Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Science of Global Warming      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 81
view profile
History
The Science of Global WarmingPage 4 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

As for an open public prize for a challenge to the IPCC report, what is biased or unfair about that? If the very same challenge come from Al Gore, would it be so ridiculed?


Yes it would, and so it should be. It's one thing to offer a prize for the best new electric car battery or the first privately funded spaceship. It's quite another to offer payment for a particular interpretation and then cite the result as unbiased science.

As for what the scientific method is and isn't, wikipedia offers an excellent overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Peer_review_evaluation

It's too long of a read to post here, but in all fairness offers support for both your assertions and mine. The advantages and pitfalls of peer review are covered. And it's far easier to control all variables in a lab than it is when your 'lab' is the entire planet, but the basic principles still apply.

Where you and I differ is whether the hypotheses represented by mainstream climate science have adequately applied the scientific method. From my perspective it seems as though you think someone proposed that human activity impacts the climate and everyone else has just nodded their heads in approval since, converting to the new-found 'religion' without applying the scientific method to test that hypothesis every possible way. If I'm not capturing your thoughts correctly please correct me.

I've witnessed a steady revision of climate science that continues to this day, with ample scrutiny and replication of results. Satellite data discrepancies, accounting for missing CO2, and historical and modern temperature records have been examined and re-examined, data revised and conclusions adjusted accordingly. Sunspots, water vapor, volcanos, the urban heat island effect, natural cycles, the medieval warm period, the Holocene Climatic Optimum, other planets, historic lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature, and Mann's hockey stick have been the subject of intense study, debate, experiments, re-calculations and where appropriate, revision.

You don't think enough science has been done to justify taking action to minimize negative human impacts on the environment. I do. We both agree, I'm sure, that much more science remains to be done. The question is when we decide there is sufficient scientific justification to change our practices. It doesn't appear that we'll agree on that answer.

Dave
 ThymeKiller
Joined: 2/1/2008
Msg: 83
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/3/2008 6:31:22 AM
Yes I've thought about the CO2 numbers and they seem to match what would be the norm after a mini-ice age event.

I've seen defense of the "Hockey Stick" over and over and it's refutation was the reason I started doubting the whole climate change paradigm. When My college professor taught me about the imbalance of carbon I wondered why clouds weren't taken into consideration as a negative feedback. But now I realize the science isn't mature enough to even consider the whole system.

I have yet to see a credible defense of the "Hockey Stick". I have yet to see an unbiased "peer review". What I have seen is vociferous denunciations of any evidence refuting Anthropogenic global warming.

What I'm more inclined to believe is the environmentalist have come up with a way to stifle capitalism with fearmongering. Why else would the communists commit to the reduction of carbon energy in the west and not in their own countries?
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 84
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/3/2008 11:32:27 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/climatechange/unreport-2007.html

A good primer.

Thyme..you havent researched enough. You dont have the background to critically analyse your thoughts or your professors thoughts. Please, read some more before you introduce your pointless doubting Thomas arguments. But then your comments are based on some conspiratorial theory about why communists want us to have climate change regulation. This shows you the kind of opinions that are out there on the side of climate change debunking.

Climate change debunkers are being championed by the Oil lobby, the same PR teams who advised us that tobacco does not cause cancer have been retained by Bush and now Steven Harper, to protect our precious manufacturing sector. Climate change debunkers share bed space with people who believe that communists are taking over the world by having us regulate emissions. Climate change debunkers share bed space with the Fraser Institute and other "think tanks" who are funded by big petrol.

If you are a climate change denier, you have strange bedfellows.
 ThymeKiller
Joined: 2/1/2008
Msg: 85
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/3/2008 12:39:55 PM
Peace you haven't a clue about my background or credentials and thankyou very much you can shove your opinions up your @ss. Our precious manufacturing sector keeps you employed to spread your specious lies.

If you had a clue you'd do more research about your posting than what you've already shown. I've posted the MIT refutation of the Hockey Stick and I've studied the raw data on CO2 interaction with atmospheric temperatures. Have you?

I've had peer reviewed studies and I know how science politics works. Do you?

I've also seen how academics who live in ivory towers oppose oil drilling for any reason what-so-ever and support the reduction of the human race for the good of the planet.

What I haven't seen is credible support for the hockey stick. The so called proof that the world is warming at the greatest rate in history. Any proof Peace? I didn't think so. You're hot air.lol
 ZeroSpazz
Joined: 1/31/2008
Msg: 87
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/3/2008 6:02:52 PM

Main cause of starvation is guess what?

