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
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 1
The Science of Global WarmingPage 1 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
I have a read a few climate change debate threads lately and I think its appropriate to summarize the science behind climate change. Its evident to me that detractors of the idea have no idea what they are talking about. So let me set the record straight. I aint no climatologist, but I do have the benefit of 3 university courses on environmental science, including analytical laboratory methods.

CO2 is produced mostly by fossil fuel consumption and associated petrochemical industries. When it is released, one third ends up in the oceans dissolving to form a weak acid, resulting in ocean acidification. A quarter is absorbed by the ecosystem, although this estimate has been found to be generous and inaccurate, its less. The rest remains in the atmosphere. Global consumption of fossil fuels will rise 2 per cent in the next year, meaning emissions will rise by half a billion tons. The following year emissions are predicted to increase another 2 percent. China and other countries are building many coal dirty energy stations, this is making the problem worse. This year we produced, as a global community, a total of 30 billion tons of CO2.

Current global CO2 value is 385 ppm. GIven current emission trends, we will reach 550 ppm over the next 5 years, which is twice pre industrial levels.

The Arctic ice cap has shrunk by half since the 1950s. Annually the melt rate is about 24,000 square miles, an area the size of West Virginia. 150 million acres of forests have died over the past 10 years in the US and Canada combined due to warming related beetle infestations. Climate change is believed to underlie the growing refugee problems in Darfur and other agricultual based countries. These are not predictions, they are facts on the ground. Predictions are much worse.

I hope this helps.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 2
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/9/2008 8:07:00 PM
Good luck to you with this thread.

If you've read the other threads on the topic here you know what to expect.

You'll be bashed by those sure that you and me and all who believe the peer-reviewed science on this topic are simply pushing our anti-american agenda to take away their liberties and destroy their way of life.

Al Gore will be asserted to be the primary cause of all this fuss and his character lampooned endlessly.

Every quack theory known to man will be trotted out as if it has equal standing to the very valid science you cite that we both know is but the tip of the melting iceberg behind current legitimate climate science.

All the legitimate science will be dismissed as 'just a theory, and not a very good one'.

Maybe a rational discussion will ensue. I sure hope so.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Dave
 sam-spade
Joined: 12/2/2007
Msg: 3
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/10/2008 9:55:28 AM
It doesn't matter who or what is to blame. The north pole is melting ffs.

In 1960, the Aral Sea in Central Asia was the 4th largest sea on the planet. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea) By 2007, it had shrunk to 10% of it's original size with a shoreline that has receded by a whopping 100 kilometers (about 62 miles). The sea bed, now a dry desert. The sea has shrivelled into 3 residual lakes of which 2 are so salty, fish can't live there. Thriving fishing fleets have made way to abandoned fishing vessels sitting on their keels in the middle of a desert with nothing to do other than bake in the sun. Shore communities have collapsed, and winds blow salt and toxins across populated areas. But this is not the only Sea in trouble. There are many worldwide. Special mention goes to Lake Chad in Central Africa and The Salton Sea in Southern California are both in big trouble.

All this is blamed on poorly managed irrigation. You can pump water out of these places and be ok, but there comes a tipping point when you take out more than what trickles in, and you can guess what happens next. Now I've had major shrinkage after dipping into a lake (lol), but I never though about us shrinking them!

We need water to grow food, and it seems that with increased production of bio fuels, we'll only need more. LOTS more.

Where the heck is it all going to come from! Does floating an iceberg, that contain huge amounts of water, into it's own harbour a viable solution? If it is, then will there be any icebergs left around to "hijack"?
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 5
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/10/2008 6:39:30 PM
Its my hope that we continue to see posts here, adding to the material presented. It can serve as a reference point for people in politics and current affairs forums, as a scientific citation. This eliminates the need to pull references each time this topic comes up.

So please post any relevant scientific data on this issue here. This thread is only for scientific data supporting the global warming theory. If you wish to start a a separate thread debunking the theory, please be my guest, but this isnt a debate, its a compendium of research findings on global warming.

Hoping for more posts like Sam Spades. Thanks Dave, as well.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 6
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/10/2008 7:19:09 PM
Cool! Here's one interesting piece that crossed my email today......

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/37619

Here's the first few paragraphs...


