts of CO2 so the eventual result is a new equiblibrium is reached. If the equilibrium is further upset by continued new supplies of CO2 then the result is a constant upswing in the level but with a delay as the vegetation catches up.

The problem with this scenario is that at some point the ecosystem (oceans especially) will reach a limit on how much CO2 it can sequester and then the delay will rapidly disappear and levels will begin to rise in step with emissions. Then the real trouble starts.

dp
06-09-2008, 02:01 PM
It is very difficult to explain in the context of global cooling though. Regardless of the cause it is much more than an isolated data point. There is no viable explanation for such regional warming that doesn't include the rest of the planet.

While Canada has been warming in the winter it snowed in Iraq. I agree completely that these things are difficult to explain, and I'm far from convinced that anyone actually has. As a result, any solutions are premature. Particularly any that cost $45 trillion.


See above. A cold spell for a winter also does not constitute a trend or even an outlier in the context of a warmer planet. Perhaps Siberia would have been -60 instead of -50. That is also a warming trend.

It was a tit-for-tat data point. We both know that only averages that represent energy state are valid for this purpose.


Of course it's growing. It's cold on the top of Mt. St. Helens. Perhaps not quite as cold as it used to be but still cold enough for permanent ice to form. That is a specious argument and not an indicator of cooling or warming or an argument for or against regional variations. We still had snow this last winter too and it was much cooler than in many recent years. However, it wasn't as cold as it used to be on an average basis.

That was thrown in for those folks who like to discuss receding glaciers. There's always a reason glaciers are where they are and why some grow and others shrink. Glaciers recede for reasons other than warming. Some recede because the source snowfall has stopped (e.g. little ice age ended). As we see in Canada, regional warming is happening, snow fell in Iraq, a new glacier was born in an active volcano, and glaciers in India are receding. Indeed it is very difficult to make sense of it.


A single data point does not constitute a trend. Even a decade of cooler weather doesn't if it's still warmer than it was before. There are cycles to the climate and even if the climate is warming overall it doesn't mean those cycles will go away.

Or remain.


One of the biggest indicators that the planet is warming is the increasing incidence of extreme weather variability. Weather is an energy driven phenomenon. The more energy available the more extreme the excursions and that includes both hot and cold. A warmer planet is still going to be colder at the poles than the equator and will still have seasons with snow and ice unless we are truly doomed and the climate runs away into a Venus scenario. I don't think that is likely at all.

No argument from me on the theory - now what's causing it and why?


Oh? Have you checked out Africa lately?

You do know that Africa is and has been for a very long time a continent of migrant and nomadic populations. The climate there has changed incredibly for the last many thousands of years, and the desert bands that parallel equatorial Africa have been growing steadily. That once was a lush and verdant world. And it will be again. The last ice age, while very bad for Canada, was very good for equatorial Africa. No anthropogenic influence turned that around, and that was a huge change in climate.

The climate record suggests that is about to turn around very soon. We're at the end of this current warm period, statistically. See in this chart set where we are in this very regular cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

GadgetBuilder
06-09-2008, 06:26 PM
John, what is the "wronger" part of that graph? It's actually showing the same global temperature trend as the Wikipedia graph I posted earlier: the double lightning bolt, with the first warming trend from 1910 to 1940 (attributed to solar irradiation), and the second warming trend from 1950 - present (that we're enthusiastically discussing :) ).

...



Lazlo,

I showed the temperature trend found in AR4 where observation data starts in 1990 and ends in 2005. The observations are clearly well below the model predictions and are bending toward level. In the period since 2005 the HADCRU site shows global temperature peaked in about 2002 and has been trending downward since. The large blue bar at the end of the trend is the preliminary data for 2008 so far and it isn't showing a change to warming. HADCRU is a pro-AGW site so I doubt they are spinning the data in this direction.
Link repeated for convenience: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

The chart you posted ends about 1995 (ancient in AGW terms) so it doesn't show recent developments. As you know, careful choice of start and end points can have considerable affect on a trend. While the last 5 years don't define a trend, it also shouldn't be ignored if you're attempting to predict what will happen in the future. You didn't provide a link so I can't tell whether the paper is old or the author used an old chart for spin...

An interesting point about the graph you posted is that the temperature trend from 1900-1940 does not correlate well with greenhouse gasses thought to cause the temperature trend; compare it to the correlation of temperature with solar cycle length in the chart I posted. Again, correlation is not causation -- but the difference got my attention.

The 1991 cycle length paper I referenced is old also but the data on sunspot cycle length is not controversial and is easily found and verified. Global temperature data is more controversial because NASA keeps changing their "adjustments" so I suppose one could argue that this chart is misleading - but I think the adjustments have been relatively small and so have little effect on the graph.

John

Evan
06-09-2008, 07:16 PM
We're at the end of this current warm period, statistically.

I don't think that previous records and statistics are of much use. As I said, the current situation is unprecedented. There is no evidence to suggest that there has ever been a prior technological civilisation that has dug up millions of years worth of sequestered hydrocarbons and released them into the atmosphere in few decades. We are on new ground here and relying on previous events that don't reflect this is most likely going to produce wrong answers. That's why climate modeling is the only possible way to make some sense of what is happening.

aostling
06-09-2008, 07:37 PM
That's why climate modeling is the only possible way to make some sense of what is happening.

I agree. A weather model is known to be useless in predicting conditions beyond a week, due to the Butterfly Effect. But climate does not have this "sensitive dependence on initial conditions." We are going to need a very good model, to save ourselves.

oldtiffie
06-09-2008, 07:52 PM
Oh dear - what a problem.

Life sucks!!

This - with several other like philosophical observations came in by email:

1.
Q: What are the three biggest tragedies in a mans life?
A: Life sucks, job sucks, and the (object of your desires/ choice) doesn't.

2.
Having sex is like playing bridge. If you don't have a good partner, you'd better have a good hand.

I suspect that some have a bad hand - perhaps not.

clutch
06-09-2008, 07:59 PM
The problem is easy enough to solve. Just institute one child per couple like China and the number of us will decline.

Also protect the USA border since we use 22+% of the worlds energy and we don't need more people in the USA.

If this is really real, it would seem that this would be a practical solution.

Clutch

PS

I'm fine with #2. Just tweeking ya on #1.

dp
06-09-2008, 08:15 PM
I don't think that previous records and statistics are of much use. As I said, the current situation is unprecedented. There is no evidence to suggest that there has ever been a prior technological civilisation that has dug up millions of years worth of sequestered hydrocarbons and released them into the atmosphere in few decades. We are on new ground here and relying on previous events that don't reflect this is most likely going to produce wrong answers. That's why climate modeling is the only possible way to make some sense of what is happening.

Well, we do know that the CO2 level has been hundreds of times higher than it is now and the earth still froze over. There's no reason yet to believe the mechanism that produces 3000' of ice outside our door is not up to the challenge of humans. It hasn't been tested so everything is a swag, either way. And I remain amazed that we have very expensive political solutions in wings to solve a problem we don't yet understand or know for certain we have while at the same time we have people starving to death or suffering malnutrition because we're using food for fuel to save the planet. For what?

oldtiffie
06-09-2008, 08:19 PM
My experience in the "hots" and "cold" cyclical state of most concern to me (once) was that it was monthly.

Perhaps some here need to "chill out" too.

Evan
06-09-2008, 08:53 PM
Well, we do know that the CO2 level has been hundreds of times higher than it is now and the earth still froze over. There's no reason yet to believe the mechanism that produces 3000' of ice outside our door is not up to the challenge of humans.

Huh? Current CO2 levels are higher than any we have been able to confirm in the past 800,000 years. We have no direct evidence for higher levels in the past.

There is no reason to believe that such a mechanism is currently in action either since we don't know what it may be. There isn't a concensus on what causes ice ages or what effects they may have.



Scientists have since turned to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide as a possible explanation. Carbon dioxide concentrations can be measured in ancient air bubbles preserved in sequences of cores drilled into the Antarctic ice sheet. Because some changes in carbon dioxide have been found to occur slightly before changes in ice volume, the prevailing interpretation has been that carbon dioxide is an additional independent 'driver' of the size of ice sheets, along with solar radiation.
Now, a new hypothesis inverts this view.
William Ruddiman, an environmental scientist with the University of Virginia, provides a novel explanation for the rhythms of the ice ages in a paper just published online in the journal Climate of the Past. Ruddiman found that carbon dioxide is a driver of ice sheets only at the relatively small 23,000-year cycle, but not at the much larger ice-volume cycles at 41,000 years and approximately 100,000 years. In those cases he found that ice sheets instead control atmospheric carbon dioxide and drive feedbacks that amplify ice growth and melting. He says his carbon dioxide feedback hypothesis explains why the strongest cycles of ice response are not in correspondence with those in the orbital cycles.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060725074044.htm




Next Ice Age Delayed By Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels

ScienceDaily (Aug. 30, 2007) — Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. That is the implication of recent work by Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm

dp
06-09-2008, 10:04 PM
Huh? Current CO2 levels are higher than any we have been able to confirm in the past 800,000 years. We have no direct evidence for higher levels in the past.
For a recent example of higher levels (in the hundreds of ppm range): http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003893.html

And for a historic example you need to explore "Snowball Earth" via google. It is estimated (there being no proxies available) that CO2 levels had to have been 350 times (not ppm) than today for the earth to have warmed enough to overcome the heat loss due to reflection. I'm going to bet there was a lot of methane from undersea smokers. Volcanism cannot be ruled out as a contributor given what was happening with plate tectonics. This is one of those probably impossible to prove or disprove theories, of course, but there's a lot of science to keep it on the burner.


There is no reason to believe that such a mechanism is currently in action either since we don't know what it may be. There isn't a concensus on what causes ice ages or what effects they may have.
There's no consensus on what caused the current climate state, either. There is that very interesting fit between solar activity (spots) and global temperature and there is no easy way to explain it away. No mechanism exists on earth to affect the sun, but the reverse is glaringly apparent.

Edit: Forgot to add - we need to let this go because we're not selling any magazines for the hosts :)

speedy
06-09-2008, 11:51 PM
What exactly are you doing about it??

For practical ( minimising my pollution of this planet ), health and economical reasons I now consider when and where I use my 2l Toyota sedan.
Eating more vegetable, changed over to drinking un-homogenised A2 milk and consuming a lot less meat protein. ( ref. The China Study)
Buy local produce when possible.
Have a small garden plot.
Worm farm in an old bath which has minimised our waste stream by 50%(?) and provides nutrient for our plants and a home for the worms.
Recycle most of the 'rubbish' from our home. The stuff that is not catered for in the recycle programme (really a missnomer) goes into the rubbish bag.
I'll add more as they occur to me.

I am giving up cabbage and attempting shallow breathing to minimise my carbon footprint but somehow I believe that the bastards will tax me anyway.
If I allow the lawn grass to grow and throw the mower away, grow more trees on my 1/4 acre will I qualify for Carbon Tax credits?

Evan
06-10-2008, 12:01 AM
There is that very interesting fit between solar activity (spots) and global temperature and there is no easy way to explain it away.
It doesn't need to be explained away in terms of solar output. The output of the sun doesn't increase during the solar cycle peak. In fact, it decreases slightly because the sunspots radiate less than the surrounding photosphere.

Something else is happening and it probably has to do with the upper atmosphere. Because of the increase in energetic particles bombarding it it gains kinetic energy and balloons outward (fact). That changes the ionosphere dramatically as evidenced by the sometimes severe disruptions to radio transmissions (fact). That in turn will affect the standing voltage difference between the ionosphere and the ground (fact). Such changes could well produce weather effects that affect cloud formation, thunderstorms and rainfall (supposition) as well as insolation (follows).

So there you are, a plausible hypothesis that might explain how the solar cycle might affect temperatures on earth without an increase in solar output.

Oh yes, I forgot. Supporting evidence is the fairly recent discovery of lightning bolts that travel out of the top of thunderstorms toward the ionosphere.

http://geology.about.com/od/sprites/a/sprites.htm

aostling
06-10-2008, 01:08 AM
I allow the lawn grass to grow and throw the mower away, grow more trees on my 1/4 acre

It's always been a Half Gallon Quarter Acre Pavlova Paradise. You've got the right idea. When Auckland gets too crowded, there is always Reefton, or Nightcaps.

dp
06-10-2008, 01:27 AM
Just for fun, here's a trip down memory lane to 1971 and global cooling. CO2 is prominently featured:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138

I have to confess to spending more time listening to Led Zepplin than working on my studies, but I do recall at the time thinking this was an odd concept.

speedy
06-10-2008, 01:59 AM
Create a commodity; call it carbon. it will not solve anything but the few will get filthy rich though!!


It's always been a Half Gallon Quarter Acre Pavlova Paradise. You've got the right idea. When Auckland gets too crowded, there is always Reefton, or Nightcaps.

Hi Allan. Westcoast sunsets and life at the bar:) Which bar? I hear you say. It doesn't matter much, there are(were?) plenty of pubs and coasters are generally good bastards.


a trip down memory lane to 1971 and global cooling

Yes I can recall those promises. I cannot see carbon trading making one iota of difference to climate control. However I feel that it will drive the hoi polloi into greater poverty.

oldtiffie
06-10-2008, 06:11 AM
.................................................. ..
.................................................. .
I am giving up cabbage and attempting shallow breathing to minimise my carbon footprint but somehow I believe that the bastards will tax me anyway.
If I allow the lawn grass to grow and throw the mower away, grow more trees on my 1/4 acre will I qualify for Carbon Tax credits?

Thanks Ken.

Glad to see that ENZED is doing its bit. We are similarly dedicated here in OZ.

But do try to limit the cabbage - has the same effect as grass does on cows and sheep - and don't you eat the grass either.

But our friends in the troubled Northern Hemisphere can be assured that we in the antipodean Oceania region in the Southern hemisphere are doing our bit to ensure an adequate balance.

As evidenced by the following extracts from our local paper today. It is owned by our very own good old Rupert M - it just gets better and better.

The biggest problem we have is finding enough room between the bovine and sheep excrement to leave our carbon foot-prints from our charred boots (from the bloody central heating on the truck (see pic).