No food.


Great quote Gottalight, made me spit out my beer.

Have to say I am not that into the concept but I will have to go along with Ahoytheredave as being the one that reflects my thoughts best. Seems to me however that for the last few months I have been hearing more and more about Solar variations and cycles and how that effects the climate. I did read that most of the current climate models that indicate climate change are based on observations of a fixed solar input rather than a variance of any sort. New data, which really isn't all that new but more accepted, seems to be showing rather large cycles in solar activity. Its almost as if the scientific commuity is doing one of these, "Whoops, we forgot to adjust for some variables and we need new data on climate change."
Kind of glad too, because it is an election year and this has taken a back seat to most issues. Recent polls suggest that most people really aren't buying it either. Now if they want to use it as a kick in the pants to help us get the ball rolling on alternative fuels thats fine. But I'm not going to help go around and stick cork's up cows behinds because cow farts are destroying the ozone.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 88
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/3/2008 8:26:05 PM

Climate change debunkers are being championed by the Oil lobby.....

As I said, the AGW religion resorts to attacking the funding of anyone who questions their dogma. No oil lobby has ever funded me. I pay high prices for gas in my economy car just like Al Gore pays for luxury jet, only he is more able to afford it. He has a cult following. In other threads, I have pointed out how AGW driven political activism has led to such actions as ethanol mandates that have resulting in expanded crop cycles killing huge areas of sea life with the resulting algae blooms. The killing is a result of the algae dying and decaying depleting oxygen in the water in a process that produces CO2 and CH4. Now we have the same people talking about how man made CO2 in the oceans is killing the coral. Good job boys. The farming expansion is accelerating the cutting of rain forests and the competition with food crops has reduced available food stocks to alleviate famine. Sorry if I'm not impressed by this type of environmentalism.

I have presented analysis of the CO2 in the atmosphere demonstrating how the basis of the AGW theory is itself flawed. I have presented analysis of polar region ocean currents and how those would have characteristics of ice melt exactly like that observed. I have presented analysis of glacial melt rates explaining why the melt behaves as observed. Not one of these has been refuted. I am anxious to have this scientific discussion but so far, the AGW believers seem mute.

In the history of life on this scum covered ball of magma, a side effect of this life has been a gradual reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the past, with an atmosphere rich in CO2, the planet was teaming with life. It is for that reason we have fossil fuels. Life is harder now that plants are more stressed to make the sugars they and we need to survive. What does this imply? Is there no critical thinking? Maybe the OP really wasn't asking for a science discussion.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 89
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/4/2008 7:00:31 AM
Look for a movie from the Hollywood crowd featuring a world covered with water and evil tobacco and oil abusers.........oh wait, we already had one. Its easy to confuse its "science" with that of Gore's movie. The above earlier post clearly shows the public confusion.
 ThymeKiller
Joined: 2/1/2008
Msg: 90
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/4/2008 9:51:19 AM

Look for a movie from the Hollywood crowd featuring a world covered with water and evil tobacco and oil abusers


WaterWorld?
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 91
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/4/2008 10:38:50 PM
to anybody who took the time to read this unfocused rant thanks and feel free to take it to me point for point at ...


I tried. My email bounced from the address you cited, so here it is here:

You asked for a detailed response to your rant on POF, so here you go. I'm just giving you my off-the-top-of-my head response for now, but if you want links on any of the specific points just lemme know and I'll pass them along.

The supreme court says....... God help us all we know the supreme court has made so many good decisions before. I was also unaware that you had to be a scientist to be a member of the supreme court


I initially only mentioned the Supreme Court in passing, as an example of an unlikely group to have also supported the concept of CO2 as pollution. When pressed for detail, I provided it. I don't in any way consider them to be the ultimate authority on science.

I would also like to point out that in the midst of global warming that will destroy us in no time we are enjoying a very cool summer here on the east coast.


Local weather has almost nothing to do with global trends. That's like trying to predict the ten year stock market trends based on how one stock performed on one day. You won't hear me claiming global warming will destroy us in no time, nor will hear any reputable scientist say that. The worst impacts are decades away still. Unless there are dramatic new developments none of us know about yet.

Oh and where are all the hurricanes? After Katrina every meteorologist in the country claimed 06 would give us devastation like we've never seen.What happened?


Name one climate scientist who blamed Katrina on global warming. I doubt
you can. Increased frequency and/or intensity of hurricanes is a very uncertain aspect of climate change, and even those who predict one or the other don't expect those changes for a couple of decades at least. As for annual hurricane outlooks those are made by a whole different group than the climate change scientists.