Carbon Sciences: Turning Carbon Emissions into "GreenCarbon"

A small startup based in Santa Barbara, California is testing an alternative to carbon sequestration that, in a sense (perhaps more poetic than scientific), turns the second law of thermodynamics — entropy — on its head by taking waste CO2 and tailings from mining operations and turning the mix into materials of a “higher order” for use in a variety of industrial, agricultural, and environmental applications.

Carbon Sciences, founded by CEO Derek McLeish, has developed a relatively simple technology that puts the brew under pressure and temperature to create PCC (precipitated calcium carbonate). Traditionally, calcium carbonate is produced through an energy-intensive process using expensive materials such as limestone; the “GreenCarbon” technology takes this normally exhaustive process and simplifies it, thus producing a useful, benign material while transforming carbon emissions instead of simply sequestering it — a method of carbon mitigation that McLeish considers high-risk at best.

From paper to plastic, wallboard to fertilizer, PCC is a common component of many everyday products, materials, and industrial processes. According to McLeish there is a $12 billion demand for PCC.


Yet another example of how addressing climate change can bring profits and help the economy....

Dave
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 7
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/10/2008 7:36:42 PM

So please post any relevant scientific data on this issue here. This thread is only for scientific data supporting the global warming theory. If you wish to start a a separate thread debunking the theory, please be my guest, but this isnt a debate, its a compendium of research findings on global warming.

Bullcrap.

First of all, if the thread isn't for discussion or debate, then it's preaching/exclusivity of truth/etc. Any number of rules violations.

Second, if you want to discuss science, then you must accept debate. Presenting one-sided evidence is not rational and is not scientific. Making your case in that way lowers you to the level of the average creationist, conspiracy nut, or "denier". Note the two earlier posts - one completely irrelevant, the other a completely unsupported assertion of "denial".

Beyond that, this thread is just redundant at this point. There are a number of threads already which provide the very same arguments.
 morgana2012
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 8
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/11/2008 11:40:26 PM
Sun's solar flares heating up Earth: On Dec 30, 1983 Nasa's reported IRAS infrared astromical satellite found a heavenly body as large as Jupiter headed toward our Sun. They now deny the report. Twin sun of our binary solar system and it's 4 planets, Nibiru, ancients tell us it returns every 3600 years. Also known as Planet X it travels between the Mars and Jupiter on a tilted 30 degrees to the plane of our rotation. In 2011, as solar flares cripple most of our communication satellites, global panic sets in cell phones and cable tv will begin to draw to a close, dial-up will still be available. While one million have been chosen to be safe at Cheyenne Mountain AFB underground radiation-proof bunker, the rest of us will be left to fend for ourselves. DEC 21, 2012 is when our Sun passes through the densest plane of the galaxy. On FEB 14, 2013 Earth will pass between our Sun and Planet X with both of these two magnetic giants pulling Earth in opposite directions. A Pole Shift is most likely to occur then. If a Pole Shift happens rapidly in a few hours it would result it could mean massive tsunamis inundating coastal cities - the ultimate planetary catastrophe and mass extinction of species. Four billion yrs ago it is thought when Nibiru passed through, one of its moons struck the earth, causing the formation of the moon and on it's last visit it may have been what caused Noah's flood and before that - the sinking of Atlantis. The Myans mention a black hole in 2012 and the bible mentions a star called Wormwood Rev 8:10-11.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 9
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 4:11:01 AM
You left out the part about the moon being made of blue cheese. Which, incidentally, ALSO has nothing to do with the topic. It's supported by just as much evidence as "Nibiru". See any of the 2012/Nibiru/Noah's Ark/Atlantis threads for the clear evidence against all the points above.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 10
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 8:28:38 AM
So please post any relevant scientific data on this issue here. This thread is only for scientific data supporting the global warming theory.


Oh goody. So when do we get to see the scientific data? For instance, I'd love to see the reference that says "CO2 is produced mostly by fossil fuel consumption and associated petrochemical industries". Make sure this is a reference to a peer reviewed scientific journal.
 chazster
Joined: 8/28/2007
Msg: 11
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 11:17:16 AM
This may be true, however, the planet goes through a continuous cycle of warming and cooling. Even without our industrialized society the planet would still be getting warmer. After a certain amount of time it would cool off and go into another mini ice age. It is all part of the planets natural cycle. You can look up the little ice age that happened around the 16th century. There have been several over the course of the planet.
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 12
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 2:36:59 PM
Nice and Ibli

This thread is for advanced readers on the subject. The fact that we create 30 billion tonnes of CO2 per year is undisputed, as is the fact that CO2 has increased since the 1950s. As is the fact that human activity is the main contibuter to this increase.

