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
 ConsciousSoul
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 101
view profile
History
The Science of Global WarmingPage 5 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Yes, vapor is a big source of greenhouse effect.
And that effect has always been compensated by basic water cycle: rain.
For thousands of years, this mechanism was and has always been BALANCED.

Now, water vapor is created by heat.
The more heat, the more water vapor in the air. The less heat, the less water vapor in the air. Whatever is the global heating factor that increase the earth warmth, is also responsible for increasing the vapor.

So we are back to CO2. CO2 is responsible for the INCREASE, from a balanced ecology, to an unbalanced, warming ecology. It breaks the balance and as a result, earth's global temperature rises.

Read here:
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/#m18
 Robinson2
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 102
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/27/2008 10:54:36 AM
ConsciousSoul, it only does that in the models, because the models fail to model clouds as a negative feedback. Surely you can see that if clouds are an overall negative feedback the balance is restored?

Where is the warming? CO2 has increased 5% since the 1990's, what's happened to the temperature since the turn of the century?

Stop arguing with computer models and implausible chains of inference and look out of your window!
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 103
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/27/2008 12:09:46 PM
Pardon me if I don't post "biblical" quotes from whatever publish or parish advocate or denialist but its not a religion for me. I want the answers for myself. The most critical issues I see are too complex for extrapolating trends. Water vapor, clouds, and ocean currents are more likely responsible for the observed changes attributed to "climate" changes. A second problem I see with CO2 being a cause is the nature of CO2 and its absorption of IR. As I see it, the entire effect of CO2 absorption of IR occurs in a few hundred feet in an atmosphere miles thick. Increasing CO2 is more like adding layers of paint to an already painted surface. I could see similar arguments in CO2 actually assisting cooling in that the CO2 could act to bypass the reflection of IR by clouds.
As for the models, they are self adjusting weather prediction models. They self adjust by feeding back their own errors over time thus making them better models for weather prediction. They are not unlike specialized data compression algorithms for sound or video. They extrapolate for missing data by modeling what has happened earlier. If they have some faulty term, say CO2 warming added, the self adjusting nature of the algorithms will compensate. Such algorithms are not appropriate for extrapolating outside their time range or outside reasonable limits and so many AGW adherents do just that. In short, the science has been been pushed aside for religious beliefs that serve special interests.
 ConsciousSoul
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 104
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/27/2008 3:37:37 PM
robinson2 said:

Where is the warming? CO2 has increased 5% since the 1990's, what's happened to the temperature since the turn of the century?


I am glad you agree that CO2 has increased, although I haven.t had the chance to validate if your 5% estimate is any good.

However, are you kidding me when you are asking me where is the warming?!?
Have you watched the highest mountain peaks? They dried out. No more eternal snow. Have you heard what's happening to the ice caps? The ice melting? These are facts. You can argue with me that it has nothing to do with the massive pollution and earth destruction performed by the globlized corporations, but don't try to tell me you haven't seen the difference around you? Do you know in Montreal, we ended up with 3 consecutive winters with like 10 degres over zero celcius in february, the month were we used to get -30 degres for the 30 years before that?

Not that it means anything, because global warming is about global, not local.
 MrGoodMan2
Joined: 6/1/2008
Msg: 105
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/27/2008 5:18:23 PM
I agree that the water vapor will rain out, but we are adding the water vapor in a daily process, making the land areas artificially more humid (every day) than they would have been. This man made humidity reduces the heat that is radiated back into space.

Seventy percent of the earth is covered with water. Let’s look at a “Water World” type earth with no land. The humidity created by being 100% ocean would cause the planet’s temperature to increase. We would have very small daily temperature swings, at any location like in the time of Pangaea.
There was no ice caps then and the world was a lot hotter with a stable climate for 10's of millions of years. This alone should tell you. Control water vapour and you control the temperature....but anyway.

What if the earth was 100% land with no open water? The result would be a planet with no humidity, with big daily temperature swings, but with the net effect of having a much colder planet.

The effect of our forcing water into the atmosphere is similar to changing the surface water from 70% to say 75%. It will have and effect on the earths temperature. CO2 is not a factor in these examples and it’s not a major factor in global warming, it's a bit part player.

During the Cretaceous Period the earth was about 80% covered with water and tropical sea surface temperatures may have briefly been as warm as 42 °C (107 °F), 17 °C (31 °F) warmer than at present and deep ocean temperatures were as much as 15 to 20 °C (27 to 36 °F) higher than today's. (Per Wikipedia)

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

-----------------

“CO2 levels are usually invoked to explain Cretaceous warmth and the flat Cretaceous temperature gradient. This makes sense, since the very active mid-ocean spreading ridges might well have been associated with out-gassing of CO2 from deep within the Earth. Unfortunately, the geology of the period and stable carbon isotope records, don't really support the idea as well as they might.”

