|
|
|
|
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/9/2008 8:49:14 AM | Last week's 'Forecast Earth' episode on The Weather Channel should prove instructive as to how advocates in media take efforts to hide the fact that science on our subject does not favor their viewpoint. One segment covered the alleged intensification and increased frequency of hurricanes due to global warming, and the hostess (Natalie Allen) both cited and interviewed the co-author of one research paper stating the case that this is so, one Dr. Greg Holland (Webster et al., Changes in tropical cyclone number, intensity, and duration. Science, 309, 1844-1846, 2005). In it's effort to appear fair, also interviewed were meteorologists who disagreed; as well as citing a PEW Center "paper" that also disagreed. Allen's voice over bluntly stated that "Dr. Holland's research was peer-reviewed, the PEW Center's was not."
Clearly, the implication was that science (found in the scientific literature) favors the view that global warming is causing intensification and increased frequency of tropical cyclones. Clearly, from a review of literature, it does not. It would have gravely damaged the case for the viewpoint being promoted by The Weather Channel if Dr. Chris Landsea had been the subject of the opposing interview (or had his research been cited by the program); which would make it obvious why he was not. Dr. Landsea has long been an outspoken critic of the notion that global warming (from whatever source, anthropogenic or natural) will cause either greater intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones, and has authored or co-authored numerous peer-reviewed papers on the topic.
What about recently published research on the topic? Well, there are numerous papers over the years on the subject of whether or not tropical cyclones are affected by global warming, and the overwhelming answer is no, they're largely unaffected, probably due to too many factors other than those that warming produces. One recent study (Englehart et al.) presents graphs and charts showing a decrease in frequency and intensity of storms in recent years; and another study rejected the notion that hurricane strike frequencies are increasing in time (Parisi & Lund).
I have reviewed about 3 dozen or so papers on the subject itself, and only a handful actually make the case that global warming has increased either frequency or intensity of storms; the vast majority are at odds with this notion.
References:
Englehart et al., Defining the frequency of near-shore tropical cyclone activity in the Eastern North Pacific from historical surface observations (1921-2005). Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L03706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032546 (2008)
Parisi & Lund, Return periods of Continental US hurricanes. Journal of Climate, 18, 403-410 (2008) | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/9/2008 9:17:03 AM | Amazingly enough, we nearly agree on this. The connection between global warming and increased hurricane intensity and particularly frequency is NOT well established. In all my posts on climate change, you won't find any where I cited hurricane concerns, because we don't yet have adequate science to know with any certainty that there is a clear link.
I disagree that current science indicates there definitely is no correlation. The majority of papers and studies indicate that there may be a connection, but there is not enough evidence to be certain.
It seems logical that warming waters add fuel to heat-driven cyclones, but there are many other factors at play, and I'm content to wait on additional science to tell us more about how strong or weak the connection between climate change and hurricanes may be.
The media does indeed like to play up the potential connection, but if you check the quotes of climate scientists in response to any recent weather event, you'll find the vast majority of them take care not to link that particular event with global warming. Those who do assert a strong link between climate change and hurricanes mostly say that we won't start to see those changes until we warm more than we already have.
So this aspect of climate change is indeed a very open question.
Dave | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/9/2008 11:55:10 AM | | And don't forget, correlation is a statistical demonstration of coincidence, not a demonstration of causation. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/13/2008 7:49:19 AM | Unfortunately, Dave, your fellow advocates (those in media) make inflated and dishonest claims, which was the point I was making. Even a supposed authority like The Weather Channel acts with such callous disregard of the truth in an effort to promote the advocating viewpoint. The major point in regards to the topic at hand, though, is that without these negative impacts upon climate that are alleged, the concern becomes merely academic.
From my reading of the literature, the vast majority says that global warming isn't a major factor in hurricane formation or intensity. Most of those I've seen claiming a correlation only go back about 40 years, surely not enough data to make that determination. Of those that go back further (and still support the advocate position), the data collection doesn't use the same method of observation over the timeframe. It's not just "not enough evidence," it's a case of very weak evidence.
Best 2 U! | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/14/2008 7:13:14 PM |
From my reading of the literature, the vast majority says that global warming isn't a major factor in hurricane formation or intensity.
What I read says GW isn't a major factor TODAY, but may well be in the future, the degree of which is still very uncertain.
Of course we may well be reading different literature, given our respective perspectives. I chalk increased hurricane and other storm event frequency and intensity up as possible future concerns, but not a sure thing.
What I keep hearing in the media is that these are the kinds of things we MAY expect in a warming world. I grant that listeners may choose to parse the words differently.