You are asking 101 questions. This thread is for the advanced student of climate change. You need to learn the basics then come back and contribute. I am not going to reference every statement on the basics of climate change. Thats me doing your work for you. In fact, I am suspicious that your only intent was to derail this discussion by forcing participants to spend hours of time referencing even the most mundane of facts. Thats filibusting a thread. Its like making me prove that John Lennon lived in New York first, if I want to discuss his assassination. Its begging the question.

Chaster, there have been several global mini ice ages yes. These data have nothing to do with the current warming trend. I do not see how your data can explain the loss of the polar icecaps or the expansion of desertification in Africa.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 13
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 2:56:42 PM

You'll be bashed by those sure that you and me and all who believe the peer-reviewed science on this topic are simply pushing our anti-american agenda to take away their liberties and destroy their way of life.

I would like to see how "peer review" proves anything. It appears to be a vote from a group of paper readers selected by some mysterious process known only to journal editors. Scientific "proof" is through experimentation in controlled circumstances and even that is only a conclusion, not an absolute fact. Science embraces challenges to accepted conclusions. Labels of quackery are the tools of editors, you know, the ones who select peers? Beliefs are the base components of a religion, not science. As for anti-American, I would be concerned more about misguided activism damaging the planet's inhabitants as a whole. As an example, the ethanol mandates are labeled by the president of India as a crime against humanity. I see massive environmental damage from these mandates to sea life and the destruction of habitat. The mandates are a direct result of the AGW political activism from believers such as yourself. So are you going to be a "denier" about your environmental and human destruction?


Al Gore will be asserted to be the primary cause of all this fuss and his character lampooned endlessly.

Al Gore is a lawyer politician heavily invested in carbon credits trading. He makes a lot of money from the AGW movement but it pales in comparison to potential prefits he will make from trading of carbon credits. To carry out his message, he travels around in a private jet, perhaps the worst carbon offending transportation available. He has absolutely no technical credentials. Can you explain how this is "lampooning" him? I would love to personally debate him. By comparison, my carbon footprint is a tiny fraction of his and my scientific credentials vastly greater. I never took an oath to set aside my moral judgment as he did to become a lawyer.


Every quack theory known to man will be trotted out......

Talk about level headed unbiased examination of science. The core premises of AGW is the property of CO2 to absorb specific bands in the IR region. The theory is that the absorption of IR would in effect insulate the earth and make it hotter. For that reason, it is called a green house gas. Even this name is misleading. CO2 has nothing to do with the heat of a green house. A green house is full of plants and would probably have less than ambient CO2 levels. The density of CO2 in the atmosphere would absorb virtually all the IR it will absorb within a few hundred feet while the atmosphere is miles thick. The CO2 effect is way past saturation throughout the atmosphere. Changes in its density amount to little more than coats of paint, not layers of insulation. So what is the real quack theory? I would say it is the one using a completely misleading label "green house gas" from the very start.


All the legitimate science will be dismissed as 'just a theory, and not a very good one'.

Which side is dismissing theories as "quack"? Note quote above. What I see are alternate explanations with reasonable science.


Maybe a rational discussion will ensue. I sure hope so.

The AGW activism didn't start with rational thought, why should it have it now?


But I'm not holding my breath.

An interesting metaphor. The AGW is asking the industrial world to hold its breath while those at the top of the AGW movement make millions off the mandates and artificial carbon credits market all the while the third world starves as a result. Is that the bashing you expected or simply a response your bashing (again note the label "quack") you started?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 15
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 6:52:43 PM
You completely miss my point. The OP asked for ONLY evidence in support of anthropogenic global warming. In other words, he specifically requested a one-sided argument, to the exclusion of contrary evidence. That is NOT science, and science is rooted in logic. I don't claim to know the sum of all knowledge, but I am intimately familiar with the scientific method. The scientific method does NOT exclude relevant but contrary data. It INcludes all relevant data, leading to a logical conclusion which is consistant with the data. Any bias in the conclusions can be attributed to flaws in the method, or bias of the researcher. The scientific method is essentially unbiased. The OP requested exclusivity of truth, ergo, NOT science. Even though the sources cited may all be valid, the reader's conclusions will not be, because they have been deliberately insulated from all relevant data. Oddly enough, this is usually a "denial" method. If you have read many of my posts, you may note that I am a far cry from a 'denier', but I am cognizant of evidence presented on both sides. I favor anthropogenic global warning on two bases: 1)majority of evidence, 2)more rational arguments.