I agree that we should take every step to lower emissions or better yet find another source of energy. But how is it that all of these politicians that say Americans are wast full and need to learn to conserve now say we need to raise the gas tax because
Americans are using less??


That's a different issue than global warming, but since our highway fund is funded through gas taxes, if we buy less gas we either have to let our roads and bridges eteriorate more than they already are or find more money somewhere. Lots of possible answers to that one.

And how in Shakespeare's time English wine was the best know to Europe? They can't even grow grapes in England today. Why? Because their climate is not warm enough.


Yeah, well, there's a lot of evidence to the contrary on that one. I'll go ahead and give you that link:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/

Look let's all work together to fix the things we can, and if you really believe that global warming is a threat then you need to write a letter to good ol Al Gore and tell him that taking private jets all over the place and letting his limos Idle with the air blasting for hours at a time while he tells us all that we need to change and conserve really hurts your case.


You've got a valid point there, but what Al Gore does or doesn't do or say has nothing to do with whether climate change is indeed a real concern or not. I was actively involved in climate change policy discussions before Al Gore ever made a movie, and in fact had a small part in a different climate change movie that came out the same time his did, but that was full of actual experts talking rather than a self-appointed spokesperson. My bit of expertise in that flick was how to get 100 mpg out of my prius, which doesn't happen by idling with the air conditioning blasting.

The reality is that Americans are starting to conserve. Do you know what happens in Maryland when people conserve enough electricity that it is noticeable? Your Democratic Governor lets you utility double your rate so that it's profits are not hurt!!!!


That's messed up. I like the idea of charging us the way corporate clients are charged - on a sliding scale based on time of day and overall demand. The more supply, the less demand, the less we'd pay.

So if co2 is a pollutant then we should all commit suicide because well....we all expel it from our body's! But before we go we should kill every breathing thing on earth to ensure it's future. lets not forget to plug up all the volcanos to.


For thousands of years we maintained a relatively constant CO2 concentration in our atmosphere because we were essentially a closed system - what was breathed out was absorbed by plants and oceans. What we've done is dig up millions of years worth of stored CO2 in fossil fuels and introduced it into the atmosphere. At the same time we've dramatically changed our land use patterns so there are less natural carbon sinks to help balance things out.

Volcanos, btw, emit a fraction of the CO2 of fossil fuel use. And when they do erupt they also send up a bunch of particulate matter, which serves to cool the planet.

Oh and may I mention that our governments way of dealing with these pollutants is to charge for carbon credits and ruin up the price of gas so that working class family's have to decide between paying the power bill or getting to work.


That's all theoretical at this point. There are no government sanctioned carbon credits associated with the price of gas. But face it - the price of gas is just going to continue to rise as we keep increasing global consumption and yet new oil discoveries haven't matched consumption levels in three decades. We've been getting by on what was already discovered before then up until now, but the supply/demand formula is going to keep working against low fuel prices from here on out, with or without any sort of carbon tax.

Lets get real the only reason that our government has decided to back this is because they figured out how to make a killing at it.


No, our government has been dragging its feet compared to the rest of the world. It's not a problem that gets anyone re-elected because they know a whole lot of people will think just like you do on this. That's like saying the government planned 9/11 just so we could increase military spending.

If they cared about the environment my democratic state would make their state run sewage plants stop dumping raw poo into the Chesapeake bay!!!


I agree with you completely on that one.

let me know if you would like more information on any of these points,

Dave
 neopol
Joined: 9/26/2006
Msg: 92
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/5/2008 5:51:05 AM

Name one climate scientist who blamed Katrina on global warming. I doubt
you can. Increased frequency and/or intensity of hurricanes is a very uncertain aspect of climate change, and even those who predict one or the other don't expect those changes for a couple of decades at least. As for annual hurricane outlooks those are made by a whole different group than the climate change scientists.


It happened...thats why we heard about it in the media, & thats why the poster posted it. It may only be a couple of researchers/studies, but you can see the calculated agendist structured spin belowthat fuels this widespread belief by 99.9% of the population:

GHOSTS OF GW PAST:


One especially sobering study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that hurricane wind speeds have increased about 50% in the past 50 years. And since warm oceans are such a critical ingredient in hurricane formation, anything that gets the water warming more could get the storms growing worse. Global warming, in theory at least, would be more than sufficient to do that.