Dave | |
|
| the earth is fine,we arent
Posted: 8/16/2008 5:56:49 PM | | heres my rant....every one is out for them selves.the world meanders around them as they take to escape the meaningful aspect of what has happend and why.first of all this global warming thing is a farce.c mon,the earth has been through much worse than us.do you really think in any possible way that we can change this?are you ready to live ''little house on the praire''?did you know that saudi is tapping its last well?talk about war for oil,the russians will want alaska back,.chinas growing,so is india,and its projected that in 10 yrs china will consume todays worlds annual consumption itself.and yes,we will all have a carbon tax.....someone will monitor your travels and heating bills and give you a carbon tax.thats wonderful thats great.cant wait till they hook up that fm reciever to my thermastat so they can control my cooling and heating......yeah,that would be great.think im kidding,california tried to do it.and as far as taxing the rich,stupid concept,if your not happy with yourself with the life you have,that's your prob.change it..i dont need to be rich,i need to be honest with myself and who i am, i dont envy them at all.your always a target in many ways.the rich deserve the stress and anxiety..sorry,dont need that,im happy just paying the bills.its crazy,if obama gets in,it's suicide.i can say that every other candidate,yes including edwards,is better than him.what ever happend to common sense?anyone ever look at his policies?what he plans to do?omg hes not a socialist,hes a marxist.you cant drive your suv but so many miles a week,heres your food ration for the week,he said hes the leading candidate for global warming,yeah thats great.seems that 2 major german companies moved to saudi arabia because the carbon tax in germany was to high,yeah,thats great.makes me feel all warm inside when a country loses a major company or two.yeah thats great.and lets just leave iraq,yeah thats great,except for the fact that the life blood of this country is oil,and we have a bunch of goofballs that dont think we should just go get our own.wtf?oh it'll take 10 yrs to even get any oil.............yeah,think that was your arguement 10 yrs ago.certainly doesnt help us now.and john kerry always using the phrase''mother earth''.c mon john,have some more catsup smores why dont ya.hey john,everyone else calls it the planet,are you on the scientific side or the spritual side?cause you wanna tax me for the scientific side,huh?well al gore saying'' the argument is over'' has to be the stupidest thing ive heard.al?uhhh this planet has been here for BILLIONS of years,and industry started 100 yrs ago.the planets going nowhere,the people are,pack up your shit folks,we're going away.so what we are going to see happen here,is major socialism like the united states has never seen before...to many mouths,not enough crop in the field.where did self reliance ever go?we used to be called the breadbasket of the world?ENERGY...thats where it went.and we need to find alternative ethenol plants,not corn,its the first time this year that we had to import wheat,in the history of this country,2007.because everyones planting corn now,messing up the whole flow of things.because a stupid al gore slide show scared everyone to death.gimme a freakin break people,we arent or ever will be in control of this earth,and to think that carbon emmisions are effecting it? yeah well,we'll see when that super volcano thats rumbling in yellowstone national park decides to give way,this isnt mount st. helens,this will cover the planet,then tell me how bad carbon is and that i need to pay a carbon tax.i mean are these ppl are freakin nuts?whats wrong with you?so i have to pay even more to stay warm and drive a car.CARbon tax,oh yeah, i see, yeah, cool.love that.ive listened to all of obamas speeches,and im sorry ,hes a radical.and as far as im concerned,john mcaine is far enough left for you moderate libs.the blue dogs.the way i see it myself,correct me if im wrong,but universal health care is failing in england,law suits everywhere.have to wait 4 months for a root canal.i got one in 2 days.paid for it myself,self reliance.that is the consevative way of thinking,because what i see in the future,is an energy crisis,could you live without power or grocery stores?interesting topic. STEVESBLOG@SOMEONEKINGARF.COM | |
|
| the earth is fine,we arent
Posted: 8/16/2008 9:33:28 PM | Storm intensity is not from temperature itself but more from temperature and humidity differentials causing convection along with precipitation changing the characteristics of the atmosphere and sea characteristics. Like man made thermal engines, they deplete the potential energy when they deplete the thermal differentials.
The ocean current patterns that are part of the climate engine are physical structures involving the geology of the continents. At this time, the currents have a pretty clear shot at discharging equatorial and sub tropic heat with polar ice. This discharge will result in rapid ice melting until the geology changes or the available ice is depleted. Other factors can be volcanic or extraterrestrial events. The fact that the massive effect of recorded historical volcanic events diminished rather quickly tends to indicate man's influence is not so permanent as the AGW religion claims.
To repeat myself: I am still trying to find some explanation of the basis for AGW that actually understands the nature of CO2 IR absorption. The basic physics tend in indicate CO2 would more likely have a slight cooling effect as its absorption would carry heat through convection past cloud cover that really does have a heat trapping effect through IR REFLECTION IN A BROAD SPECTRUM. Quite different from the narrow band absorption-radiation that CO2 exhibits.
How about use the ozone hole as a an example of a problem with the CO2 warming theory. The amount of O3 needed to block UV with its absorption signature is tiny compared with the density of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its clear, CO2 IR absorption reaches saturation within tens or at most a few hundred feet of an atmosphere miles thick. More CO2 is more like coats of the same color of paint.
I really don't care what the vote is, the logic is not there. I have yet to see anything from the AGW religion that addresses the basic physics behind the doom and gloom sermons. There are too many people set up to gain wealth and/or political power from from the AGW mania to trust its tobacco industry style science. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/21/2008 5:50:30 AM | Yet another problem for the advocating position is the fact that (as I've cited before on this thread) atmospheric methane levels have leveled off over the last decade or so (Dlugokencky et al., Khalil et al.). This is important because of the claim of advocates is that even if melting icesheets aren't raising sea levels (we'll get to that), it's still adding methane to the atmosphere as the ice melts, which will (allegedly) increase the greenhouse effect.
The reason that this is commonly said is the fact that (as a greenhouse gas) methane has the effect of 23 times as much co2. Although we're not commonly told the fact that atmospheric methane is measured in parts per billion, whereas co2 is measured in parts per million. Atmospheric co2 is currently (from the latest figures I've seen) around 382 ppm, where atmospheric methane is about 1.7 ppm (1,751 ppb, to be more precise, from Dlugokencky).
According to the IPCC's Third Assessment Report, the prediction was for atmospheric methane to continue to rise throughout the 21st century. The first doubt of this is seen in Simpson et al.'s data in 2002, although Simpson called it "premature" to report that such an opposite trend was occuring. Dlugokencky was the first paper to report the definite leveling trend, and in 2006, Simpson even admitted as much in another paper. The final nail in the coffin for the atmospheric methane alarm came in 2007, with Khalil's paper. The data found there shows no significant rise in atmospheric methane in nearly a decade.
Back to why I'm pointing this out. According to alarmists, the melting of icesheets at the poles will release long-sequestered methane, which allegedly is happening and should have continued, which also should have accelerated the effect of greenhouse forcing. But, as this data has proven this basic assumption incorrect, would it not stand to reason that the entire certainty concerning greenhouse effects on climate be in error as well? It seems that, without human intervention, methane levels slowed their rise and leveled off, defying the hypothesis of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (which was also displayed in the General Circulation Models); yet the IPCC and other advocates continue to proclaim a "90%" certainty that human greenhouse emissions are a major factor in climate change? This fact alone is enough to re-examine that statement (never fear, there are a multitude of others).