To reiterate - you missed my point. I'm offering no knowledge or "truth" here, and I'm not favoring EITHER side. I'm saying that valid science and valid debate cannot exclude relevant data it doesn't like. That's inarguable.

On one of Dave's points [and only one...er...two...sorry Dave, take a step back; you've been on pretty weak ground lately - eg. your reference to Al Gore's status as a lawyer is an ad hominem fallacy and by extension an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy]:

I would like to see how "peer review" proves anything. It appears to be a vote from a group of paper readers selected by some mysterious process known only to journal editors. Scientific "proof" is through experimentation in controlled circumstances and even that is only a conclusion, not an absolute fact.

Peer review "proves" nothing. What it DOES do is present the work to a set of experts in the field in order to determine whether the methods and conclusions presented are valid. Since the layman is often not qualified to determine that, and will draw conclusions without examining the core of the materials, methods, statistics, background, etc, the result of no peer review is the kind of things which are illogical, unscientific or utterly false...yet which are still believed by the crowds I've mentioned before: deniers, creationists, conspiracy theorists, and "Nibiru is gonna kill us like it killed Noah and Atlantis" devotees. Peer review is achieved by submitting the work anonymously to two or more researchers who are familiar [ie., well-known and published researchers on the topics] with the subject or methods contained in the writing. They will read the paper and submit their comments to the editor, who will then make a preliminary decision before passing the reviews back to the authors for review or revision. If the authors' conclusions are rejected, it will only be because their own evidence does not support their conclusions. Otherwise, criticism tends to include failure to include [particular] relevant references, failure to use proper statistical tests [many of the papers I read include, as references, papers which are PURELY about statistical methods, for which there are entire journals], invalid conclusions, statistically invalid conclusions...etc. The method isn't arcane. It's anonymous. Recognized resrearchers in the field review the paper and make recommendations based upon its scientific merit or lack thereof. A savvy researcher conducts his OWN review first, by submitting to his peers first, and THEN submitting for publication. There's a decent chance you can revise a paper suitably before it ever goes through the official process. That said, it doesn't matter much. If the basics are solid, then a re-write or re-processing of data is really all that's needed. There are now digital journals such as ZooTaxa which go from acceptance to publication in under a month.

A proper conclusion to scientific analysis will be correct. It may not be the whole truth, but it should be correct. That is; given two choices only, "A" and "everything that is not A", one will be found impossible. Either that or the data will be insufficient to draw a conclusion. Subsequent studies SHOULD only refine the conclusion. If they refute it, it's likely due to flaws in the original work, but the reasons will be spelled out, and even THEY may not be fully valid.

Peer reviewed or not, all research should be open to scrutiny. A key difference between peer reviewed and unreviewed works is, the reviewed works are actually filtered by a knowledgable and scientific audience who UNDERSTANDS what they're looking at. Both works reach an uncritical audience in the end, and THAT audience will pick and choose bits and pieces as "gospel", regardless of whether it is at all logical, rational, or valid.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 16
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/13/2008 11:53:11 AM
FrogO, perhaps my greatest concern over peer review is that in the world of politics, we don't have the benefit of such meticulous filtering. We have the voting public and politicians with all kinds of motives. The anonymous nature, as demonstrated in these forums, opens up even lower character traits. In the world of lawyers, who make up 80% of our representatives, their professional oath boils down to advocacy for their paying clients and the exclusion of moral judgment. It is pretty much the opposite of those like yourself who have a "moral" compass driving you to your quest for understanding.

The physics are still out as I see too many problems with the AGW theory and way too much religious chanting. I see dire consequences from the AGW activism in the form of poorly thought out political actions. MTBE and ethanol mandates are examples. Look to lobbying efforts by usually Republican ADM to sell that one. In the future, I see serious issues with hydrogen yet so much of the public have some impression it is actually an available fuel. All this stinks of a religion, not a science. These forums are on a dating site, not some scientific panel. The audience are generally not scientists yet in the political scheme of things, its up to them to decide who to trust and what direction we go.