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00.html


GHOSTS OF GW PRESENT:



"Our estimate is that rainfall from Katrina was about 7 percent enhanced by global warming," says Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.


Trenberth's research is augmented by the work of a number of other scientists who are finding evidence that the greenhouse effect, produced primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, is boosting the power of great storms to an alarming degree.


http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/Story?id=1121948&page=1

GHOSTS OF GW FUTURE:


.....Computer simulations do show global warming would produce stronger hurricanes, researchers said.

Computer models projecting the impacts of climate change on the weather suggest that increased sea surface temperatures caused by global warming will lead to more intense hurricanes. Research findings published in the science journal Nature [1] in July suggests that this is already happening.


http://www.world-science.net/othernews/050915_stormfrm.htm


It doesnt end there, either. The ghost lives on in the folowing type of 6-degrees-of-seperation mentality. Not only is Katrina indirectly blamed by some on GW, but its a convenient scapegoat for any future unexplained GW. Smart move....:


Katrina may have accelerated global warming, Tulane researcher says

Posted by The Times-Picayune November 23, 2007 10:46AM
By John Pope
Staff writer

As if Hurricane Katrina's wind and water hadn't inflicted enough damage, a group of researchers led by a Tulane University biologist has found that the monster storm may well have accelerated global warming.

As Katrina roared through coastal forests in August 2005, it destroyed thousands of trees. As those trees decompose, the carbon they release will be enough to offset a year's worth of new tree growth elsewhere in the United States, said Jeffrey Chambers, an assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. The team's report has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Science.

Forests are important adversaries of global warming because they remove carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, thereby lowering the production of carbon dioxide. However, an increase in this compound warms the climate, resulting in more intense storms and, eventually, more trees that will decompose, the scientists found.

Tulane researchers worked with a team from the University of New Hampshire.

http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/about.html
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 93
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/5/2008 8:23:36 AM
For years, storm forcasters had worried about gulf hurricanes passing over gulf stream eddy currents that hold localized warm water reserves. The path of Katrina, a minimal hurricane, took it directly over one of the eddy current pools that was well known in advance. It was when this path was predicted that the alarm was sounded to evacuate New Orleans. The mayor did not follow through on this warning until his family was safely in Dallas and it was too late. When Katrina passed over this energy reserve, it exploded.

It has been centuries of luck that has kept New Orleans a viable city. The area where New Orleans sits depends on soil comming down river to maintain elevation but with navagation modifications, that no longer happens. The city itself prevents redepositing soil anyway so it has been sinking. The Katrina disaster was being created environmentally, politically, and socially long before Katrina formed. The decades of luck ran out and the population that had grown so dependant on government were left to fend for themselves as city buses that could have evacuated them were left parked on low ground.

Other cities in low coastal areas face similar threats but none as bad as New Orleans.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 94
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/5/2008 6:51:52 PM

I hope you're not trying to lump me in with the conspiracy nuts. Name calling never wins a debate.


Sorry, but when you say:


Lets get real the only reason that our government has decided to back this is because they figured out how to make a killing at it.


That sounds very much like accusations of a conspiracy. Especially when just about every elected government in the country, and many non-elected ones, have endorsed the concept of human-induced global warming. That would turn it into a global conspiracy. What I did was point out how your words came across. If you meant something other than a conspiracy to manipulate an unsupported theory into a cash cow, please correct my interpretation.


ok lets see local weather and hurricane frequency have nothing to do with climate change? how is that? If the oceans get warmer won't have have more energy to make more powerful storms??? as far as the scientist I said meteorologist do not twist my words. And I can name one, Marty Bass, if you want to find more who said that just turn on the weather channel.


That's one theory, and someone else already pointed out a climate scientist who tried to quantify the impact climate change had on Katrina. Most are careful whenever there's a single weather event to say that it's impossible to blame any one event on climate change. I've read a lot of studies on the potential for more hurricanes or more intense hurricanes due to warmer water. Certainly the fuel argument makes sense, at least for the intensity aspect, but there is still lively debate over whether frequency will increase, and enough counter arguments about intensity that I take care not to include hurricane arguments in my climate change assertions until the experts come closer to agreement.


We had a full size 4wd pickup in 87 that got 27mpg I can't find one that get better than 20mpg today. Why is that?


Was it rated for that or is that what you actually measured? One reason is that detroit kept putting more and more horsepower into their trucks and cars. The average sedan today has more power than many sports cars of the seventies. And we keep adding more gizmos and gadgets, more weight, and have put a higher premium on creature comforts than fuel economy. It used to be that a truck was designed to be a workhorse. Now it's just a differently shaped SUV that has bigger tires and goes really fast.