“Even the most sophisticated quantitative models can't reconstruct the flatness of the Cretaceous temperature gradient. Either our temperature estimates are off, or some important factor is missing from the models. Since dinosaurs and semi-tropical vegetation are known from within 10° of the Cretaceous poles, the problem is likely to be with the theory.”

http://www.palaeos.com/Mesozoic/Mesozoic.htm

Take a look at the temperature vs latitude chart. With the earth being cover 80% with water, the “Water World” type moisture effect was coming into play. IMHO

Since water vapour, heat and CO2 are closely interlinked it is very easy to get confused with whats truely happening.
The trouble with water vapour is that we have no way of discovering historical humidity level data so we wouldn'tbe able to build our models and scientists do like their models. :o)
 Robinson2
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 106
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/27/2008 5:21:36 PM


Have you watched the highest mountain peaks? They dried out. No more eternal snow


I'm not sure about your local conditions; I'm basing my statements on global averages (if such a thing even makes any sense).



have you heard what's happening to the ice caps? The ice melting?


The ice is GROWING. There are seasonal melts around the edges, yes, always presented as a catastrophe, but completely natural. The ice grows back the following winter and over the last few years the actual volume of ice has INCREASED not decreased.



Do you know in Montreal, we ended up with 3 consecutive winters with like 10 degres over zero celcius in february, the month were we used to get -30 degres for the 30 years before that?


And that is proof of anthropogenic global warming how exactly? Did you study the temperature record of Montreal over the last decade? What about the last 100 years? Or the last 1,000? Or even the last 10,000? I thought not. Climate is always changing. It's entirely natural.



has nothing to do with the massive pollution and earth destruction performed by the globlized corporations


Ah. You've let your mask slip. You are an anti-capitalist. Good luck with that.
 MrGoodMan2
Joined: 6/1/2008
Msg: 107
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/27/2008 6:05:17 PM
And to remain on topic, here's some science.

CxHy + (x + (y/4))O2 -> xCO2 + (y/2)H2O

The chemical formula for the burning of hydrocarbons.......Put in a few figures and you will see that you get twice as much water(vapour) as you do CO2
More 'man made' humidity for the equation.

True, it will get rained out but it then travels over land and upto 80% get re-evaporated so the cycle from production to arrival at the sea can take months, all the time we're adding more.

Am I tweaking anyone's logic yet? :o)

If you think about it, if I'm right the solutions would be quite easy and inexpensive for a developed nation.
Massive de-humidifiers leading onto an underground irrigation pipeline network....job sorted.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 108
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/27/2008 6:20:22 PM

Where is the warming? CO2 has increased 5% since the 1990's, what's happened to the temperature since the turn of the century?


Well, let's see. Starting in 2001, each year has been in the top ten warmest years in the last 150.

2001 (7th)
2002 (4th)
2003 (3rd)
2004 (5th)
2005 (2nd)
2006 (6th)
2007 (8th)

And in case you were wondering, 1998 was the warmest year in the last 150, so there's no question that the past ten years have been the warmest decade on record.

My source:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Dave
 nicebluiz
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 109
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 4:39:58 AM
As for the sea ice in the arctic melting, there is some science that says the problem's not simply global warming (Kerr; and Slingo & Sutton). It seems natural factors (such as winds and something called Pacific Decadal Oscillation) have quite a bit to do with it.

As for the temperatures, Dave, there is some problem there, too. Urbanization and land use (more than what the algorithmic filters have allowed for) cloud the issue. It seems the thermometers still have a warm bias in them for the last couple of decades (McKitrick & Micheals; Pielke et al.) of measured temperatures. The recent surface warming has been shown to be certainly exxagerated.

References:

Kerr, Science, scary sea ice loss? Blame the wind. Science, vol. 307, 5707, 203 (2005)

Slingo & Sutton, Sea ice decline due to more than warming alone. Nature, 450, 27 (2007)

McKitrick & Micheals, A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data. Climate Research, 26, 159-173 (2004)

Pielke et al., Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment. American Meteorological Society, 88:6, 913-928 ((2007)
 Seriouslytaken
Joined: 6/23/2008
Msg: 110
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 8:45:43 AM
This is all very interesting. Science of Global Warming? How about "The morals behind global warming?"
Science is human made.....it has its glitches. But Nature never fails. Nature follows morals more than science does.
A buon intenditore, poche parole.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 111
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 8:46:50 AM
Do you really think the UN is without agendas and is the absolute pinnacle of science?