References:
Simpson et al., Implications of the recent fluctuations in the growth of tropospheric methane. Geophysical Research Letters, 29, doi:10.1029/2001GL014521, (2002)
Dlugokencky et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 30, doi:10.1029/2003GL018126, (2003)
Simpson et al., Implications of biomass burning during recent fluctuations in the slow growth of global tropospheric methane. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, 10.1029/2006GL037330 (2006)
Khalil et al., Atmospheric methane, trends and cycles of sources and sinks. Environmental Science and Technology, doi:10.1021/es061791t (2007) | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/21/2008 9:31:55 AM |
Yet another problem for the advocating position is the fact that (as I've cited before on this thread) atmospheric methane levels have leveled off over the last decade or so
You may have spoke too soon on this one:
Carbon dioxide, methane levels rise sharply in 2007
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane — potent greehouse gases — rose sharply in 2007, according to NOAA.
The U.S. weather agency said that global levels of carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, climbed by 0.6 percent, or 19 billion tons in 2007. Methane levels increased by 27 million tons after nearly a decade with little or no increase
NOAA said that atmospheric CO2 levels currently stand at 385 parts-per-million, or about 38 percent higher than pre-industrial levels. It noted that the rise in CO2 concentrations has been accelerating since the 1980s when annual increases were around 1.5 ppm per year. Last year the increase was 2.4 ppm.
On the other hand, the increase in methane levels is a relatively new trend. Emissions had been flat since 1998.
NOAA attributed the rise in methane emissions to rapid industrialization in Asia and higher emissions from peatlands in the Arctic and the tropics.
Methane is produced by both human activities and natural causes. About one-third of methane emissions come from oceans, wetlands, wildfires, and termites, while two-thirds from the production of oil and natural gas, mining, sewage and decomposition of garbage, changes in land use and deforestation, and livestock.
Billions of tons of methane are locked up in Arctic tundra and as frozen hydrate deposits in the deep oceans. Researchers are concerned that as the planet warms, these deposits could destabilize, releasing large methane emissions.
"We're on the lookout for the first sign of a methane release from thawing Arctic permafrost," said Ed Dlugokencky, a scientists with NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory. "It's too soon to tell whether last year's spike in emissions includes the start of such a trend."
Scientists say hydrate deposits may have played an important role in past climate change by causing fluctuations in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. For example, the rapid decomposition of frozen methane hydrate deposits, possibly a result of higher ocean temperatures, may have been responsible for the sharp spike in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases during the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) -- a period of rapid, extreme global warming about 55 million years ago. The methane released during melting would have reacted with oxygen to produce huge amounts of carbon dioxide. The warming caused a mass extinction among marine animals and helped usher in the "Age of Mammals."
Most methane emissions never reach the atmosphere -- they are broken down by ultraviolet radiation. For methane that does reach the atmosphere, the gas has a lifetime of about eight years. In contrast, carbon dioxide can last a century in the atmosphere. As such, atmospheric methane levels can be quickly reduced, while carbon dioxide accumulates and presents a long-term problem. Still, methane levels have more than doubled since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. With twenty five times more heat-trapping potential than carbon dioxide, methane's overall climate impact is nearly half that of carbon dioxide despite atmospheric concentrations of around 1,800 parts-per-billion.
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0423-ghg.html | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/21/2008 12:11:49 PM | As long as such statements use the term "green house gas", the statement should be considered a believer's religious text, not science. As I have pointed out many times and as yet there is not the slightest disagreemnt, the heat of a green house is not related to any gasses found in it. I fact, the effect of the gasses in a green house is to cool, not heat it. Since CO2 and CH4 have absorption bands in the IR range, they are likely to be more effective at cooling a green house than other gasses as they heat more readily than by simple contact and through convection carry heat away. In the atmosphere, there is no glass barrier to convection and the CO2 and CH4, enabled by their IR radiation ability, actually help cool the atmosphere by radiating heat to the cold of space. The only other significant cooling comes from radiant cooling across the rest of the IR spectrum directly from the surface of the planet. The only thing in the way is clouds to reflect the radiant heat is clouds. Unlike the glass of a green house, the clouds don't block convection that can carry CO2 and CH4 to the upper atmosphere and radiate heat.
The narrow bands of IR absorbed and radiated by CO2 are a very portion of the infrared spectrum. CO2 is transparent to the rest of the spectrum. It should be considered more like a color in the only those narrow bands are absorbed or radiated. With the density of CO2 in the atmosphere, the effect of IR absorption from CO2 is saturated within a few hundred if not a few tens of feet of the surface. The atmosphere is miles thick. Added CO2 is more like coats of paint of the same color than some insulating blanket.
Another factor in the cooling of earth is the color of the surface. The darker the surface, the more it can radiate. Plants are typically darker than say sand and plant growth is stimulated by increasing CO2. Some green houses have CO2 added for that very purpose, to make them produce more plant growth.
In the history of earth, ever since the beginnings of life, the amount of CO2 has been declining and along with it, in the past few hundred million years, the abundance of life. The very reason we have so much fossil fuels is the past abundant life at a time when CO2 was much higher. In process such as found in coral, CO2 becomes calcite CaCO3, the basis for the limestone on the surface of the planet to never again be free CO2. So why didn't the high CO2 levels cause the planet to incinerate this life? Because the CO2 does not cause planetary heating! In reality, I would guess the earth has had some heating trend over the past billion years due to the reduction of CO2 by living organisms. From what I have been able to determine, over 90% of earths CO2 has been eliminated by conversion to limestone. One could easily argue we shoudl be concerned about low levels of CO2 but we are talking about a billion year trend to which life has evolved to adapt. Some would say too much CO2 is deadly and therefor a pollutant. The same could be said of too much Oxygen but without either, we die.
For what purpose is such a misleading label as "green house gas" maintained except to mislead? Since those most behind the AGW movement stand to gain significant political power and wealth from the political actions resulting from the fear mongering itself, the motives are blatently clear yet the very same people question the ethics of those who question their dogma.
