Newest Global Warming fiasco

[swardboy]

The world has never seen such freezing heat


By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) and Climate Audit (http://www.climateaudit.org/), began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.
Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

[Harry Beanbag]

:pop:

[Fraggle145]

Will look into it...

[SoonerJack]

Read Crichton's State of Fear. Very good read.

[Widescreen]

One way or another, these numbers are going to show global warming - even if it kills me.

[swardboy]

Eric Lerner's 1991 book "The Big Bang Never Happened" was an eye-opener for me on the scientific community can take religious overtones in its search for truth. He posits "plasma theory" over the big bang as an explanation for how the universe works....but cited example after example of how some doggedly overlook the evidence in favor of the big bang theory.

Lerner is no religionist (in fact, atheist I believe), but showed how blindly some scientists become in defense of a pet hypothesis. I don't know if he's right in his theory, just fascinated by his ability to demonstrate "blind faith" in the scientific community is certainly possible.

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

[TheHumanAlphabet]

GLobal warming is a liberal attempt to increase the need and perception for a big and/or world government to reduce individual powers. Most of the signatory countries have no clue and the ones that influenced them used flawed data and science. IT IS A FARCE! The sun energy is in decline, temperatures are not as hot as they thought, rocks are absorbing CO2, brown clouds dimish sunlight and cool areas, arctic ice is expanding faster than recorded recently, the hockey stick graph is debunked...A lot of holes and little truth or consensus.

You want to recycle, reuse and use renewable energy because YOU want to and think it is right - go for it.

You want to impinge on my right to drive across country or force me to pay a fee because I choose to fly, I'd rather punch you in the nose.

[RacerX]

Well it's hot in my office!!!

Damn south-facing windows.

[Widescreen]

Well it's hot in my office!!!

Damn south-facing windows.

GLOBAL WARMING RADICAL!

[sooner_born_1960]

I think the kindest thing you can say about global warming alarmists is that their concerns are overblown.

[swardboy]

Well it's hot in my office!!!

Damn south-facing windows.

Don't worry....winter equinox is still on for 12/21. This too shall pass.

[TUSooner]

Don't worry....winter SOLSTICE is still on for 12/21. This too shall pass.

fixed ;)

[Fraggle145]

Read Crichton's State of Fear. Very good read.

Please dont cite a novelist as a scientist. Ugh. Its like looking to a celebrity for election advice. If you dont think GW is happening that is fine... just please do it on better research than this.

[Harry Beanbag]

Please dont cite a novelist as a scientist. Ugh. Its like looking to a celebrity for election advice. If you dont think GW is happening that is fine... just please do it on better research than this.


Agreed. We need to believe the real scientists that apparently fudge numbers to prove their theories. :gary: :)

[swardboy]

fixed ;)

Ha! You subscribe to the "solstice hoax" i see.










:D

[Sooner_Havok]

Eric Lerner's 1991 book "The Big Bang Never Happened" was an eye-opener for me on the scientific community can take religious overtones in its search for truth. He posits "plasma theory" over the big bang as an explanation for how the universe works....but cited example after example of how some doggedly overlook the evidence in favor of the big bang theory.

Lerner is no religionist (in fact, atheist I believe), but showed how blindly some scientists become in defense of a pet hypothesis. I don't know if he's right in his theory, just fascinated by his ability to demonstrate "blind faith" in the scientific community is certainly possible.

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

Seems like he is trying to cling to a modified version of a steady state universe to me. He also failed to mention anything about the inflationary theory which explains most of the problems with the big bang theory he cites.

He also throws some stuff out in support of his theory that make about as much sense as monopoles and dark matter.

At any rate, the big bang theory when viewed through the lens of the current physical theory fad of M theory, shows that the multiverse may well be infinite, without beginning or end. Our particular universe, and it's laws of physics, are just one out of an infinite number of universes created by an infinite number of big bangs. Viewed this way, dark matter can be seen as nothing more than "matter" existing on a higher dimensional plain that we cannot see. We can observe its effects since gravity seems to be a force that runs through all dimensions in the multiverse, but we can not see it directly.

Also explains quite nicely why gravity cannot be joined with the other three physical forces, and why it is so weak relative to them.

But, thats the good thing about since. String theory and M theory were laughing stocks about 20 years ago. Everyone knew that the standard model was the way to a unified theory. Evidence surfaced that the standard model contained some wide holes that M theory didn't, and now it is the dominant theory in science. When science finds a better theory, it doesn't hesitate to jump onto it.

[PDXsooner]

GLobal warming is a liberal attempt to increase the need and perception for a big and/or world government to reduce individual powers. Most of the signatory countries have no clue and the ones that influenced them used flawed data and science. IT IS A FARCE! The sun energy is in decline, temperatures are not as hot as they thought, rocks are absorbing CO2, brown clouds dimish sunlight and cool areas, arctic ice is expanding faster than recorded recently, the hockey stick graph is debunked...A lot of holes and little truth or consensus.

You want to recycle, reuse and use renewable energy because YOU want to and think it is right - go for it.

You want to impinge on my right to drive across country or force me to pay a fee because I choose to fly, I'd rather punch you in the nose.

one of the most foolish, ridiculous, statements i've ever seen on this board. it wouldn't make any sense to try and argue the point with you, just know that I know how uninformed you truly are.

[Curly Bill]

one of the most foolish, ridiculous, statements i've ever seen on this board. it wouldn't make any sense to try and argue the point with you, just know that I know how uninformed you truly are.

Al? Is that you?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

one of the most foolish, ridiculous, statements i've ever seen on this board. it wouldn't make any sense to try and argue the point with you, just know that I know how uninformed you truly are.You tell 'em, Sherlock!

[soonerhubs]

one of the most foolish, ridiculous, statements i've ever seen on this board. it wouldn't make any sense to try and argue the point with you, just know that I know how uninformed you truly are.

Well, with all due respect. If you are going to call someone's post foolish, ridiculous, and uninformed, I'd like to know your counter point. Inform us.

[Fraggle145]

Neither one of them have cited anything...

[Curly Bill]

Well, with all due respect. If you are going to call someone's post foolish, ridiculous, and uninformed, I'd like to know your counter point. Inform us.

Just know that I know how truly uninformed you are. ;) ;)





:D :D

[Okla-homey]

The main thing I object to regarding the Global Warming issue is the fact that even a smidge of good faith skepticism is veiwed by far too many as akin to denying the Holocaust happened. Belief in man-made global warming is practically a religion in some quarters.

Kinda like the zeal of the flat-earthers back in the fifteenth century.

The thing is, even if there's something to it, that isn't gonna stop the CHICOM's and Indians from doing as they dang well please as to burning fossil fuels. So WTF should we in the US further hamstring an already ailing economy by cutting back?

The ONLY incentive I think makes any sense nowadays is cutting back on burning dead dinosaurs in order to get off the teat of the Arabs.

[Curly Bill]

The main thing I object to regarding the Global Warming issue is the fact that even a smidge of good faith skepticism is veiwed by far too many as akin to denying the Holocaust happened. Belief in man-made global warming is practically a religion in some quarters.

Kinda like the zeal of the flat-earthers back in the fifteenth century.

yup

[soonerhubs]

Neither one of them have cited anything...
They cited a Novelist. ;)




In all seriousness, you're right.

[OUWxGuesser]

The ONLY incentive I think makes any sense nowadays is cutting back on burning dead dinosaurs in order to get off the teat of the Arabs.

Ding ding ding , which is why I think anthropogenic climate change is really a non-issue when it comes to policy (for the US). As an international entity, frankly I think we're screwed. Lets face it, the real problem is population explosion. Going green and/or weaning ourselves off the middle-east has so many other benefits that are more important IMHO.

[PDXsooner]

Well, with all due respect. If you are going to call someone's post foolish, ridiculous, and uninformed, I'd like to know your counter point. Inform us.

Ha ha, yea ok. Because you're so open-minded you might actually consider changing your opinion? No dice. Go and research it if you'd like. But chances are you fall into one of three categories if you're denying global warming at this point:

1- you're paid by the fossil-fuel companies to deny that global warming is related to human activity.

2- you're in the small minority of scientists who have looked at the data and determined for various reasons that global warming is not related to human acivity.

3- you're a conservative who refuses to accept the climate change as a reality because you hate the solution -- more government regulation and intervention.

And I'll recommend a book for you. "Hot, Flat and Crowded" by Tom Friedman. Of course, if you're already denying that Global Warming is a farce don't waste your time. Just go in open-minded.

[PDXsooner]

Ding ding ding , which is why I think anthropogenic climate change is really a non-issue when it comes to policy (for the US). As an international entity, frankly I think we're screwed. Lets face it, the real problem is population explosion. Going green and/or weaning ourselves off the middle-east has so many other benefits that are more important IMHO.

if this is the reason why you think we should get off oil, then great.

or you can wait another 50-100 years until the climate change begins to kill people (and yes, there are millions of reasons as to how extremely moderate climate change can shake up our entire ecosystem with drastic results) and we're forced to change our burning of fossil fuels for our own survival.

[PDXsooner]

Kinda like the zeal of the flat-earthers back in the fifteenth century.



That's ridiculous. I would liken the chance of Christ coming to take the non-sinners to Heaven to this analogy. At least climate change has some actual data on its side.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

if this is the reason why you think we should get off oil, then great.

or you can wait another 50-100 years until the climate change begins to kill people (and yes, there are millions of reasons as to how extremely moderate climate change can shake up our entire ecosystem with drastic results) and we're forced to change our burning of fossil fuels for our own survival.

Whew! *wipes brow*

I thought the global scare tactics died with the Soviets and nuclear holocaust! Good thing we've got ourselves a new boogieman to spook the sheeples back in line.

[Howzit]

Please dont cite a novelist as a scientist. Ugh. Its like looking to a celebrity for election advice. If you dont think GW is happening that is fine... just please do it on better research than this.

Take. it. back.

He wrote Jurassic Park fercryinoutloud.

[Howzit]

And other stuff.

I bet you feel pretty foolish now.

[Fraggle145]

And other stuff.

I bet you feel pretty foolish now.