My only point about "green house gas" was concerning the bias of the label itself. Do you feel CO2 causes a green house to be warmer than ambiant? Please explain the label if not. CO2 ABSORBS very narrow bands of IR, not a wide spectrum. The glass of a green house REFLECTS IR in a wide spectrum, not absorb it, nor does the glass move, its not a gas. Any body that absorbs EM will just as readily radiate it. That is the case with CO2. In effect, the CO2 will heat from IR radiated from the surface then through convection, transport it to higher altitudes and radiate it into the cold of space. Basic physics would seem to indicate it can be a convection cooling engine. In effect, it bypasses clouds that do act like green house glass. Then again, water vapor that is a broader spectrum IR absorber than CO2 but doesn't become a reflector until precipitated into clouds. The formation of clouds is a complex function that requires particulates. Such particulates can come from earth, from cosmic dust, or from solar flares. The time of day that clouds exist determine the heating or cooling effect they may have. If during the day, they tend to reflect higher energy wavelengths of light preventing solar cooling. At night, the clouds reflect IR keeping the planet warm. So what is the mix of particulates and what is their schedule? The solar heating of the surface itself is very dependant on color. Green, from say irrigated agriculture, absorbs more heat and evaporates more water that dry grass. So should people starve? Then there is the melt of polar region ice. If one is to actually read the observations of those sounding the alarm, you will find descriptions of the surface appearing dirty from centuries of accumulated dust now concentrating on the surface making it dark. This causes an accelerating melt from solar absorption. Most of this dust is believed to come from past volcanic activity and as it accelerates melting that in turn accelerates its own concentration, that would tend to produce an asymptotic melt rate exactly like that described by AGW alarmists. Then we have ocean currents. Where they flow is determined by geography but their propulsion is driven by two major engines. One is thermal, the other the difference in water density from fresh water ingress. These engines work by depth and the spin of the earth. As the polar region ice melts, it feeds the engine transporting warm water toward the poles. The warm water then increases the melt thus increasing the melt rate under the ice. Again, such a system would be cyclic yet the melting would be asymptotic as the ice recedes. Just like the AGW alarmists claim is a result of CO2. I am open to some science but so far, I have not seen it, only alarm based on over simplified physics and a highly biased and misleading label.

I really do feel ice ages occured in the past and they were cyclic in nature. I don't feel the time domain characteristics of their fundamental and harmonic cycles are well known. I do not feel there is sufficient sample density or an adequate sampling window to extrapolate phase angles of these cycles and thus extrapolate an accurate picture of future climate from the data. The extrapolations form the AGW alarmists is relatively short term yet our data on these cycles is long term only and of uncertain accuracy. This is the science of measurement technology in which I am regarded as an expert. I currently work with the light spectrum including IR. What I see is a mob mentality based in fear, not physics.

I have not deferred to some mystical group of omnipotent bureaucrats in an organization consisting mostly of third world banana republics and dictatorships but I have applied my own analysis of observations from the very same sources the alarmists use. If you wish to argue any of these points, I would suggest you explain their analysis as you understand it instead of chanting their conclusions as if some biblical scripture. I make a living by doing what others have concluded could not be done. I am not a publish or parish academic funded out of fear and politics. I am doing my best to keep this science instead of religion. Coincidence is not proof but it often serves religion.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 112
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 9:17:11 AM

As for the temperatures, Dave, there is some problem there, too. Urbanization and land use (more than what the algorithmic filters have allowed for) cloud the issue. It seems the thermometers still have a warm bias in them for the last couple of decades (McKitrick & Micheals; Pielke et al.) of measured temperatures. The recent surface warming has been shown to be certainly exxagerated.


First off, McKitrick and Michaels didn't look at any of the years I cited.

Second, they published their paper through a periodical that has a history of shaky peer review and resignations of editors due to the failings in their peer review process.

In the four years since publication of their paper I can't find a single peer reviewed paper supporting their conclusions.

And a number of strong rebuttals to their paper showed up shortly after publication. Among other things they confused degrees and radians, a mistake on the order of the failed mars lander attempt when metric and english systems were confused. Here's one rebuttal:


8 December 2004
Are Temperature Trends affected by Economic Activity?
Filed under:

* Instrumental Record

— rasmus @ 8:14 AM

In a recent paper, McKitrick and Michaels (2004, or "MM04″) argue that non-climatic factors such as economic activity may contaminate climate station data, and thus, may render invalid any estimates of surface tem­perature trends derived from these data. They propose that surface temperature trends may be linked to various local economic factors, such as national coal consumption, income per capita, GPD growth rate, literacy rates, and whether or not temperature stations were located within the former Soviet Union. If their conclusions were correct, this would hold implications for the reliability of the modern surface temperature record, an important piece of evidence indicating 20th century surface warming. However, numerous flaws with their analysis, some of them absolutely fundamental, render their conclusions invalid.

First of all, there are a number of issues that they did not address that logically must must be addressed for their conclusions to be tenable. MM04 failed to acknowledge other independent data supporting the instrumental thermometer-based land surface temperature observations, such as satellite-derived temperature trend estimates over land areas in the Northern Hemisphere (Intergovernmental Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Third Assessment Report, Chapter 2, Box 2.1, p. 106) that cannot conceivably be subject to the non-climatic sources of bias considered by them. Furthermore, they fail to reconcile their hypothesis with the established large-scale warming evident from global sea surface temperature data that, again, cannot be influenced by the local, non-climatic factors they argue contaminate evidence for surface warming. By focusing on thermometer-based land observations only, and ignoring other evidence conflicting with their hypothesis, MM04 failed to address basic flaws in their arguments.