Oh, and yes, the planet has many natural cycles. But that doesn't mean human actions can't affect them. Plants live and die, rivers rise and fall, erosion is a natural event. It's pretty well documented that we can significantly impact those events. We do the same with climate.


Did you get 100 mpg out of your prius? Even though we differ on global warming, I have to give you that at least you are doing something about it. I can have a debate with someone who is in fact changing there lifstyle instead of just telling me that I need to.


Yup, sure did, but it was a bit of a stunt. Five of us took turns in the car to go 1400 miles nonstop on one tank and average 110 mpg. Google 'prius marathon' to read all about it. It takes the right conditions, though - a good quality road where people won't mind a car staying between 30 and 40 mph, and hot humid weather without rain.

We did it because at the time there was a lot of hype about how a Prius didn't get the fuel economy people expected out of it. We set out to prove that it isn't just the car, it's how you drive it. I can pretty much duplicate that feat anytime I have those conditions for a while, but the best I've done on my own for an entire tank is 72 mpg. I'm showing 64 mpg on my display right now, over 500 miles into the tank, which is fairly typical summer time performance for me. I drop into the fifties in the winter time, sometimes lower.

I'll try to send you a document I put together on Prius fuel economy tips. A lot of them are specific to the Prius, but skim past those and you'll find some that will work with any car. Obama is catching a lot of heat for promoting one of them - put more air in your tires. All the way up to the sidewall maximum, and check your pressure regularly. It really does work, and improves handling and tire longevity as well. Check your inbox for more.

Dave
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 95
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/5/2008 9:14:01 PM
In all human history, people with power over others almost always try to increase that power. It not a conspiracy, its normal behavior.

The more I research the physics of CO2, the more I find fault with the AGW theory. At the same time, the same observations that are used to strike fear in the public, have natural and man made explanations far more likely than CO2 created warming. The success of the fear campaign may not be a conspiracy but a great many "conspiracies" to profit and gain political power from the fear have been hatched. The natural tendency of those in power to grab more power are served well by public fear no matter what the justification. The vegetarian aspiring artist Hitler had his Jews and the AGW crowd have their evil oil companies conspiring against the public. Following the mold of the Nazi propaganda machine, anyone who disagrees with the party line is part of an oil industry conspiracy. Part of that machine seeks to connect hurricanes to AGW with Katrina the star example. The biggest lesson to be learned from Katrina is to not depend on government yet the AGW folks would make us more dependent on government, not less.




*- The above poster is advised to immediately ratchet down the hyperbole, and lose the "Nazi" comparisons. The poster that followed is correct in pointing out that you have stepped over the line here, and not only on this front. Our forum rules are also quite specific that we don't have patience for the soapboxing of personal conspiracy junk theories either. Keep the debate above board and on topic or you will find your posting privileges swiftly curtailed. If I have to come back to this thread again for this silliness there will be immediate consequences. -TheMadFiddler-*
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 96
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/5/2008 9:55:44 PM
The vegetarian aspiring artist Hitler had his Jews and the AGW crowd have their evil oil companies conspiring against the public. Following the mold of the Nazi propaganda machine, anyone who disagrees with the party line is part of an oil industry conspiracy.


I gotta ask - is Godwin's Law enforced in these forums?


Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.


Just wondering.... If not I'd be happy to respond to the post.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 97
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/6/2008 8:04:28 AM
The purpose behind Godwin's Law is to provide a means to say "enough is enough" when a debate descends into the ridiculous. To compare Hitler's socialism with modern climate science is simply ridiculous.

On a more reasonable level, it's one thing for a business or industry to fund science aimed at improving technology. Building a better mousetrap, a more efficient engine, etc.... In other words, if a company charges a science team with a goal that will give them an edge up on the competition by providing a marketable product or service more profitably, or by introducing a new product, that's legitimate.

But when a tobacco company tasks scientists with proving tobacco isn't harmful, or an oil company funds scientists ONLY if they question AGW, that's lousy science no matter how you look at it. It would be just as flawed for another funding source to only fund science that proved the opposite. It's quite legitimate and necessary to explore the connection between human activities and climate change, but to presume in advance how strong that connection is or isn't goes completely against the scientific method.

So yes, when contrarians cite science paid for under the above circumstances, I reject it and find it pertinent to point out to other readers the connection. It's up to them to form their own judgements.