I welcome any debate over the physics but coincidence, anecdotal observation, and votes by bureaucrats with an alphabet behind their name is not science. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/21/2008 2:31:40 PM | Dave:
I fact, the effect of the gasses in a green house is to cool, not heat it
I've been in climate discussion for a good 5 years, and never have I ever once seen the claim that greenhouse gasses cool the air temperatures... If you've got something to back it up, please do share, as you're contrary to.. well.. everything.
But my specialty is hurricanes, so I'll stick to that.
Wvwaterfall:
I disagree that current science indicates there definitely is no correlation. The majority of papers and studies indicate that there may be a connection, but there is not enough evidence to be certain.
There are 2 correlations that can be found, though there is not enough statistical evidence to back any of it up. Accurate records only began in the sattilite era, so we're working at 50 years max. Hard to determine a blip in the cycle when you don't have complete records of a full cycle.
Landsea has one very compelling point to make, although it's in reference to the frequency of hurricanes and not intensity. The warming is having an effect on wind currents, strengthening shear winds (difference of winds speeds between 200 and 850mb... Umm, wind speed/direction at the top of the storms to the bottom pretty much). Shear winds have an inhibiting effect on the formation of hurricanes (destroys the circulation by blowing the top of the storm elsewhere). So from the standpoint that greater windshear is less hurriances, Landsea is making a valid point. It's based on the The [url=http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2006/gav0602.pdf] Walker Circulation[/url] weakens with an increase in temperatures as well. Weaker walker circulation is ultimately stronger shear winds and less frequent hurricanes as they are torn apart.
There are just too many factors to fully tell one way or another... The Atlantic Jetstream is weakening and moving slightly to the north, which reduces the amount of cooling from the wind evaporating water, which leaves surface temps higher (higher temps = stronger storms is a basic rule of thumb).
Best theory I've seen is decrease in frequency and increase in overall intensity, however the largest change we will see is the rate of hurricane growth (rapid intensifcation). The conditions for hurricanes to form won't occour as frequently, but when they do, they'll form extremely quickly. Of course, hard to back it up. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/21/2008 8:26:31 PM |
I've been in climate discussion for a good 5 years, and never have I ever once seen the claim that greenhouse gasses cool the air temperatures... If you've got something to back it up, please do share, as you're contrary to.. well.. everything.
The lack of actual physics pretty well sums up the AGW movement. Your experience is the norm as few people are actually capable of understanding physics and any effort to inject reality is subject to attacks on ethics etc. Almost everyone chanting the AGW dogma has little understanding of physics to the level to understand the problems with the AGW theory. Many are celebrities between stints in rehab while others are politicians and ground floor investors in "carbon credit" trading. The few true climatologists behind the theory are basing their theory on coincidental data. Most have a bias against the evil "big oil". None seem to have in depth understanding of the physics of the infrared characteristics of CO2 behind the "green house" concept. You can choose to reach for understanding yourself or you can choose to repeat chants about something beyond your understanding. If you like anecdotal evidence, there are others posting such evidence refuting the theory. I will stick to my area, the physics itself.
I have been involved in environmental efforts for decades. If I felt the concept was sound, I would be all for it. I set out to understand it with a skeptical point of view because of the people who stand to gain from the fear mongering. I am about as far from ignorant about the physics as anyone. The deeper I dug, the more problems I found. The very term "green house gas" is terribly wrong. That begs the question, why use the term when even those with enough knowledge to understand it and support the AGW theory, admit that the gas in a green house has nothing to do with its temperature? I would suggest the misleading term is used to mislead.
If you want proof, I suggest you read my posts on the subject. Note that at no time did I cite some statistical analysis. I used straight forward discussion of physics. The discussions may be a bit complicated particularly concerning the IR spectral absorption of CO2. Basically, CO2 absorbs IR in very narrow bands otherwise being transparent to the bulk of the IR range of the EM spectrum. The basic physics of anything that absorbs IR, will radiate IR the same. If you really want to make something insulated, you prevent the convection movement of gasses and prevent radiation. CO2 will heat through contact with objects just like any other gas but will also absorb some specific wavelengths (colors) of IR light. This allows the CO2 to be slightly more capable of collecting heat from objects. In a green house or any other environment where the gas can move through convection, the gas will move heat. CO2 will radiate its collected heat in its IR color where other gasses will not. In the atmosphere, CO2 is capable of radiating heat into space above clouds that reflect radiated IR back to earth. Since this forum is limited to text, it's difficult to demonstrate all these details.
If you have something about the AGW theory that you feel is beyond question, please let up know so we can discuss it. If you want to know about various "green" technologies, I will help there too. Chances are, I have had some experience with it. I work with green technologies you will probably not see in use for years. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/22/2008 7:14:18 AM | | In all fairness, though, Dave, you might check that quote from Dlugokencky in that article. In it, he says it's too soon to tell whether or not this is a return to the rising trend or some temporary spike. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/22/2008 8:55:37 AM |
The lack of actual physics pretty well sums up the AGW movement.
Sorry Dave, I almost fell of my chair laughing at that. I will admit there is a good section within the GW movement that are sensationalist and fear mongering and they will lack the physics discussion. If you wish to join people that can talk on that level, I'd suggest bringing your input to the Wunderground, Realclimate, or NASA forums.
But I would like to try to understand where you're coming from (keeping in mind that there are several physicists involved in these discussions, and your basics here seem a Highschool level). Just to check.. You can tell me what type of energy the Sun radiates and what type the Earth radiates... Correct? | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/22/2008 10:12:29 AM |
In all fairness, though, Dave, you might check that quote from Dlugokencky in that article. In it, he says it's too soon to tell whether or not this is a return to the rising trend or some temporary spike.
Yup, saw that too. Just wanted to share the most recent data that showed methane was once again on the upswing.
The fact that methane disperses from the atmosphere much more quickly than CO2 makes it more prone to intensity swings. It will be interesting to see what the coming years show.