You know what makes me even worse? He's dead now...:gary:

[OklahomaTuba]

All I know is, I cannot wait for us all to be paying billions of dollars in new taxes, and hundreds of new laws restricting individual liberty, all in an attempt to change the f'king weather.

[mdklatt]

The main thing I object to regarding the Global Warming issue is the fact that even a smidge of good faith skepticism is veiwed by far too many as akin to denying the Holocaust happened.


Science is all about good faith skepticism. But skepticism in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is just denial.

[Okla-homey]

That's ridiculous. I would liken the chance of Christ coming to take the non-sinners to Heaven to this analogy. At least climate change has some actual data on its side.

Look Slick, in 1492 when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, the majority of the doctors of science at major European universities were absolutely certain he would sail off the edge of the Earth.

WTF do you think Columbus had to appeal to the Spanish sovereigns to have the expedition bankrolled? Because the Italian princes wouldn't -- precisely because the Italian science guys said "no soap."

Chill TFO. Anthroprogenic global warming is a theory. Sure, there are data to prove it exists. But it's simply not proven to a scientific certainty.

[PDXsooner]

Chill TFO. Anthroprogenic global warming is a theory. Sure, there are data to prove it exists. But it's simply not proven to a scientific certainty.

Slow down, fireball. I understand what you're saying.

[Howzit]

...you do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around...



:les: THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT!!!!

[NormanPride]

This is comical.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Just two questions for you.

We are bombarded with study after study ranging from health to weather, what percentage of these studies have turned out to be correct over the past 40 years?

What percentage of these studies were financed by someone or some group with a financial interest in the outcome?

Carry on.

[Frozen Sooner]

Look Slick, in 1492 when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, the majority of the doctors of science at major European universities were absolutely certain he would sail off the edge of the Earth.

WTF do you think Columbus had to appeal to the Spanish sovereigns to have the expedition bankrolled? Because the Italian princes wouldn't -- precisely because the Italian science guys said "no soap."

Chill TFO. Anthroprogenic global warming is a theory. Sure, there are data to prove it exists. But it's simply not proven to a scientific certainty.

"Theory." I don't think that this word means what you think it means.

Also, it's not true that the majority of scientific thought held that the earth was flat. Aristotle and Eratosthenes were known, read, and respected at the time by scholars. The opposition of the Italian Court was based on Eratosthenes' calculation of the Earth's girth (which proved to be too small, as it happens) making the trip commercially unviable.

[PDXsooner]

"Theory." I don't think that this word means what you think it means.

Also, it's not true that the majority of scientific thought held that the earth was flat. Aristotle and Eratosthenes were known, read, and respected at the time by scholars. The opposition of the Italian Court was based on Eratosthenes' calculation of the Earth's girth (which proved to be too small, as it happens) making the trip commercially unviable.

interesting. good info.

do you have an opinion on global warming? i'd be curious to know. You've represented yourself as one of the most educated, knowledgeable, and independent (a rarity on these boards) thinkers since you started comin' around here.

[Frozen Sooner]

If I've represented myself as such, it was surely in error.

My personal view on anthropogenic climate change:

I don't have the education to have a valid opinion. Based on the evidence I have available to me and the testimony of those with enough education to interpret the evidence, I believe it probably exists and that it's rational to act in a manner consistent with such existence.

I think the vast majority of the debate on this subject is akin to people who failed to pass pre-algebra discussing whether or not string theory is valid.

[NormanPride]

String theory is bunk. Otherwise cats would be bouncing all over the place all the time.


...Come to think of it...

[PDXsooner]

i'm wrapping up my participation in this subject. no need to keep bashing our heads against the wall. if you don't believe in man's contribution to the phenomenom of climate change by this point, you probably won't for a long, long time.

i don't think i've ever seen anyone actually shift their opinion on these boards, and i don't get the sense that this is heading towards an open discussion.

i do recommend Tom Friedman's book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" though -- a very fascinating book on climate change, globalization, overpopulation and our country's addiction to oil.

BOOMER SOONER!

[Harry Beanbag]

You know what makes me even worse? He's dead now...:gary:

Damn Global Warming. :mad:

[Vaevictis]

Chill TFO. Anthroprogenic global warming is a theory. Sure, there are data to prove it exists. But it's simply not proven to a scientific certainty.

As Froze said, theory means something other than what you seem to think it means.

cf. "The Theory of Gravity", which is, uh, pretty widely accepted.

[Fraggle145]

As Froze said, theory means something other than what you seem to think it means.

cf. "The Theory of Gravity", which is, uh, pretty widely accepted.

Hell lets really go round and round... The theory of Evolution is *cough* pretty widely accepted too :D

[Fraggle145]

Just two questions for you.

We are bombarded with study after study ranging from health to weather, what percentage of these studies have turned out to be correct over the past 40 years?

What percentage of these studies were financed by someone or some group with a financial interest in the outcome?

Carry on.

I would say quite few studies on health and the weather have turned out to be correct. Especially health. Why do you think people are living longer, we must be getting something right. There is some element of error in all studies as I have said before, you cant control everything and you can rarely actually prove anything to be 100% true.

With the explosion of scientific literature it would be impossible to quantify how many are sponsored by who, or what... I would just say that if you think that the majority of scientists are in it for the money you would be mistaken.

[soonerhubs]

Ha ha, yea ok. Because you're so open-minded you might actually consider changing your opinion? No dice. Go and research it if you'd like. But chances are you fall into one of three categories if you're denying global warming at this point:

1- you're paid by the fossil-fuel companies to deny that global warming is related to human activity.

2- you're in the small minority of scientists who have looked at the data and determined for various reasons that global warming is not related to human acivity.

3- you're a conservative who refuses to accept the climate change as a reality because you hate the solution -- more government regulation and intervention.

And I'll recommend a book for you. "Hot, Flat and Crowded" by Tom Friedman. Of course, if you're already denying that Global Warming is a farce don't waste your time. Just go in open-minded.


You could have left out all the condescending and pedantic semantics. I may actually look for "Hot, Flat, and Crowded", but for you to assume that I am close minded implies a lens of stereotyping. Some of my former professors who study geological sciences for a living have mentioned that evidence suggests the Anthroprogenic global warming theory. I happen to think part of it is anthropogenic. I also think there are things we can do to reduce are carbon footprint. However, I don't feel that making government mandates are as urgently needed as some folks feel.

Lumping folks into three groups is not a good plan.

[PDXsooner]

You could have left out all the condescending and pedantic semantics. I may actually look for "Hot, Flat, and Crowded", but for you to assume that I am close minded implies a lens of stereotyping. Some of my former professors who study geological sciences for a living have mentioned that evidence suggests the Anthroprogenic global warming theory. I happen to think part of it is anthropogenic. I also think there are things we can do to reduce are carbon footprint. However, I don't feel that making government mandates are as urgently needed as some folks feel.

Lumping folks into three groups is not a good plan.

you're right, my apologies. i lumped you into a mindset that is probably unfair. sorry.

[Okla-homey]

AlGore in his widely hailed Inconvenient Truth posited that rising CO levels, among other things, are causing global warming. I was struck by that statement, submitted as fact by the former vice-president, when I saw the film.

Here's what's wrong with that assertion. Can anyone prove that rising CO levels are causing global warming? It's just as reasonable to conclude that rising CO levels are the result of the natural global warming that is consistent with the ebb and flow of average world temperatures over time.

Here's an analogy that works. When its warmer, lots of people wear bathing suits and go to the beach. But should anyone conclude that bathing suit wearing and beach going make it warmer?

:pop:

[Okla-homey]

I would say quite few studies on health and the weather have turned out to be correct. Especially health. Why do you think people are living longer, we must be getting something right. There is some element of error in all studies as I have said before, you cant control everything and you can rarely actually prove anything to be 100% true.

With the explosion of scientific literature it would be impossible to quantify how many are sponsored by who, or what... I would just say that if you think that the majority of scientists are in it for the money you would be mistaken.

People are living longer for four main reasons; 1) safe drinking water; 2) immunizations; 3) better nutrition, and; 4) education. In that order.

That last one might be hard to swallow, but the fact remains, educated people live longer because they tend to make wiser decisions. Example: the incidence of smoking among US HS drop-outs is almost 40%. The incidence of smoking among US people with some graduate work is around 7%.

[soonerhubs]

you're right, my apologies. i lumped you into a mindset that is probably unfair. sorry.
It's cool. You can make it up to me next time I drive to Portland, and meet me for lunch at Marrakesh. The best cous cous evar. :D


AlGore in his widely hailed Inconvenient Truth posited that rising CO levels, among other things, are causing global warming. I was struck by that statement, submitted as fact by the former vice-president, when I saw the film.

Here's what's wrong with that assertion. Can anyone prove that rising CO levels are causing global warming? It's just as reasonable to conclude that rising CO levels are the result of the natural global warming that is consistent with the ebb and flow of average world temperatures over time.

Here's an analogy that works. When its warmer, lots of people wear bathing suits and go to the beach. But should anyone conclude that bathing suit wearing and beach going make it warmer?

:pop:

Ahhh... Correlation versus Causation. Perhaps we should try burning more things so that we can set up a constant to evaluate the longitudinal data. ;)

[Okla-homey]

Ahhh... Correlation versus Causation. Perhaps we should try burning more things so that we can set up a constant to evaluate the longitudinal data. ;)

don't worry, the CHICOM's and the Indians got that covered bro.

[PDXsooner]

It's cool. You can make it up to me next time I drive to Portland, and meet me for lunch at Marrakesh. The best cous cous evar. :D



deal:)

[Vaevictis]

Can anyone prove that rising CO levels are causing global warming? It's just as reasonable to conclude that rising CO levels are the result of the natural global warming that is consistent with the ebb and flow of average world temperatures over time.

It's not just as reasonable to conclude that if you have peer reviewed research to the contrary. And in fact, we have it. It's understood that CO2 is efficient at absorbing infrared radiation and converting it to heat.

In short, if you add CO2 to the system (eg, Earth), and shine a light on the system that has infrared radiation in it (eg, sunlight), the CO2 will absorb and convert more of the infrared radiation into heat.

This is not new research. It's >50 years old.

