PDA

View Full Version : Yikes! Where is Santa gonna take up residence?



Okla-homey
1/25/2008, 07:03 AM
Okay, we got it. We're all scroo-ed. Now, would Al please report to the Fortress of Solitude and we'll call him if we need him.


Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Jan 24 04:20 AM US/Eastern

Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, Al Gore said on Thursday.

Recent evidence shows "the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us," climate campaigner and former US vice-president Gore said.

There are now forecasts that the North Pole ice caps may disappear entirely during summer months within five years, he told a gathering at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a massive report the size of three phone books on the reality and risks of climate change, its 4th assessment in 18 years.

Global warming is a key theme at this year's meeting of the world's business and political elite in Davos.

Harry Beanbag
1/25/2008, 07:33 AM
He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!



What a dooshbag. :rolleyes:

Jerk
1/25/2008, 07:38 AM
I'm not the sharpest pencil in the drawer, but I have a memory like an elephant when it comes to these things.

You can bet this will be brought back up in 4 years.

1stTimeCaller
1/25/2008, 07:40 AM
Maybe we can have some oceanfront property in Oklahoma within 5 years. This could be awesome!

soonerinabilene
1/25/2008, 09:33 AM
We are getting dangerously close to ManBearPig running wild. Its half bear. Half man. And half pig. ManBearPig.
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa22/a3h12/manbearpig.jpg

Jimminy Crimson
1/25/2008, 04:24 PM
Hey, Al, you idiot! Couldn't you have delivered a message to them via-satellite, instead of flying there on your private jet?

Al Gore is a huge fan of the 'do what I say, not what I do' movement.

BigRedJed
1/25/2008, 05:02 PM
Well, now at least there is a timeline. If the ice caps come nowhere near melting during the summer months five years from now, it will be incontrovertible evidence that Al and co. are being alarmist. If they do melt, we're screwed.

All I know is I watched a Nightline piece in the mid-late eighties that was the first thing that ever called my attention to the concept of global warming. The scientists on that program said without a doubt most of North America would be a desert by 2000.

Of course, my memory of that episode might be a little foggy, thanks to the mushrooms.

BigRedJed
1/25/2008, 05:02 PM
Oops. Was that too much self-disclosure?

BillyBall
1/25/2008, 05:05 PM
Of course, my memory of that episode might be a little foggy, thanks to the mushrooms.

Sounds like the first semester of my freshman year...

Okla-homey
1/25/2008, 06:37 PM
I recall scientific concern about a new Ice Age being caused by all the pollution blotting out the sunshine a few decades back.

Or was it "Nuclear Winter" caused by nuclear detonations in the inevitable nuclear weapons exchanges between the US and the now defunct USSR? I forget.

And, lest we forget, life was supposed to cease as we know it at midnight on 12/31/1999. Heck, I even filled up my bathtubs for drinking water on that one.

Oh, and Bird Flu. Don't forget the Bird Flu.

I'm not dismissing the concept of Global Warming outright. I'm just skeptical about it being man-made. Somebody needs to tease out the man made "influences" from the ordinary climatic warming/cooling cycles the Earth has undergone since creation before I drink the Kool-Aid.

Afterall, Oklahoma had to have once been a rain forest/jungle-y place. How else would all the carbon have been laid down that bajillions of years later was pumped out as oil and gas? Ditto Alaska for cryinoutloud. There were'nt any mans around to make that a man made phenomenon.

Bottomline: I beleive we should use less carbon-based fuels in order to become less dependent on Achmed. period.

soonerinabilene
1/25/2008, 07:18 PM
I recall scientific concern about a new Ice Age being caused by all the pollution blotting out the sunshine a few decades back.

Or was it "Nuclear Winter" caused by nuclear detonations in the inevitable nuclear weapons exchanges between the US and the now defunct USSR? I forget.

And, lest we forget, life was supposed to cease as we know it at midnight on 12/31/1999. Heck, I even filled up my bathtubs for drinking water on that one.

Oh, and Bird Flu. Don't forget the Bird Flu.