Dave | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/22/2008 11:06:54 AM | Thanks for the hints, libnoise. I googled all 3 sources and was rather surprise NOT to come up with a better understanding of the relationship between GW and CO2.
All 3 seem to be much more cagey on the topic than most GW fanatics would lead us to believe. Where does Ron Spencer figure in all this? (http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5693).
The real problem I have with the GW factions is POLARIZATION so most people only think along certain lines. As a scientist (though far removed from climatology), I recognize that it takes an awful long time to come up with a proper scientific understanding of anything, with many detours and false starts along the way. I've seen many scientific bandwagons come and go and GW seems to have spawned something which looks like, smells like and feels like one of the biggest I've encountered. Big enough to engage most of the world and most of the governments of the world. Is this bandwagon headed down the right road, or did we miss a key turn because of the blinkers we are wearing? Science never works well when everyone has the same opinion. Especially when that includes PUBLIC opinion. Galileo comes to mind.
The scary thing about all of this is that the CO2 fuss may be distracting us from the REAL issues involved.
Global temperature fluctuations aren't new. Climatologists accept they happen. Environmental changes aren't new. The standard response for ANY organism is to adapt. Maybe that thought should at least be a backup plan. Failing that, provide a map of the world's beaches to help people keep their heads buried in the sand.
The one thing that REALLY puzzles me about the CO2 hype is where all of that fossil fuel carbon came from in the first place. Wouldn't have been the atmosphere would it? That really knocks down the credibility of all those "we're killing the planet" types.
The highest probability for global warming is a result of many, probably interacting systems where fixing just one isn't going to solve much at all. We need people to be looking at the BIG picture, not just focussing on an isolated corner. What about oceanic pollution? Altering the balance of life in our oceans, but perhaps more significantly altering the depth to which sunlight penetrates and heats? How does agriculture, deforestation, urban development alter the 'color' of our planet and modify energy transfer? What about water? Carbon fuels add as much water as CO2. Has that added as much water as the hypothesized global warming?
By all means investigate CO2, take economic advantage of it, but for goodness' sake, don't diminish other efforts as a result of this misguided self-satisfaction. The 'crisis' for humanity doesn't seem to be taken taken seriously in money terms. It's hard to get concrete figures, but the US govt. still spends ~twice as much on medical research as it does on all other research combined. Presumably they think illness is a bigger impact on humans than global warming. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/22/2008 1:49:02 PM | If you don't like the simplification of the physics, I would suggest you take it to some other forum than a dating site. Please wear seat belts to stay in your chair if the ride is too rough for you.
The sun radiates in a wide EM spectrum with visible light bringing most of the energy the earth receives to its surface. One could speculate that our eyes evolved for this part of the spectrum because of the available light. Creatures, such as some snakes, do have some IR vision sensors but the physics of IR limit their structure and resolution in the same way the physics limit man made IR instruments. Because the earth is relatively cold, its radiation to space is in the IR range. The CO2 absorption/radiation "fingerprint" consists of spikes within the IR range but by no means does it cover the whole of the IR range. To the rest of the spectrum, including the IR part of the spectrum, CO2 is transparent. The sun also sends particles our way that effect cloud formation. Let's consider than later.
Since you like to test me, I would suggest you note how the rate of night time cooling is impacted by cloud cover. Secondly, note how low temperatures are limited by dew points also. Interesting how CO2 does not enter in these daily extreme variations in temperatures. The daily cloud cover is much like a green house in that the clouds REFLECT radiated heat to maintain surface temperatures. In opposition to this, daytime clouds reflect much of the higher energy visible light producing cooler temperatures if cloud cover is dominant in the daytime. It seems that the green house model has a lot more in common with clouds as they more closely simulate the glass of a green house. Pretty basic stuff. Does it need some pedantic explanation or massive grants to take what amounts to statistics "proving" this as some coincidence? Perhaps you should consider what this funding pays for. Would these people have jobs and prestige if AGW was disproven? Don't forget the profit and power motives of the politicians and carbon credits investors in AGW or the motives of those making a killing from the movies etc. How does it stack up against the motives of those evil big oil companies funding people like me. I guess the check is in the mail.
If you have some specific questions about anything I have discussed concerning AGW, by all means, ask it. I have tried to bring it down without oversimplifying it to the point of being wrong. The most difficult part to simplify concerns the "color" spectrum of infrared light (radiant heat) and the "fingerprint" of CO2 in this spectrum. Basically, this fingerprint is a very specific color where CO2 is otherwise transparent. In this color and only this color, CO2 will absorb and/or radiate light. Otherwise, CO2 is just like any other gas and is quit capable of transporting heat through convection. The glass of a green house prevents convection cooling and reflects most IR and that is why a geeen house is warmer than ambient. The only impact CO2 has in a green house is to reduce the green house heating through simple convection and as a necessary component for plant growth. Quite the opposite of some warming component. If one has any broader perspective, beyond the basic science, to human motivations, one should ask why this misleading term "green house gas"? The profit and power motives along with job security and prestige are ample motive to mislead the public by continuing to use this term. Its misleading and used to mislead for power, profit, and prestige. I guess, since this topic is debated on a dating site, one could argue it's for that old motive of sex too. As for food and hunger, a big motivator, that is a different story. The track record of ethanol mandates, born from the AGW political activism, clearly don't improve food supplies while increased CO2 does increase plant growth and therefor food production. One could argue the AGW movement is in favor of third world starvation and the war and unrest accompanying it all for their personal profit.
Am I supposed to be intimidated by physicists or bureaucracies like NASA? As an engineer, I apply physics in a whole range of designs. Some involve IR night vision equipment for police and military. One might think I actually know a little about the IR spectrum. The difference between an engineer and pure scientist is that an engineer's "truth" and compensation is determined by how his applied physics performs what it was in theory designed to do. The pure scientist only has to publish papers who's performance is determined by a vote and compensation determined by political whim. When the public is manipulated to fear some future doom scenerio and the politicians stand to gain fortunes and power through the future gloom and doom prognostications, what should be the expected result? The only thing missing in this power grab is some dehumanized evil, can you say "big oil"? | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/22/2008 2:15:32 PM | OK Dave,
I admit up front I don't have the science expertise you do. But two points come to mind.