ENZED is doing its bit:
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa294/oldtiffie/Funnies/ENZED-Cows1.jpg

As are we in OZ: (gotta have that "old iron" and a "shed"!!!).
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa294/oldtiffie/Funnies/ECO-Truck1.jpg

speedy
06-10-2008, 07:18 AM
Deleted: hijacking.

email to you Mick.

oldtiffie
06-10-2008, 07:31 AM
Deleted by author

Swarf&Sparks
06-10-2008, 09:56 AM
" If I allow the lawn grass to grow and throw the mower away, grow more trees on my 1/4 acre will I qualify for Carbon Tax credits? "

Nope, and you probably won't be allowed to build the world's fastest Indian either :(

Evan
06-10-2008, 03:41 PM
Well. we are doing something and it isn't cutting into our life style at all.

I ordered an LED light bulb from Deal extreme to test. I need something for the ouside porch light that doesn't mind cold winter weather. A CFL bulb will not fire at -20 no matter what they might say on the label of some of them. We have tried them, expensive test.

So I ordered a 48 LED cluster that screws right in to the socket for about $7.45. It looks like this.
http://vts.bc.ca/pics4/ledbulb.jpg

At night:

http://vts.bc.ca/pics4/ledporch.jpg

If it lasts as it should I will be ordering more for certain places in the house such as basement stairwell. It draws about 1/2 watt of power. The prices will come down rapidly too.

We also put on a new roof as it was very much needed. I replaced the old brick red shingles with very light grey shingles that will keep the house cooler in summer and warmer in winter. It will also reflect about about 50 to 100 megawatt hours more energy back into space each year than the old roof did according to my calculations.

I'm building an electric bicycle to ride around town and do shopping.

More insulation is going into the attic this year.

I will be ordering a new demand water heater in the next few days to replace the old tank water heater which needs replacement. It may save up to 50% on hot water heating costs which are about 1/2 of our electric utility bill. That works out to many mega watt hours per year.

I'm also checking out low emissivity window film for our living room window to reduce heat loss in winter.

tattoomike68
06-10-2008, 04:18 PM
June 10th and its 46F and rainy here in SE washington state, most years I have my swimming pool ready to use. I may not even put it up this year.

This year I want to build a solar greenhouse to extend the growing season, that should help on the food bill a little.

I have been using the high price of gasoline as an excuse to my woman to buy a motorcycle. :) wish me luck...

NickH
06-10-2008, 06:00 PM
June 10th and its 46F and rainy here in SE washington state, most years I have my swimming pool ready to use. I may not even put it up this year.

This year I want to build a solar greenhouse to extend the growing season, that should help on the food bill a little.

I have been using the high price of gasoline as an excuse to my woman to buy a motorcycle. :) wish me luck...

Wierd but as world warms up some more the UK is in for some polar weather:confused:
Good luck on the bike, I managed to persuade SWMBO to allow me to buy ANOTHER motorcycle for use as economical transport, my main one can produce worse mileage than a (UK) car if used with intent & I can't resist winding it on,
Regards,
Nick

oldtiffie
06-10-2008, 06:08 PM
Well, Nick, pushing the limits when winding your bike up is bad enough, but I'd be wary of winding SHMBO up in process as that is living dangerously!!

If she ever gets the idea that the "B" can be deleted (by you) you will be in it up to your neck - bike and bloody all!!

zukIzzy
06-10-2008, 06:25 PM
By all means reduce energy use, recycle, reuse, make your environmental impact as small as possible. But drinking the Al Gore Hysteria Cool Aid is not the answer. We need real scientific studies, not political panels doing the science. Models are only as good as the information they use and all sides (notice I didn't say both sides) admit there are far too many variables to account for since we don't know or understand most of them. Spouting papers and quotes from this guy or that is useless in this argument because all side can produce them. Political action is always on the side of the popular opinion but that does not make these action right. Following Money is also a popular game that usually pushes extremes one way or the other to sell an Idea or product. When they practice what they preach I will be a bit more inclined to give their theory a look see. (goes for all sides)

Bottom line is Mother Earth is sick she has an infection. This infection is caused by the HUMAN germ. Humans are not too bad in small numbers but as the infection grows with Tumors called Cities the impact of these tumors grows. Eventually when Mother earth gets sick enough she will develop a chill or a fever and sneeze a few times maybe even get the shakes or a runny nose, and most of these little germs called humans will be gone. A few will adapt and the cycle starts again. Nature at her finest.

As for me I stand on the I don't know side of this argument but I will be as ready as possible for whatever comes of it. Maybe I can be one of the few who will adapt. I would bet the ones who do are the ones who don't rely on the man to save them. A bunch of home shop machinists and fabricators probly.:)

Wayne

Evan
06-10-2008, 09:57 PM
Bottom line is Mother Earth is sick she has an infection. This infection is caused by the HUMAN germ. Humans are not too bad in small numbers but as the infection grows with Tumors called Cities the impact of these tumors grows. Eventually when Mother earth gets sick enough she will develop a chill or a fever and sneeze a few times maybe even get the shakes or a runny nose, and most of these little germs called humans will be gone. A few will adapt and the cycle starts again. Nature at her finest.

As for me I stand on the I don't know side of this argument but I will be as ready as possible for whatever comes of it.

You may not realize it but that little paragraph is pretty close to the ultra radical Earth First position.

tmarks11
06-11-2008, 08:50 AM
Bottom line is Mother Earth is sick she has an infection. This infection is caused by the HUMAN germ.
So long as you don't start talking about performing innoculations and start applying the metaphor literally...

frequently, people who make statements like this think that they can solve the world's problems through judicious use of explosives and gasoline, which strangely enough just tends to eliminate resources and produce more pollutents, rather then achieving the "purification" of the earth that they claim to be striving for.

Evan
06-11-2008, 09:18 AM
Spouting papers and quotes from this guy or that is useless in this argument because all side can produce them.

That is throwing out the baby with the bath water. Not all hypotheses are correct but some contain at least a part of the answer. A good start is to examine the information for evidence of dogma instead of science. If it is dogmatic then I will usually dismiss it even if the science seems good. Even "good" science can be wrong as it is often based on incomplete information. When faced with a choice between competing explanations that I cannot verify for myself I generally choose the one that follows Occam's Razor most closely.

"Never introduce more complication than necessary to explain something"

aostling
06-11-2008, 09:36 AM
When faced with a choice between competing explanations that I cannot verify for myself I generally choose the one that follows Occam's Razor most closely

Phoenix has a barber shop with this name. This is the most erudite of all the clever haircutting names I've collected during my world travels.

dp
06-11-2008, 12:35 PM
You may not realize it but that little paragraph is pretty close to the ultra radical Earth First position.

To my great annoyance, I'm often regarded as an Earth First! bigot when in fact I simply don't buy into the notion of the inevitability of the human species. It gives me the freedom to sniggle at those who make "earth in the balance" claims when in fact they mean "people in the balance". The earth will adapt to any change we may cause even if we do not. The earth recovered nicely from the Chicxulub asteroid, for example, and the unfortunate result was us. I doubt it will make that mistake again.

And if the earth fails to so something about it then perhaps our solar system or galactic neighborhood has something up it's sleeve.

That does not justify making a mess of our planet, of course, but we need to balance the needs of the future of mankind (not the planet as it can shift for itself) against the needs of the current population, and that is where the current hysterics from the IPCC leave me cold.

Unborn generations are not more worthy than we who are here, now, and demands for increasing our misery index to lower theirs is classic leftist dogma. We don't even know what their priorities will be or even if they will be. There is no inevitability.

tattoomike68
06-11-2008, 12:57 PM
An asteroid scares me more then global warming.

If you live in the Northwest USA you may remember a very scary loud wake up call at 5:30AM Feb. 19th 2008

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080221-oregon-meteor.html

The sonic boom shook the house and my dogs were barking mad. It had me wide awake in seconds. :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/v/f5lu4mtChW8&hl=en

dp
06-11-2008, 01:44 PM
Living where we do this kind of problem should be near the top of your worries, too: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-eruption-video-ap.html

Mt. Rainier is a greater threat to the local area than pretty much anything except earthquakes. If global warming actually kicks in there's going to be a mess when all the glaciers turn to slush. A lot of Puget Sound's population is living and working on old lahar flows.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/Landslides/RainierSlides.html

The scale of these long runout flows is hard to imagine but this page puts it into perspective: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Imgs/Jpg/Rainier/RainierElectron_Pringle_caption.html

Here's a picture I took while in Pompeii. Vesuvius is about 40 miles away. I recall reading somewhere the lahar that buried Pompeii took less than 30 minutes to reach the doomed city. That is the threat - no time to react.
http://thevirtualbarandgrill.com/italy/Sites-Pages/Image193.html

And snow and volcanos are not essential to the process: http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/landslide/big/43.htm

This is an amazing flow to see in person.

Evan
06-11-2008, 02:52 PM
Almost nobody in BC knows how many volcanos there are in this province and are astounded to find out we have 129 volcanos and about 25 active ones. They are all over the province with the exception of the northeast plains. The most recent big eruption was a volcano near Terrace in the north that flooded several hundred sq kilometers with lava in the early 20th century. I can't recall the name but it is easy to look up.

dp
06-11-2008, 02:59 PM
Almost nobody in BC knows how many volcanos there are in this province and are astounded to find out we have 129 volcanos and about 25 active ones. They are all over the province with the exception of the northeast plains. The most recent big eruption was a volcano near Terrace in the north that flooded several hundred sq kilometers with lava in the early 20th century. I can't recall the name but it is easy to look up.
There's a great web site I found last winter that describes the volcanic activity history in BC. I was amazed at how recently some pretty big events took place. I'll try to find it again. It's a great read.

Edit: Current view of Vesuvius and Pompeii (bottom left corner). You can make out still the flow that destroyed Pompeii and also Ercolano. All the new construction since is at great risk.
http://tinyurl.com/5p3jkc

zukIzzy
06-11-2008, 07:08 PM
You may not realize it but that little paragraph is pretty close to the ultra radical Earth First position.

I have no position on the matter I Don't know the answers. I don't belong to any groups because I have my own opinions. There is usually at least some truth to the biggest Lies So just because one thinks along similar lines as another does not mean one agrees with the other.

With all Due respect to all.

Wayne

oldtiffie
06-11-2008, 07:09 PM
Just to balance things up a bit and to get a bit more recent, this is what happened not all that long ago in our neck of the woods in OZ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa

Just to put it into perspective, we used pass through the Sunda Straits when I was in the Navy on our ways to and from deployments to the Far East.

If Krakatoa had - or does - block the Sunda Strait it would have been most annoying as it with the Malacca Strait are our two most used sea-lanes to and from the rest of the world.

To bring it all back to reality and perspective, ie things that matter, once we passed Sunda Strait on our way home we were only interested in two really big fast important bangs, the second of which was the door on the house closing.

zukIzzy
06-11-2008, 07:18 PM
That is throwing out the baby with the bath water. Not all hypotheses are correct but some contain at least a part of the answer. A good start is to examine the information for evidence of dogma instead of science. If it is dogmatic then I will usually dismiss it even if the science seems good. Even "good" science can be wrong as it is often based on incomplete information. When faced with a choice between competing explanations that I cannot verify for myself I generally choose the one that follows Occam's Razor most closely.

"Never introduce more complication than necessary to explain something"

I agree these same quotes, studies and articles are usefull in making up your mind as to your own thoughts. But I was refering to the arguing between the different sides of this debate. (which still rages on despite what Al says) For every study there is a counter study for every paper there is a counter Paper and so on. It is up to the individual to research and do as they see fit. Unfortunatly most will not and will follow popular opinion.

wayne

zukIzzy
06-11-2008, 07:30 PM
So long as you don't start talking about performing innoculations and start applying the metaphor literally...

frequently, people who make statements like this think that they can solve the world's problems through judicious use of explosives and gasoline, which strangely enough just tends to eliminate resources and produce more pollutents, rather then achieving the "purification" of the earth that they claim to be striving for.

NO I am a HUMAN and want my kind to live long and thrive. I just find it a bit Ironic that we as a people who granted have the ability to change our environment as no other speicies we know of (Ants and termites may have the same ability in scale). Live as if we are permanant, when in reality we are very fragile and the smallest sneeze, shudder or Asteroid In the cosmic scale could end it all in the blink of an eye.

That is all, no purification from me;)

oldtiffie
06-11-2008, 07:31 PM
I agree these same quotes, studies and articles are usefull in making up your mind as to your own thoughts. But I was refering to the arguing between the different sides of this debate. (which still rages on despite what Al says) For every study there is a counter study for every paper there is a counter Paper and so on. It is up to the individual to research and do as they see fit. Unfortunatly most will not and will follow popular opinion.

wayne

Just about Wayne.

But I suspect that the one who gets the most attention without necessarily have the best - or any - rational argument - is the one who gets the most exposure in the media and has the best "spin" - not to mention a self-serving monetary interest.

Getting on the "Oprah" show and into the "gee whizz" tabloids is "the way to go".

Once the "lemmings", "chattering classes", self-appointed experts, "celebrities" and their clones and fellow-travelers climb on-board it develops a momentum of its own - a bloody great snow-ball which if nothing else, and if it gets big enough will seriously cool the planet, enthusiasm, egos and hyper-ventilating down quite considerably.

And when that happens - keep well out of the way as they head for the exits on their way to exposure in/on the "next big thing".

Me cynical or jaundiced?

Of course not.

Why would any one think that.

Evan
06-11-2008, 08:14 PM
As an interesting note, the amount of solar heat my new roof will reflect back to space each year over what my old roof did is approximately equal to all the electricity we use each year. Too bad I can't convince the Greenies that this makes sense. We both went to a meeting a while back which was a meeting of the mutual admiration society of green folk and I explained how and why reflecting sunlight into space was equivalent to not burning as much carbon. Either way it reduces global warming (even if it isn't warming). At least with the reflecting roof trick there isn't any question that it works.

The entire lot utterly failed to understand what I was talking about and looked at me like I suffering some sort of delusion. Then they went back to discussing how they were going to save the planet by recycling old clothes and growing a community garden.