I'm not dismissing the concept of Global Warming outright. I'm just skeptical about it being man-made. Somebody needs to tease out the man made "influences" from the ordinary climatic warming/cooling cycles the Earth has undergone since creation before I drink the Kool-Aid.

Afterall, Oklahoma had to have once been a rain forest/jungle-y place. How else would all the carbon have been laid down that bajillions of years later was pumped out as oil and gas? Ditto Alaska for cryinoutloud. There were'nt any mans around to make that a man made phenomenon.

Bottomline: I beleive we should use less carbon-based fuels in order to become less dependent on Achmed. period.

But what about manbearpig? Im serial about this.

BigRedJed
1/26/2008, 02:35 AM
Eww. Homey drinks bathwater.

mdklatt
1/26/2008, 01:23 PM
Somebody needs to tease out the man made "influences" from the ordinary climatic warming/cooling cycles the Earth has undergone since creation before I drink the Kool-Aid.


People have. Repeatedly. Read the IPCC reports.

Okla-homey
1/26/2008, 01:39 PM
People have. Repeatedly. Read the IPCC reports.

Three phonebooks in thickness (per the piece cited in my initial post). You aren't serious are you?

Let me put it this another way; if the proximate cause of climate change is manmade, someone ought to be able to articulate their reasoning and support for such a proposition in reasonably cogent and relatively brief terms.

IMHO, anytime folks have to use a lot of words to explain causation of an occurrence, you better watch out. An awful lot of half-truths, innuendo, implied facts not in evidence, unproven assertions, and other specious drivel often camouflage a theory and paint it as fact.

I'm just sayin'

Okla-homey
1/26/2008, 01:43 PM
Eww. Homey drinks bathwater.

No.

But, if anyone ever markets certified bottles of Sela Ward's bathwater, put me down for a few.

SoonerInKCMO
1/26/2008, 02:00 PM
I recall scientific concern about a new Ice Age being caused by all the pollution blotting out the sunshine a few decades back.

Right... but we've drastically reduced the particulate matter that we put into the air.



Or was it "Nuclear Winter" caused by nuclear detonations in the inevitable nuclear weapons exchanges between the US and the now defunct USSR? I forget.
That could've happened too. Fortunately, no one pressed the big red button.



And, lest we forget, life was supposed to cease as we know it at midnight on 12/31/1999. Heck, I even filled up my bathtubs for drinking water on that one.
Legitimate problems with computing systems that rely on dates for their processing being reported on by news people that can't tell an OS kernel from a corn kernel => great misrepresentation of the situation. Billions (trillions?) were spent rectifying the problems (I billed for a few hundred thousand myself ;) ) and the ignorant general public, rather than realizing that it was all that hard work that kept things humming, think Y2K was just a big ol' lie.


Oh, and Bird Flu. Don't forget the Bird Flu.
Next time you run into a general news reporter, ask her what she knows about trans-species viral infections.


I'm not dismissing the concept of Global Warming outright. I'm just skeptical about it being man-made. Somebody needs to tease out the man made "influences" from the ordinary climatic warming/cooling cycles the Earth has undergone since creation before I drink the Kool-Aid.
That's been done. You must not be looking in the right places for the information.



Afterall, Oklahoma had to have once been a rain forest/jungle-y place. How else would all the carbon have been laid down that bajillions of years later was pumped out as oil and gas? Ditto Alaska for cryinoutloud. There were'nt any mans around to make that a man made phenomenon. I think Oklahoma was actually in the ocean back in the day.



Bottomline: I beleive we should use less carbon-based fuels in order to become less dependent on Achmed. period. That's a good reason too.

mdklatt
1/26/2008, 02:02 PM
way, if the proximate cause of climate change is manmade, someone ought to be able to articulate their reasoning in reasonably cogent and relatively brief terms.


Again, this has been done repeatedly. It's just that won't ever see it in a James Inhofe press release or a Michael Crichton novel. :rolleyes:


Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. If you put more CO2 into the atmosphere, you will get more warming. Humans have been putting more CO2 into the atmosphere for more than a century. Based on physics, the amount of warming observed over the past century or so is what would be expected based on the observed rise in CO2. No known natural cause explains the observed warming.