First, as the greenhouse gas theory has been explained over and over again to me, it's not that CO2 or any other gasses have much of an effect in a real greenhouse, but that the glass itself allows in more heat than it allows to escape. As I understand it greenhouse gasses do the same in the atmosphere, allowing sunlight into the planet that warms the surface, and then reflecting some of that heat back to the planet. Are you saying this is false? Please check out this link:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
and identify the faulty science that has been developed over the past century, in your view.
At this point in my life, I feel so starved of physical intimacy that yes, I would contemplate being with anyone who wanted to be with me. I also will date anyone who wants to date me.
Secondly, leaving aside GW for the moment, what about the measured increase in ocean acidity attributed to increased CO2 in the atmosphere? We can argue how warm it is or isn't getting or going to get and how much of that is attributed to human activity, but the oceanic concern seems like a better example of application of real data from real observations and solid physics. What's your take on that?
Dave | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/22/2008 2:23:26 PM |
Are you saying this is false?
Actually I think other-Dave correctly pointed out the importance of convection here. In the greenhouse heat loss through convection doesn't happen, whereas on Earth it obviously does. The CO2'ers aren't going to rush to model these effects any time soon.
what about the measured increase in ocean acidity attributed to increased CO2 in the atmosphere
Again, a misnomer. Ocean "acidity" hasn't increased; the ocean is slightly less alkaline, by a very small amount (possibly within the bounds of an acceptable statistical error). There's a big difference between being slightly less alkaline and being more acidic, at least in terms of marketing and spin! | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/22/2008 2:37:09 PM | Dave,
In a previous post some time ago, I speculated that ocean current ice melting and the warming cycle of the polar regions would cause some tundra thaw and decay resulting in increases of CO2 and CH4. This type of release could impact the measured CO2 in ice core samples that have been used to prove CO2 actually caused the warming. Since the ice core time resolution is not accurate enough to really pin down which leads the other, I would say the score is pretty much even. Some here have indicated the data says the warming leads the CO2 levels and therefor CO2 warming is disproven but I will leave that as anecdotal coincidence just like the anecdotal coincidence "proving" AGW.
As for "temporary" spike, sorry, this is way too simple. In the cyclic nature of the systems of planet earth, there are a great many forcing components resulting in a wide range of cycle frequencies. Transient single events also impact these cycles. The relative and absolute phases and amplitudes of these cycles at any specific observation point make trend analysis confidence very low. This has not stopped the AGW people extrapolating future temperature swings to an accuracy of under 1%. As an engineer with several patents in measurement systems that specifically deal with time and frequency domain in multiple dimensions, I find this confidence in their calculations sadly laughable. But then they don't have to prove their work, only get it published and funded. The more frightning, the more funding.
Quiet, I have addressed one of your questions in another post. I am afraid you are correct in your concern over society's priorities.
| |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/22/2008 5:52:16 PM | Msg 241
The real problem I have with the GW factions is POLARIZATION so most people only think along certain lines. As a scientist (though far removed from climatology), I recognize that it takes an awful long time to come up with a proper scientific understanding of anything, with many detours and false starts along the way. I've seen many scientific bandwagons come and go and GW seems to have spawned something which looks like, smells like and feels like one of the biggest I've encountered. Big enough to engage most of the world and most of the governments of the world. Is this bandwagon headed down the right road, or did we miss a key turn because of the blinkers we are wearing? Science never works well when everyone has the same opinion. Especially when that includes PUBLIC opinion. Galileo comes to mind.
Nope. The whole problem is that this “polarization” is what is only hoped for by contrarians. Most people (if not all) in this discussion that are PRO CO2 mechanism are prudently skeptical. Things aren’t “believed” just because some celebrity says so, or some paper suggests a trend. It’s about corroboration and credibility. When there is enough of it, the probability of coincidence diminishes significantly. How protagonists practice prudent skepticism is evidenced in how they logically examine assertions (even the suspiciously contrived ones).
Furthermore, they explain their position and largely avoid name-calling and other less-than-admirable methods of “discussion” (For instance, you will not see The Collective just popping in to making fun of another poster’s moniker or making specious references to religion, or unsolicited disparagement of academia in lieu of answering a clear request… we are pretty sure the “answer” to all this by some is just to call those they cannot logically debate as “trolls” LoL). There isn’t anywhere near a parity in composition or composure.
Jumping on a bandwagon? Nope. What either Al Gore or OISM says is weighted by their respective coefficients of credibility (just as opinions are). The science is still the science. The observational record is still the observational record. Politics is still self-serving and largely used to deflect attention from the science and the observational record. Discussing the applicability of the atmospheric CO2 green house gas effect does not mean people do not consider other mechanisms.
Msg 241
The scary thing about all of this is that the CO2 fuss may be distracting us from the REAL issues involved. Global temperature fluctuations aren't new. Climatologists accept they happen. Environmental changes aren't new. The standard response for ANY organism is to adapt. Maybe that thought should at least be a backup plan. Failing that, provide a map of the world's beaches to help people keep their heads buried in the sand.
The real issue has been, and still is, the best possible quality of human life, and barring that the continuance of human life (it doesn’t even have to include being on this planet). Changes to the earth’s climate that negatively impact our condition is worthy of investigation and subsequent action. If there is a link between accelerated inputs and the climate, and if these inputs are within the control of humankind, it is entirely a worthwhile venture.
Fluctuations and environmental changes aren’t new. Of course, but this is just an obfuscation of the fact that fluctuations and environmental changes due to accelerated and man-made inputs are probably not a good thing. We can adapt against many things, but is not altering our planetary stewardship an adaptation in itself? On the notion of accelerated inputs… decelerating at 1g is not a big deal, but decelerating at 20g may have dire effects on internal organs. Sure our bodies may eventually adapt… but not in a single generation.