It was then that my wife and I realized that if the globe is really warming as they maintain then the situation is probably hopeless and the best we can do is prepare for the worst.

dp
06-11-2008, 08:26 PM
... I explained how and why reflecting sunlight into space was equivalent to not burning as much carbon. Either way it reduces global warming (even if it isn't warming). At least with the reflecting roof trick there isn't any question that it works.

It lacks the essential ingredient of inconvenience so necessary for the full green experience. No pain, no gain.


It was then that my wife and I realized that if the globe is really warming as they maintain then the situation is probably hopeless and the best we can do is prepare for the worst.

Welcome to my world! We can use the help.

tattoomike68
06-11-2008, 08:54 PM
The far left Greenies may have thier heart in the right place but are going about it all wrong. Its the same kooks who cry about "windmills are ugly" but yap on thier cell phones all day. (that have ugly towers all over the place)

Real innovation by entrepreneurs will be the olny way anything will get done on energy Independence. The people and not the government will lead the way.

Myself, I get on my bicycle and go ride it and work up some sweat and its not hurting me a darn bit. My bike has used about 10 drops of oil this year.

Right now we can get away with $10 of gas a week for our needs, we have a Toyoda Tercell like A.K. Boomer is working on and we just wont drive much. Home is nice and we plan our trips around town and dont run it all over the place for little things. We spend less on gas a month then a far left Greenie spends on a bag of weed that last them 2 days.

speedy
06-11-2008, 11:50 PM
can take a trip and never leave the farm.

Rich Carlstedt
06-11-2008, 11:52 PM
Evan

"the amount of solar heat my new roof will reflect back to space each year"

Very neat thought and practical too!

The reflective value of concrete roads versus Tarmac is often overlooked by people .
The fact that New York City has had temperature increases while Troy, New York has had decreases. may correspond to tarmac concentration....if only people would look
Rich

Evan
06-12-2008, 04:42 AM
This is what made me think about it. I was checking out our valley using NASA Worldwind and realized that even from 10 miles up I could still see cetain buildings because of the highly reflective roofs they have. I know that because I know the buildings and have circled them.

http://vts.bc.ca/pics4/cvalley.jpg

If you do the math covering an average house with a highly reflective roof would effectively negate about half the total energy use of that household in terms of the contribution to global warming. If it turns out that is the wrong thing to do then paint it.

A reflective roof also means less energy use in summer and winter.
If it were done on a wholesale basis the problem would be solved.

Mad Scientist
06-12-2008, 11:02 AM
About six years ago replaced worn out roof, it was a nice rich black, I went with white shingles specifically for their reflectivity. Also got rid of the dinky little roof vents and went with a ridge vent that runs the entire length of the roof.

Needless to say the house is noticeably cooler! Now if I could just convince friend wife that the AC does not need to be turned on just because the sun is shining.:)

P.S.
I like that LED porch light plus the price is finally getting down to something reasonable.

zukIzzy
06-12-2008, 11:13 AM
As an interesting note, the amount of solar heat my new roof will reflect back to space each year over what my old roof did is approximately equal to all the electricity we use each year. Too bad I can't convince the Greenies that this makes sense. We both went to a meeting a while back which was a meeting of the mutual admiration society of green folk and I explained how and why reflecting sunlight into space was equivalent to not burning as much carbon. Either way it reduces global warming (even if it isn't warming). At least with the reflecting roof trick there isn't any question that it works.

The entire lot utterly failed to understand what I was talking about and looked at me like I suffering some sort of delusion. Then they went back to discussing how they were going to save the planet by recycling old clothes and growing a community garden.

It was then that my wife and I realized that if the globe is really warming as they maintain then the situation is probably hopeless and the best we can do is prepare for the worst.


I have had that same experiance and whole heartedly concure.

Wayne

Swarf&Sparks
06-12-2008, 11:33 AM
Just a mo here.
Can't see how a high albedo roof will reflect anything back into "space".

Will work wonders for cooling the dwelling and cutting AC bills, but it's not gonna reflect any signicant radiation back out of the atmosphere.

Have I missed a point in this (long) thread?

Evan
06-12-2008, 12:10 PM
Will work wonders for cooling the dwelling and cutting AC bills, but it's not gonna reflect any signicant radiation back out of the atmosphere.

Have I missed a point in this (long) thread?
Yes, you have. The atmosphere is transparent at visible wavelengths. They comprise about half the insolation energy. A reflective roof doesn't convert that visible to IR but simply bounces it back out through the visible "window".

The proof of course is in the satellite picture.

[added]

Quick reminder on how the greenhouse effect works: Incoming visible and short wave IR is absorbed, converted and re-emitted as long wave IR. The atmosphere is transparent at visible and short IR wavelengths but mostly opaque at long wavelengths. The incoming energy is then trapped and cannot escape as easily.

aostling
06-12-2008, 12:30 PM
A reflective roof doesn't convert that visible to IR but simply bounces it back out through the visible "window".


Your gray tiles achieve this to some extent, but the reflectivity is diffuse, not specular. So the incoming solar radiation is reflected at all angles. The low-angle reflected rays have much more of the atmosphere to pass through, and are likely to be scattered downward before they can escape back to space.

This isn't an argument against using light-colored roofs. But the effectiveness may be less than assumed.

Evan
06-12-2008, 12:39 PM
That is certainly true. That is why I made the assumption that the reflective efficiency is about half that of a polished aluminum roof. Surprisingly though the reflectance of the light grey shingles is nearly 80% compared to about 50% for the brick red shingles. The reflectance in the return direction will be higher than you think Allan. Because of the surface structure of the tiles they will be subject to the same effect that make the full moon about twice as bright as an almost full moon. It's a very selective backscattering effect that produces a kind of retroreflector type of scattering. It's partly due to not being able to see any shadows of the particles but also due to light that is bounced off the sides of the particles to reilluminate nearby particles.

aostling
06-12-2008, 12:52 PM
It's a very selective backscattering effect that produces a kind of retroreflector type of scattering. It's partly due to not being able to see any shadows of the particles but also due to light that is bounced off the sides of the particles to reilluminate nearby particles.

This was news to me. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n8_v14/ai_14655794 describes the backscattering effect. I'll remember this next time I take a full-moon hike in the desert here (a good way to avoid the furnace heat of the day).

tmarks11
06-12-2008, 01:31 PM
That is all, no purification from me
good to know. :D :D :D :D

My stab at the solution to the problem is decidely ungreen, which is funny. Build a bunch of nuclear reactors, get rid of the coal and oil powerplants. At least then all of your pollution is vey compact and easy stored (relatively) instead of dispersed through-out the atmosphere and environment.

lazlo
06-12-2008, 02:11 PM
Geez, I go to SC for three days, and this argument is still going strong (despite Tiffie's hijack attempts) :)


Build a bunch of nuclear reactors, get rid of the coal and oil powerplants.

I used to think that too. There was a recent 60 Minutes article about how 75% of France's electricity is generated by breeder reactors, and that doesn't include very large exports of power to Germany, Italy and Spain.

Then they commented that if the US tried to build enough reactors to supply our daily power requirements that we'd run out of mineable uranium in about 100 years.

I've said it before: fusion fixes all these problems: the oil shortages, greenhouse gases, etc.

We're spending $12 Billion/month in Iraq. If we spent $12 Billion/month on fusion research, I bet we'd have something working within 10 years...

Swarf&Sparks
06-12-2008, 02:17 PM
"A reflective roof doesn't convert that visible to IR but simply bounces it back out through the visible "window"."

We differ there Evan.

I've worked on many a highly reflective roof, and there's a hell of a lot of IR (heat) coming back at me.
That's from white colourbond, white tiles, or plain zincalume or galv.

aostling
06-12-2008, 03:13 PM
I've worked on many a highly reflective roof, and there's a hell of a lot of IR (heat) coming back at me.
That's from white colourbond, white tiles, or plain zincalume or galv.

Swarf,

You are as tough as you look if you worked on roofs in WA.

A surface in the sun, reflective or not, will achieve an equilibrium temperature which is determined by its α/ε, the ratio of its absorptivity to its IR emissivity. You'll notice that a white car in the parking lot, though not as hot as a black one, can still get quite scorching.

In Phoenix during summer months it is impossible to walk barefooted on white concrete sidewalks for more than a few seconds.

Evan
06-12-2008, 03:24 PM
We differ there Evan.

I've worked on many a highly reflective roof, and there's a hell of a lot of IR (heat) coming back at me.
That's from white colourbond, white tiles, or plain zincalume or galv.

Actually we don't differ. There is still the roughly 50% of insolation that makes it through the atmosphere that is IR and is absorbed as such. Also, many things that are white in visible are not in IR. A perfect example is snow. It's an excellent reflector in visible but in almost all wavelengths just below visible it is a nearly perfect black body. Good thing too or this would be an ice planet.

Swarf&Sparks
06-12-2008, 03:26 PM
Appreciate what you say Allan, I've worked under roofs as wells on em. The tiled roofs are the worst, black, white or polka dotted!

Absorptivity/emissivity/albedo notwithstanding, it does get fu, errm, extremely hot on and under em.

The best that can be said for steel roofs here, is that in summer, they don't have the thermal mass, so cool quicker.

Yup, re the roads, I remember as a barefoot kid, standing on the white lines on the road, just to give my feet a 3 second break :D

kendall
06-12-2008, 04:39 PM
Swarf,
In Phoenix during summer months it is impossible to walk barefooted on white concrete sidewalks for more than a few seconds.

I know that for sure, grew up in Glendale, learned that if you run around barefoot in the sand, the best thing to do if you needed to stand for a bit was to dig your feet into the sand to get them into the 'cooler' layer.

Got real good at jumping by hopping from shadow to shadow in town.

Ken.

tmarks11
06-12-2008, 07:00 PM
Then they commented that if the US tried to build enough reactors to supply our daily power requirements that we'd run out of mineable uranium in about 100 years.
Known reserves only give us 80 years. But virtually no uranium exploration occurred from 1985-2005, and in the last 2 years of increased exploration from 2005-2007, reserve levels have risen by 17%. So I think we only have seen the tip of the iceberg. Almost half the world's uranium comes from Canada and Australia, places which I would much rather send money to then the middle east.

I remember in 1985 when Federal studies claimed that there was less then 30 years of oil remaining....

This doesn't include what happens if we start reprocessing (stopped by President Carter. Thanks alot.). Future generations will curse us if we stupidly bury spent nuclear fuel that can be processed to provide a significant amount of energy. Not to mention that reprocessing shrinks the volume of high level spent fuel by 97%, and 99% of the remaining waste will decay to background levels in 40 years (Plutonium and Uranium are the long-lived components, and they can be reused in new fuel rods).

I think the green crowd doesn't want to acknowledge that every new nuclear power plant will reduce greenhouse emissions (CO2) by 4-8 million metric tons of CO2 per year. Their successful crusade against nuclear power in the USA over the last 27 years has resulted in proliferation of oil and coal power plants, ruining the environment. Way to go!


We're spending $12 Billion/month in Iraq. If we spent $12 Billion/month on fusion research, I bet we'd have something working within 10 years...
I like your thinking. Unfortunately, there is a good chance that China (artificial sun) might beat us to this... maybe we will get fusion online before we run out of oil and uranium... or we will freeze to death in the dark.
http://english.gov.cn/2007-01/15/content_496715.htm

The Wikipedia ITER (International fusion energy program) article contains some greenpeace quotes that crack me up:

Bridget Woodman of Greenpeace said "Pursuing nuclear fusion and the ITER project is madness. Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident."
"Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. "Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today."

That is the kind of forward thinking that got us into the mess we are in today.

Evan
06-12-2008, 09:13 PM
You should check out the documentation regarding ITER. When they are finished the testing cycle the reactor vessel will have to sit for 100 years before the radiation level drops enough that it can be treated as ordinary high level waste. The experiment will generate hundreds of tonnes of very high level waste, much more than a fission reactor. Neutron activation is the culprit and the only "practical" fusion cycles produce intense neutron activation of the reactor components.

I assisted my father at the Lawrence Berkeley Rad Lab on the very first fusion project for peaceful purposes in the 1960s. It soon became apparent that trying to contain a plasma via magnetic containment is subject to exactly the same mathematical problems that prohibit stable magnetic levitation via static magnetic fields. That hasn't changed nor will it.

lazlo
06-12-2008, 11:10 PM
I think the green crowd doesn't want to acknowledge that every new nuclear power plant will reduce greenhouse emissions (CO2) by 4-8 million metric tons of CO2 per year.

But that's just a drop in the bucket. We're dumping 8 trillion metric tons of carbon (including CO2) into the atmosphere each year.


I like your thinking. Unfortunately, there is a good chance that China (artificial sun) might beat us to this... maybe we will get fusion online before we run out of oil and uranium... or we will freeze to death in the dark.

Actually, if the Chinese get there first -- all the better! Even if they don't want to share the technology, it's usually only a couple of years before espionage spreads the technology around the world, as happened with the fission bomb and the fusion bomb.

Even better would be if, God Forbid, we actually collaborated with them on a fusion project... There would be a Hell of a lot of political and ideological chasms to bridge, but they need energy as much as we do, and pretty soon they'll be using more than we do.

And of course, there's the CERN fusion project.

We'll make fusion work, eventually, but the oil companies are going to fight it every step of the way: trillions of dollars will change hands when the first practical fusion reactor goes online...

lazlo
06-12-2008, 11:15 PM
We're spending $12 Billion/month in Iraq. If we spent $12 Billion/month on fusion research, I bet we'd have something working within 10 years...

According to Wikipedia (I know, I know, ...) ITER's 30-year budget is $9.3 Billion. That's what we spend in three weeks in Iraq:


On November 21, 2006, the seven participants formally agreed to fund the project. The program is anticipated to last for 30 years — 10 for construction, and 20 of operation — and cost approximately US$ 9.3 billion, which would make it one of the most expensive modern technoscientific megaprojects. It will be based in Cadarache, France. It is technically ready to start construction and the first plasma operation is expected in 2016.