For man-made global warming to be falsified you need to answer these questions:


1) How can the release of gigatons of CO2 from fossil fuels not cause any warming when we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

2) What is causing the warming? "Natural causes" is not an answer. What is the specific physical mechanism?

Frozen Sooner
1/26/2008, 02:03 PM
Point of order: there's plenty of vegetation on the Alaska North Slope right now. Just because it's not a jungle doesn't mean there's no vegetation.

SoonerInKCMO
1/26/2008, 02:09 PM
Let me put it this another way; if the proximate cause of climate change is manmade, someone ought to be able to articulate their reasoning and support for such a proposition in reasonably cogent and relatively brief terms.

Various gases are relatively opaque to infra-red frequency light. They prevent these light waves from reflecting back into space. This causes heat retention. This becomes obvious when comparing the temperatures of the Earth and Moon - night time temps on the moon are ~-150 Celsius. Brrr. If the amount of greenhouse gases naturally present are enough to raise the Earth's temperature by more than 150 degrees Celsius, it's plenty reasonable to expect our pumping of more into the atmosphere to raise the temperature a few more degrees - and measurements from the last couple hundred years agree with this expectation.

Frozen Sooner
1/26/2008, 02:13 PM
Various gases are relatively opaque to infra-red frequency light. They prevent these light waves from reflecting back into space. This causes heat retention. This becomes obvious when comparing the temperatures of the Earth and Moon - night time temps on the moon are ~-150 Celsius. Brrr. If the amount of greenhouse gases naturally present are enough to raise the Earth's temperature by more than 150 degrees Celsius, it's plenty reasonable to expect our pumping of more into the atmosphere to raise the temperature a few more degrees - and measurements from the last couple hundred years agree with this expectation.

OK, this is what confuses me, and I'm sure there's a relatively simple answer to this that I'm not getting.

If CO2 prevents IR from radiating back out into space, wouldn't it also prevent it from heating the earth's atmosphere in the first place?

Seriously, I'm sure there's something I'm totally missing here.

SoonerInKCMO
1/26/2008, 02:17 PM
It's visible light coming in - the Earth radiates in the IR frequency range (it's been about 18 years since I studied black body radiation so that's about the best explanation I can give right now :D ).

mdklatt
1/26/2008, 02:17 PM
If CO2 prevents IR from radiating back out into space, wouldn't it also prevent it from heating the earth's atmosphere in the first place?



Most of the energy from solar radiation is at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. Greenhouse gasses are transparent for incoming UV but opaque to outgoing IR.

Frozen Sooner
1/26/2008, 02:23 PM
OK, thanks. I figured it was something like that.

So if I understand it correctly:

High-energy UV radiation comes in through the UV-transparent CO2 and collides with molecules in the atmosphere. This imparts energy to the molecules and takes energy from the light, which reduces it to low-energy IR, which can't radiate back through the CO2. The IR continues to bounce around in the atmosphere, instead of dissipating into space.

Yes? No?

Okla-homey
1/26/2008, 02:24 PM
Okay smart guys. What about the fact the Earth wobbles on its axis and the fact that wobbliness results in slight changes in exposure to solar radiation by any given point on the Earth's surface. Might that be a significant cause of the alleged retreat of north polar ice?

Oh, and sunspots. Please address sunspots. ;)

Frozen Sooner
1/26/2008, 02:26 PM
Er, Homey, ice at the South pole is retreating pretty fast as well.

SoonerInKCMO
1/26/2008, 02:29 PM
OK, thanks. I figured it was something like that.

So if I understand it correctly:

High-energy UV radiation comes in through the UV-transparent CO2 and collides with molecules in the atmosphere. This imparts energy to the molecules and takes energy from the light, which reduces it to low-energy IR, which can't radiate back through the CO2. The IR continues to bounce around in the atmosphere, instead of dissipating into space.

Yes? No?

The Earth itself does a lot of the IR radiating - any object above absolute zero emits electromagnetic radiation. I couldn't tell what proportion of radiation comes from what sources.