Perhaps even more troubling, it has been noted elsewhere that MM04 confused "degrees" and "radians" in their calculations of areal weighting factors, rendering all of their calculations incorrect, and their conclusions presumably entirely invalid.

The focus of this piece, however, is on yet another fundamental problem with their analysis as identified by Benestad (2004). Benestad (2004) repeated their analysis using a different statistical model (linear and generalised multiple regression model) and the same data set. Benestad (2004) first reproduced the basic results of MM04 (i.e., established similar coefficients for the various factors used by MM04) using the full data set. This established an appropriate baseline for further tests of the robustness of their statistical model. As described below, their statistical model failed these tests, dramatically.

For one thing, the statistical significance they cited for their results was vastly overstated. One of the most basic assumptions in statistical modeling is that the data used as predictors in the model are Independent and Identically Distributed ('IID'). It is well-known, however, that temperatures from neighboring stations are not independent. Due to the large-scale structure of surface temperature variations, nearby measurements partly describe the same phenomenon. Any statistical analysis using such temperature data must account for the fact that the actual degrees of freedom in the data is far lower than the nominal number of stations (see e.g. Wilks, 1995). McKitrick and Michaels, however, failed to account for this issue in estimating the statistical significance of their results. Had they accounted for this "spatial correlation", as Benestad (2004) points out, they would have found their results to be statistically insignificant.

Benestad (2004) then tested the skill of the model through a 'validation' experiment. Such an experiment seeks to construct a statistical model using part of the dataset, and then independently test the model's validity by seeing how well it predicts the rest of the data that weren't used. Benestad (2004) thus divided the data into two independent batches. Temperature station data between 75.5S and 35.2N were used to calibrate the statistical model, while the remaining data (stations north of 35.2N representing less representing something under 25% of earth's surface) were used for validation of the model. It is clear that the model was not able to reproduce the trends in the independent data (see Figure 1). The conclusion of McKitrick and Michaels that surface temperature measurements are significantly influenced by the non-climatic factors used in their statistical model, hence appears to be false.

In their reply to Benestad(2004), McKitrick and Michaels (2004b, or "MM04b") argue that such validation experiments (i.e, splitting up the data to test the validity of statistical modelling) is not common in the refereed climatological literature. That argument is puzzling indeed, as such tests are standard in statistical modeling exercises, and have been used and documented in many peer-reviewed articles in the meteorological and climatalogical literature (see this list of publications by just one researcher alone or even the introductory textbook by Wilks, 1995).

MM04b also complain that in Benestad (2004), the statistical model was calibrated with the 'worst' data (and that 'better', data covering less than 25% of earth's surface, should have been used instead). This too is puzzling, since any hypothesised deterioration of data quality should in principle, as we understand the very premise of their hypothesis, be taken into account in the statistical model through the use of factors such as literacy or GDP.

In their reply to Benestad(2004), McKitrick and Michaels (2004b) claim that I do not dispute their approach (i.e., multivariate regression using economic variables as potential predictors of surface temperature). That claim is both peculiar, and misses the point. A method is only valid when applied correctly. As described, above, MM04 failed egregiously in this regard. The purpose of my paper was simply to demonstrate that, whether or not one accepts the merits of their approach, a correct, and more careful, repetition of their analysis alone is sufficient to falsify their results and their conclusions.

The conclusions of McKitrick and Michaels (2004) thus clearly do not stand up to independent scrutiny. This alone does not mean that their analysis was not a potentially useful contribution to the field. A critical analysis of past work by other researchers can provide independent quality control on scientific undertakings, with the caveat that the analysis is performed properly. Unfortunately, in the case of the McKitrick and Michaels (2004) analysis, this does not appear to have been the case.
 ThymeKiller
Joined: 2/1/2008
Msg: 113
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 9:52:30 AM
As I've said many times the climate models work if we have a closed loop system with positive feedback, however the science is now ready to prove the climate operates in a negative feedback cycle. With negative feedback there isn't anthropogenic global warming.

Warning this was published last week. You may not find anybody willing to claim it's fake yet.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3
 Robinson2
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 114
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 9:57:26 AM


ell, let's see. Starting in 2001, each year has been in the top ten warmest years in the last 150.

2001 (7th)
2002 (4th)
2003 (3rd)
2004 (5th)
2005 (2nd)
2006 (6th)
2007 (8th)

And in case you were wondering, 1998 was the warmest year in the last 150, so there's no question that the past ten years have been the warmest decade on record.