Dave
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 98
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/6/2008 3:47:31 PM
AGW sceptics remain a small, alienated group who must descend to conspiracy theory, because in short, they have no science to stand on. Like the obnoxious 3 year old who says "why, why, why", no evidence seems sufficient. Time and time again they have been debunked by physicists and climatologists, but instead they cling tirelessly to their beleif that no human activity affects the planet.

As I watch our icecaps melt, our forests lain waste with pine beetles, watch the desertification of the African continent and suck in the morning smog, I cant help but feel a twinge of anger at the AGW sceptics. I have a hard time understanding how denial can reign in such a pressing time.

But I applaud the debate here, and the AGW sceptics, I do respect your input and welcome it. This isnt a thread to cheer on global warming "beleivers", its a thread on the science underlying climate change, and dissenting views are welcomed and appreciated. There are some terrific arguments here, even though i dont accept them prima facie.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 99
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/6/2008 4:25:05 PM
Just for the record, so no one feels their conspiracy was picked on unfairly while others were allowed to remain, I do NOT claim a conspiracy by fossil fuel companies to squelch climate change science.

A conspiracy implies secret collusion, and Exxon and the National Coal Association have been quite open in their opposition to mainstream climate science and their willingness to fund anyone with science credentials who chooses to challenge that science. The rest of the oil industry has taken a much less blatant stance, and BP has been an industry leader urging action on climate change. The natural gas industry has been plugging their status as the 'least carbon' fossil fuel option.

Indeed, one of the most convincing presentations I've seen on anthropogenic climate change was made by an engineer from BP to a group of oil industry experts. That was six or seven years ago, and he wasn't all that well received, but wasn't rejected out of hand either.

A growing number of Exxon stockholders have been vocal in their opposition to Exxon's climate change PR strategies, but not enough yet to pass a resolution to change them. The coal association has softened its approach, pushing 'clean coal' initiatives and geologic carbon sequestration as a way to continue to mine and burn coal without as much impact on the climate, but not long ago they too openly funded contrarian scientists ONLY if they continued to contradict mainstream climate science.

The coal folks will still trot out contrarian science now and then, but their heart doesn't seem to be in it any more. I scratch my head every time I drive by the billboard in Charleston, WV sponsored by a large mining equipment supplier that says simply in large bold letters "YES COAL", and in smaller print below "clean, carbon neutral coal". I keep meaning to call them up and ask them just what carbon neutral coal is, but do note the effort to present coal as a non-contributor to greenhouse gasses, rather than pretending it just doesn't matter anyway.

So no conspiracy theories here. I just think it's worth noting when science is cited that was funded by those quite open about seeking a predetermined outcome.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 100
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/6/2008 4:44:51 PM
Honestly, AGW sceptics aren't against alternative power; indeed we'd give anything to rid ourselves of reliance on unpalatable regimes in Russia (gas) and the Middle East (oil). But the fact of the matter is that Human Technological Progress is dependent on economic growth and at the present moment in time, economies require hydrocarbons.


Leaving AGW aside for the moment, we're essentially in agreement.

We agree on the need to transition to renewable energy.
We agree that we can't just do that today.
We agree that a healthy economy is essential to future progress.

I'm not as pro-nuclear as you are, but acknowledge that nuclear will have to play a role in the next few decades.

Amazingly, I find myself agreeing with of all people Paris Hilton, who in a spoof presidential ad this week suggested that we approve limited offshore oil drilling under strict environmental oversight, and devote a chunk of the proceeds to fund accelerated renewable energy research.

Go ahead and laugh, but that's the sort of integrated transition I support. Yes we need to keep using fossil fuels, but their days are numbered. We should be doing all we can to smooth and accelerate the transition by having our current energy production help set the stage for the cleaner, greener, energy infrastructure to come. We can do that by tapping into fossil fuel profits to fund next-generation energy research.

Dave
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 101
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/7/2008 7:35:27 AM
Fossil fuel profits? The return on investment by the oil companies is actually low compared to most businesses and extremely low when the risks are taken into account. Any additional taxes on this highly taxed commodity will simply be passed on to consumers as are taxes in any commercial enterprize. The taxes then suppress growth. "I" and "O" may be close together on your keyboard but the word is still "Government", not "Givernment". In any taxes, a large percentage of the wealth is skimmed off to pay for the bureaucracy of the skimming within the government and on the part of the payer for the accounting and paperwork. Another overhead skimming occures during payout. The allocation of payout is controled by bureaucrats and politicians. I am not aware of any elected politicians with a strong technical background in alternate energy or a proven track record of innovation. 80% are lawyers, more skilled at getting rich suing people in courts run by fellow lawyers who are getting rich just supporting the law suits. How many trees will need to be cut down to support the paperwork? Worse yet, how will those who do not have the proper political patronage get any of this funding?
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 102
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/7/2008 7:13:34 PM