* Martin, P.E., and E.F. Baker (1932). "The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide." Physical Review 41: 291-303.
* Kaplan, Lewis D. (1952). "On the Pressure Dependence of Radiative Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere." J. Meteorology 9: 1-12.

Unless you'd like to call bull**** on peer reviewed research that's stood the test of 50-80 years of time, then the only rational conclusion is:

Adding carbon dioxide increases the heat retained by the system per unit of infrared radiation introduced into the system. Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the system. As such, humans are increasing the infrared radiation and thus *heat* retained by the system compared to what would be the case without humans adding carbon dioxide to the system.

Given this information, it is totally irrational and unreasonable to doubt that humanity's actions are increasing the amount of heat retained by the system -- aka, global warming. The only rational question is to what extent is humanity increasing the amount of heat retained by the system?

(I admit, however, that there are rational follow up questions such as, "What are the impacts of this? What are the trade-offs in managing it? To what extent is it worthwhile to do so?.")

[Okla-homey]

It's not just as reasonable to conclude that if you have peer reviewed research to the contrary. And in fact, we have it. It's understood that CO2 is efficient at absorbing infrared radiation and converting it to heat.

In short, if you add CO2 to the system (eg, Earth), and shine a light on the system that has infrared radiation in it (eg, sunlight), the CO2 will absorb and convert more of the infrared radiation into heat.

This is not new research. It's >50 years old.

* Martin, P.E., and E.F. Baker (1932). "The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide." Physical Review 41: 291-303.
* Kaplan, Lewis D. (1952). "On the Pressure Dependence of Radiative Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere." J. Meteorology 9: 1-12.

Unless you'd like to call bull**** on peer reviewed research that's stood the test of 50-80 years of time, then the only rational conclusion is:

Adding carbon dioxide increases the heat retained by the system per unit of infrared radiation introduced into the system. Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the system. As such, humans are increasing the infrared radiation and thus *heat* retained by the system compared to what would be the case without humans adding carbon dioxide to the system.

Given this information, it is totally irrational and unreasonable to doubt that humanity's actions are increasing the amount of heat retained by the system -- aka, global warming. The only rational question is to what extent is humanity increasing the amount of heat retained by the system?

(I admit, however, that there are rational follow up questions such as, "What are the impacts of this? What are the trade-offs in managing it? To what extent is it worthwhile to do so?.")

If everyone in the US started walking tomorrow, stuffed corks in the fart valves of all our cattle, and converted totally to nuclear for electricty, would it make a bit of difference? Given what's happening in Asia that is.

[Vaevictis]

If everyone in the US started walking tomorrow, stuffed corks in the fart valves of all our cattle, and converted totally to nuclear for electricty, would it make a bit of difference? Given what's happening in Asia that is.

On an absolute scale, yes, it would make a difference. Every ton of CO2 less spewed into the atmosphere is some amount less of infrared radiation converted to heat.

Whether it's worthwhile -- well, I'll refer you to my questions above. I don't know the answer to them. I do know that spewing CO2 into the atmosphere causes additional heat to be retained by the system. That's really all I intended to address with my post, since you called it into question.

[PDXsooner]

If everyone in the US started walking tomorrow, stuffed corks in the fart valves of all our cattle, and converted totally to nuclear for electricty, would it make a bit of difference? Given what's happening in Asia that is.

If the United States takes the lead in Green Energy, others will follow. If nothing else, when it becomes an absolute necessity, our economy will be headed in the right direction.

And if you still don't agree, at least we won't be funding our enemies (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela) anymore.

[mdklatt]

We are bombarded with study after study ranging from health to weather, what percentage of these studies have turned out to be correct over the past 40 years?


Most science "failures" are due to ****-poor scientific reporting by the media. Media coverage is a snapshot of the state of the science in a given field at best, and what they do report isn't even correct most of the time. They hype every isolated study as a "breakthrough" or "paradigm shift" if it counters the prevailing consensus on a topic. (The reason it's isolated and contrary to the prevailing consensus is most likely because it's wrong in the first place.) This is combined with the wrong-headed idea that every opposing viewpoint deserves equal time or indeed any exposure whatsoever, and thus every crank gets exposure all out of proportion to the validity of their work.

This is combined with a fundamental ignorance of how science works by the general public, who don't even know what "theory" means in a scientific context. Their incredulity is directly proportional to the unpleasantness of the result, not the quality of the research. When the media reports that red wine is good for your heart (never mind all of the dangerous effects), wine sales skyrocket. But challenge people's deeply-held religious beliefs like evolution (Genesis) and climate change (cheap oil) do, and all of a sudden everybody's a skeptic.

With the case of climatology, everybody's an expert because they read a Michael Crichton novel and have been rained on at least once in their life. I mean, nonlinear fluid dynamics and quantum physics is just common sense, right? To bolster their own preconceived hypothesis (i.e., "just a theory") that all the experts in the field don't know what they're talking about, they cling to every WSJ editorial, dubious blog posting, and oil-funded "expert" that confirms what they know to be true while ignoring the literal mountains of evidence (as in melting Alpine glaciers) to the contrary.

[mdklatt]

It's just as reasonable to conclude that rising CO levels are the result of the natural global warming that is consistent with the ebb and flow of average world temperatures over time.


Only if you completely ignore all the isotopic analyses that show that the excess atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, not natural sources.

And if you ignore that temperature and CO2 have a positive feedback relationship, so that regardless of whether or not CO2 is the chicken or the egg, it will cause global temperatures to increase due to the basic physics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect that have been settled since the 19th Century.

And if you also ignore the absence of any credible evidence that any known natural climate forcing is responsible.

[mdklatt]

If everyone in the US started walking tomorrow, stuffed corks in the fart valves of all our cattle, and converted totally to nuclear for electricty, would it make a bit of difference? Given what's happening in Asia that is.

As they say, no raindrop feels responsible for the flood.

You've got it backwards. Why should anybody else do anything about it when the US--the largest CO2 producer and self-proclaimed global moral authority--refuses to even acknowledge the problem?

This argument is straight out of the Denialists' Deck of Cards (http://www.denialism.com/Deckofcards/deck.html), but it's still a strange argument to hear from Republicans. Given that abortion is legal--indeed, encouraged in many cases--in China and India, why should we bother making it illegal here?

[1890MilesToNorman]

mdklatt, can you boil down your last several posts to a concise equilibrium or Quasimodo theory on the matter?

[OklahomaTuba]

Hows that Kyoto thing working out BTW???

[Fraggle145]

Hows that Kyoto thing working out BTW???

I dont see how pointing out something that we didnt sign has any bearing on anything.

[Fraggle145]

And if you also ignore the absence of any credible evidence that any known natural climate forcing is responsible.

And the fact that it has never happened on this magnitude before.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Solar activity isn't credible evidence?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Yay, science!

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[Fraggle145]

Yay, science!

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Talk about watching your sources... he is a paid shill for Exxon Mobil and Phillip Morris.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I love this argument. It's like bashing your head into a wall over and over and over again. And it never fails, it always resorts to this...


Talk about watching your sources... he is a paid shill for Exxon Mobil and Phillip Morris.

So ignore the information contained within, the guy is a "paid shill/crackpot/insert derogatory statement here that debunks the person not the information", therefore the information within is discredited. Every. Frickin'. Time.

I honestly want to understand both sides of the debate. I truly do. But I can't get an unbiased view EITHER way. It's all a messy spectrum from "we're gonna DIE IN 50 YEARS, OMGCHILDREN" to "you're retarded, CARBON IS TEH WIN EAT IT" and facts contradict facts, positions butt heads with other positions, until the whole thing becomes a garbled mess of shiite. And with that, I MUST, as a rational minded individual, must refrain until it's hard and fast.

Practicality must reign.

[Fraggle145]

How do you expect me to respond when this comment has already come out in the thread that essentially says all science is crap produced for someone's financial benefit, without success or objectivity.


Just two questions for you.

We are bombarded with study after study ranging from health to weather, what percentage of these studies have turned out to be correct over the past 40 years?

What percentage of these studies were financed by someone or some group with a financial interest in the outcome?

Carry on.

Sources have to watched on both sides was all I was saying.

[Fraggle145]

I love this argument. It's like bashing your head into a wall over and over and over again. And it never fails, it always resorts to this...



So ignore the information contained within, the guy is a "paid shill/crackpot/insert derogatory statement here that debunks the person not the information", therefore the information within is discredited. Every. Frickin'. Time.

I honestly want to understand both sides of the debate. I truly do. But I can't get an unbiased view EITHER way. It's all a messy spectrum from "we're gonna DIE IN 50 YEARS, OMGCHILDREN" to "you're retarded, CARBON IS TEH WIN EAT IT" and facts contradict facts, positions butt heads with other positions, until the whole thing becomes a garbled mess of shiite. And with that, I MUST, as a rational minded individual, must refrain until it's hard and fast.

Practicality must reign.

The part that I dont get is this: We have for example 100,000 objective climate scientists saying global warming is real and human's are causing it vs. 50 "skeptics." Many of whom are tied financially to carbon fuel sources who are spouting the "debate" or the "controversy," when there is no such thing within the field. Yet those guys many without near the amount of qualifications or training as the scientists are the guys who are believed.

Its never going to be hard and fast until it is too late to do anything about it. There is way too much money tied up in carbon fuel to do anything but fight this thing all the way till they run out of money, (which I dont see happening soon). I mean where is the financial backing or windfall for the climate scientist, what is his benefit for saying the earth is warming and humans are causing it?

[OklahomaTuba]

I dont see how pointing out something that we didnt sign has any bearing on anything.
WE didn't, thankfully.

Looks like Germany and Italy are wishing they didn't either..

http://www.easybourse.com/bourse-actualite/marches/update-climate-change-rules-shouldn-t-hurt-economy-germany-564357

[Fraggle145]

I love this argument. It's like bashing your head into a wall over and over and over again. And it never fails, it always resorts to this...



So ignore the information contained within, the guy is a "paid shill/crackpot/insert derogatory statement here that debunks the person not the information", therefore the information within is discredited. Every. Frickin'. Time.