The HadCRUT data is a surface temperature record I believe and highly unreliable for that reason alone (that's before you start factoring in all of the "adjustments" the Warmists use to manipulate the data). Satellite measurements show no net warming so far this century. The surface temperature record has numerous problems with it, not least urbanisation (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/, where surface stations are surveyed with some amusing results).

Something interesting in your post however:you said 1998 was the warmest year in the last 150. Fascinating. So 150 years ago there was a year as warm or warmer than 1998? Can you explain that with your CO2 forcing hypothesis? I don't think so.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 115
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 11:01:03 AM
Oh, you could have used my data to assert no net warming so far this century. We've pretty much just stayed consistently hot. I agree, though, that surface temps should be combined with satellite readings for the most accurate results. On the scale that we look at for global warming a brief leveling off for a few years is not statistically significant.

And your assumption that my 150 year range implied a hotter year back then was disingenious. That's just as far back as most scientists go to utilize thermometer readings for their databases. Earlier than that we have to rely on ice core and tree boring data, combined with historical accounts. If you had looked at my link and the associated graph you would have seen that we were considerably cooler 150 years ago than we are now.

I do concede, though, that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are not the ONLY human influences on climate. Land use is an important forcing factor as well, and needs to be included in climate change strategies.

Dave
 neopol
Joined: 9/26/2006
Msg: 116
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 2:44:29 PM

Then there is the melt of polar region ice. If one is to actually read the observations of those sounding the alarm, you will find descriptions of the surface appearing dirty from centuries of accumulated dust now concentrating on the surface making it dark. This causes an accelerating melt from solar absorption. Most of this dust is believed to come from past volcanic activity and as it accelerates melting that in turn accelerates its own concentration, that would tend to produce an asymptotic melt rate exactly like that described by AGW alarmists.


I prove this theory every winter on my icy, snowy driveway.

A few times every winter we get packed snow/ice that cant be shoveled. Its bonded to the concrete driveway. Very slick & icy. I dont throw salt due to the corrosive effect, I throw COLD ashes/cinders from my fireplace on it for traction only. The cinders provide traction until a warmup occurs & melts the hazard.

When the next sunny day comes, wherever I threw these ashes, the ice is melted down to the concrete...from the solar energy being absorbed by the dark particulates. The denser concentrations of ashes melt the ice faster. The areas where there were no dark ashes are untouched by by solar radiation...as if nothing changed. They remain as icy as before.

The first dissenting thought by some here would be...."perhaps there is a chemical reaction occuring....etc."

NO. It only happens during the sun of the day. Nothing happens at night, nor on an overcast day. I see this every winter. Perhaps others who dont understand the dynamics here can try it this winter on their own. Use any dark colored material...it'll work just the same.


Then we have ocean currents. Where they flow is determined by geography but their propulsion is driven by two major engines. One is thermal, the other the difference in water density from fresh water ingress. These engines work by depth and the spin of the earth. As the polar region ice melts, it feeds the engine transporting warm water toward the poles. The warm water then increases the melt thus increasing the melt rate under the ice. Again, such a system would be cyclic yet the melting would be asymptotic as the ice recedes


I think thats being understood finally. Time usually outdates most conventional theories.


Antarctic ice shelf collapse explained

Published: Feb. 7, 2008 at 12:06 PM


ABERYSTWYTH, Wales, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- Welsh scientists have discovered global warming was only one of many factors leading to the 2002 collapse of a major Antarctic ice shelf.

Professor Neil Glasser of Aberystwyth University in Wales, who led the study while working as a Fulbright Scholar in the United States, said the findings refute the common belief that the collapse of the Larsen B Ice Shelf in Antarctica was a sudden response to climate change.

"Ice shelf collapse is not as simple as we first thought," said Glasser, who explained climate is just one factor and other atmospheric, oceanic and glaciological factors are involved. He said observations by glaciologists and numerical modeling by other scientists showed the ice shelf had been in distress for decades.

The collapse of ice shelves indirectly contribute to a rise in sea level. Since ice shelves float on the ocean, they already displace the same volume of water, he said.

"But when the ice shelves collapse, the glaciers that feed them speed up and get thinner, so they supply more ice to the oceans," he said.

The study that included Ted Scambos of University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center appears in the Journal of Glaciology.

© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.



http://www.topix.com/tech/2008/02/antarctic-ice-shelf-collapse-explained
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 117
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 2:56:53 PM

The collapse of ice shelves indirectly contribute to a rise in sea level. Since ice shelves float on the ocean, they already displace the same volume of water, he said.

"But when the ice shelves collapse, the glaciers that feed them speed up and get thinner, so they supply more ice to the oceans," he said.

The study that included Ted Scambos of University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center appears in the Journal of Glaciology.

© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.