Evan
06-13-2008, 07:25 AM
We'll make fusion work, eventually, but the oil companies are going to fight it every step of the way

They don't need to. It's so hard to do that they can confidently sit there and watch while they snigger and count their money. If you study the time line for ITER it doesn't produce anything out to 2050 or so except a massive amount of waste while consuming inordinate amounts of electrical power. The project timeline is extremely fuzzy because of a huge list of unknowns many of which may prove to be show stoppers. The neutron activation problem is at the top of the list as it causes major damage to metals used in the reactor. It even causes dimensional changes in metal parts and makes the parts so "hot" that they are very difficult to handle.

The "Fusion is Clean" song is a myth. ITER is a pork barrel project and isn't likely to advance the science to any considerable degree, certainly not in our lifetimes. While fusion may be possible it may never be practical on a small scale. I'm not worried about the Chinese cornering the fusion reactor market. The disposal of used fusion reactor parts makes fission waste seem harmless in comparison.

lazlo
06-13-2008, 10:24 AM
They don't need to. It's so hard to do that they can confidently sit there and watch while they snigger and count their money. If you study the time line for ITER it doesn't produce anything out to 2050 or so except a massive amount of waste while consuming inordinate amounts of electrical power.

By all accounts (US, CERN, Japan, and China), on the current trends we'll have a operating, self-sustaining fusion reactor by 2050, and if it were seriously funded, we could have a fusion power station as early as 2030:

"According to researchers at a demonstration reactor in Japan, a fusion generator should be feasible in the 2030s and no later than the 2050s. Japan is pursuing its own research program with several operational facilities exploring different aspects of practicability."

Remember that ITER is demonstration vehicle to showcase the contributed technologies from the various participating countries. China's "Artificial Sun" team is a contributing member to ITER, as is the US, and those countries obviously have considerable fusion research programs of their own.

Also, the ITER reactor is a proof of concept to use the plasma itself to insulate the reactor chamber from the high-energy neutrons. The commerical version of ITER is "DEMO":

"DEMO (DEMOnstration Power Plant) is a proposed nuclear fusion power plant that is intended to build upon the expected success of the ITER (originally an acronym for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) nuclear fusion power plant. Whereas ITER's goal is to produce 500 million watts of fusion power for at least 400 seconds, the goal of DEMO will be to produce at least four times that much fusion power on a continual basis. Moreover, while ITER's goal is to produce 10 times as much power as is required for breakeven, DEMO's goal is to produce 25 times as much power. DEMO's 2 gigawatts[citation needed] of thermal output will be on the scale of a modern electric power plant.

To achieve its goals, DEMO must have linear dimensions about 15% larger than ITER and a plasma density about 30% greater than ITER. As a prototype commercial fusion reactor DEMO could make fusion energy (which does not have the problems associated with fossil fuels or fission energy) available within 20 years. Subsequent commercial fusion reactors could be built for nearly a quarter of the cost of DEMO if things go according to plan.[1] [2]

While fusion reactors like ITER and DEMO will not produce transuranic wastes, some of the components of the ITER and DEMO reactors will become radioactive due to neutrons impinging upon them. It is hoped that careful material choice will mean that the wastes produced in this way will have much shorter half lives than the waste from fission reactors, with wastes remaining harmful for less than one century. The process of manufacturing tritium currently produces long-lived waste, but both ITER and DEMO, it is hoped, will produce their own tritium, dispensing with the fission reactor currently used for this purpose.

Timeline

The following timetable was presented at the IAEA Fusion Energy Conference in 2004 by Prof. Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith.[1] These dates are conceptual and as such are subject to change.

* Conceptual design is to be complete by 2017
* Engineering design is to be complete by 2024
* The first 'Construction Phase' is to last from 2024 to 2033
* The first phase of operation is to last from 2033 to 2038
* The plant is then to be expanded/updated
* The second phase of operation is to last from 2040 onwards

Evan
06-13-2008, 11:39 AM
You do realize that ITER has no provision for actually capturing and using any energy it produces? That alone is a major project and will change the design tremendously. You can't just stick in a few coils of tubing filled with water and make steam. The ITER project is a joke and a huge waste of money and resources. And, money is not the only thing turned to waste.

From the ITER site which tries to minimize the issue as much as possible. They intend to somehow guard the reactor for 100 years before trying to dispose of the parts. Past experience has shown that this means they don't have a plan for disposal.



The present assumption is that radioactive material not below the clearance level after 100 years is "waste", requiring disposal in a long-term repository. Estimates of ITER material masses show that about 30,000 t of material will be radioactive at shutdown, and that 80% of that can be cleared within 100 years.
http://www.iter.org/safety-waste.htm

30, 000 tons of waste. Even if 80% has "cleared" that leaves only 6000 TONNES of high level waste after 100 years. It also doesn't include ANY material or parts changed out during operation (see the fine print in the note on the graph).

dp
06-13-2008, 12:27 PM
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

An interesting article with easily verifiable claims. Al Gore needs to spend some time in prison for the misery he has brought to the world, and we're only in the first decade of this decline.

tmarks11
06-13-2008, 01:30 PM
The "Fusion is Clean" song is a myth.
Actually it is kind of funny; since I generally associate the "Fusion is Clean" statement as coming from a green source. Lets' get rid of fission, start using the "clean energy" of the sun, turn seawater into power and all of that kind of thing.

First generation fusion reactions (deuterium-tritium) produce a 14 MeV neutron.... which does amazing thing when it interacts with things around it (compared to fission which produces an average 0.3 MeV neutron). Second generation is relatively clean (2.45 MeV neutrons) as it produces very low levels of radiation while fusing deuterium to deuterium.

I would rather build my house next to a fission reactor then a fusion reactor. 14 MeV is very impressive.

I remember 20 years ago when I took a fusion class (yes, I am a Nuclear Engineer), and the promised breakthrough was 30 years away. Today, the promised breakthrough is still 30 years away, but I would definitely not call the money wasted.

The increase in scientific knowledge as well as the potential future benefits is a better return on investment then whatever other boondoggle our congress would have spent the money on. Fusion is also an amazing field because of the worldwide FUNDED cooperation in research that isn't typical. EEC, Japan, China, US, etc all paying big money to fund this project. It is nice to find that we are part of an International project that isn't just us handing money away like so many other projects... International in name only (we are PAYING the Russians to use their rockets to supply the International Space Station?)


We're dumping 8 trillion metric tons of carbon (including CO2) into the atmosphere each year.
yes, but there are 40,000 coal power plants in the world. Eliminating one might be only a drop in the bucket, but it is a definite step in the right direction. You have to start somewhere. Eliminating 1000 would be better.

Evan
06-13-2008, 01:41 PM
The deuterium-deuterium reaction is MUCH harder to do and ITER probably won't give much insight on that let alone how to actually produce power from any sort of fusion reaction. Fusion is one of those things where bigger is better. Unfortunately bigger means something the size of a star. I have no confidence that it will ever be a reasonable and cost effective source of energy on Earth. It certainly won't be "clean". All of us here won't live long enough to find out either barring some sort of miraculous non-incremental breakthrough.

I am in favor of nuclear power, fission or fusion, but only if it includes an end to end detailed plan for waste disposal. ITER does not. They are simply dumping the problem in the lap of the next generations.

dp
06-13-2008, 01:47 PM
I am in favor of nuclear power, fission or fusion, but only if it includes an end to end detailed plan for waste disposal. ITER does not. They are simply dumping the problem in the lap of the next generations.

An act doubtlessly to be repeated by those next generations. Of that I am certain.

lazlo
06-13-2008, 01:54 PM
You do realize that ITER has no provision for actually capturing and using any energy it produces?

Like I said Evan, ITER is the prototype of the containment vessel. DEMO is the follow-on project to generate electricity:


the ITER reactor is a proof of concept to use the plasma itself to insulate the reactor chamber from the high-energy neutrons. The commerical version of ITER is "DEMO":

"DEMO (DEMOnstration Power Plant) is a proposed nuclear fusion power plant that is intended to build upon the expected success of the ITER nuclear fusion power plant. Whereas ITER's goal is to produce 500 million watts of fusion power for at least 400 seconds, the goal of DEMO will be to produce at least four times that much fusion power on a continual basis. Moreover, while ITER's goal is to produce 10 times as much power as is required for breakeven, DEMO's goal is to produce 25 times as much power. DEMO's 2 gigawatts of thermal output will be on the scale of a modern electric power plant.


The ITER project is a joke and a huge waste of money and resources. And, money is not the only thing turned to waste.

I'm glad the international fusion research community doesn't agree with you Evan, since nearly every country with a domestic fusion research project is participating and contributing both personnel and finances to the project.

Evan
06-13-2008, 02:07 PM
I don't think there is another scientific endeavor on Earth that has the record "fusion" does for spending the most money over the longest period of time and yet has produced not one single unit of whatever the project was intended to produce as an output. By the time ITER is finished cooking it's parts we will have been throwing money down the rathole for a century with absolutely no return. ITER isn't a practical design or a practical fusion cycle. All we will learn from that is to confirm that. We already know what fusion cycles are clean enough to use and we have no idea how to implement them because of the much greater difficulty of making a fusion reactor work at the temperatures and densities required for those reactions.

lazlo
06-13-2008, 02:26 PM
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

An interesting article with easily verifiable claims.

Actually Dennis, he's a newscaster with no degree (i.e., he's not a scientist) he's a member of the Republican National Convention, a friend of Rush Limbaugh, and most of his completely unscientific tirade is complete crap that's repeated from Rush Limbaugh's web site:

"Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over. "

The "list of 30,000 scientists who have refuted Global Warming" is an out-right lie. He's talking about the Oregon Petition Project. The Seattle Times took a look at the list and found:

"Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."

and another investigative report of the bogus list:

"In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?"

So if your point is that the Spice Girls signed the petition against AGW, then I'm convinced ;)

"All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not."

That's an interesting hypothesis, since most of the climatologists in every country believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and planetary models of Venus (who's atmosphere is 96% CO2) are highly correlated with Global Warming.

"Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. "

Show me a single paper from a scientist -- i.e., someone who actually graduated with a degree in climatology and/or atmospheric sciences, who's not paid by Exxon-Mobil, who said that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

So what parts of Rush's list is easily verifiable? :)

dp
06-13-2008, 02:35 PM
Actually Dennis, he's a newscaster with no degree (i.e., he's not a scientist) he's a member of the Republican National Convention, a friend of Rush Limbaugh, and most of his completely unscientific tirade is complete crap that's repeated from Rush Limbaugh's web site:
You have a recurring problem of being unable to separate the messenger from the message. They are not related. Al Gore is not a scientist, for example, but that does not slow him down.

Ignore the messenger, analyze the message. It makes for great conversation.

lazlo
06-13-2008, 02:38 PM
I don't think there is another scientific endeavor on Earth that has the record "fusion" does for spending the most money over the longest period of time and yet has produced not one single unit of whatever the project was intended to produce as an output.

The plasma containment times have been slowly, but steadily, increasing for decades. Basically it's high-energy physics, and needs mega-buck funding, very reminiscent of the Manhattan Project, which cost $30 Billion in 2008 dollars. Which is why every country in the world with a fusion research project is investing in the project: European Union (EU), India, Japan, People's Republic of China, Russia, South Korea, the USA, Portugal, and Brazil .


ITER isn't a practical design or a practical fusion cycle. All we will learn from that is to confirm that. We already know what fusion cycles are clean enough to use and we have no idea how to implement them because of the much greater difficulty of making a fusion reactor work at the temperatures and densities required for those reactions.

ITER is simply an improved tokamak design, which is what most of the mainstream fusion community around the world is pursuing. Is it your layman's opinion that the tokamak design is not viable?

lazlo
06-13-2008, 02:40 PM
You have a recurring problem of being unable to separate the messenger from the message. They are not related.

Of course they're related. You keep repeating the same winger list of reasons the Commie Liberals are out to create a Global Hoax.

Every one of these arguments has been systematically discounted.

dp
06-13-2008, 02:50 PM
Of course they're related. You keep repeating the same winger list of reasons the Commie Liberals are out to create a Global Hoax.
In proper debate the data are significant. It matters not where the data come from so long as it can be verified. Finding references will always turn up unqualified people who have compiled data but that does not invalidate the data. Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh are categorically unqualified to serve as experts on this or any scientific subject but the data they have compiled and made available still has value.


Every one of these arguments has been systematically discounted.
And also [verified] Edit: bad choice of words - substitute 'found acceptable']. It's unsettled after all the conversation which is why the conversation goes on. The number of scientists on record who disagree with the IPCC findings is by far the larger of the two groups. That factoid is irrelevant because it does not chang the data. So what does it mean?

lazlo
06-13-2008, 02:55 PM
In proper debate the data are significant. It matters not where the data come from so long as it can be verified.

But it can't be verified. Like the SunSpot data, which is a popular Winger argument. Or that there's global warming on Jupiter, because of Red Spot Jr. Basically, you guys have made up your minds before you even read the first NASA or NOAA report that this is a liberal agenda, and you guys keep re-hashing the same flawed arguments that are scripted by the radical right wing.


The number of scientists on record who disagree with the IPCC findings is by far the larger of the two groups.

You guys keep saying that, but show me a list, other that the faked list of 30,000 people who include the Spice Girls, of degreed scientists who have gone on record as stating that humans are not contributing to global warming.

I'm sure there are some, that's part of the scientific process, but I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of climatology scientists (and not tabloid press writers paid by Exxon-Mobil to write FUD articles) are convinced that humans are contributing to global warming.

And I repeat the request from my previous post: show me a single paper from a climatology scientist who states that CO2 is not a greehouse gas.

dp
06-13-2008, 03:02 PM
But it can't be verified. Like the SunSpot data, which is a popular Winger argument. Or that there's global warming on Jupiter, because of Red Spot Jr. Basically, you guys have made up your minds before you even read the first NASA or NOAA report that this is a liberal agenda, and you guys keep re-hashing the same flawed arguments that are scripted by the radical right wing.

I'm not a winger, but I agree the data cannot be verified to everyone's satisfaction. So why do you believe it? That is irrational.


You guys keep saying that, but show me a list, other that the faked list of 30,000 people who include the Spice Girls, of degreed scientists who have gone on record as stating that humans are not contributing to global warming.