I honestly want to understand both sides of the debate. I truly do. But I can't get an unbiased view EITHER way. It's all a messy spectrum from "we're gonna DIE IN 50 YEARS, OMGCHILDREN" to "you're retarded, CARBON IS TEH WIN EAT IT" and facts contradict facts, positions butt heads with other positions, until the whole thing becomes a garbled mess of shiite. And with that, I MUST, as a rational minded individual, must refrain until it's hard and fast.

Practicality must reign.

I mean here are Milloy's qualifications as a climate scientist:

B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.

Where in there do i get anyone that understands how the climate works?

I see smart guy, that knows how to manipulate numbers and laws.

[mdklatt]

mdklatt, can you boil down your last several posts to a concise equilibrium or Quasimodo theory on the matter?

less heat out = warmer temperatures

[mdklatt]

Solar activity isn't credible evidence?

Link?

[mdklatt]

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/


That's not even wrong. (That's not a compliment.)

Here's some more on why he's off base above and beyond the fact that he's a "long time tobacco, drug and oil industry lobbyist":

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/

[mdklatt]

I dont see how pointing out something that we didnt sign has any bearing on anything.

"I don't like Al Gore" = "THE SCIENCE MUST BE WRONG!"

Duh.

[soonerbrat]

Please dont cite a novelist as a scientist. Ugh. Its like looking to a celebrity for election advice. If you dont think GW is happening that is fine... just please do it on better research than this.

Crighton was an M.D. He might have known some science.

[mdklatt]

Crighton was an M.D. He might have known some science.

I know some science. Can I give you a physical? :texan:

[soonerbrat]

I know some science. Can I give you a physical? :texan:

no, my boyfriend doens't like it when I do that.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Here ya go. A few articles, the first of which seems more in an effort to debunk than present an unbiased view of published studies.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/642-2.html

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=5412

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html

Bunches and bunches. Enough for me to state that the jury is still out.

[mdklatt]

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.







http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were maintained for a century or more.





http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/642-2.html

We argue that Earth’s short-term temperature anomalies and the solar flare intermittency are linked.


What's "short term"? This is from 2003 (as are all of your previous links). Is there anything more recent that corroborates this?



http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=5412
So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming.
....
The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.


Apparently some crank who doesn't know what he's talking about. Next.




http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html

Charlson says scientists understand to within 10 percent the impact of human activity on the production of greenhouse gases, things like carbon dioxide and methane that act like blanket to trap heat and, in theory, contribute to global warming. Yet their grasp of the human impact on albedo could be off by as much as 100 percent, he fears.

One theory is that if humans pump out more aerosols, the small particles will work to reflect sunlight and offset global warming. Charlson calls that "a spurious argument, a red herring."

Greenhouse gases are at work trapping heat 24 hours a day, he notes, while sunlight reflection is only at work on the day side of the planet. Further, he said, greenhouse gases can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, while aerosols last only a week or so.



Here's the most recent thing I could find, from 2006. http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf



Variations in the Sun’s total energy output (luminosity) are caused by hanging dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun’s output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.


Regardless of what is happening with the sun, you can't just wave off the established facts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increasing CO2 levels are due to fossil fuel use.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Regardless of what is happening with the sun, you can't just wave off the established facts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increasing CO2 levels are due to fossil fuel use.

I haven't. Did you not catch that in the gnashing of teeth?


Apparently some crank who doesn't know what he's talking about. Next.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Don't be a self-righteous ***. It's not a pissing match behind bushes, it's not some podium thumping science fair contest between Jack Carbon and Joe Sunshine. For the LOVE OF GOD AND HIS PANTHEON OF ANGELS, your boner is so rock frickin' hard to convert the masses to OMG CO2 BE DE DEBBIL that you yourself lose credibility with one sentence snippets and complete, absolute refusal to view the potential concern of climate change as a compilation of thousands of differing variables, not all of which we even have a handle on as mankind. No, we need a boogeyman. No, we need to be RIGHT, be damned with everything else. Reports and studies are dismissed as corporate tripe en masse when they don't jive. Potential external factors are scoffed as monsters under the bed when in all actuality, they present the very things that we SHOULD be doing as a society, looking at the entire picture and ALL possible sources and outcomes.

Carbon dioxide is t3h EEEEBIL! Our world will die in 50 years! Omaha frickin' Nebraska will be a seaside community! And most of all, SAVE THE POLAR BEARS THEY ARE DROWNING OMG LOL HAHA LERN 2 SWIM NAO.

Bull. Consider me punched out of this assfest of a thread.

[PalmBeachSooner1]

Read Crichton's State of Fear. Very good read.

I couldn't agree more. Very good read and it exposes this bs for what it is. A hoax.

[mdklatt]

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier.

Anybody who busts out the "it stopped warming in 1998" line is one of the following:

1) Woefully ignorant about trends and statistics, particularly in relation to climate.
2) Intentionally being misleading, i.e. lying.

So here's somebody who's either pontificating about something he doesn't know much about, or he he's a liar.


1998 was the warmest year on record, so of course there hasn't been any "warming" if you only look at the last ten years. But nobody ever said that global warming means that every year is going to be warmer than the previous year. And, that doesn't explain the past 100 years or so of significant warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png). Nor does global warming mean that it's going to get warmer everywhere all the time, so cherry picking individual spots (i.e. parts of Antarctica) doesn't mean anything. And furthermore, the lag in warming trends in Antarctica is entirely predictable (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/).

[mdklatt]

I couldn't agree more. Very good read and it exposes this bs for what it is. A hoax.

Did you know that Jesus did the deed with Mary Magdelene? It says so right there in The Da Vinci Code.

[Frozen Sooner]

Did you know that Jesus did the deed with Mary Magdelene? It says so right there in The Da Vinci Code.

Hermaphroditic dinosaurs are wandering around in Costa Rica as we speak.

[OklahomaTuba]

Was the man made global warming on Mars predicted as well???

Al Gore should go save that planet.

[mdklatt]

Was the man made global warming on Mars predicted as well???


Oh no, you figured it all out. The conspiracy is doomed. Everyone knows other planets with completely different orbits and composition have the exact same climate dynamics as the earth.

[OklahomaTuba]

So different, yet the results are so similar. Oh well, at least cap and trade will save us!

[mdklatt]

So different, yet the results are so similar.

You're right, it's sheer madness to think that similar results might have completely different causes. That's how we know the oil companies were behind the price increases this summer by creating artificial shortages just like OPEC did in the 70s. DAMN OIL COMPANIES! :mad:

[Fraggle145]

Crighton was an M.D. He might have known some science.

I would argue that M.D. is not an extensive scientist per se in that it is focused on treatment first. PhD is focused on research first.

To put it in other terms there is the game manager and the conservation biologist.

One is applied and one is about understanding.

[soonerbrat]

I would argue that M.D. is not an extensive scientist per se in that it is focused on treatment first. PhD is focused on research first.

To put it in other terms there is the game manager and the conservation biologist.

One is applied and one is about understanding.

that doesn't mean he didn't study other stuff besides medicine.

[Fraggle145]

that doesn't mean he didn't study other stuff besides medicine.

No doubt. Just was saying that its not exactly the same thing.

[Harry Beanbag]

For the LOVE OF GOD AND HIS PANTHEON OF ANGELS, your boner is so rock frickin' hard to convert the masses to OMG CO2 BE DE DEBBIL that you yourself lose credibility with one sentence snippets and complete, absolute refusal to view the potential concern of climate change as a compilation of thousands of differing variables, not all of which we even have a handle on as mankind.


Now, this is how the English language was meant to be used. :D

[mdklatt]

Now, this is how the English language was meant to be used. :D

That was pretty impressive.

[soonerbrat]

No doubt. Just was saying that its not exactly the same thing.

not exactly. but he's not just some dunderhead off the street making sh*t up either.

[Sooner_Havok]

Just for ****s and giggles, I figured I would throw some crap out.

http://www.carbonfootprintfoundation.com/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.JPG/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-large.jpg

http://www.carbonfootprintfoundation.com/dial_down_fig2.JPG/dial_down_fig2-custom;size:400,600.JPG

As you can see, this is actual measured levels, not "predicted, pre-measurement levels"

You can see that CO2 levels have been increasing, as have CO2 emissions. Proof that man is solely responsible for this overall increase, no.


Carbon dioxide was the first greenhouse gas demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration with the first conclusive measurements being made in the last half of the 20th century. Prior to the industrial revolution, concentrations were fairly stable at 280ppm. Today, they are around 370ppm, an increase of well over 30%. The atmospheric concentration has a marked seasonal oscillation that is mostly due to the greater extent of landmass in the northern hemisphere (NH) and its vegetation. A greater drawdown of CO2 occurs in the NH spring and summer as plants convert CO2 to plant material through photosynthesis. It is then released again in the fall and winter as the plants decompose.

This explains the seasonal fluctuations we see, but of course, still not 100% proof positive that man is solely responsible for this 30% increase in atmospheric CO2.

The fact that CO2 absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared spectrum of light however is 100% proven. So, it is safe to say that in a closed system such as the earth (Ok, not truly closed but close enough for this) an increase in CO2 combined with a steady, or increasing amount of light in the infrared spectrum will lead to an increase in that system's overall temperature. Especially in areas where concentration is the highest.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h152/havok0283/CO2.jpg

This picture shows the distribution of CO2 globally during Feb. 2007. Green areas are those of lower concentrations, red areas of higher concentrations.

You can see that Antarctica has a generally lower concentration of CO2 than does North America. This explains why the Antarctic ice sheets are not melting as fast as there arctic counterparts, and may actually be thickening. The arctic is subjected to only slightly warmer summers due to the plant absorption of CO2 during that time frame, but it faces a shorter/warmer winter period to refreeze.

Again, no proof that humans are 100% responsible for this. Even if you doubt that human activity is responsible for the increase, you cannot deny the increase, or what it means. In the end, perhaps we can do nothing to stop this rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, but I think it equates to pouring gasoline on a structure fire. The fire may not have been your fault, and it may have been impossible for you to put it out, but adding a few gallons of gas to the fire sure didn't make the situation any better.


That's all I got, carry on.