Msg 241
The one thing that REALLY puzzles me about the CO2 hype is where all of that fossil fuel carbon came from in the first place. Wouldn't have been the atmosphere would it? That really knocks down the credibility of all those "we're killing the planet" types.
Nope. This is just an attempt to hide the fact that the process that placed all the CO2 in its present state DID NOT occur at anywhere near the same rate as it’s current re-introduction into the atmosphere (or if it did, there were likely dire consequences at the time too). It also hides the fact that such a concentration of CO2 (or any other currently trace constituent for that matter) likely did not support a similar eco-system. Other eco-systems probably could exist (even very abundant ones), but it is doubtful that natural processes can mutate that quickly. So… “knock down credibility”?… not so much.
Incidentally, it’s probably pretty hard to kill off nature with the current inputs. Some avatars of it? Yes. Stopping nature as a whole? Doubtful. However, it’s a whole lot easier to reduce the quality of life for our future generations.
Msg 241
The highest probability for global warming is a result of many, probably interacting systems where fixing just one isn't going to solve much at all. We need people to be looking at the BIG picture, not just focussing on an isolated corner.
The entire engine is absolutely a combination of interdependent factors. However, fixing the unnatural inputs is probably a good start. Just “fixing” the rapid introduction of CO2 isn’t where it stops either. We DO look and address the big picture. For instance, better waste management doesn’t stop because of better emission management. They are separate initiatives (although both are to achieve the same goal of a better quality of life).
Msg 241
What about oceanic pollution? Altering the balance of life in our oceans, but perhaps more significantly altering the depth to which sunlight penetrates and heats? How does agriculture, deforestation, urban development alter the 'color' of our planet and modify energy transfer?
Yes. We should look at all these issues (and we probably are). Of course, that doesn’t mean we don’t deal with accelerated re-introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Msg 241
What about water? Carbon fuels add as much water as CO2. Has that added as much water as the hypothesized global warming?
Yes. This is part of ongoing studies. H2O has probably had less focus as the current natural process doesn’t leave re-introduced H2O in the atmosphere anywhere near the timeframe of CO2. Also, the green house gas model shows the major concern to be at altitudes where CO2 concentration is the issue. This should not be construed to mean that albedo and infrared absorption by H2O is not to be factored. That is another area of focus.
Msg 241
]By all means investigate CO2, take economic advantage of it, but for goodness' sake, don't diminish other efforts as a result of this misguided self-satisfaction. The 'crisis' for humanity doesn't seem to be taken taken seriously in money terms. It's hard to get concrete figures, but the US govt. still spends ~twice as much on medical research as it does on all other research combined. Presumably they think illness is a bigger impact on humans than global warming.
Have other efforts been diminished because of the focus on the reduction of CO2 inputs into the atmosphere? It is a common ploy to say that a dollar spent on one thing automatically eliminates the dollar spent on another (as if anything deemed immediately more important gains 100% of the budget from anything less). The truth is that the balance sheet for any governing body will be budgeted to as many things as possible, and will be apportioned based on what has a better return (or at least that is the hope). Certainly, if one feels that the proportions of dollars spent on Climate Change is too high, they can certainly get actively involved in government to change those policies.
The crises resolved by medical research are far more immediate than climate change. This is probably why more money is apportioned to it (although, it’s probably more an ROI thing). However, it is specious to assume that an outstanding difference in dollars spent on medical research means that the government doesn’t think climate change is an issue. There’s plenty of money spent on food too (a pretty immediate concern every 4 hours or so for The Collective).
Taking economic advantage? That’s human nature, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the current mechanism of atmospheric CO2 green house gas effect actually happens as modeled.
You have engaged the B0rg
“Resistance is Futile”
(LoL, let’s see if any contrarian can reply without resorting to personal attack, petty dismissal or name-calling…) | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/22/2008 6:35:16 PM | I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but people interested in the climate-change-science-being-settled debate should read the Deniers by Lawrence Solomon.
He's investigated many of the issues and supposed causes of global warming by interviewing experts in several fields. Many scientists disagree with the way the science was handled by the IPCC, which puts their research results into question.
It's extremely well written and opened my eyes to the other side of the debate (I used to be convinced that it was the CO2 that was causing our climate to warm and change). I haven't completely stopped believing it, but now I would not be surprised if other factors weren't as equally or more involved in GW and also wouldn't be surprised if our earth cools down now.
In terms of the lowering of the pH of the oceans, this is what scares me. Our oceans, when warm, release CO2 and when cool, absorb CO2. CO2 causes the pH to drop and certain ocean species can't tolerate that change. Right now our oceans are warm so in theory they are releasing CO2, yet the CO2 absorption is higher because of the increased CO2 in our atmosphere. Imagine if the solar scientists are correct and the earth begins to cool. In that case, the oceans will absorb even more CO2.
Quiet John...I agree with you; you can't just focus on one variable in a multi-variable equation. All the variables must interact with each other, and no climate-change model could possibly be sophisticated enough to account for all of the variables (even if they were known and I seriously doubt that they are) | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/22/2008 7:00:46 PM | Uh-oh, Dave (wvwaterfall), with the return of the borg, it's the end of the civil scientific discussion. Unless a new leaf's been turned since the mass deletion of posts on this thread. In any case, I'll agree with you as to the fact that it will be interesting to see what the coming years indicate.
Continuing with the scientific discussion, I'll bring up another sub-topic related to AGW. Another supposed ominous impact that global warming is supposed to bring is the rise in sea levels to the point of endangering islands and coastal cities. According to the dire predictions, sea level is supposed to be accelerating with global warming (allegedly due to human greenhouse emissions).
But is it? Well, not according to the science that has come out the last few years. Most who believe in the AGW advocate position that global warming is causing an acceleration of sea level rise cite satellite altimetry readings, which basically say that sea level rise is about 3 mm per year since 1993 (in fairness, the IPCC says it's unclear whether this represents a longer term trend or a short term fluctuation).