I wonder what happens when you dump a lot of ice into water? My semi-educated guess is that the water gets colder. Colder water absorbs atmospheric CO2 better and also evaporates less. Less evaporation means less water vapor in the atmosphere. With CO2 and water vapor removed from the atmosphere the Earth cools. The colder water also contracts and the sea levels drop.
 Robinson2
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 118
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 3:01:59 PM


I do concede, though, that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are not the ONLY human influences on climate. Land use is an important forcing factor as well, and needs to be included in climate change strategies.


I don't understand the imperative for a "climate change strategy". That would be like having an earthquake strategy, or a volcano strategy, or a strategy to stop the sun misbehaving. The only sensible policies for natural environmental changes are adaptations, not attempts at control (I've heard so many utterly ridiculous ideas come from the Warmists about Carbon Sequestration etc. They are so far cloud cuckoo land that I can hardly believe they are coming from sane people). As far as I'm concerned, the CO2 based warming hypothesis is a busted flush.

Now, things like land use changes (deforestation), over-fishing and pollution (Co2 is not a pollutant) are things one can have a reasonably intelligent debate about. But this AGW crap is driving me nuts. It's also on the verge of destroying public trust in Science and that is more dangerous than any 1/2 degree average temperature increase will ever be.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 119
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/30/2008 2:35:00 PM

I wonder what happens when you dump a lot of ice into water? My semi-educated guess is that the water gets colder.

Actually this is a bit complicated, like making ice cream by putting salt on ice. If the ice is melted by the salt, then heat is absorbed in the phase change. If the sea water is already below the freezing point of fresh water, recently melted ice in the form of water would actually raise the temperature. The ice may also "evaporate" as in sublimation.


Colder water absorbs atmospheric CO2 better and also evaporates less. Less evaporation means less water vapor in the atmosphere. With CO2 and water vapor removed from the atmosphere the Earth cools.

That assumes the "green house" effect but again, the physics are problematic for a number of subtle reasons. IR is broad spectrum while the absorption is in narrow bands. IR outside of the bands is not absorbed. At what distance of atmosphere is all the IR in the specific absorption bands saturated? For the CO2 bands, its a few hundred feet. Outside of those bands, the CO2 is transparent and the IR radiates right on through. The real "green house" effect comes from the glass, not the gas. Green house glass reflects IR in a broad spectrum as do clouds. The only real "green house" effect on earth's atmosphere is from clouds. The formation of clouds is also not a simple function as much water vapor in the upper atmosphere is already below the temperature it need to condense into clouds. It needs particulates to begin to condense into droplets and/or ice crystals. This can come from surface dust, volcanic activity, or cosmic dust from space or solar emission such as flares. The clouds can also cool depending on their daily cycle.


The colder water also contracts and the sea levels drop.
Water is an interesting substance. Just before freezing, it expands during ice crystallization. That is why pipes are damaged by freezing.


I don't understand the imperative for a "climate change strategy".

When people cease to think and instead rely on "experts", there is a kind of religion displacing science. Note the vast number of "biblical" verses quoted in the debate no matter what forum. It is somewhat excusable or understandable when the ill-informed are lead around by politicians or celebrities with blatant yet denied agenda's but when otherwise intelligent people resort to quoting "scripture" for science, it really does put a black eye on science. The political action resulting from this religion can be disastrous. Note the ethanol mandates with questionable benefit and major environmental damage. If these people cannot get the science right, what makes anyone think they will reasonably predict the impact of their far reaching, often repressive, political actions?

Man is a member of life on this planet. We evolved far higher levels of rationalization than any other species. The question becomes, is this a destructive mutation or some improvement in the uncertain destiny of life itself. I like to think the latter but when I see such closed minds, its easy to have doubts.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 120
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/30/2008 4:07:21 PM
Now, things like land use changes (deforestation), over-fishing and pollution (Co2 is not a pollutant) are things one can have a reasonably intelligent debate about.


Interesting. You agree that human activities can have negative impacts on the land and the oceans, but not the climate? How did you decide to draw that line? And you've deemed CO2 not a pollutant, even though the vast majority of climate scientists and even the Supreme Court think otherwise.

How would you define pollution? Does it have to be something that is universally noxious? If so, you would have to take issue with the EPA regulating ozone at ground level, since it's a benefit farther up in the atmosphere.

There are a number of definitions of pollution to be found out there, but most are some variation of "a substance that in sufficient quantities negatively impacts humans, ecosystems, and/or property". Scientists and policy makers believe CO2 meets that definition. You don't.

You assert that the concept of carbon sequestration is ridiculous, yet vegetation has been doing exactly that since long before humans walked the planet. If you're referring to geologic carbon sequestration, ie pumping CO2 deep underground, that's entirely feasible, from a technological standpoint. It remains to be seen if it's a practical strategic choice.

But you reject any strategies related to climate other than adaptation, because, if I'm understanding you correctly, you can't fathom how humans could have any impact whatsoever on climate. We can move mountains and rivers, destroy fisheries, strip 95 percent of the topsoil from the entire US, drive entire species extinct, but nothing we'd ever do could have any impact on the climate. Please correct me if I'm not capturing your perspective accurately.