Al Gore, the high priest of AWG is making a fortune off his ministry all the while being about as hypocritical with carbon footprint as one can get. In the background, he is invested in future carbon credits trading. The public needs to know that such a market is nothing more than a surcharge on the energy they need but instead of going to government coffers and thus back to them, it will go to the pockets of Al Gore, George Soros, and other speculators buying influence from their advocate lawyer politicians to create the artificial market in imaginary goods. Considering that George Soros is likely behind the speculation run up of oil futures and thus indirectly behind the mortgage crisis, the scam makes the oil monopoly charges pale by comparison.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 17
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/13/2008 12:19:43 PM
I actually agree with you regarding lawyers and politicians [in general]. That's not the point. In fact, they are irrelevant as far as science is concerned. Al Gore is a red herring. By and large, the ONLY people who refer to him are "deniers", and they do so without actually referring to any significant scientific evidence most of the time. Most of those of the opposing camp never make reference to Al Gore! They refer to one scientific paper after another, one logical argument after another. Al Gore would not be so flagrantly in the public eye were it not for the denial crowd which keeps bringing him up as a fallacious argument. Argue the science, not the mouthpiece.

The whole carbon tax situation IS a scam, and a fairly flagrant one at that. Governments already take sizable taxes from fuel. What portion of those taxes go back into "green" research or solutions? Now we have the Liberal party in Canada touting an additional "carbon tax". What's their plan? Carbon sequestering? More efficient fuel use? Less polluting energy sources? No...they state openly that it's a way to "share the wealth" with everyone else through their social programs. I've got no problem with social programs per se, but this approach is a clear scam. It's a cash grab and nothing more. They call it a carbon tax, which implies that it's somehow related to green solutions, when nothing could be further from the truth. They just want a bigger cut of the pie.

I've also seen it suggested that AGW is just a scam so that government and business can secretly skim more money from the oil business. Pf. Idiocy. Consumer demand is already cranking prices and governments are openly adding carbon taxes. They don't need any scams or any hidden taxes in order to take more money.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 18
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/13/2008 3:09:57 PM
FrogO the whole point of the man made CO2 global warming is the damage to Earth's inhabitants. The whole argument would be meaningless without it. Should not a similar alarm be raised about damage from the AGW activism? The former is an uncertain theory based on probably faulty assumptions of a gas misleadingly labeled "green house" with results that coincidentally resemble Earths natural cycles. The damage from latter is becoming more clear every day. What goes on in man's society has vast impact on the environment. That happens to be behind the AGW movement as well.
 floosy
Joined: 7/8/2008
Msg: 19
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/13/2008 4:46:32 PM

The core premises of AGW is the property of CO2 to absorb specific bands in the IR region. The theory is that the absorption of IR would in effect insulate the earth and make it hotter. For that reason, it is called a green house gas. Even this name is misleading. CO2 has nothing to do with the heat of a green house. A green house is full of plants and would probably have less than ambient CO2 levels. The density of CO2 in the atmosphere would absorb virtually all the IR it will absorb within a few hundred feet while the atmosphere is miles thick. The CO2 effect is way past saturation throughout the atmosphere. Changes in its density amount to little more than coats of paint, not layers of insulation.



The term greenhouse gas does not imply that the heat of a greenhouse is caused by CO2. UV rays from the sun pass through the glass of a greenhouse and are absorbed by the objects inside, which then radiate some of that energy as heat, or IR. Glass is transparent to UV but not to IR, so the energy is trapped within the greenhouse, which warms up as a result. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are also transparent to UV but not to IR and therefore create a similar effect, hence the term.

Your statement that the CO2 effect is past saturation is not accurate. The limit to the extent which CO2 will absorb IR is determined by the amount of CO2 present. More CO2, more absorption. The only way saturation could be reached in that sense would be if all the IR being radiated from the earth was absorbed in the atmosphere - which it certainly isn't.