I'm sure there are some, that's part of the scientific process, but I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of climatology scientists (and not tabloid press writers paid by Exxon-Mobil to write FUD articles) are convinced that humans are contributing to global warming.

You guys keep saying that, but show me a list, other than the trumped up IPCC list that includes house wives and lawyers.


And I repeat the request from my previous post: show me a single paper from a climatology scientist who states that CO2 is not a greehouse gas.

Show me a single person who claims it is not. Then prove CO2 created by humans is a problem. Nobody has done so yet. That is why the IPCC uses terms like 95% sure instead of publishing the proof.

lazlo
06-13-2008, 03:06 PM
Originally Posted by Evan
Huh? Current CO2 levels are higher than any we have been able to confirm in the past 800,000 years. We have no direct evidence for higher levels in the past.

For a recent example of higher levels (in the hundreds of ppm range): http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003893.html



Hoho -- that paper is hilarious! Who sponsored it? :p

Here's the critique from RealClimate:

Recently an article by E-G. Beck has been wafting through the Internet and has now been 'published' by Energy and Environment which challenges all these findings or, more precisely, ignores the last 50 years of carbon cycle research [Curiously, this journal always seems happy to ennoble even the strangest idea with the scientific label: "peer reviewed"]. Beck’s approach is very simple: He decided from the beginning that Keeling and Callendar obviously are ideological fanatics and that finally all chemical measurements in the 19th and early 20th century actually were fine. Great news of course!

So what does the new CO2 “reconstruction” look like? For example, within 15 years CO2 levels rose from about 290ppm (1925) to about 470ppm (1942). Worse, within only 10 years these huge CO2 levels were absorbed again and came back to boring mainstream values of about 300ppm.

The list of arguments against such variability in the carbon cycle is too long even for a post on RC but here are a few of the main ones:

* The fluxes necessary to produce such variations are just unbelievably huge. Modern fossil fuel emissions are about 7.5GT (Giga Tons) Carbon per year which would correspond to about 3.5ppm increase per year (except that about half is absorbed by natural sinks in the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere). Beck’s supposed 150ppm source/sink in a decade corresponds therefore to a CO2 production/absorption about ten times stronger than the entire global industrial production of 2007 (putting aside for the moment additional complications since such CO2 levels had to be equilibrated at least partly with the ocean and the real CO2 source must even be larger).

* Such huge biospheric fluxes would leave an enormous 13C signal in the atmosphere. Nothing remotely like that is observed in tree ring cellulose data.

* Beck makes an association of some of the alleged huge CO2 peaks with volcanic eruptions. The Mauna Loa CO2 record started by Charles Keeling 1955 (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo145e_thrudc04.pdf ) however doesn’t show much variability associated with the big eruptions of El Chichon, Agung or Pinatubo. (Readers should know however that on much longer, geologic, timescales, CO2 levels are heavily influenced by volcanic and tectonic activity, but that is not important on the interannual (or even centennial) timescale).

* The paper suggests that the CO2 peak in the 1940 is forced by the first temperature rise in the 20th century. That would make 150ppm due to a temperature shift of 0.4°C. What happened then with the next rise from the 1970s to today? The observed about 0.5°C rise corresponded to “only” 70ppm always assuming that fossil fuel combustion does not leave any remains in the atmosphere…. ;)

* And most importantly, we know from ice core analysis the CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial to modern times. The results of three different Antarctic cores broadly confirm the picture of an accelerating rise of CO2 above levels of natural variability over the last 650.000 years.

This paper has already received some appropriately critical reviews (particularly from Rabett Run here and here) and oddly was very warmly received by Lyndon LaRouche. We will try to refrain from drawing any conclusions from this…

lazlo
06-13-2008, 03:16 PM
And I repeat the request from my previous post: show me a single paper from a climatology scientist who states that CO2 is not a greehouse gas.
Show me a single person who claims it is not. Then prove CO2 created by humans is a problem. Nobody has done so yet. That is why the IPCC uses terms like 95% sure instead of publishing the proof.

Oh come on Dennis, that's way too easy. Almost all credible scientists state definitively that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. He's a citation from your own link!


Dennis, I'm reading the IPCC report right now, and not only do they confirm that Global Warming is caused by greenhouse generation by humans, but they have the charts showing the projected global temperatures given differing greenhouse gas emission trends (i.e., if we stay flat at 8 Trillion Metric Tons, or increase by 3% a years, ...:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/Greenhouse1.gif

dp
06-13-2008, 03:20 PM
Hoho -- that paper is hilarious! Who sponsored it? :p

Here's the critique from RealClimate:

Demonstrating only that the subject is far from settled which is what I've been saying all along and which you agreed with ("can't be verified"). And yet some among us believes one side of it to the degree that something very expensive must be done.

That makes no sense.

Before we civilized keepers of the planet doom third world nations and their populations to an eternity of poverty and planting trees to assuage our carbon guilt, we need to step back and look at things without the politics. Show me where that's wrong.

dp
06-13-2008, 03:28 PM
Oh come on Dennis, that's way too easy. Almost all credible scientists state definitively that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. He's a citation from your own link!

And I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is water vapor. Any scientist or lay person who disagrees is not credible. Now where's the proof that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem? Do you know what the percentage of human caused CO2 is in the atmosphere vs the percentage of naturally occuring CO2?

I can pull up a similar chart that demonstrates that sun spots can produce the same corelation of data points and temperature change and that it does so regardless of the presence of CO2 as it's not needed. That doesn't prove a thing but it certainly suggests cause/effect that does not exist in the carbon record. That, historically as I'm sure you know, always demonstrates that CO2 quantities lag temperature change and if anything only suggests that global warming produces more CO2, not the other way round.

lazlo
06-13-2008, 03:29 PM
Demonstrating only that the subject is far from settled

This is the type of argument that aggravates me. Climatologists have confirmed and peer reviewed CO2 concentration data that they've collected from around the world.

So a non-scientist, backed by unknown funding, publishes a paper in a anti Global Warming journal that contradicts 100 years of scientific data.
Then the Global Warming skeptics say that this paper shows there's no consensus on the CO2 data.

The exact same arguments and strategy to attempt to undermine peer-reviewed scientific data are being used in the Intelligent Design debates.

dp
06-13-2008, 03:39 PM
This is the type of argument that aggravates me. Climatologists have confirmed and peer reviewed CO2 concentration data that they've collected from around the world.

From the realclimate website:
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so. Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

And I'll ask the follow-on question: Does it prove that CO2 causes global warming? The answer again, is no. It does show that for 800 years after CO2 has peaked, the world cools dramatically. How can the world cool for 800 years following a peak level of CO2? Must be something else involved, don't you think?



So a non-scientist, backed by unknown funding, publishes a paper in a anti Global Warming journal that contradicts 100 years of scientific data.
Then the Global Warming skeptics say that this paper shows there's no consensus on the CO2 data.

And that would be true if you ask the right question. There is no consensus on the affects of human generated CO2. In fact there is great disagreement on that point and even greater disagreement on what if anything should be done.

Evan
06-13-2008, 04:12 PM
Is it your layman's opinion that the tokamak design is not viable?
It has nothing to do with the type of machine it is. It's the fuel cycle that isn't viable. It's too dirty. We don't have a design that has a chance of running the deuterium-deuterium cycle.

Evan
06-13-2008, 04:21 PM
Here is a quick primer on fusion fuel cycles. None of the ones that we have a chance of running are clean.



The great majority of fusion reactor studies are based on the deuterium/tritium (D-T) fuel cycle through the reaction t(d,n)a. This reaction is chosen because it has the largest fusion cross-section (peaking at about 5 barns) and reaches this maximum cross-section at the lowest energy (~65 keV in the center-of-mass) of any potential fusion fuel. This large cross-section and low center-of-mass energy lead to the lowest confinement requirement for ignition (ignition in D-T requires a confinement triple-product ntET=4.9�1021 keV-s/m-3 in the presence of a plausible impurity mix) and the highest fusion power density at fixed plasma pressure. The D-T fuel cycle also presents unique challenges to reactor designers. Two particular issues are the 14 MeV neutrons produced in the t(d,n)a reaction, and the presence of tritium in the fuel cycle.
(this is the cycle that ITER uses)

The 14 MeV neutrons damage reactor components (principally the structure of the blanket and shield) thereby limiting their useful lifetime; and activate materials, thereby opening the possibility that D-T fusion reactors will produce large volumes of radioactive wastes. Tritium does not occur in nature, but must be bred through the reaction n(6Li,t)a in a breeding blanket which surrounds the plasma. In situ breeding of tritium can result in large on-site tritium inventories (principally in the blanket and tritium recovery system) raising both safety and nuclear proliferation concerns.


More here:


http://aries.ucsd.edu/snowmass/SG-A/Alt._Fuels_2-pager.4-26.html

chipmaker2
06-13-2008, 05:07 PM
Globe is warming oceans are rising?:eek:

Fact#1. If all the ice in the artic and all the ice around anartica were to melt the level of the oceans won't rise 1/16" (1.5mm).
Fact#2. In Central America (Guatemala) they call the rainy season winter. There are more clouds day and night. The rainy season is from May until the end of October which are the longest days of the year. When we have clear skys it is called summer from November to April. Why?
Fact#3.C02 is a non poiseness gas. Every time we or any other creature breaths out, out goes CO2.
Fact#4. C02 is heavier than air and the concentrations are highest near the ground(right where the plants need it for photosynthesis).
Fact#5. Air(nitrogen and oxygen) are green house gases.
Fact#6. Hot air holds more water than cold air. More clouds will be formed.
Fact#7. The Titanic ran into an iceburg that was from Greenland. In fact, that iceburg was part of a greater iceburg field that forms every year from Greenland since before records were kept.
Fact#8. Land or earth is a good insulator and it's temperature on the surface from day to day depends on whether or not it is being hit by the Suns rays.
Fact#9.The Antarctic continent's ice is not melting.
Fact#10.Hot always flows to cold. Even if you have clouds at night. Yes, the clouds act as a blanket and slows down the the passage of heat but the heat will always get through. Remember to ask the pilot what the temperature is a 35000 feet when its 100 degrees at ground level.
Fact#11. We should drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars and better insulate are homes.
Fact#12. A lot of people will be mad at me for presenting these facts.:mad:
Have a good day.
Chuck
Evans replied to my twelve facts and said that only 1 was correct. This is how that information is distorted. If you go back to his reply he agrees with more than just one fact # 11. In fact he said yes to fact # 1. Evans 1 + 1 = 2 that is fact #13. I guess he thinks I am wrong on fact#2 even though I have lived there for almost 20 years. Next Co2 gas at normal concentrations is not a poiseness gas infact it is impossible to sustain life without it. Nitrogen at higher than normal concentrations can likewise also cause problems and even death. Fact #5 is undisputable. The gases permit the light wave to go through but the heat waves are slowed from passing through. I could go on and on but alot of people will believe what they want and the facts are only important when they promote what they believe. Otherwise they are unwelcome.
At least I tried and thanks Evans for responding.
Chuck

chipmaker2
06-13-2008, 05:08 PM
Globe is warming oceans are rising?:eek:

Fact#1. If all the ice in the artic and all the ice around anartica were to melt the level of the oceans won't rise 1/16" (1.5mm).
Fact#2. In Central America (Guatemala) they call the rainy season winter. There are more clouds day and night. The rainy season is from May until the end of October which are the longest days of the year. When we have clear skys it is called summer from November to April. Why?
Fact#3.C02 is a non poiseness gas. Every time we or any other creature breaths out, out goes CO2.
Fact#4. C02 is heavier than air and the concentrations are highest near the ground(right where the plants need it for photosynthesis).
Fact#5. Air(nitrogen and oxygen) are green house gases.
Fact#6. Hot air holds more water than cold air. More clouds will be formed.
Fact#7. The Titanic ran into an iceburg that was from Greenland. In fact, that iceburg was part of a greater iceburg field that forms every year from Greenland since before records were kept.
Fact#8. Land or earth is a good insulator and it's temperature on the surface from day to day depends on whether or not it is being hit by the Suns rays.
Fact#9.The Antarctic continent's ice is not melting.
Fact#10.Hot always flows to cold. Even if you have clouds at night. Yes, the clouds act as a blanket and slows down the the passage of heat but the heat will always get through. Remember to ask the pilot what the temperature is a 35000 feet when its 100 degrees at ground level.
Fact#11. We should drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars and better insulate are homes.
Fact#12. A lot of people will be mad at me for presenting these facts.:mad:
Have a good day.
Chuck
Evans replied to my twelve facts and said that only 1 was correct. This is how that information is distorted. If you go back to his reply he agrees with more than just one fact # 11. In fact he said yes to fact # 1. Evans 1 + 1 = 2 that is fact #13. I guess he thinks I am wrong on fact#2 even though I have lived there for almost 20 years. Next Co2 gas at normal concentrations is not a poiseness gas infact it is impossible to sustain life without it. Nitrogen at higher than normal concentrations can likewise also cause problems and even death. Fact #5 is undisputable. The gases permit the light wave to go through but the heat waves are slowed from passing through. I could go on and on but alot of people will believe what they want and the facts are only important when they promote what they believe. Otherwise they are unwelcome.
At least I tried and thanks Evans for responding.
Chuck

tmarks11
06-13-2008, 07:20 PM
I assisted my father at the Lawrence Berkeley Rad Lab on the very first fusion project for peaceful purposes in the 1960s. It soon became apparent that trying to contain a plasma via magnetic containment is subject to exactly the same mathematical problems that prohibit stable magnetic levitation via static magnetic fields. That hasn't changed nor will it.

But it is easy to perform stable levitation with an actively controlled magnetic field. The advent of computer controls has made this commercially viable today despite being impossible in the 1960s. Research has marched on and there are some significant advances in the field since your dad's experiments.

lazlo
06-13-2008, 07:43 PM
But it is easy to perform stable levitation with an actively controlled magnetic field. The advent of computer controls has made this commercially viable today despite being impossible in the 1960s. Research has marched on and there are some significant advances in the field since your dad's experiments.