Since you do appear to be sensitive to overfishing, how about if we consider the impacts of CO2 from another perspective? There is a large body of scientific evidence demonstrating that the oceans are becoming more acidic due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. This poses a major threat to sea life in general, shellfish in particular. Is that sufficient justification to develop a strategy to limit CO2 production?

Just wondering....

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 121
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/30/2008 4:34:46 PM

When people cease to think and instead rely on "experts", there is a kind of religion displacing science. Note the vast number of "biblical" verses quoted in the debate no matter what forum. It is somewhat excusable or understandable when the ill-informed are lead around by politicians or celebrities with blatant yet denied agenda's but when otherwise intelligent people resort to quoting "scripture" for science, it really does put a black eye on science. The political action resulting from this religion can be disastrous. Note the ethanol mandates with questionable benefit and major environmental damage. If these people cannot get the science right, what makes anyone think they will reasonably predict the impact of their far reaching, often repressive, political actions?


You've repeated this theme a number of times in posts on this topic, and each time I ask myself why you equate believing experts with ceasing to think. When you plan a driving route, don't you trust the experts who designed the roads and bridges you'll be traveling on and the vehicle you'll be driving? You trust the experts who developed computers and the internet enough to participate in this forum. Do you stop thinking the moment you turn on your computer?

You've also used the religion analogy more than once, equating citations of peer-reviewed scientific papers with quoting scripture. Again, I don't see the parallel. Most religious texts, whether Bible, Koran, etc... are essentially static. They don't evolve much over time, but serve as a ready reference for practitioners of that particular faith.

Peer-reviewed science, on the other hand, is constantly evolving. Merely publishing a peer-reviewed paper is only one step in the scientific method that brought us those bridges and computers and internet, not to mention a plethora of other technological advances. Once a paper is published others go over it with a fine toothed comb, checking the math, the data collection, the interpretation of data, and every other aspect of it by among other things attempting to duplicate the results shared in the paper, often publishing their own papers to affirm, revise, or reject the original.

That's how science progresses. That's how climate science has arrived at the current conclusion that human activities impact the climate. It didn't happen all at once. They don't just keep citing the same old original papers. New studies, new papers, new observations continue to support the concept of anthropogenic climate change.

I find it interesting that you opened your post with an excellent dissertation on the mechanisms of sea water interacting with ice - all information that was discovered through the same scientific method you reject as mere 'religion'.

Finally, you closed with this:


Man is a member of life on this planet. We evolved far higher levels of rationalization than any other species. The question becomes, is this a destructive mutation or some improvement in the uncertain destiny of life itself. I like to think the latter but when I see such closed minds, its easy to have doubts.


And the question begs to be asked - are the closed minds those that reject the scientific method or those who believe the results of that method are worth incorporating into our strategies?

Dave
 jamie***
Joined: 7/7/2008
Msg: 122
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/30/2008 4:45:56 PM
urgh good post OP
(this really is a most evocative post OP and i agree with much of what you have said)
its just a shame folk are..well...

ive followed this thread a long time time now and frankly its just getting silly in places..to be very brief

Is global warming occurring... yes
Does man contribute to it..course he does don't be silly
are CO2 levels rising...course they are (as well as a few others)
has it been higher in the past..course is has. I can quote specifics..and not just from ice cores
does sunspot activity, solar maximum and minimum cycle (and cloud cover contribute...no your just be silly)
does plate tectonics contribute yes (modify the complex ocean conveyor belts they're are many)
Is the Arctic ice cap shrinking...erm well yes..oddly this should increase snowfall in northern hemisphere and thus accelerate a return to ice age conditions
earths position..hmm tricky this un..kinda... bearing in mind there a 26 k cycle as well as an orbital cycle within out galaxy of 100k.

and erm if i knew Ops specific point I be able to answer.
But global warming extends a little more than to CO2 in the atmosphere
hmm are we still in an ice age..well erm most likely.

Op does CO2 contribute to global warming well yes
is the earth warming..course it is
will we slip out of this interglacial yes..but most likely not for one singualr factor

But most likely faster than mankind or mother nature can react
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 123
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/1/2008 9:56:05 AM

You've repeated this theme a number of times in posts on this topic, and each time I ask myself why you equate believing experts with ceasing to think.

What makes a person "expert"? Is it some form of popular vote? Is it institutional employment? Is it political power? The reality is that it is all these and they have little to do with real science. Real science questions everything, religion does not as its about faith.


When you plan a driving route, don't you trust the experts who designed the roads and bridges you'll be traveling on and the vehicle you'll be driving?

They defined them. In many cases, they are full of innovations that previous "experts" deemed were impossible.


You trust the experts who developed computers and the internet enough to participate in this forum.

The opportunities for humor are boundless.


Do you stop thinking the moment you turn on your computer?

Is that your argument? I might at times agree.