It blows my mind that apparently intelligent, well-informed people can really think that AGW doesn't exist. Every time the UN's science committee issues a new report on the topic, the consensus is that the levels of CO2 are growing more rapidly and the temperature is rising even more than previous predictions showed. Far from governments exaggerating the issue, they apply pressure to have the reports toned down - that's a matter of public record. There's a very clear, easily explicable causal link between increasing levels of CO2 and an increase in temperature. Walk into a greenhouse on a sunny day and you'll feel it.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 20
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/13/2008 7:13:38 PM


I am not going to reference every statement on the basics of climate change.


In other words you're going to make claims with no basis in reality and refuse to back them up with scientific evidence. That's par for the course with the AGW crowd I'm afraid.
 floosy
Joined: 7/8/2008
Msg: 21
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/13/2008 7:38:56 PM
Go read the latest report from the UN's scientific commitee on climate change - lots of evidence there.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 22
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/13/2008 8:44:27 PM
Here's the frustrating aspect to me about each and every thread that has addressed climate change here.

The debate I'd love to see is the layman's version of the debate that policy makers are wrestling with on this topic - what is the BEST way to take action to address climate change?

It just isn't possible to have that discussion here. Every attempt to do so gets bogged down in debate over whether climate change exists or whether humans have an impact on climate.

Plenty of forums debate all the other pressing issues of the day - terrorism, gun crime, world hunger, a whole host of political issues, oil supplies and other energy related discussions. Very rarely does someone in those threads try to assert that there isn't a problem or that humans can't possibly have an effect on them.

But when it comes to climate change, despite the current status that every national science organization with any connection to the climate has embraced the concept of anthropogenic climate change, we can't even get to the point of STARTING the discussion here of which steps will be most effective to address it.

Never mind that pretty much every major and many a minor industry is already gearing up and adjusting their business plan to maximize their profits in the face of anticipated and actual climate change policy developments. Never mind that both presidential candidates consider addressing climate change to be a high priority, so it's a virtual guarantee that SOME new climate change initiatives will come from our new president, whoever it turns out to be.

Rather than debate the relative merits of the various climate change strategies being bantered about by those who WILL be moving forward to address the problem, we can't even start the discussion here, regardless the forum category or best efforts of any given OP.

Heck, it's even possible to go to the Sports category and have a thread over who's likely to win the next major sports competition without having to suffer through endless posts about how stupid that particular sport is or continual assertions that some minor league player or team that has never posted a winning record should really be one of the contenders.

We don't have any problem agreeing that humans have the capacity to move rivers and mountains to accomplish our goals, make lakes where they never were, make things grow where they wouldn't normally grow, dramatically increase or decrease animal populations, destroy forests, pave over wetlands, and any number of other major human impacts on the environment, but we can't seem to come close to agreeing that humans have the capacity to impact the climate, for better or worse.

That's very frustrating to me, because it means it means we can't even start to have discussions over an issue that those who make decisions for us are deeply engaged in and have been for some time.

We can bicker all we want, but climate change policy IS coming. Doesn't anyone care at all what it might look like?

Dave
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 23
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/13/2008 10:37:42 PM
Dave

Dont despair. We are successfully chasing the filibusters out of this thread. This leaves room for people like us to intelligently discuss the issue. Working according to plan!

Count Ibli..i am not posting empty facts. Please read the UN reports which are easily obtainable on the web. I cant do your homework for you. Read the reports, then if you wish, I will be happy to discuss any objections you have. As it stands, you want to sit there, type..show me...and have me run around like a servant providing you with information. Not gonna happen buddy.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 24
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/14/2008 7:09:24 AM
Filibuster? At least the AGW religious chanting has gone from "quack" to "laymen" but still the implication of "I am more qualified than you" is still firmly there. I will gladly compare my actual scientific credentials and actual results against any of the publish or parish crowd. I will compare my lifetime environmental results as well.

The whole point of the AGW religion is about human activity damaging Earth's environment. What it refuses to recognize is that in its arrogance, it has made some whoppers of mistakes. The ethanol mandates are the latest and the extent of damage from their political activism are being revealed every day. The environment needs some filibustering to keep these people from doing more damage. From what is being said here, it is clear they are finding an audience among the third world banana republics and dictatorships represented in the UN. Why not call this den of corruption "quacks" or "laymen"? Just what technical accomplishments has the UN achieved? The retreat to citing the UN as a body of truth in science would be laughable if not so tragic.