Oh, BACON!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sooner1979]

one of the most foolish, ridiculous, statements i've ever seen on this board. it wouldn't make any sense to try and argue the point with you, just know that I know how uninformed you truly are.

Is it only foolish or ridiculous because you say so? I hope not, because that is foolish and ridiculous...

Global Warming obviously has happened before and will happen again, but to argue that humans are the root cause is just F_ing stupid...If you knew anything about the earth's climate, then you would know that a period back about 500 years ago was extremely warm and actually was named the "Medieval Warm Period"...It must have been the elaborate transit system that our ancestors had...All the air travel, all the _________ (fill in the blank for a CO2 emitter)...The fact is, CO2, which is the supposed greenhouse gas, only makes up .03% of the earths Atmosphere...And the majority of CO2 comes from natural events such as Volcanic eruptions, forest fires and cows taking a crap in a field...There still is zero evidence that CO2 has any correlation with the Earth's temperature, but there seems to be an abundant amount of correlation between the sun's solar output "solar flares and such" and the earth's temperature...Seriously, which one makes more since?

I would probably vote for the fireball in the sky that is every bit as relevant as a naturally occurring gas in our atmosphere...Fact: All plant life requires CO2 and the sun's radiation to grow...If you take away one, bad things will happen...If CO2 goes away, humans will have less O2 to breathe since CO2 is converted by plant life for our very existence...So which one is it professor, which one do we get rid of? It has to be one or the other, or I guess we can take the high ground and actually have faith that our planet has the ability to fluctuate causing very different periods in our history...

We certainly do not need to fund an international committee to fight a battle we can't possibly win...And NO, 65 Trillion dollars is not enough to stop the sun from shining or volcanic eruptions...The reason it seems that there are more naturally occurring catastrophic events is not necessarily because it is true...There are more people living in more exposed life styles to these events, and it doesn’t hurt that everybody has a camera now so these events are recorded more so than ever before...

[Sooner_Havok]

Is it only foolish or ridiculous because you say so? I hope not, because that is foolish and ridiculous...

Global Warming obviously has happened before and will happen again, but to argue that humans are the root cause is just F_ing stupid...If you knew anything about the earth's climate, then you would know that a period back about 500 years ago was extremely warm and actually was named the "Medieval Warm Period"...It must have been the elaborate transit system that our ancestors had...All the air travel, all the _________ (fill in the blank for a CO2 emitter)...The fact is, CO2, which is the supposed greenhouse gas, only makes up .03% of the earths Atmosphere...And the majority of CO2 comes from natural events such as Volcanic eruptions, forest fires and cows taking a crap in a field...There still is zero evidence that CO2 has any correlation with the Earth's temperature, but there seems to be an abundant amount of correlation between the sun's solar output "solar flares and such" and the earth's temperature...Seriously, which one makes more since?

I would probably vote for the fireball in the sky that is every bit as relevant as a naturally occurring gas in our atmosphere...Fact: All plant life requires CO2 and the sun's radiation to grow...If you take away one, bad things will happen...If CO2 goes away, humans will have less O2 to breathe since CO2 is converted by plant life for our very existence...So which one is it professor, which one do we get rid of? It has to be one or the other, or I guess we can take the high ground and actually have faith that our planet has the ability to fluctuate causing very different periods in our history...

We certainly do not need to fund an international committee to fight a battle we can't possibly win...And NO, 65 Trillion dollars is not enough to stop the sun from shining or volcanic eruptions...The reason it seems that there are more naturally occurring catastrophic events is not necessarily because it is true...There are more people living in more exposed life styles to these events, and it doesn’t hurt that everybody has a camera now so these events are recorded more so than ever before...

I'm not quite sure anyone ever said we need to purge all CO2 from the atmosphere, but good luck on that one. Oh, and there also was the little ice age cause by a volcanic eruption. Oh, and by more naturally occurring disasters, what do you mean? I'll take my answer off air.

[Sooner1979]

I'm not quite sure anyone ever said we need to purge all CO2 from the atmosphere, but good luck on that one. Oh, and there also was the little ice age cause by a volcanic eruption. Oh, and by more naturally occurring disasters, what do you mean? I'll take my answer off air.

Naturally occuring distasters are by definition, not from mankind...ie hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, forest fires (most forest fires are naturally occuring events brought on by static electricity or lightning)...I could go on and on about "naturally occuring events, but essentially if the event occurs with or without mankind, then it is naturally occuring...Say what you will, but it is hard to prove or disprove how many hurricanes occured before we discovered America, and realistically after 1880...More people live along our coast lines than ever before, therefore more people are affected by a hurricanes track...I am only speaking about America in this instance, but this goes for all of the world...

If mankind had chosen not to build housing projects that are 15 feet below sea level in New Orleans, would there have been a natural disaster there or not? In fact 500 years ago, it would have been just an Event, not disaster because there would have not been anything to disrupt...

Also, I said nothing about purging CO2 from our atmosphere, in fact if you read what I said more clearly, you would find that my sarcasm was pretty thick about CO2 and the correlation between it and global warming...

[Sooner_Havok]

Naturally occuring distasters are by definition, not from mankind...ie hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, forest fires (most forest fires are naturally occuring events brought on by static electricity or lightning)...I could go on and on about "naturally occuring events, but essentially if the event occurs with or without mankind, then it is naturally occuring...Say what you will, but it is hard to prove or disprove how many hurricanes occured before we discovered America, and realistically after 1880...More people live along our coast lines than ever before, therefore more people are affected by a hurricanes track...I am only speaking about America in this instance, but this goes for all of the world...

If mankind had chosen not to build housing projects that are 15 feet below sea level in New Orleans, would there have been a natural disaster there or not? In fact 500 years ago, it would have been just an Event, not disaster because there would have not been anything to disrupt...

Ok, but I can only remember one season with more than normal hurricanes. The have seemed to be a little stronger, and been developing a little earlier as of late, but that is about it. I mean, it is to be expected that with an ever increasing world population, more people are going to be affected by natural disasters, but I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

[Sooner1979]

I'm not quite sure anyone ever said we need to purge all CO2 from the atmosphere, but good luck on that one. Oh, and there also was the little ice age cause by a volcanic eruption. Oh, and by more naturally occurring disasters, what do you mean? I'll take my answer off air.

And yes, nobody is arguing about different periods in our existence that were either warm or cold and what caused said events...I think the conscensus is that nobody really has a finite answer to these questions, but we can all choose to believe what we will...I will not argue that a volcanic eruption could cause a global cooling or an ice age, but that is far from proving or disproving that CO2 has any correlation to the earth's temperature...Yes, the volcanic eruption probably more than matched our current atmospheric chemistry CO2, but it could be argued that the mere existence of a more concentrated atmosphere of particals actually reflects back the solar radiation therefore proving that the solar influx is more aligned with "global warming" and not my boss's private jet...

[Sooner_Havok]

added this bit on me.


Also, I said nothing about purging CO2 from our atmosphere, in fact if you read what I said more clearly, you would find that my sarcasm was pretty thick about CO2 and the correlation between it and global warming...


Fact: All plant life requires CO2 and the sun's radiation to grow...If you take away one, bad things will happen...If CO2 goes away, humans will have less O2 to breathe since CO2 is converted by plant life for our very existence...So which one is it professor, which one do we get rid of?

eh

[Sooner1979]

Ok, but I can only remember one season with more than normal hurricanes. The have seemed to be a little stronger, and been developing a little earlier as of late, but that is about it. I mean, it is to be expected that with an ever increasing world population, more people are going to be affected by natural disasters, but I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

You are arguing with me, and not against me...What you have said here is exactly my point...There is zero evidence that there are more or less hurricanes or whether they are stronger or not...All I was arguing is that there is a reason to why people may believe that there are more and stronger storms because of our ability to record and report these events as compared to even 100 years ago...There are more people on this planet then there were 100 years ago and that also proves that if there is a hurricane, that the probability is higher that it will affect a larger population...

[Okla-homey]

If the United States takes the lead in Green Energy, others will follow. If nothing else, when it becomes an absolute necessity, our economy will be headed in the right direction.

And if you still don't agree, at least we won't be funding our enemies (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela) anymore.

I agree we need to cut back dependence of foreign oil for the reason already cited. Period.

Here's the thing though. And I realize you have to have been to these places and seen these things for yourself to really appreciate the challenge. Its not a big honking worldwide movement that the US would be aboard but for the recalcitrance of our outgoing leaders.

Do you really beleive the Central Committee of Communist Party of the Peoples Republic of China really gives two hoots about green energy? Did you watch the danged Olympics? Ditto the Peoples Republic of Korea.

They want a car and 24/7 soft coal-fired (a/k/a "dirty coal") electricity for their billion plus people. And they want it as soon as possible. Sure, they may agree to sign some international protocol as to curbing their emissions, but if you think they'll comply, you my friend, are one gullible greenie.

Ever been to Southwest Asia? Do you realize that Kuwait supplies itself with electricity with oil fired boilers? Big, black smoke belching oil fired boilers. It's basically piped in direct from the fields and is essentially crude oil complete with all its natural stinky goodness. So filthy you can't hang an article out to dry without it getting sooted. I've seen it and experienced it. Ditto many of the emirates and principalities in the region. The shame there is they can afford not to do that. But they don't. Because the one thing they have in abundance, in addition to sand, is crude oil.

India? Pakistan? Indonesia? Ooof!

How about sub-Saharan Africa? How do you impose emissions limits on folks who are simply trying to hold body and soul together amid internicene fighting, an AIDS epidemic, and the lack of even basic sanitation?

Ever been to eastern Europe? I have. Nasty, smokey, smutty places. Coal-fired and zero emissions standards for anything that burns carbon fuels.

South America? Whacking down jungle just as fast as the timber industries there can whack. Why? Because its a resource that they can leverage to feed their people. Emissions standards? None you would notice. Mexico too.

In the end, as to the vast majority of our planet, its filled with generally nice folks at the local level, but they are necessarily focused on building societies with a basic US 1950's style infrastructure, before taking the next step of building a sustainable society that is, alas, still decades away.

All that to say, if we're hosed because of carbon emissions, we may as well party like its 1999 because it ain't getting better anytime in the foreseeable future.