I find it interesting that you opened your post with an excellent dissertation on the mechanisms of sea water interacting with ice - all information that was discovered through the same scientific method you reject as mere 'religion'.

Nope. Papers published and taken as fact had nothing to do with the analysis of data. I have not read the papers or studied the data. My analysis was probably more in line with the reasoning behind the effort to make the study. My discussion of the mechanism is based entirely on my understanding of physics. Unlike anyone I have ever met, I could have done the same by the age of 9, about the same time I won a contest for a state wide anti-pollution campaign. By the age of 11, I had a concept involving a faster way to implement binary multiplication by dividing number registers in segments and computing in phases to overcome the logical progression of the carry bit. Now this is common place in high end processors over 40 years later. I was not to build my first actual computer until much later in 1976 although it was rumored I had done it in 1973. I was an engineer with IBM at age 18 in 1973 with no college. I quit to get a degree. I found college to be quite repressive of free thought. Every project or assignment asked for creative thinking but I almost always found the limits of their "box". Many times, I went outside their "box" and had to prove the point repeatedly. True innovation is a punishable offense in institutional environments where a great many of these papers come from. It is no surprize that AGW papers continue to flow from and within the confines of the same "box". In the "evil" corporate world, innovation wins in the market and gives value to the company. It is quite different from "getting published" and tenur.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 124
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/1/2008 1:47:09 PM
Ya Know, ahoytheredave, I think we agree more than disagree on what constitutes good science. Where we differ is on whether mainstream climate science has undergone sufficient scrutiny to pass muster.

I think you know, but merely publishing a paper is only one step in the process. The paper does have to survive the peer review process, but that doesn't mean its conclusions are simply accepted on face value. Far from it. The next step is for other scientists to go over it with a fine toothed comb, checking everything from the math to the data collection process, to the premises the conclusions were based on. Often they will try to duplicate any experiments or data collection to see if they get the same results. They then uphold, adjust, or reject the original hypothesis.

Every aspect of climate science has been through many repetitions of this process, and that's still going on. It's far from over. But over and over and over again the evidence supporting the premise that humans play a significant role in a warming planet is upheld.

nicebluiz weighs in periodically with citations he feels supports the skeptic stance. Whenever I've investigated his sources I've found that either they don't say what he says they say, or that even though they may support his position and may have passed initial peer review they did not stand up to subsequent review by other scientists. I haven't looked at every one of his citations, so it's quite possible that he's found an exception or two to my assertions, but the fact remains that the overwhelming weight of repeated scientific scrutiny of this issue from every imaginable angle continues to support AGW.

You clearly have far more scientific expertise than I do. From what you share you've accomplished much with your talents. I understand your frustration with 'the system', but do wish you were able to participate in it to the extent that you could present your hypothesis for analysis by other scientists. That would settle this discussion far better than you and I will be able to do.

Meanwhile, let's agree that good science requires careful scrutiny and repeated validation. Let's agree to disagree whether AGW has survived that test.

Dave
 Robinson2
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 125
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/1/2008 4:08:04 PM


Interesting. You agree that human activities can have negative impacts on the land and the oceans, but not the climate? How did you decide to draw that line? And you've deemed CO2 not a pollutant, even though the vast majority of climate scientists and even the Supreme Court think otherwise.


Did you read the Wegman Report? Probably not. Majority of Climate Scientists? Do you mean to say the majority of those who receive grants and funding for their institutions for supporting the paradigm continue to support the paradigm? They probably do, but that does not validate the theory, it validates their funding. And what of the Supreme Court? Are you using arguments from authority here for fun or what?

The line I draw is one based on common sense. It's clear to me that cutting down rainforest is bad, not because of changes in climate, but because of the reduction in biodiversity. I happen to think biodiversity is a good thing, so there's no contradiction here. The same is true of over-fishing. If we want to continue to harvest the seas, we shouldn't overfish. It's as simple as that.

You can't argue that today's temperature is PERFECT, so you are led to argue that life on Earth is naturally better suited to colder temperatures. I say this because you're concerned about warmingm, not cooling (which is the real killer). Well Sherlock, I think for most of the last few hundred million years, the Earth was a great deal warmer than it is today! So please tell us what you think the ideal temperature of this planet should be and then we can decide whether or not your ideas about Global Warming have any validity.

Once you've decided on your favourite Earth temperature, you next have to present some evidence beyond computer models that the cause is man-made CO2 and not that big ball of fire in the sky. There is NO EVIDENCE that this is the case. All you have are a lot of COMPUTER MODELS that have no validity whatsoever in the real world. Add to that a whole host of BADLY researched and written papers, including some of the most unbelievably stupid science I've ever seen (read `Meltdown' for the full horror story and then chase the papers down yourself from the bibliography and references), and what you are left with is a POLITICAL position, not one based on solid science.

This whole debate is ridiculous.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Science of Global Warming