Well, in a pragmatic sense, if we both end up at the same solution from different starting points, then this discussion is superfluous. My only complaint is the damage being done to the public perception of Science. For example, breaking news on Wahl & Ammann:


Well, there's certainly no shortage of lousy science on the skeptic side of the fence. I've countered a bunch of it in various posts on this topic in different threads. I don't claim all the science supporting AGW has been perfect by any means, but do believe the weight of evidence is strongly on that side.

Regardless, I also feel certain that all the changes in energy practices and shrinking our carbon footprint will yield many multiple benefits unrelated to climate change, and far less negative consequences, other than the standard resistance to change that always happens when policies shift.

We do want the same end result, it seems. So maybe we can shake hands and resolve not to bicker over the reasons for getting there?

Dave
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 103
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/7/2008 9:30:57 PM
The basic premise of AGW is CO2 in the atmosphere causing the warming through it "green house" effect. The term "green house" is in error is several ways. The IR absorption characteristics are wrong for the supposed effect and even this effect is far past saturation meaning any increase will have no effect. Other than coincidence, where has this been refuted?

As for the coincidental yet anecdotal observations often used to "prove" AGW, all have other explanations, mostly natural, some man made. Do you have anything to refute the theories I mentioned? I have yet to see any.

I would suggest the bad science is in the form of bias against "evil" big oil.

"Weight of evidence" if measured in pounds from the publish or parish crowd is still a voting process. That is politics, not science.

Back to the what to do about it becomes the argument. Some of the AGW proponent choices have included such things as ethanol mandates with such an array of environmental damage it can be described as a disaster. The human toll will likely be in the hundreds of thousands and it has been labeled a crime against humanity by the president of India.

What the AGW crowd has brought us is misleading "scientific" labels, poor science, biased observations, environmental destruction, and starvation. The celebrity crowd is sold on it and when they are not in rehab, they campaign for even more. The science of AGW is in the science of selling, not physics.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 104
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/7/2008 10:26:18 PM
I confess that I do not understand the gist of your IR absorption saturation argument. It's tempting to just once again say that I trust all the national science organizations who have endorsed AGW, but I did try to do some research to see what it is you're talking about. Everything I found related to greenhouse effect, IR absorption, and saturation supported the concept of an increasingly threatened planet as CO2 levels rise.

One excellent summary of climate science dating back to the 1800's I found here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

It covers the steady development of climate science, including the mis steps, the gaps in knowledge, and the growing certainty that we're facing unprecedented circumstances due to human activities. It's a good read.

But back to the IR issue - do you have any sources to cite that make your case? Your argument is not one of the standard ones trotted out by other skeptics that I've gotten used to shooting down. I'd like to understand better what you're trying to say.

I won't argue that corn-based ethanol is hard to justify. I was dubious about that strategy from the beginning. But choosing a faulty initial strategy to address a major problem does not negate the need to address the problem. It only makes more urgent the development of better strategies. And the more time we waste debating whether we even need to worry or not, the further behind we get on taking substantive, practical action.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 106
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/8/2008 7:44:35 PM
The other trick you can use is the "edit post" function that appears under your name on a post for about 15 minutes after you make a post. That way if you look at what you just wrote and it didn't come out the way you intended, you can just click on "edit post" and make whatever changes you want.

I use that one a lot.

Dave
 Veiled Inveigler
Joined: 7/16/2008
Msg: 107
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/9/2008 10:12:29 PM

Yes, but it's too bad every quote is transformed into a div tag... quite a pain!


It is, but I've found that if I hit the 'edit' feature and then use the back arrow twice to my original post, I can copy it then go forward again to the 'edit' form and paste everything without retyping the 'quotes' in again. ONLY thing is, you have to be careful, because if you've added any of the emoticons, you have to KEEP them as the img src=http..address. So a bit of playing around.. but still, easily fixed.

Oh gee, and I jumped into the middle of a conversation without reading the thread .. OOPS!! lol ...

 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 108
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/19/2008 9:26:57 AM
It is a shame that this forum does not allow for a graphical explanation of the characteristics of CO2 to explain the problem with the "green house gas" label that biases so many people's understanding of the physics.