[Sooner1979]

added this bit on me.





eh

It is sarcasm! Obviously my point was that plant life on earth needs a balanced amount of both in order to exist, in the same that we need to exist...We can't do without either...It was sarcasm....

[Sooner_Havok]

And yes, nobody is arguing about different periods in our existence that were either warm or cold and what caused said events...I think the conscensus is that nobody really has a finite answer to these questions, but we can all choose to believe what we will...I will not argue that a volcanic eruption could cause a global cooling or an ice age, but that is far from proving or disproving that CO2 has any correlation to the earth's temperature...Yes, the volcanic eruption probably more than matched our current atmospheric chemistry CO2, but it could be argued that the mere existence of a more concentrated atmosphere of particals actually reflects back the solar radiation therefore proving that the solar influx is more aligned with "global warming" and not my boss's private jet...

Well, the little ice age, generated by the massive eruption of Tambora, was caused more by the dust and particulate matter ejected into the upper atmosphere than any gases that were released.

Interestingly enough, I saw this thing recently that speculated that depopulation of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during the plague, with the resulting decrease in agricultural output and reforestation taking up more carbon from the atmosphere, may have prolonged the Little Ice Age. Further, this guy speculated that massive depopulation in the Americas after the European contact in the early 1500s had similar effects.

[Sooner_Havok]

It is sarcasm! Obviously my point was that plant life on earth needs a balanced amount of both in order to exist, in the same that we need to exist...We can't do without either...It was sarcasm....

The eh was a criticism of you sarcasm.

Also, last time I checked, plants made out just fine without anything else on land for a little while.

[Sooner1979]

I agree we need to cut back dependence of foreign oil for the reason already cited. Period.

Here's the thing though. And I realize you have to have been to these places and seen these things for yourself to really appreciate the challenge. Its not a big honking worldwide movement that the US would be aboard but for the recalcitrance of our outgoing leaders.

Do you really beleive the Central Committee of Communist Party of the Peoples Republic of China really gives two hoots about green energy? Did you watch the danged Olympics? Ditto the Peoples Republic of Korea.

They want a car and 24/7 soft coal-fired (a/k/a "dirty coal") electricity for their billion plus people. And they want it as soon as possible. Sure, they may agree to sign some international protocol as to curbing their emissions, but if you think they'll comply, you my friend, are one gullible greenie.

Ever been to Southwest Asia? Do you realize that Kuwait supplies itself with electricity with oil fired boilers? Big, black smoke belching oil fired boilers. It's basically piped in direct from the fields and is essentially crude oil complete with all its natural stinky goodness. So filthy you can't hang an article out to dry without it getting sooted. I've seen it and experienced it. Ditto many of the emirates and principalities in the region. The shame there is they can afford not to do that. But they don't. Because the one thing they have in abundance, in addition to sand, is crude oil.

India? Pakistan? Indonesia? Ooof!

How about sub-Saharan Africa? How do you impose emissions limits on folks who are simply trying to hold body and soul together amid internicene fighting, an AIDS epidemic, and the lack of even basic sanitation?

Ever been to eastern Europe? I have. Nasty, smokey, smutty places. Coal-fired and zero emissions standards for anything that burns carbon fuels.

South America? Whacking down jungle just as fast as the timber industries there can whack. Why? Because its a resource that they can leverage to feed their people. Emissions standards? None you would notice. Mexico too.

In the end, as to the vast majority of our planet, its filled with generally nice folks at the local level, but they are necessarily focused on building societies with a basic US 1950's style infrastructure, before taking the next step of building a sustainable society that is, alas, still decades away.

All that to say, if we're hosed because of carbon emissions, we may as well party like its 1999 because it ain't getting better anytime in the foreseeable future.

Agreed...Been there and done that...Most of the world could care less what goes where and how it is recycled, but they will sign anything to sound in agreement...We can't as a society expect to lead a pack of lies into the future when we can't even prove or disprove these lies...We will and are going to bankrupt our economy in order to prove a theory...That is crap...Our economy is barely hanging on in the first place, let alone funding a radical movement to limit carbon emissions? Come on...that is crap...There is no hard core evidence to suggest that carbon emissions are warming our planet, but there are some that would give up our way of life to try and prove it...Not me...

[Sooner1979]

The eh was a criticism of you sarcasm.

Also, last time I checked, plants made out just fine without anything else on land for a little while.

What did the plants on land do without? Did the sun quit shining? Was CO2 abolished? What exactly did the plant life live without?

[Sooner_Havok]

What did the plants on land do without? Did the sun quit shining? Was CO2 abolished? What exactly did the plant life live without?

They lived without your bosses private jet. They lived without **** breathing the O2 they made and pumping out CO2 for the plants to breath. It's not like the tress and the corns need us around.

[Sooner1979]

They lived without your bosses private jet. They lived without **** breathing the O2 they made and pumping out CO2 for the plants to breath. It's not like the tress and the corns need us around.


I did not say that plants needed us to survive...But since you made the point, my bosses private jet is not exactly killing trees and corn as you so eloquently put...

[soonerhubs]

Posting in this thread increases your carbon footprint. I'm just sayin... ;)

[Sooner_Havok]

Posting in this thread increases your carbon footprint. I'm just sayin... ;)

Oh noes :eek:

[Sooner1979]

Posting in this thread increases your carbon footprint. I'm just sayin... ;)

god forbid I actually make a contribution to carbon emissions...In fact, I went out and warmed my car up this morning for about 10 minutes...It wasnt even cold...

[Sooner_Havok]

god forbid I actually make a contribution to carbon emissions...In fact, I went out and warmed my car up this morning for about 10 minutes...It wasnt even cold...

Well, apparently that is what makes America great. I still don't get why its cool to brag about wasting ****, but hey, whatever floats your boat I guess.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

one of the most foolish, ridiculous, statements i've ever seen on this board. it wouldn't make any sense to try and argue the point with you, just know that I know how uninformed you truly are.

So PDX, which year did you get your Meteorology or applied physics degree?

Mine was in 1982.

You have any data to refute that the sun energy intensity hasn't diminshed on the last 20 years? DO you have any data to refute that areas under brown clouds have cooled? Please inform us. As a Meteorologist, I have come to learn that the atmosphere is far more difficult to model than all the input people are trying to put into to plug something to mimic the past and then run it forward...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

If the United States takes the lead in Green Energy, others will follow. If nothing else, when it becomes an absolute necessity, our economy will be headed in the right direction.

Green Energy...what a pipe dream! Not the idea, the implimentation. You and the rest of the people in the country don't have the patience or the money to put down to make it happen. You would have to build a totally new infrastructure system to deliver what ever is determined to be the method of energy delivery. Best options we have is for some oil alternative to either use the gas stations, pipe lines and truck system in place or we use electricity with the current delivery methods.

Unfortunately, that leaves out the large number of machines and equipment that REQUIRE PETROLEUM distallates to run or lubricate. the alternatives are not there or as well developed or in some cases can't replace oil as we have today.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to stop taking oil from the political unstable areas of the world. Just don't see it happening in quite some time. I would love to see an energy policy that won't cut and run when oil gets cheap again. Already, people are pulling back from oil sands projects, from tight gas deposits, from oil shale, diesel from bugs isn't as attractive and ethanol plants in planning are getting axed - just becuase oil has falling to $50/bbl range.

[mdklatt]

So PDX, which year did you get your Meteorology or applied physics degree?

Mine was in 1982.
...
As a Meteorologist, I have come to learn that the atmosphere is far more difficult to model than all the input people are trying to put into to plug something to mimic the past and then run it forward...

So in other words, all the people with Ph.Ds are wrong and you're right? What type of meteorology do you do now?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

So in other words, all the people with Ph.Ds are wrong and you're right? What type of meteorology do you do now?

Where did I say that? If PDX was so vehiment against my posting and not offering a rebuttal except to say I was confused, then I asked for his credentials. Never said it had anything to do with a Ph.D. I think my Meteorology B.S. gives me more background to comment than someone who may have watched an Al Gore movie.

As to your question, I haven't work Meteorology in 20 years. I have a Ph.D. in Engineering and work in Safety. I do keep in touch with many of my classmates and old colleagues, so I would know if something new or groundbreaking would have occurred since I was in school - it hasn't. Interesting in my safety group we have 2 degreed meteorologists, myself (OU grad) and a Michigan grad. We both agree on the anthropogenic aspect of global warming. Too many unknowns and too much ignored data for us to believe in it yet.

[mdklatt]

I do keep in touch with many of my classmates and old colleagues, so I would know if something new or groundbreaking would have occurred since I was in school - it hasn't.


Seriously? There have been no major breakthroughs in atmospheric science in 25+ years? I've only been out 10 years, and a lot has changed since then.



Interesting in my safety group we have 2 degreed meteorologists, myself (OU grad) and a Michigan grad. We both agree on the anthropogenic aspect of global warming. Too many unknowns and too much ignored data for us to believe in it yet.

Keeping in touch with old classmates is a little bit different than making a career out of something, isn't it? The people who do climate research day in and day out, who read all the journals and go to all the conferences, these people all say that global warming is real, and that CO2 is the primary suspect.

[mdklatt]

You have any data to refute that the sun energy intensity hasn't diminshed on the last 20 years?


Diminished? You do mean increased? If the sun's intensity has been decreasing during the 20 years where most significant warming has been, then we're seriously screwed. But it hasn't changed significantly one way or another for 30+ years.



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.

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf






DO you have any data to refute that areas under brown clouds have cooled?

What are you getting at? That CO2 isn't a problem because air pollution will keep things in check?

[PDXsooner]

So PDX, which year did you get your Meteorology or applied physics degree?

Mine was in 1982.

You have any data to refute that the sun energy intensity hasn't diminshed on the last 20 years? DO you have any data to refute that areas under brown clouds have cooled? Please inform us. As a Meteorologist, I have come to learn that the atmosphere is far more difficult to model than all the input people are trying to put into to plug something to mimic the past and then run it forward...

I'm not sure what the relevance is. Certainly you're not suggesting that a Meteorology degree you got in 1982 makes you an expert on climate change. Either way, I'm no expert, I rely on reading and input from experts to form my opinions.