Okla-homey
1/26/2008, 02:36 PM
and measurements from the last couple hundred years agree with this expectation.

Precisely where and under what conditions where these measurements recorded? I submit, if they were'nt diligently recorded from measurements made from calibrated instruments, adjusted for the influence of surrounding structures and artificial heat sources, the data may not be sufficiently reliable.

SoonerInKCMO
1/26/2008, 02:51 PM
Yeah, you got us now - it was really just a bunch of Bubba's runnin' around with mercury thermometers taking random-*** measurements. :rolleyes:

mdklatt
1/26/2008, 02:51 PM
OK, thanks. I figured it was something like that.

So if I understand it correctly:

High-energy UV radiation comes in through the UV-transparent CO2 and collides with molecules in the atmosphere. This imparts energy to the molecules and takes energy from the light, which reduces it to low-energy IR, which can't radiate back through the CO2. The IR continues to bounce around in the atmosphere, instead of dissipating into space.

Yes? No?

Er, not really. Atmospheric radiation gets really, really complicated. Here's the gist of it. Assume we didn't have an atmosphere. All the energy the earth received from the sun would go right back out into space. Most of it would be blackbody IR, but some would be reflected back into space from ice, water, concrete, etc. as UV. The atmosphere "traps" a lot of that outgoing radiation. Trap isn't exactly the right word; it actually radiates the IR back to the surface; the lower part of the atmosphere is warmed mostly through conduction and convection from the surface, not radiation. Clouds in the atmosphere reflect of a lot of UV back into space, but water vapor is a major greenhouse gas so they're also responsible for a lot of warming (think clear vs. cloudy on a winter night).

atmospheric radiation budget (http://www.climateprediction.net/images/sci_images/ipcc_fig1-2.gif)


Back in the day in thermo, we learned about the "themostat hypothesis". This was that clouds might act as a negative feedback to global warming. Increased sea surface temperatures would lead to more clouds, which would increase the atmospheric albedo (reflection efficiency), meaning less incoming UV radiation. I haven't heard anything about this for a long time, so I assume it hasn't been borne out. The warming vs. albedo effect of clouds is one the of the most difficult things to parameterize in climate models.

mdklatt
1/26/2008, 03:09 PM
Okay smart guys. What about the fact the Earth wobbles on its axis and the fact that wobbliness results in slight changes in exposure to solar radiation by any given point on the Earth's surface. Might that be a significant cause of the alleged retreat of north polar ice?

Well sure, it might be. Where is the evidence that it is? Don't you think somebody might have looked into this already? Do you think that everybody involved in the study of climatology is incompetent?



Oh, and sunspots. Please address sunspots. ;)

Again, don't you think at some point that somebody might have already thought to investigate the sun as a potential explanation? It turns out that, yes, they have. The observed changes in solar output cannot explain the observed warming. And if it is the sun, why is most of the warming at night?

mdklatt
1/26/2008, 03:10 PM
Er, Homey, ice at the South pole is retreating pretty fast as well.

Hey, that's not what Glenn Beck says. And he oughta know. He's on TV and stuff. :rolleyes:

jeremy885
1/26/2008, 03:13 PM
Er, Homey, ice at the South pole is retreating pretty fast as well.


I thought I read somewhere lately that it wasn't. (incorrect)

My bad. It said flow not grow faster.

mdklatt
1/26/2008, 03:17 PM
I thought I read somewhere lately that it wasn't.

Somewhere as in a scientific journal or as in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal?


EDIT: Here's something I found online that seems to be well-researched.

As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html)

jeremy885
1/26/2008, 03:19 PM
actually the BBC. I've already corrected my post.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6727543.stm

Okla-homey
1/26/2008, 03:31 PM
Yeah, you got us now - it was really just a bunch of Bubba's runnin' around with mercury thermometers taking random-*** measurements. :rolleyes:

You jest, but methinks that's a pretty fair characterization. Think about it, we may only have only have about 75 years worth of arguably reliable data. Recordings taken before the establishment of the today's national weather service were pretty darn random.