Agreed. From what I've read in Scientific American et al, they're making slow, but steady progress. They'll get there eventually (currently projected as 2050 or so...).

Evan
06-13-2008, 09:40 PM
But it is easy to perform stable levitation with an actively controlled magnetic field.

Yes it is and I built such a device when I was assisting my father at the rad lab. That isn't the point of my comment. It's the mathematics of instability that governs the static levitation of an object that is the same as the math the describes the instabilities in an attempt to confine a plasma magnetically.

I am not aware of any active methods that are able to confine a plasma for a significant time period never mind indefinitely.

Regardless, it only takes one showstopper to prevent success. Bragging up the successes while ignoring the unsolvable problems gains nothing and is deceptive. The fuel cycle problem alone is a major problem. There isn't any chance of being able to fuse just deuterium, that takes a star. It requires densities and temperatures many orders of magnitude greater than the "easy" reactions.

There are plenty of processes that we understand well enough to duplicate artificially if it weren't for some problem that makes it impossible as a practical matter. That's the way it is sometimes. The record makes it clear that fusion is one of those processes. It might even be possible someday to produce electricity via fusion. I have no doubt at all that it will never be economical when all the costs are tabulated.

lazlo
06-13-2008, 10:02 PM
I am not aware of any active methods that are able to confine a plasma for a significant time period never mind indefinitely.

That's probably because you're not a physicist Evan :rolleyes:

Why do you think that European Union, India, Japan, People's Republic of China, Russia, South Korea, the USA, Portugal, and Brazil are actively developing Tokamaks? There are over 169 conventional tokamaks operating in the world, not including the newer spherical tokamaks that many countries (including the US, Russia, China and Japan) are developing.

lazlo
06-13-2008, 10:09 PM
A 10 second Google search yields dozens of actively controlled tokamaks:

Active control of resistive wall modes in the large-aspect-ratio tokamak
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13733971

Active Control of MHD Modes in DIII-D
http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR03/APR03/baps/abs/S500.html
The HBT-EP tokamak is investigating a variety of active mode control techniques in high-beta, wall-stabilized plasmas.

Active feedback stabilization of high beta modes in advanced tokamaks
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=921100

Evan
06-13-2008, 10:12 PM
Yet they still can't achieve confinement long enough to be practical.

I said "I am not aware of any active methods that are able to confine a plasma for a significant time period never mind indefinitely."

That is still the case.

Rich Carlstedt
06-13-2008, 10:37 PM
Lazlo
This is your last chance. With all you scientific know how ,I find it
comical that you have no answer for the basis of your GW Bible
I have watched this thread for days and have asked repeatedly
for your answer on why the Mann Chart ...the famous hockey stick chart
that is absolute proof of GW according to the followers, did not account for the Middle Ages Warm period?
I take your refusal to answer as a direct....huh ?
Rich

lazlo
06-14-2008, 12:02 AM
Yet they still can't achieve confinement long enough to be practical.

I said "I am not aware of any active methods that are able to confine a plasma for a significant time period never mind indefinitely."

That is still the case.

They're up to a 30 second sustained fusion reaction, and they're homing in on the magical 400 seconds, which is theoretically the point at which the fusion is self-sustaining:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/12/2239241

"The Japan Atomic Energy Agency has announced that its JT-60 Tokamak has almost doubled the previous record for sustained plasma production, which is now sits at 28.6 seconds. It is believed that once 400 seconds can be achieved, a sustained nuclear fusion reaction will be possible. While 28.6 seconds is a long way from 400, it raises hopes for what will be possible from the ITER reactor, expected to be finished in 2016."

lazlo
06-14-2008, 12:42 AM
Lazlo
This is your last chance. With all you scientific know how ,I find it comical that you have no answer for the basis of your GW Bible
I have watched this thread for days and have asked repeatedly for your answer
I take your refusal to answer as a direct....huh ?

Actually Rich, I didn't see your question in the 20 pages in this thread, but sure, I'll answer your question about the Hockey Stick. This is going to be my last post though, because you're getting really worked up over this. You're a very fine craftsman, one of the best on this board, and I see no point in aggravating you...


the famous hockey stick chart
that is absolute proof of GW according to the followers, did not account for the Middle Ages Warm period?

So here's my take on the Infamous Hockey Stick controversy:

There are dozens of historical temperature reconstructions, where climatologists model past temperature mega-trends through various historical datasets. Like the MSU satellite data, it takes immense amounts of high-order math, statistical regression analysis, and intensive computer analysis to develop these models. All of these temperature reconstructions, with one exception, support the general conclusions that IPCC TAR presented in 2001: global warming in the second half of the 20th century warming is anomalous in the last one or two thousand years, and the 1990s were likely warmer than any other time in that period.

The one exception is a temperature reconstruction published 8 years ago in Nature by Michael Mann -- a climatologist. This was the paper that included the chart of the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph, and was featured in the IPCC TAR Summary for Policymakers. It immediately caused an uproar in the skeptic community, mostly because of its visual impact.

Then two Canadians, an economist and a petroleum geologist, attempted to verify the temperature reconstruction by getting Mann's data and examining the methodology for themselves. They found errors in the description of the data that prevented them from duplicating the study.

In other words, Michael Mann made a mistake in the analysis that generated the Hockey Stick.

Mann published a correction in Nature, noting where the description did not match what had actually been done. All the claims made by Mann have been rebutted in detail by many other climatologists. All of it fits nicely for both sides of the global warming issue.

More importantly, all other historical temperature reconstructions correctly predict the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. But very much like the skeptics focusing on a thin band of troposphere data that didn't correlate with the climatology models, it's just too convenient for the GW Skeptics to keep harping about that single flawed study, published 8 years ago.

Here's a neat graph from GlobalWarming Art showing an overlay of 10 different temperature reconstructions. Notice that there's very good correlation between the various studies, and that they correct predict the historical evidence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The dark blue line is a more recent study by Mann et al, the guy who made the mistake on the Hockey Stick chart:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

oldtiffie
06-14-2008, 02:23 AM
This thread has degenerated into a senseless point-scoring slanging match and other than being any more of a weapon for a few is not all that interesting or useful now.

All of the arguing, postulating and posturing has not solved nor is it likely to solve any issue/s in practical terms that will benefit anyone here anytime soon. Those that may be able to resolve any of these issues have their own interests and agenda to focus on. If any here are of no aid in that pbjective, they will be ignored, marginalised or "rendered inoperative".

Perhaps there is too much testosterone and impotence here - frustrating ain't it?

I think its time for George to deliver the "coupe de' grace" (lock or delete) on this thread to put it and us out of our respective miseries so that we can get back to HSM-ing.

I am sure that there are more important things to be addressed.

I don't think that the sky or roof will fall in nor will it all end tomorrow and/or "in tears".

And I don't think it is 23:59:59.9999 either.


http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa294/oldtiffie/Funnies/End_of_the_world1-1.jpg

Locksmith
06-15-2008, 02:27 PM
I'll admit that I didn't read all bazillion pages of this thread, but here's a few thoughts:
How many of you believe that enviromentalism is the new religion for those liberal atheists?
If we can't stop a tornado, or a typhoon(and I lived through of them), why are we so arrogant about our ability to change the weather?
As to water levels rising, if you take a glass of ice water filled to the brim, when will it overflow...?

Evan
06-15-2008, 04:21 PM
If we can't stop a tornado, or a typhoon(and I lived through of them), why are we so arrogant about our ability to change the weather?
As to water levels rising, if you take a glass of ice water filled to the brim, when will it overflow...?
There is literally a world of difference between changing the weather and controlling it. We can change it all right, control it, no.

The glass will overflow when you add ice to it. The majority of ice on this planet isn't floating on water, it is stacked up to 2 miles deep on land. If it melts the water level will rise dramatically as that water is added to what is already in the oceans. It doesn't currently contribute to the level of the oceans because it isn't in the oceans.

tattoomike68
06-15-2008, 08:39 PM
Global warming is just as dumb as hell, if not for global warming we would be under 100' of ice from the last ice age.

I think man has .00000001% effect on climate change and we are nothing..

Evan
06-15-2008, 10:10 PM
Ever heard of "heat islands"? It's easy to alter the weather. Just build a city. That will change the local temperatures. Build lots of them. That will change a lot more and not just local.

The paved area of the USA is about 60,000 sq miles. There are 3 vehicles for every 4 people. The US has 4 million miles of roads.

Ever see the mirage created on an asphalt road on a hot day? You don't see that over grassland or a forest. The road is absorbing a lot more heat from the sun than the surroundings. The total paved area of the US is equal to a medium size state. That is a LOT more than .00000001% of the country.

Then start adding in all the other countries. Then add in all the buildings. Then add in all the reservoirs (nearly perfect heat traps). The total area of all the artificial reservoirs on the planet is about 500,000 sq kilometers which is approximately 1/2 of 1 percent of the total land area of the planet. They replaced vegetation or dry land that was not nearly as effective at absorbing solar heat as water.

Then count all the farmed area. It is very often flooded or at least wet which makes it a very effective heat trap as well. Any time you have water evaporating you have solar heat that is staying on the planet.

Nearly all of our development activities result in heat gain, not heat loss. Rarely do we alter the environment in a way that reflects more visible energy than before. If you add up all the various ways we have modified the surface of the planet in a way that results in additional heat gain it totals more than 2% of the land surface area at the least. I will not post links to sources as I have gleaned this information from a variety of studies, censuses and other sources such as the CIA World Factbook.

The human caused changes are more than enough to alter the climate. Note that I haven't even mentioned (until now) the use of fossil fuels or the production of green house gases.

[added later]

Note: I specifically excluded logging and deforestation from the total area. The jury is still out on whether that causes a net gain or a loss of heat.

Mariss
06-16-2008, 12:58 AM
The earth's land area is 29% of its surface. That makes your 2% become 0.58%.

Mariss

dp
06-16-2008, 01:05 AM
The earth's land area is 29% of its surface. That makes your 2% become 0.58%.

Mariss

Of that land area a surprising amount of it is always or frequently in the shade during daylight hours, and a large area of the northern hemisphere is bathed in darkness for a good chunk of the year. The distribution of sunlight energy around the year is not conveniently symmetrical. All the northern land mass is totally dark in winter and partially heated by sunlight at other times, but shadows are shadows and they are long.

oldtiffie
06-16-2008, 02:24 AM
Let's not forget the southern continent - Antarctica - and its environs.

Evan
06-16-2008, 07:51 AM
That makes your 2% become 0.58%.

Which is an enormous amount of surface area. My location receives an average of 2013 hours of sunshine per year. That number is determined as actual sunshine with enough intensity to burn a trail on a paper card placed in an instrument called a Campbell-Stokes Sunshine Recorder. That is about average and nowhere near what someplace like Phoenix Arizona receives at 3800 hours per year.

The average insolation at the surface of the Earth is 1000 watts per sq meter per hour. At 2000 hours per year that is 2 megawatt hours per sq meter per year. That's 2 terawatt hours per sq kilometer per year.

.58% of the surface area of the planet is around 2.5 million sq kilometers. That's about 5 exawatt hours of sunlight per year.

5,000,000,000,000,000,000 watt hours per year falls on our roads, structures, roofs, parking lots, reservoirs, farms and fields.

If we increase the absorption of that energy by only 10 % we add 500 petawatts per year to the heat load of the planet. That is an increase equivalent to about an extra 3 days of full sunshine per year based on a total daily insolation of around 174 petawatt hours.

That is not an insignificant amount. It represents the equivalent of a 1% increase in the solar energy flux which in an amazing coincidence is about right to explain the observed global warming trend.

dp
06-16-2008, 09:36 AM
That is not an insignificant amount. It represents the equivalent of a 1% increase in the solar energy flux which in an amazing coincidence is about right to explain the observed global warming trend.

Meaning there's not a lot of room left in the energy budget to allow for anthropogenic GHG as a cause for that same heating. Somebody's numbers are wrong or the science is far from settled, but then that was never in doubt.

But if what you say is true then it becomes all the more imperitive to stop the carbon trading nonsense, stop all the ghg nonsense, and focus solutions for a warmer future because there is zero chance the future is going to include fewer square miles of pavement and rooftops and farms, etc.

Evan
06-16-2008, 10:45 AM
Meaning there's not a lot of room left in the energy budget to allow for anthropogenic GHG as a cause for that same heating. Somebody's numbers are wrong or the science is far from settled, but then that was never in doubt.
I don't think the numbers are wrong, it's a pretty straight forward calculation. However, I left out some of the things that aren't directly related that may have a cooling effect such as clouds that form from jet contrails. That isn't straight forward to quantify or calculate. Also, as I said the jury is still out on whether deforestation causes cooling, warming or no net change. There are plenty of variables in the mix but the anthropogenic contribution due to environment modification that increases heat gain is not in doubt. It's easy to measure, see and touch and there is no doubt it exists. It also of a magnitude to be a part of the problem.

The idea that we aren't able to influence the temperature of the planet just doesn't stand up to even a cursory analysis. That is what I was trying to show.

Mariss
06-16-2008, 10:50 AM
Insolation over the earth's surface averages 250 Watt-hours/m^2 a day. That number is not affected by the kind of surface it irradiates if the albedo is the same, be it asphalt or tree leaves. Cities have a higher albedo (reflect more light) than vegitation does. Vegitation by design absorbs sunlight to facilitate photosynthesis. Pavement and cities should have a negative effect on absorbed solar energy.

Mariss

zukIzzy
06-16-2008, 10:51 AM
Ever heard of "heat islands"? It's easy to alter the weather. Just build a city. That will change the local temperatures. Build lots of them. That will change a lot more and not just local.

The paved area of the USA is about 60,000 sq miles. There are 3 vehicles for every 4 people. The US has 4 million miles of roads.

Ever see the mirage created on an asphalt road on a hot day? You don't see that over grassland or a forest. The road is absorbing a lot more heat from the sun than the surroundings. The total paved area of the US is equal to a medium size state. That is a LOT more than .00000001% of the country.

Then start adding in all the other countries. Then add in all the buildings. Then add in all the reservoirs (nearly perfect heat traps). The total area of all the artificial reservoirs on the planet is about 500,000 sq kilometers which is approximately 1/2 of 1 percent of the total land area of the planet. They replaced vegetation or dry land that was not nearly as effective at absorbing solar heat as water.