If I majored in Political Science or History would my opinions on Geo-politics or the war in Iraq be more valid than yours? Absolutely not. Don't be so glib.

[Frozen Sooner]

Where did I say that? If PDX was so vehiment against my posting and not offering a rebuttal except to say I was confused, then I asked for his credentials. Never said it had anything to do with a Ph.D. I think my Meteorology B.S. gives me more background to comment than someone who may have watched an Al Gore movie.

As to your question, I haven't work Meteorology in 20 years. I have a Ph.D. in Engineering and work in Safety. I do keep in touch with many of my classmates and old colleagues, so I would know if something new or groundbreaking would have occurred since I was in school - it hasn't. Interesting in my safety group we have 2 degreed meteorologists, myself (OU grad) and a Michigan grad. We both agree on the anthropogenic aspect of global warming. Too many unknowns and too much ignored data for us to believe in it yet.

Amazing that two people who work in the petroleum industry would come to the conclusion that there's not enough evidence to support anthropogenic climate change. It's almost like you have a vested interest or something.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Seriously? There have been no major breakthroughs in atmospheric science in 25+ years? I've only been out 10 years, and a lot has changed since then.

Please - what are they? I know we have much better numerical prediction models, but have we figured out something new? Basic principles of rain are still there, I realize we have discovered perhaps some new means of droplet formation, etc. But has something truly revolutionary occurred? Anything that would impact the topic for which we are discussing?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Amazing that two people who work in the petroleum industry would come to the conclusion that there's not enough evidence to support anthropogenic climate change. It's almost like you have a vested interest or something.

You may think that, but I don't have an oar in the water on this one. If I was still at The Weather Channel, I would still believe the same way, oh John Coleman hired me back in 1982 - I guess that means something...I don't think Heidi whatever her name is would want me around though...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I'm not sure what the relevance is. Certainly you're not suggesting that a Meteorology degree you got in 1982 makes you an expert on climate change. Either way, I'm no expert, I rely on reading and input from experts to form my opinions.

If I majored in Political Science or History would my opinions on Geo-politics or the war in Iraq be more valid than yours? Absolutely not. Don't be so glib.

You started this by attacking me. And I do think my major and education would have more of an impact as to vetting whether the information out there is valid or solid science over yours if you have a non-science or non-engineering degree.

[SoonerJack]

I would argue that M.D. is not an extensive scientist per se in that it is focused on treatment first. PhD is focused on research first.

To put it in other terms there is the game manager and the conservation biologist.

One is applied and one is about understanding.

Fraggle, did you read the book? Just curious.

[mdklatt]

I know we have much better numerical prediction models

This is a fundamental change. There was really no such thing as experimental meteorology until this happened. Models aren't perfect, and never will be, but the denialist meme that they're not any good at all is an argument from ignorance.

Speaking of fundamentals, it's fundamental that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's fundamental that CO2 levels are increasing due to fossil fuels--no modelling needed, we can observe it directly. And the observed temperature changes match up to what you'd expect by increasing the CO2 by the observed amount. Furthermore, there are no known natural causes that can explain the current warming.

[Ike]

This is a fundamental change. There was really no such thing as experimental meteorology until this happened. Models aren't perfect, and never will be, but the denialist meme that they're not any good at all is an argument from ignorance.

Speaking of fundamentals, it's fundamental that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's fundamental that CO2 levels are increasing due to fossil fuels--no modelling needed, we can observe it directly. And the observed temperature changes match up to what you'd expect by increasing the CO2 by the observed amount. Furthermore, there are no known natural causes that can explain the current warming.

mdk, a few questions about the modeling.

a) How long does it take for CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) once pumped into the atmosphere to homogenize (or attain it's equilibrium distribution) throughout the atmosphere? Lets say I put a trillion cubic feet of it into the air today in chicago. How long does it take for that to spread out over the globe?

b) Do any models take into account non-uniform distributions of CO2 over the globe, if the answer to question a indicates that perhaps they should?

c) I forgot what I was going to ask for question c.

[SCOUT]

I have a question too. We often hear about tons of CO2 and cubic feet to represent things like carbon footprints. I am wondering what the total available amount is. In other words how big is the atmosphere as a whole?

[Ike]

I have a question too. We often hear about tons of CO2 and cubic feet to represent things like carbon footprints. I am wondering what the total available amount is. In other words how big is the atmosphere as a whole?

Thats not a difficult question to answer...sorta

Take the radius of the earth+atmosphere, cube it and multiply by (4/3)*pi

now take the radius of the earth, cube it, and multiply by (4/3)*pi. Subtract this number from the number above.

According to google calculator:
radius of Earth = 6,378.1 kilometers

defining the radius of the atmosphere as 100km (the altitude of auroras according to wikipedia) we'd then get something like

volume of atmosphere =
(4 / 3) * pi * (((6,478.1 km)^3) - ((6,378.1 km)^3)) = 1.83374517 × 10^21 cubic feet

so about 2*10^21 cubic feet of atmosphere....


It gets a little trickier though when you factor in that gasses expand as you go higher and have less pressure. So a cubic foot of gas at sea level would take up more space than a cubic foot at 100km

[SCOUT]

Thats not a difficult question to answer...sorta

Take the radius of the earth+atmosphere, cube it and multiply by (4/3)*pi

now take the radius of the earth, cube it, and multiply by (4/3)*pi. Subtract this number from the number above.

According to google calculator:
radius of Earth = 6,378.1 kilometers

defining the radius of the atmosphere as 100km (the altitude of auroras according to wikipedia) we'd then get something like

volume of atmosphere =
(4 / 3) * pi * (((6,478.1 km)^3) - ((6,378.1 km)^3)) = 1.83374517 × 10^21 cubic feet

so about 2*10^21 cubic feet of atmosphere....


It gets a little trickier though when you factor in that gasses expand as you go higher and have less pressure. So a cubic foot of gas at sea level would take up more space than a cubic foot at 100km

Yeah, that is what I had too.:O

[mdklatt]

a) How long does it take for CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) once pumped into the atmosphere to homogenize (or attain it's equilibrium distribution) throughout the atmosphere? Lets say I put a trillion cubic feet of it into the air today in chicago. How long does it take for that to spread out over the globe?


I don't really know. Unlike say, water vapor, CO2 is generally considered to be "well mixed", so this might not be a significant issue. I don't know what kind of vertical stratification there is, either (which would be important if there are any EM saturation issues).




b) Do any models take into account non-uniform distributions of CO2 over the globe, if the answer to question a indicates that perhaps they should?


Again, I don't know. My educated guess is that they don't due to scaling issues. You're certainly not going put diffusion or any kind of boundary layer stuff into a global-scale climate model, and I doubt that they even parameterize point sources in any way.

Here's a FAQ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/) on climate models, but it's fairly basic. RealClimate has a ton of information, though.

If you're really curious, you can always download the model source code and dig through the Fortran 77 (maybe 90 if you're lucky) yourself. ;)

EDIT

Here's the latest reference article (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf) for the GISS (NASA) model.


Well-mixed trace gases [(CO2, CH4 , N2O, and
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)] and all other elements
of atmospheric composition used in the model—
tropospheric and stratospheric ozone, the component
of stratospheric water vapor derived from methane oxidation,
stratospheric (volcanic) aerosols, and tropospheric
aerosols [mineral dust, sea salt, sulfate, nitrates,
organic carbon (OC), and black carbon (BC)]—are
kept constant at 1979 levels for the experiments described
here.

This seems to confirm my earlier guess that CO2 is a parameter of the radiation module and is not coupled to the dynamics.

[mdklatt]

I have a question too. We often hear about tons of CO2 and cubic feet to represent things like carbon footprints.

Tons is the best way to go because mass/weight is conserved.

According to my physical climatology textbook, the mass of the atmosphere is 5.136 x 10^18 kg. The mass of CO2 (as of 1990) was 2.76 x 10^15 kg.

[sooner_born_1960]

What does global warming theory have to say about all the wind we've had today?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

This is a fundamental change. There was really no such thing as experimental meteorology until this happened. Models aren't perfect, and never will be, but the denialist meme that they're not any good at all is an argument from ignorance.

Speaking of fundamentals, it's fundamental that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's fundamental that CO2 levels are increasing due to fossil fuels--no modelling needed, we can observe it directly. And the observed temperature changes match up to what you'd expect by increasing the CO2 by the observed amount. Furthermore, there are no known natural causes that can explain the current warming.

Never said that CO2 was not increasing. I agree, it appears to be. Is it all from human activity, I don't know, but definitely an aspect to it. But this is not a fundamental change in the science of meteorology. Numerical model prediction or a better means may be. You've haven't convinced me that there has been a fundamental change in how we see or view meteorology has been identified.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

PDX,

What was so ridiculous about my Green Energy comment?

You want to do it fine - I never said you couldn't or shouldn't. But I don't believe your premise or your urgency that the climate is changing - so don't force me to spend my money on something or unproven technology on an issue that has not been proven. You present me with hard facts and data that shows a real climate change, one that is not part of the natural global aspect of marching through time, or one that we can have a significant impact on change, then I will open to your arguement.

Otherwise, I would think we may be better in developing arks for humanity to survive as we approach the coming global ice age...

[SCOUT]

Tons is the best way to go because mass/weight is conserved.

According to my physical climatology textbook, the mass of the atmosphere is 5.136 x 10^18 kg. The mass of CO2 (as of 1990) was 2.76 x 10^15 kg.
Thanks.

Is there an estimate on how much CO2 is man made?

[mdklatt]

Thanks.

Is there an estimate on how much CO2 is man made?

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

That has a breakdown of CO2 changes due to land use changes and fossil fuels. Keep in mind that the amount of CO2 recycled by the environment is going to decrease over time as the ocean becomes saturated. Continuing to chop down the rain forest isn't going to help either.

[mdklatt]

You present me with hard facts and data that shows a real climate change, one that is not part of the natural global aspect of marching through time, or one that we can have a significant impact on change, then I will open to your arguement.


I guess you haven't heard of the IPCC? Or do the people who know more about this stuff than anyone else have it wrong?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I guess you haven't heard of the IPCC? Or do the people who know more about this stuff than anyone else have it wrong?