February 9th, 1870: Joint resolution of Congress authorizing the Secretary of War to establish the precursor to the national weather service:

to provide for taking meteorological observations at the military stations in the interior of the continent and at other points in the States and Territories...and for giving notice on the northern (Great) Lakes and on the seacoast by magnetic telegraph and marine signals, of the approach and force of storms"


The resulting agency was placed under the Secretary of War because it was beleived military discipline would probably secure the "greatest promptness, regularity, and accuracy in the required observations [As a career GI, I giggle at that...hey, private, go out at see what the thermometer says so we can log it. Okay sarge, just let me finish shining my shoes first and I'll do that. Dang right! Shiney shoes are more important because we have an upcoming inspection! Heck, if you wanna, just put down what we put down at this time yesterday. :rolleyes: ]


In 1871, the first systematized, synchronous weather observations ever taken in the U.S. were made by "observing-sergeants" of the Army Signal Service at 22 stations and telegraphed to Washington. [wow, 22 different sites! And how much you wanna bet they were in or near cities? And how much you wanna bet those mercury thermometers were made by the lowest bidder? ]

mdklatt
1/26/2008, 03:57 PM
You jest, but methinks that's a pretty fair characterization.

So I guess Al Gore is making glaciers melt? And killing off coral? And causing mass migration of species? And interfering with satellites? Surface gauge trends are just one of the hundreds of corroborating trends that indicate warming. Hell, even most of the flat-earthers can no longer deny that there is warming.

All the factors you mentioned would be random errors--they would average out to zero over time, and thus would not influence any long term trends. You also alluded to urbanization. I guess you'd be surprised to know that the large majority of surface temperature observations are taken at rural sites, and that if you remove the urban sites from the calculations you still get the same trends?

1stTimeCaller
1/26/2008, 04:15 PM
Why don't we just do what we were doing to cause the cooling of the Earth in the 70s?

KABOOKIE
1/26/2008, 04:55 PM
Why don't we just do what we were doing to cause the cooling of the Earth in the 70s?

Because, leisure suits and white leather shoes aren't cool anymore. Duh.

Chuck Bao
1/26/2008, 05:00 PM
Memory is not going to be on the side of some of you. It's a real pity, that.

Okla-homey
1/26/2008, 05:03 PM
So I guess Al Gore is making glaciers melt? And killing off coral? And causing mass migration of species? And interfering with satellites? Surface gauge trends are just one of the hundreds of corroborating trends that indicate warming. Hell, even most of the flat-earthers can no longer deny that there is warming.

All the factors you mentioned would be random errors--they would average out to zero over time, and thus would not influence any long term trends. You also alluded to urbanization. I guess you'd be surprised to know that the large majority of surface temperature observations are taken at rural sites, and that if you remove the urban sites from the calculations you still get the same trends?

d00d,

I'm not necessarilly discounting climate change. I merely question whether it is indeed caused by humans. Instead, it could very well just be part of the ordinary cyclical nature of climatic norms that has been a characteristic feature of planet Earth for a bajillion years. Prolly a good thing too, or else we would be subject to being squarshed by roving herds of mastodons and enormous ground sloths.

I don't know why you believe the majority of surface weather observations are taken at rural sites. I disagree. The majority are taken at aerodromes and are positioned by design very near the runways...which are usually very long strips of concrete a several feet thick at the approach ends that are heated by the sun and continue to radiate heat long after sundown.

Anyway, I understand it's not PC to be a manmade climate change skeptic. I'm just too old to care.

mdklatt
1/26/2008, 05:16 PM
Instead, it could very well just be part of the ordinary cyclical nature of climatic norms that has a feature of planet Earth for a bajillion years.


Which natural mechanism is causing the warming then? Since I'm always hearing that there's no consensus among scientists about global warming, then surely there are dozens if not hundreds of journal papers explaining why how changes in orbital tilt or solar output are responsible instead of CO2. Except that there aren't.



I don't know why you believe the majority of surface weather observations are taken at rural sites


Uh, maybe because I work with surface weather data on a daily basis?



The majority are taken at aerodromes and are positioned by design very near the runways

Nope. This isn't even true in the US, much less the rest of the world. METARs are a tiny amount of the available weather data.