Then count all the farmed area. It is very often flooded or at least wet which makes it a very effective heat trap as well. Any time you have water evaporating you have solar heat that is staying on the planet.

Nearly all of our development activities result in heat gain, not heat loss. Rarely do we alter the environment in a way that reflects more visible energy than before. If you add up all the various ways we have modified the surface of the planet in a way that results in additional heat gain it totals more than 2% of the land surface area at the least. I will not post links to sources as I have gleaned this information from a variety of studies, censuses and other sources such as the CIA World Factbook.

The human caused changes are more than enough to alter the climate. Note that I haven't even mentioned (until now) the use of fossil fuels or the production of green house gases.

[added later]

Note: I specifically excluded logging and deforestation from the total area. The jury is still out on whether that causes a net gain or a loss of heat.


This logic is valid a well researched I would be inclined to agree as my research follows the same lines.

It is the carbon credit, IPCC, Gore, fanaticism I have a problem with. As well as the fanatics on the other end of the spectrum.

This is also the reason I always recognise more than 2 sides to this debate. there are too many valid theories that need to be researched to limit it to 2 sides.

wayne

Fasttrack
06-16-2008, 11:13 AM
This logic is valid a well researched I would be inclined to agree as my research follows the same lines.

It is the carbon credit, IPCC, Gore, fanaticism I have a problem with. As well as the fanatics on the other end of the spectrum.

This is also the reason I always recognise more than 2 sides to this debate. there are too many valid theories that need to be researched to limit it to 2 sides.

wayne


Absolutely! To argue that there is no global warming is to argue that atoms don't exist because you can't see them. Now the extent to which human interaction has influenced global warming and th extent to which the temperature is changing ... that is arguable.

I take a moderate posistion. It is impossible for us to live on this planet and not impact it in some way. There are many environmental concerns that were and are caused by us but I also believe in progress and industry. We need to find a happy medium.

Evan
06-16-2008, 11:14 AM
Insolation over the earth's surface averages 250 Watt-hours/m^2 a day. That number is not affected by the kind of surface it irradiates if the albedo is the same, be it asphalt or tree leaves.

That is an average over 24 hours which obviously includes the night. To calculate correctly you need to use the figure for when the sun is actually shining with enough strength to produce real heating. That is what the Campbell-Stokes instrument records.

The albedo measures reflected visible spectrum energy which accounts for about half the insolation energy. However, the energy of the blue end of the spectrum averages twice as high as the red end of the spectrum. The albedo most certainly isn't the same for asphalt as it is for tree leaves, grass land or othe natural vegetation.

From the Heat Island Group at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab:



We measured the albedos of various asphalt concrete pavements. The most recently paved surfaces have an albedo of about 0.04, because the asphalt (bitumin) coats the aggregate. (A typical asphalt concrete pavement is about 85% by volume of mineral aggregate and 15% asphalt.) Within 5 years the albedos increase to a mean value of 0.12 because the asphalt wears away, revealing some of the aggregate.
http://heatisland.lbl.gov/Pavements/Albedo/

An albedo of .12 for worn pavement means nearly 90% absorption of the incoming energy. Green grass is about .25, meaning it absorbs about 75%.


Urban areas in particular have very unnatural values for albedo because of the many human-built structures which absorb light before the light can reach the surface. In the northern part of the world, cities are relatively dark, and Walker has shown that their average albedo is about 7%, with only a slight increase during the summer. In most tropical countries, cities average around 12%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

wierdscience
06-16-2008, 01:46 PM
And this is why all those temperature stations that have been surrounded by asphalt,ac-condensers and even trash burning barrels have yielded flawed data.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Some prime examples,notice the trend in the data record from those sites.

http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

Evan
06-16-2008, 05:28 PM
That data isn't flawed if what you want to find out is how large the heat island effect is. Readings that are artificially high are reflecting precisely what may be the cause of climate change. Calibration can be made by comparing a high reading station with nearby stations just outside the city. All data is valuable when it is understood. It isn't in error if you accept that the reading doesn't just include natural weather.

I remember my dad admonishing us if we left a door open too long in winter. "What are you trying to do??? Heat all of the outdoors??"

It's no longer a rhetorical question.

Swarf&Sparks
06-16-2008, 05:54 PM
I remember my dad admonishing us if we left a door open too long in winter. "What are you trying to do??? Heat all of the outdoors??"

In my case (childhood in Scotland) it was
"were ye born in a tent?!"

No, but I can still live in one.
:p

bob ward
06-16-2008, 06:24 PM
Absolutely! To argue that there is no global warming is to argue that atoms don't exist because you can't see them. Now the extent to which human interaction has influenced global warming and th extent to which the temperature is changing ... that is arguable.

In the same vein, there are those who are not convinced that the increasing the tiny amount of atmospheric CO2 levels by a few percent can possibly make the atmosphere behave in a totally different manner.

But there is no one here who will argue that changing the tiny quantity of carbon in a piece of steel by a few percent has no effect on the behaviour on that piece of steel.

torker
06-16-2008, 07:36 PM
Holy Smoke.. this thread has gone on huh? Well...good news.. Global Warming is indeed alive and well. Today should be the last day I have to burn wood to keep the house warm. Should be good til September now.
Thanks for all the insight!
Russ

lazlo
06-16-2008, 07:43 PM
Today should be the last day I have to burn wood to keep the house warm.

Russ, it was 103° today in Austin -- I'll trade you :)

dp
06-16-2008, 08:08 PM
In the same vein, there are those who are not convinced that the increasing the tiny amount of atmospheric CO2 levels by a few percent can possibly make the atmosphere behave in a totally different manner.

But there is no one here who will argue that changing the tiny quantity of carbon in a piece of steel by a few percent has no effect on the behaviour on that piece of steel.

The difference is it can and has been proved using instruments and science in the case of carbon in iron, but CO2 has always lagged temperature change going up and going down which strongly suggests that temperature drives CO2 levels. That means we don't yet have a consensus on what drives the temperature change. It is in the record that for centuries after temperature falls, CO2 levels continue to rise, and that for centuries after CO2 levels continue to fall, the temperature will rise. And it has been happening for hundreds of thousands of years as reliable as clockwork and will again. People and cows were never a factor. Something much bigger is at work.

Worse, without benefit of a solid scientific proof, politicians, hollywood starlets, and the ever popular tree huggers want us all to spend trillions of dollars and destroy our way of life in order to turn around a problem that may not exist, or which they have solved incorrectly.

We owe it to ourselves to back off trashing our way of life and study the strongest candidate which is solar activity. Not radiance, but sun spots, and the impact they have or do not have, and why solar activity and global climate track so nearly perfectly. Swapping carbon credits will not solve anything, and deflects needed funding that should be spent understanding better the relationship between the sun and the climate.

If CO2 is the problem then we need to solve the engineering problems because we're not going to reverse the generation of CO2. Not going to happen. Developing nations are not going to stop developing. China is the big dog in the pond and they don't do what anyone says. India is struggling to move out of third world status and they're on a roll that is not going to end. South America is burgeoning with growth and they too are not going to stop. We can't get them to preserve the rain forests - how the hell are we going to tell them to stop creating CO2? The US, even if we shut off everything today, cannot make the CO2 go away.

And if sun spots are the problem we still need to solve the engineering problems because we're sure not going to change the sun. What's common to both scenarios? Inevitable climate change and engineering problems. Anyone see carbon trading in the solution set?

oldtiffie
06-16-2008, 08:55 PM
Anyone see carbon trading in the solution set?
Good post Dennis.

I can see and agree with that.

The "smart money" ("Traders" and Merchant banks/Financiers) are well into getting ready for "Carbon Trading" - big time. There are huge profits to be made.

So, if an emitter can make enough "margin" he can literally "buy/trade" his "futures" to cover any liability without too much or entire elimination of his "emissions".

Same game, same players - all over again.

So far as I know, the US has not signed up to any carbon emission limiting protocol or agreement. Others/"compliers" may apply imposts/embargoes/tariffs on imports from non-compliers - perhaps while pricing themselves out of the market.

China, India, South America and perhaps Africa and Eastern Europe and certainly Russia are not likely to commit soon either as they have their own interests and agendas to look after - as do the oil and coal-producer nations.

A trade war or embargo etc. will not solve much.

"Big money" and "Big Politics" have and will retain ownership and control of this lot.

The rest of us will just have to make the best of it.

"Food" and "water" may well be the big or bigger short (and longer?) term issues.

There is plenty of impoverishment and depredation as well as a perhaps "forced/economic migration" going on (ask Europe and Africa at least - as well as South America).

The problems with oil, food and water are not entirely unrelated and are very inter-linked/dependent.

Evan
06-16-2008, 09:05 PM
Here is something to think about. On the Moon the temperature drops as low as - 233F. On Mars the lowest recorded is -170. The Moon receives more than twice the solar energy per sq meter than Mars does and has a higher sub soil temperature. In summer on Mars the atmospheric temperature rises as high as about 17F, an almost livable temperature. The difference of course is that Mars has an atmosphere, a very, very thin atmosphere but it is particularly effective at trapping heat. The Martian atmosphere is less than 1/100 as dense as the atmosphere of Earth but it is 95% CO2. Any other gas such as nitrogen at that pressure would not be nearly as effective at trapping heat.

The greenhouse effect is well proven. Venus is a hellish 800F in the shade and it's all shade. The CO2 atmosphere is so thick that the Venera landers didn't need parachutes to decend.

What we don't know is how non-linear the response of our planet is to changes in the atmospheric makeup. We can be sure it isn't linear as there are many mechanisms that interact and have somehow produced huge temperature swings in the past. We don't even know where all the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from but we do know that the CO2 we are putting into the air hasn't been done before and is added to whatever other sources exist.

It's much too simplistic to look at past records and say that CO2 leads, lags or paces temperature and then draw conclusions about it's importance to global temperature. There are ways that a slight increase in CO2 can cause the release of even more CO2 on a delayed basis. The timing has been given far too much attention given that we don't even know what that timing means.

dp
06-16-2008, 09:49 PM
What we don't know is how non-linear the response of our planet is to changes in the atmospheric makeup. We can be sure it isn't linear as there are many mechanisms that interact and have somehow produced huge temperature swings in the past. We don't even know where all the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from but we do know that the CO2 we are putting into the air hasn't been done before and is added to whatever other sources exist.
I agree with you about what we don't know. We don't know, for example, if any action we take based on what some of us think will or won't lead to a greater disaster. We have no way to know if the $48 trillion the UN says it will cost will be well spent or if it prevents finding a cure for cancer, AIDS, and obesity in children. If I had $48 trillion to fritter away I know what I'd spend it on that will produce immediate results for people who need our generosity.


It's much too simplistic to look at past records and say that CO2 leads, lags or paces temperature and then draw conclusions about it's importance to global temperature. There are ways that a slight increase in CO2 can cause the release of even more CO2 on a delayed basis. The timing has been given far too much attention given that we don't even know what that timing means.
It is equally simplistic to ignore that history while at the very same time ignoring the rather incredible sun spot vs temperature tracking that both exists and which clearly implies a cause/effect relationship and makes a much better case of it than CO2 as a driver. And it doesn't end there.

Absurd comparisons of incredibly dissimilar planets are made: CO2 content of the Martian atmosphere: 95%. CO2 content of the Venetian atmosphere: 97%. C02 content of Earth's atmosphere: 0.038%. Anyone know what the highest CO2 content was on Earth's worst day?

Beyond that, the density of each planet's atmosphere is stunningly different. Mars: 6 -10 millibars (gravity = 0.38g); Venus: 90 atmospheres (gravity being nearly equal to Earth); Earth: 1 atmosphere. 1 millibar is 1/1000 atmosphere. And that doesn't even compare oribital distance and rotational differences. One cannot draw a straight line comparison between these very different bodies - at least not with a straight face.

The pre-dawn temperature above but near the surface of the moon is approximately the same as found in the shadow of the ISS. It is the radiant temperature of the environment, nearly what a thermometer in an empty vacuum bottle in interstellar space would show. It doesn't apply to this discussion, is a distraction that fails to validate a point, but is none the less an interesting factoid.

Rustybolt
06-16-2008, 09:55 PM
Or not as the case may be.
Since the oceans give off the vast majority of co2 I doubt that mere mortals have much of an impact, but i don't have grant funding resting on my opinion, so there.
Speaking of heat islands; I wonder how much the whole of the plowed fields of the midwest contribute. most of Illinois, Iowa etc is exposed black dirt for a few months of the year. Gotta be less this year since Iowa is under water.

Evan
06-16-2008, 10:12 PM
Absurd comparisons of incredibly dissimilar planets are made: CO2 content of the Martian atmosphere: 95%. CO2 content of the Venetian atmosphere: 97%. C02 content of Earth's atmosphere: 0.038%. Anyone know what the highest CO2 content was on Earth's worst day?

Try comparing partial CO2 pressures of Mars and Earth instead. That is what matters, not percentages. Percentages are dimensionless. The CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars follow the same rules of physics as it does on Earth. It receives energy from the same star and even has a similar day length. It's the only other planet that has had flowing water on the surface. It's in the "comfort zone" and it would be a good idea to understand what happened to the rest of the atmosphere. It didn't all blow away into space. The soil on Mars is very highly oxidised which seems to be where the oxygen has gone.

It could be very instructive to know what happened on Mars and on Venus. The planets have more basic properties in common than it seems. Mars and Earth particularly are more similar than dissimilar. The main difference is in their histories.

oldtiffie
06-16-2008, 10:23 PM
Now that we've more or less gone from the Terrestrial to the Celestial considerations, does this mean that I should consult my "Stars" or the Astrologists - or just stick with picking through and pondering bones and chicken entrails?

bob ward
06-16-2008, 10:30 PM
Worse, without benefit of a solid scientific proof, politicians, hollywood starlets, and the ever popular tree huggers want us all to spend trillions of dollars and destroy our way of life in order to turn around a problem that may not exist, or which they have solved incorrectly.