Gases are, for the most part, transparent. Due to their molecular structure, at specific "colors" of light, the gasses are not transparent. This is the basis for many instruments' abilities to identify gasses. CO2 has some specific bands at which it absorbs colors in the infrared range that we would feel as radiated heat. Still, for the vast majority of the infrared light range, CO2 is transparent. One basic physical property of anything that absorbes light is that it also radiates that light just as easily. Its not a one way street. When dealing with absorbtion in the infrared range, instruments are challenged because everything around them and their internal parts are radiating infrared light depending on the temperature and its "color". Technologies a couple of hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago were not up to this challenge. It was in this time frame that the "green house gas" concept was born. The label's origin had more to do with plant biology and their association with green houses than physics. It's not only misleading, it implies an effect that is opposite to the physics.

For the second lesson concerning the physics of a green house itself. It is the glass that is responsible for a green house's heat, not any gas that is inside. The gasses that are inside a green house actually help cool the plants, not warm them. The glass REFLECTS a wide spectrum of infrared light keeping the contents of the green house warm. Gasses that are in the green house are warmed by contact by the plants and through convection carry heat to the glass and transfer it. There the glass transfers heat to the outside air but this process is slow. CO2, being able to absorbe some colors of infrared light actually warms more quickly increasing the heat loss through the rest of the convection process. In effect, CO2 has an opposite, although slight, effect from warming! Expanding the green house model to the planet, the closest thing we have to glass is clouds. They do reflect infrared light but they are not "sealed" like glass. Gasses such as CO2 mix freely. The CO2, being an absorber of some colors of infrared light will warm slightly faster than other atmospheric gasses and mix with the atmosphere carrying this heat up beyond the clouds. This is where the radiation effect of CO2 comes into play. It can now radiate its heat to the cold of space. In effect, the CO2 has a slight cooling effect on the planet, not a warming effect!

So how much CO2 is in the atmosphere? Not much and it has been declining ever since life began on this ball of scum covered magma. The processes where CO2 is captured is easily observed in coral reefs but think in terms of a billion years of this process. The process results in limestone now very common in the top layers of our magam scum environment. The chemical formula is CaCo3 due to CO2 being combined in its molecule. In another post, I mentioned the majority of former CO2 in the atmosphere was now trapped in coral reefs. What I meant was the same process of coral reefs has trapped this CO2 in the form of limestone. Most of earth's CO2 (90%+) is now part of this limestone (calcite). So how many of the climatologists are experts in the chemistry of geology and the ancient marine biology that made it? I would even question their ability to conceptualize a billion years. In many science classes, we were taught that there were three main gasses in the atmosphere. Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon Dioxide. The reality is the Argon is more common now the CO2 but probably not by a long shot in the ancient past. The reason we have so much "fossil fuel" is that with the abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere many millions of years ago, life on the scum exploded in wild abandon. It has been declining along with the CO2 that life depends on. Extinction events are simply points in time that have more effect on evolution than abundance. Why didn't the atmosphere incinerate all this life since it was so rich in CO2? The answer is that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere. The infrared absorption "fingerprint" of CO2 takes very little gas to exhibit itself. Within tens of feet, at atmospheric densities, the entire absorption of infrared light that CO2 will absorb is complete. With its free mixing with the atmosphere and radiation of these same bands of infrared light into space, there may actually be a global warming of earth in the past billion years due to the REDUCTION in atmospheric CO2 by life itself in that period.

Is this relative short term global warming real? Most likely true but its ain't got squat to do with CO2. We are living on floating scum on a ball of magma that drifts around. We have a lot of water that does all sorts of things in a whole bunch of cycles both long and short. The physical property of water loosing density as it freezes causes a whole array of wonderful things like floating sea ice. We have salts that disolve in the water changing its freezing temperature and density in even more wonderful ways. These properties result in engines powering massive ocean currents that thrive on ice stored temperature differences depleting them and then waiting for their recharge (ice age) to start again. We are but tiny specks in this vast complex system.

If anyone wishes to argue real physics instead of anecdotal observations, I welcome it. I have yet to see anthing from the AGW religion that is not based on anecdotal observations, although often elaborate, to prove their theory. What is most disturbing is the political power grabs that have resulted and their environmental and human destruction from the politics itself. Cite whatever papers that have been voted by back room bureaucrats as proof all you want. The truth is in the physics, not the politics. You can choose to be one of the herd of "believers" or "denialists" or you can choose to understand the physics for yourself. Why so many choose the former is depressing but I will keep trying.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Science of Global Warming