I would tend to discount anything the IPCC published.

Here's some more info...From Cornell University (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov08/SoilBlackCarbon.kr.html)

Nov. 18, 2008
Global warming predictions are overestimated, suggests study on black carbon
By Krishna Ramanujan ([email protected])
A detailed analysis of black carbon -- the residue of burned organic matter -- in computer climate models suggests that those models may be overestimating global warming predictions.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov08/BlackCarbonFire.jpg
Grant Stone, QCCCE
Savanna fires occur almost every year in northern Australia, leaving behind black carbon that remains in soil for thousands of years.


A new Cornell study, published online in Nature Geosciences, quantified the amount of black carbon in Australian soils and found that there was far more than expected, said Johannes Lehmann, the paper's lead author and a Cornell professor of biogeochemistry. The survey was the largest of black carbon ever published.
As a result of global warming, soils are expected to release more carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, which, in turn, creates more warming. Climate models try to incorporate these increases of carbon dioxide from soils as the planet warms, but results vary greatly when realistic estimates of black carbon in soils are included in the predictions, the study found.
Soils include many forms of carbon, including organic carbon from leaf litter and vegetation and black carbon from the burning of organic matter. It takes a few years for organic carbon to decompose, as microbes eat it and convert it to carbon dioxide. But black carbon can take 1,000-2,000 years, on average, to convert to carbon dioxide.
By entering realistic estimates of stocks of black carbon in soil from two Australian savannas into a computer model that calculates carbon dioxide release from soil, the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon's long shelf life into account.
The findings are significant because soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact.
"We know from measurements that climate change today is worse than people have predicted," said Lehmann. "But this particular aspect, black carbon's stability in soil, if incorporated in climate models, would actually decrease climate predictions."
The study quantified the amount of black carbon in 452 Australian soils across two savannas. Black carbon content varied widely, between zero and more than 80 percent, in soils across Australia.
"It's a mistake to look at soil as one blob of carbon," said Lehmann. "Rather, it has different chemical components with different characteristics. In this way, soil will interact differently to warming based on what's in it."

[Fraggle145]

Fraggle, did you read the book? Just curious.

Ya I read some of it a while back, I remember thinking that the overall readability was good, but the content not so much.

[mdklatt]

I would tend to discount anything the IPCC published.

Here's some more info...From Cornell University (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov08/SoilBlackCarbon.kr.html)


That does nothing to counter the basic premise of AGW--putting more CO2 and other manmade GHGs into the atmosphere will cause the planet to warm. This is just splitting hairs about how fast the warming will be, which nobody says we know with any certainty. It might not be as fast as we think. But it could just as easily be a lot faster. The Arctic ice melt is happening faster than anybody anticipated. If that trend continues, the albedo effects of an ice-free Arctic summer will have a huge positive feedback on warming. The release of methane from the permafrost is a huge concern, too.

The basic denialist position is: We don't know what's going to happen, so why should we do anything? The problem is, we're already doing something. Ever since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we've been performing a grand experiment on the Earth's climate. So, if we really don't know what's going to happen if we keep ****ing with the atmosphere, maybe we should quit ****ing with it.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The arctic freeze up is happening faster than anyone has seen since recording began according to recent data and sat photos. Discovery's Dangerous jobs may not be able to crab fish as far north this year. NWT is already -40 degree C.

A greater concern would be release of methane condensates into the atmosphere...We aren't finding, developing uses and burning it fast enough...;)

The basic ALARMIST position is "Oh my God - something is happening - we need to do something." What would you do? the things you mentioned would be a mere pebble in a sea of rocks. I would argue that human effects would be very small compared to natural climate or geological activities.

As I have always said, you want to do something - great do it. I make my weekly trek to the recycle place to recycle all my glass, metal, plastics, paper and cardboard because I think a good steward of the earth would be to recycle or re-use stuff I generate. It makes me feel good and I at least am reducing my footprint on this place. I wouldn't necessarily want to force everyone to do it. I happen to believe that if we can re-use, why dig or cut more to generate a comodity that can be used again.

I just don't see the scientific evidence for all the hand wringing about doing something that may be just a geologic function of the earth. I would be more for your arguement if you would propose that we put that money into developing spacefaring technology so we can move people out into the solar system and the galaxy to move our species beyond just the earth. This would reduce our risk of a single impact wiping us out and would reduce the fact that geologic changes would impact us as well.

[mdklatt]

The arctic freeze up is happening faster than anyone has seen since recording began according to recent data and sat photos.

In terms of what? Ice fraction or absolute area? It's not real hard to have a record fractional increase in ice cover when you've had two years of record low coverage in the summer.

This has been an overall cool year--at least by recent standards--due to the QBO. But we still had the fifth warmest October on record. And yes, that's with the corrected data.

[mdklatt]

T
The basic ALARMIST position is "Oh my God - something is happening - we need to do something."

Actually, it's that we should stop doing something. Reduce CO2 levels to a more natural level. Isn't that the "conservative" position? If Al Gore was going around saying that we should start pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in order to stave of a coming ice age, Republicans would go apoplectic--especially if it was going to cost them money.

Because money is what this is really all about, isn't it? If there was profit to be had, Republicans would be all over it. The real irony/stupidity/shortsightedness is that there is money to be had in changing over to a non-fossil fuel based economy...just not if you're one of the entrenched players in the old economy.

[SCOUT]

Ever since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we've been performing a grand experiment on the Earth's climate. So, if we really don't know what's going to happen if we keep ****ing with the atmosphere, maybe we should quit ****ing with it.

I am not sure if you meant it this way, but this part of your quote is where I have a problem. Reverting the US and the rest of the world to pre-industrial revolution standards isn't a very good solution.

I am all on board with doing prudent things to reduce pollution and any number of other things that would reduce the risk of, or actual global warming. The drastic measures that are often recommended are what drive people away though.

I am not supportive of taking actions that would cripple our economy further because it looks like it might someday save the environment from a crisis that might occur.

[mdklatt]

I am not sure if you meant it this way, but this part of your quote is where I have a problem. Reverting the US and the rest of the world to pre-industrial revolution standards isn't a very good solution.


No that's, not what I meant. But if we keeping pushing CO2 upwards, we don't know for sure what's going to happen. And what we think might happen isn't good at all. It's not enough to cap things at the current level, either, because even if we stop all CO2 emissions altogether tomorrow there's still a significant amount of pent-up warming on the way.




I am not supportive of taking actions that would cripple our economy further because it looks like it might someday save the environment from a crisis that might occur.


Do you have insurance?

Shortsighted thinking has gotten us into every economic problem we have right now. People act like Manhattan being underwater and the southeastern US turning in a desert wouldn't be bad for the economy.

[SCOUT]

Do you have insurance?

Shortsighted thinking has gotten us into every economic problem we have right now. People act like Manhattan being underwater and the southeastern US turning in a desert wouldn't be bad for the economy.

I do have insurance, but I didn't buy a policy that bankrupts me.

[mdklatt]

I do have insurance, but I didn't buy a policy that bankrupts me.

Some questions:

1) If reducing CO2 emissions didn't cost anything or indeed made money, would you be skeptical that AGW was real?


2) Why do you think transitioning to a green economy won't make money? Has there ever been a technological revolution in the past that was bad for the economy?

[Curly Bill]

Kinda chilly out there right now, I declare global warming to be a bunch of BS.

[Okla-homey]

Some questions:

2) Why do you think transitioning to a green economy won't make money? Has there ever been a technological revolution in the past that was bad for the economy?

well, a lot of people and public utility authorities lost money who were invested in nuclear power growth following the TMI incident. Nevermind the fact the safety features worked as designed and no one got hurt.

I'm not sure you could find a lot of willing investors in the US even today despite the fact nuke power is as green as a very green thing and the technology exists right now. Ask France. They're over 80% nuke powered domestic electricity. That, and the US coal lobby spends big bucks in DC to keep nuke off the US radar.

[Harry Beanbag]

Politicians will be the death of mankind. Whether it's global warming, nuclear war, islamofascism, or something else, they will be blinded by their own hunger for power until it's too late.

[SCOUT]

Some questions:

1) If reducing CO2 emissions didn't cost anything or indeed made money, would you be skeptical that AGW was real?


2) Why do you think transitioning to a green economy won't make money? Has there ever been a technological revolution in the past that was bad for the economy?

1) If the first part of your question were true, the latter would not matter. In fact, I have a radiant barrier, a solar attic fan, an inisulated water heater, solar screens, a composter and all CFL lightbulbs. Oh, and I work from home so I have zero commute. I do those things because they make good economic sense and because they are good for the environment. Whether they are helping or hurtinig a case for AGW is completely irrelevant.

2) I never said it wouldn't. Again, I have economically invested in a wide variety of "green" technologies. In fact, I believe that solar is only a few years away from commercial viability. Tidal is also very close. The irony is that environmentalists are holding it up, but that seems to be a very promising technology. Your question is very misleading. Putting punitive restricions on businesses without allowing the time to develop alternatives, which is happening now, is not good for the economy. There needs to a bridge between the two or the economic impact will be huge.

A question for you. Which technological revolution was sparked by government regulation, taxation and penalties?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Because money is what this is really all about, isn't it? If there was profit to be had, Republicans would be all over it. The real irony/stupidity/shortsightedness is that there is money to be had in changing over to a non-fossil fuel based economy...just not if you're one of the entrenched players in the old economy.

Not to continually beat a dead horse, but there is profit to be had. Ask Al Gore. I refuse to support his monopoly in any way...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Some questions:

1) If reducing CO2 emissions didn't cost anything or indeed made money, would you be skeptical that AGW was real?

Yes.



2) Why do you think transitioning to a green economy won't make money? Has there ever been a technological revolution in the past that was bad for the economy?

A green economy may make money, no reason not to. But I would suggest market forces allow this to occur. Or perhaps have the government seed research and develop goals a la the Kennedy space initiative.

A question for you.

What you suggest the emerging economies of India and China do? They are not likely to buy into what you are suggesting. Their input would make our impact seem trivial and would probably render anything the U.S. and Europe does meaningless.