There are probably 2 separate strands to the global warming debate, but they tend to get interwoven and confused.

The first strand is "is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere (man made or naturally occuring, which ever you prefer) causing the earth's temperature to rise?".
To me, there is a very reasonable argument to be made that it is.

The second strand is "what do we do about it?"
The world will do nothing about it except tinker around the edges with things such as carbon trading, banning incandescent light bulbs etc. No country or company or person is going to damage their industries, their self interest, or way of life, especially if they can (and they will always be able to) point to another not shouldering their fair share of the burden.

And even if we all park our cars tomorrow, close the power stations, close all industry, start growing vegetables in the back yard and start riding bicycles, it may be too late already, we may have already passed the tipping point, the point of no return.

If the worst comes to the worst and sea levels do rise by 6 metres, so what! We will deal with it! Some expensive real estate will get flooded, a lot of people will die (heartless I know, but no one is going to argue there are too few people in the world), a lot of people will be displaced, law and order will break down. The human race has been there, done that and will bounce back just fine.

dp
06-16-2008, 11:21 PM
Try comparing partial CO2 pressures of Mars and Earth instead. That is what matters, not percentages. Percentages are dimensionless.
When you know the pressure and force of gravity you can calculate volume. A column of air 10cm round and 10 meters tall can be calulated down to the molecule with what we know. And since we know the percentages we know how many of those molecules are CO2.


The CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars follow the same rules of physics as it does on Earth. It receives energy from the same star and even has a similar day length.
One of the kinds of radiation we receive from the sun does things here it cannot do on Mars - it makes clouds. You can demonstrate this in the home. Get a large felt pad like used on desks, soak it with water. Put it on a large gold fish bowl. Put the bowl on a brick of frozen CO2 (dry ice). Put a very warm iron on the top of the felt. Take pictures of the traces inside the bowl left by cosmic rays. It's very cool. This was a Mr. Wizard project from a long time back. It was a science project I did in the fourth grade at Chief Joseph school in Portland, OR. Nobody understood what the heck I was going on about and more than a few comments were made about the safety of having radiation in the classroom :)


It's the only other planet that has had flowing water on the surface. It's in the "comfort zone" and it would be a good idea to understand what happened to the rest of the atmosphere. It didn't all blow away into space. The soil on Mars is very highly oxidised which seems to be where the oxygen has gone.

A lot of it is frozen at the poles. Easy to do when you have 95% CO2 in your atmosphere. If the poles continue to thaw that percentage will rise, and... well nothing will happen. Mars, like Earth, is without a care about what rides along on it's hide. From what I've read, water on Mars' surface appears to be related to volcanos and meteor impacts which is to say, pretty much temporary. If the atmosphere was substantially less CO2 by percentage then surface water would quickly freeze and ablate. If so it would be pretty quickly redistributed around the world.

There is a pressure altitude at which air starts to separate into more pure forms of it's components. Surely some of it gets blown away by the solar wind. A lander on one of the moons would tell us how much, and I've always thought it would be cool to have a lander package that split in orbit with one part going to Deimos and the other going to the surface of Mars. And since I'm wishing, I wish they'd put a microphone set on a lander and let us know what Mars sounds like.


It could be very instructive to know what happened on Mars and on Venus. The planets have more basic properties in common than it seems. Mars and Earth particularly are more similar than dissimilar. The main difference is in their histories.

Mars has a nasty neighborhood - asteroids, Jupiter, moons too small to contribute to plate tectonics, and an orbit just barely outside the torus of solar effect that allows liquid water. Venus is inside the critical distance that allows liquid water. Earth got it right, but barely, and we have a moon that works with us. It sucks up debris, bends and folds our plante's surface, has a big influence on our oceans, and is a babe magnet on warm summer nights.

sreeja
06-17-2008, 01:31 AM
It is the most serious challenges that facing today.Inorder to protect from this we must have to reduce the emissions of heat trapping gases using fir technology.It occurs for a long peiod of time.Therefore there is a gradual shift of warmer climate.The large snow fall will not change the climate.

Evan
06-17-2008, 01:32 AM
When you know the pressure and force of gravity you can calculate volume. A column of air 10cm round and 10 meters tall can be calculated down to the molecule with what we know. And since we know the percentages we know how many of those molecules are CO2.

You didn't mention that in your objection. The pressure is around 7 millibars on Mars. Mars has more CO2 per cubic meter than Earth does.

Mars has enough gravity to have retained most of it's atmosphere. Molecules of gas don't just "blow away" in the solar wind. Like everything else they must reach escape velocity. For Mars that is a respectable 5 kilometers per second. Only the lightest atoms are light enough to accumulate sufficient energy from collisions with solar protons to be kicked out of orbit.

The big question then is where the heck is the atmosphere? It should still be there. Mars must have had one at one time for liquid water to exist. Without an atmosphere water goes directly from ice to vapor via sublimation. It would be really nice to know what happened that ended up leaving an atmosphere that has the same constituents as Earth's minus the oxygen and nitrogen. The other two main gases are CO2 and argon. That's what is left on Mars. The Martian CO2 partial pressure is many times what it is on Earth, so far.

Perhaps Mars suffered some sort of change to the climate brought on by an increase in CO2. There are some very large extinct volcanoes on Mars. If the temperature of the atmosphere increased dramatically the molecules of nitrogen would then have enough kinetic energy to be blown away by impacts with the solar wind.

It doesn't matter what caused the increase in CO2. If the result is the loss of a substantial fraction of our atmosphere then that is something the Earth will never recover from, never mind life on Earth.

Btw, Mars does have plenty of clouds and dust storms too.

All the hazy looking clouds in these images are water ice clouds very much the same as high altitude noctilucent clouds here on Earth.

http://vts.bc.ca/pics4/marsclouds.jpg

aostling
06-17-2008, 01:34 AM
using fir technology


Where are you from, Sreeja? What is fir technology?

Evan
06-17-2008, 01:47 AM
I believe Sreeja is in India.

Mariss
06-17-2008, 02:03 AM
Why is the assumption made that the feedback mechanisms are positive? A little puff of CO2 into the atmosphere leads to warming, warming leads to additional CO2 release which then leads to a runaway greenhouse effect burning hell of an earth before anyone can ask whose beer belch it was that started it all.

Why not allow that the feedback mechanisms may be negative? That same puff of CO2 leads to an infinitesimal warming that leads to a slightly bigger cumulus cloud whose albedo just cancels that warming? An identified negative feedback mechanism is MIT Prof Richard Lindzen's Iris Effect which postulates warming produces tropical thunderstorms having smaller cirrus cloud shields. This results in more radiational cooling of the surface, counteracting the warming.

None of this matters much anyway. "Global Warming" ended in 1998 and the average temperature has dropped 1C since then, canceling a century's worth of warming in just a decade.

Mariss

dp
06-17-2008, 02:10 AM
You didn't mention that in your objection. The pressure is around 7 millibars on Mars. Mars has more CO2 per cubic meter than Earth does.
Sorry - but that was why I thought it important to include the gravity of each planet. One can, knowing all the numbers, normalize the atmospheric density and makeup to allow superficial comparisons between the planets. At 95% CO2 concentrations it would be almost impossible for there not to be more CO2 molecules/area cubed than what is found on Earth. But Earth has many magnitudes more water vapor in the atmosphere than does Mars, and that has far greater impact on Earth's temperature than CO2. Mars might become a nice place to visit if the water could be put into the air there. My point was and remains there is no basis for using the characteristics of one planet to predict what happens on another. Mars is warming - this has been blamed on dust in the atmosphere. Dust gets into the atmosphere by wind. What drives wind? Increases in energy. Where does the energy come from? Sol. So what's happening on Sol?


Mars has enough gravity to have retained most of it's atmosphere. Molecules of gas don't just "blow away" in the solar wind.

These people need a strong letter from you: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan_1.htm


Like everything else they must reach escape velocity. For Mars that is a respectable 5 kilometers per second. Only the lightest atoms are light enough to accumulate sufficient energy from collisions with solar protons to be kicked out of orbit.

I'm going with NASA on this one:
"In 1989 the Soviet Phobos probe (http://astroe.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/missions/phobos2.html) made direct measurements of the atmospheric erosion," he continued. When the spacecraft passed through the solar wind wake behind Mars, onboard instruments detected ions that had been stripped from Mars's atmosphere and were flowing downstream with the solar wind. "If we extrapolate those Phobos measurements 4 billion years backwards in time, solar wind erosion can account for most of the planet's lost atmosphere."

Sure - they could be wrong. That's why I'd like to instrument the moons of Mars.


The big question then is where the heck is the atmosphere? It should still be there. Mars must have had one at one time for liquid water to exist. Without an atmosphere water goes directly from ice to vapor via sublimation. It would be really nice to know what happened that ended up leaving an atmosphere that has the same constituents as Earth's minus the oxygen and nitrogen. The other two main gases are CO2 and argon. That's what is left on Mars. The Martian CO2 partial pressure is many times what it is on Earth, so far.

In fact the mystery is quite deep. Many of the minerals found on the surface require extended periods of liquid water in order to form. That implies the gushing of volcanos and meteors are not enough to explain it. But - if Mars has had a very long-period of volcanism, then thermal gradients under the surface can produce aquifers of very long duration. Given the bombardment from space, any aquifer is ultimately subject to penetration from impact or certainly a good crushing caused by the impact. Lots of steam, lots of geysers long after the impact as the raised rings of dislocated material settles and recompacts. It really is a good mystery.


Perhaps Mars suffered some sort of change to the climate brought on by an increase in CO2. There are some very large extinct volcanoes on Mars. If the temperature of the atmosphere increased dramatically the molecules of nitrogen would then have enough kinetic energy to be blown away by impacts with the solar wind.

Yep - we're in agreement there.


It doesn't matter what caused the increase in CO2. If the result is the loss of a substantial fraction of our atmosphere then that is something the Earth will never recover from, never mind life on Earth.

Btw, Mars does have plenty of clouds and dust storms too.

All the hazy looking clouds in these images are water ice clouds very much the same as high altitude noctilucent clouds here on Earth.

Quite right, but not substantial enough to create climate change. Probably enough to create a minor weather change as happens here. They stand out quite well in UV but not so much in IR, so they're not trapping important amounts of warmth.

Evan
06-17-2008, 07:37 AM
Interesting links about the atmosphere blowing away. I'll have to do some searching on NASA's site since I am sure it was there that I read that the atmosphere couldn't just "blow away". It won't be the first time that I have found conflicting information at NASA. They still have tutorials explaining how the Bernoulli effect is responsible for all the lift that a wing produces even though it was their own experiments that have shown that the Bernoulli effect cannot explain more than a small portion of the lift.

By the same reasoning the atmosphere of Earth should have also been substantially eroded. The Earth has undergone numerous magnetic reversals during which times the protective effect of the field is missing.


My point was and remains there is no basis for using the characteristics of one planet to predict what happens on another.
Thare are people that disagree with you.


Their study appears in the Sept. 26 issue of Nature, and suggests that a climate change theory for Earth can also be applied to Mars and possibly to other Earth-like planets.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020926064937.htm



Martian Field Trips on Earth
http://www.geotimes.org/may03/feature_analog.html


Oh, BTW, the moons of Mars are a real mystery. There is no reasonable mechanism that explains how the planet could have captured them.. One body cannot capture another in the absence of a third major body without the operation of some mechanism other than gravity.

Evan
06-17-2008, 05:27 PM
Mars has enough gravity to have retained most of it's atmosphere. Molecules of gas don't just "blow away" in the solar wind.

These people need a strong letter from you: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan_1.htm

Quote:
Like everything else they must reach escape velocity. For Mars that is a respectable 5 kilometers per second. Only the lightest atoms are light enough to accumulate sufficient energy from collisions with solar protons to be kicked out of orbit.


I'm going with NASA on this one:
"In 1989 the Soviet Phobos probe (http://astroe.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/missions/phobos2.html) made direct measurements of the atmospheric erosion," he continued. When the spacecraft passed through the solar wind wake behind Mars, onboard instruments detected ions that had been stripped from Mars's atmosphere and were flowing downstream with the solar wind. "If we extrapolate those Phobos measurements 4 billion years backwards in time, solar wind erosion can account for most of the planet's lost atmosphere."

Sure - they could be wrong. That's why I'd like to instrument the moons of Mars.

I knew I had seen something about it. The atmosphere didn't just blow away on Mars.



Mars' Missing Air Might Just be Hiding
By Ker Than (http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/kerthan)
Staff Writer
posted: 25 January 2007
02:01 pm ET
Rather than having had its air knocked out into space, Mars might just be holding its breath.
New findings suggests the missing atmosphere of Mars might be locked up in hidden reservoirs on the planet, rather than having been chafed away by billions of years' worth of solar winds as previously thought.
Combining two years of observations by the European Space Agency's Mars Express (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/express_methane_040920.html) spacecraft, researchers determined that Mars (http://www.space.com/mars/) is currently losing only about 20 grams of air per second into space.
Extrapolating this measurement back over 3.5 billion years, they estimate that only a small fraction, 0.2 to 4 millibars, of carbon dioxide and a few centimeters of water could have been lost to solar winds during that timeframe. (A bar is a unit for measuring pressure; Earth's (http://www.space.com/earth/) atmospheric pressure is about 1 bar.)

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070125_mars_atmosphere.html

dp
06-17-2008, 06:02 PM
I knew I had seen something about it. The atmosphere didn't just blow away on Mars.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070125_mars_atmosphere.html


Yep - I recall that article. It doesn't settle the point so much as offer an alternative possibility. That's the maddening thing about this. So many unverified possiblities are floating around out there. I'd also not be at all surprised to read there are aquifers on Mars that are super-saturated with CO2 similar to Lake Nyos is here (http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mhalb/nyos/index.htm), and they're just waiting for the right conditions go to off like a shaken can of cola.

tattoomike68
07-19-2008, 01:29 AM
Al Gore has a 10 year plan to get the US off fossil fuels entirely, switching to "renewable" energy sources. You know, the things we should have implemented 30 years ago.

Cost in today's dollars? Around $3 trillion.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v160/ragnarbocephus/Things/gorecoalchair.jpg