But recent research in the scientific journals indicates this is not the case. Holgate reported in his paper that sea level rise was slower in the SECOND half of the 20th century than the first. Woppelman et al. reported that sea level rise is about 1.35mm/yr, even less than that of tide guage readings from previous studies. Berge-Nguyen et al. reported similar findings from multi-source analysis; in fact, their data shows a decline in sea level in the eighties.
Interestingly, the claims that sea level rise is a concern have been quite exaggerated. There has been no acceleration of sea level rise, despite alleged increasing greenhouse driven climate change. This is one fear that need not frighten anyone.
References:
Holgate, On the decadal rates of sea level change in the twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, doi: 10.1029/2006FL028492 (2007)
Woppelman et al., Geocentric sea level estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide guages world-wide. Global and Planetary Change, 57: 396-406 (2007)
Berge-Nguyen et al., Reconstruction of past decades sea level using thermosteric sea level, tide guage, satellite altimetry, and ocean reanalysis data. Global and Planetary Change, 62, 1-13 (2008) | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/22/2008 8:22:47 PM | At least Borg has not resorted to personal attacks but also has not contributed any substantive arguments or refuted any of the physics I have laid out explaining some of the problems with the AGW theory. The label "contrarian" could be construed as a derogatory label but we can give it the benefit of the doubt. Again, note that my arguments have not been based on anecdotal observations but on physics itself. This is a direct correlation of cause and effect based on physical properties of gasses, EM absorption, emission and reflection, densities, convection etc. These do not require a vote to be considered science. If there is some flaw in this analysis, I welcome any argument to refute the basic physics. Some have said the physics are high school level yet still no refutation of it. I don't consider observations of coincidental effects as refuting physics unless there is some direct physical relationship based on the laws of physics. There are far too many undocumented and probably some unknown forcing functions that could be involved in the observations to use them to disprove the laws of physics.
I have addressed motives for the AGW theory, its promotion, and the attacks on the ethics of anyone who finds fault with the theory. Putting profit and power motivated individuals on some moral pedestal above temptation just because they have some support from others with similar motives is foolish. Many people take the AGW theory as a religious belief attacking all non-believers as blasphemers even though the basic physics are not that hard to understand if only they were open minded enough to consider it. Its hardly different from evolutionists vs creationists. To a great many people, AGW is a religion requiring sacrifice etc. in its name. It has its human sins, holy scriptures etc. It even has a satin in big oil.
As for quality of life on this scum covered ball of magma, consider the political actions from the AGW activism so far. Ethanol mandates are of dubious value and have resulted in reduced food surpluses previously used to feed famine in the third world. The president of India has labeled it a crime against humanity. The increased crop cycles have resulted in vast expansions of the dead zones around major river outlets. These are a result of algae blooms that die off in the next phase of the crop cycle. The decay of the algae and dead sea life absorbs the Oxygen in the water to produce CO2. And all along, the AGW movement claims the CO2 is from fossil fuels! The dead zone in the gulf from the Mississippi will son be 80,000 square miles. Expanded clearing of rain forests are also a direct result of the ethanol mandates. So what is wrong with cutting CO2 just in case? If we assume we are naturally transitioning into a period of climate transition that will reduce our ability to grow food, shouldn't we do what we can to increase food production where we can? Increased CO2 in the atmosphere will directly increase plant growth therefor our ability to grow food. Reducing CO2 will have to opposite effect. Then again, thawing tundra and its decay may boost CO2 levels anyway just as it may have happened during previous warming periods causing scientists bend on proving AGW to conclude ice core CO2 records of such increases caused the warming.
So borg, do you have anything of substance to discuss with us contrarians or is "polarization" still our fault for not chanting in unison? Somehow, I had the impression that science was open to disagreement and discussion while religion has a dogma requiring only belief. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 8/22/2008 9:45:52 PM |
I have addressed motives for the AGW theory, its promotion, and the attacks on the ethics of anyone who finds fault with the theory. Putting profit and power motivated individuals on some moral pedestal above temptation just because they have some support from others with similar motives is foolish.
I might be naive but I really believe that most of the people who believe that CO2 increases are linked with global warming are passionate about the well-being of our planet and are not in it for the power or money.
In the 80s when I went to university, the environmentalists believed that CO2 increases were warming the earth; I heard that theory in both biological and climatological courses that I took.
Al Gore was spawned from those same types of people, where his indoctrination was seeded and his passion was born, but unfortunately he became a politician and used political methods to drive home this CO2 message to the public rather than the methods of a scientist. Whereas a researching scientist would investigate new evidence and reformulate current theories, Gore has stuck to a science he learned in the 70s, and I truly believe that he is so set in his beliefs that he will not listen to any countering ideas. And this is where he steps over the lines of science and enters into the ways of a politician.
Gore apparently accused his own mentor, the man who founded and taught him about the CO2 theory, to be senile, when later in life this man stated that CO2 is one aspect in global warming, but that there were other factors that would also need to be monitored to see what the overall effect would be on our earth's climate.
Perhaps scientists might take Gore with a grain of salt but the general public and susceptible school children take him quite seriously and public opininion matters to the government. This is where I agree with you AhoythereDave: once the government decides to get on a band wagon, then they fund the researchers who are studying one particular theory, in this case CO2 and its effect on GW. Then, the results of these studies become our scientific literature.
I might be off on this, but the fact that we so heavily fund CO2 research might be the reason that so many global warming believers accuse "deniers" of cherry-picking their studies on which they base their beliefs, but since there is little funding for GW studies beyond CO2, no wonder the deniers need to cherry pick
Interesting about the algae blooms in the ocean increasing the CO2 content. I was not aware of that. Even so, there is a lot of CO2 in our atmosphere right now and if our earth cools our oceans could be in a lot of trouble. | |
|
|
| Page 10 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