In another post from one of the AGW religious troll, a comment was made that the only experts qualified to comment on the climate are certified climatologists. As an expert in creating and implementing measurement technologies and an engineer working in the light spectrum, I consider myself an actual expert in the applicable technologies. My work is proven in real physical reproducible results, not some vote of anonymous "peers". Most of my peers said I could not do what I did yet the proof, and the patents, is in the results, not some vote. The very nature of invention and innovation is doing what "experts" say can't be done.

Again, let's revisit the CO2 "green house" relationship. First, anything that absorbs any EM wavelength will just as readily radiate the same. In short, whatever IR that CO2 absorbs, it radiates. In a green house, the glass reflects IR causing a retention of heat from higher energy light the glass is transparent to. Since the green house prevents air movement, the components of air that would normally carry the heat away and eventually radiate it to space can't move. One could argue that the IR absorption of CO2 and its movement in the atmosphere actually cool the earth by carrying heat past cloud cover that reflects IR back. If you want to refute this, you are welcome to provide your understanding of the physics or you can choose to cite yet more publish-or-parish papers you probably don't understand.
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 25
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/14/2008 10:26:07 PM
The UN reports are a load of unmitigated rubbish.

So the opinions of over 5000 scientists are rubbish? And yours is valid? Okeeess.

Ahoytheredave...you are an engineer, not a climatologist. Tell me why the arctic ice flows are melting. Lets get out of the lab and into the real world.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 26
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/15/2008 9:36:01 AM
As I said before, there are a number of potential causes and AGW could be one but it is not certain. There is ample evidence that global warming has occurred many times in the past and it is quite possible, in fact probable, it is happening again. Such cyclic activity is in the realm of time and frequency analysis. If you read some of the various AGW statements, you will find the models being used to "prove" it are actually modified weather prediction models. Such models are mostly empirical in that they are developed and refined based on reoccurring events and arrays of available measurements. They are statistical tools using frequency domain and correlation to predict re-occurrence and variations in weather. Whatever extra formulas are added, such as assumptions about the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere, will be compensated for whether the added functions are right or wrong. That is the nature of adaptive modeling. Since there is no model anywhere near the complexity needed nor the array of sensors necessary to model the physics of the atmosphere, adaptive models are the best tools available for weather forecasting. How well do they predict the weather say a month out? What about years out? To some extent, they work but they are based on observations of number of complete weather cycles. AGW theory has yet to observe a single long term cycle. Since they are adaptive and compensate for their own errors, such as CO2 forcing theories, using them to claim the theories are valid is a circular argument. How many of the 5000 scientists are actually scientists and of those, how many actually understand the nature of modeling? Modeling real world systems is the practice of engineering and it is an exact science.

As for actual causes, one could look at solar radiation variations, deep ocean currents driven in part by fresh water feed into denser sea water thus making it cyclic, variations in cloud cover driven by particulates from space and solar winds along with Earth based dust and volcanic activity, etc. Continue reading your global warming texts and you find the term "amplification" of CO2 heating by various potential natural causes instead of the actual natural causes themselves. Now we begin to jump the shark but those who do the trumpeting are celebrities and politicians, not people who use physics for a living. When discussing amplification and feedback in high noise environments, you are in the science of control theory, not statistical climate prognostication. Control theory complex but exacting science in itself. In short, the whole AGW theory to this point appears to be self reinforcing with a strong political bias based in fear mongering.

Again, go back to reading the AGW cited texts and you will find comments about apparent global warming being an experiment without a control. This would appear to be designed to justify embracing untested, unverifiable theory. One might ask why. You can find the answer in the purpose statements. They are meant to influence policy. At that point, scientists should realize that the documents are not about science. Science is open minded. Policy is about advocacy, the denial of dissent, and the domain of lawyers of politicians. This thread opens with a similar statement asking for denial of dissent. As FrogO, with whom I often disagree with says, that is not science. The whole AGW "religion" is full of such misleading or false labels. "Green house gas" at the heart of the theory is just such an example. As I have said before, the characteristic of CO2 to absorb certain specific bands of IR is the basis for the label. Following this as an explanation for a green house temperature, one should observe lower temperatures in green houses as they are occupied by plants that capture CO2 from the air and therefore green houses probably have lower than ambient CO2 levels. The term "Green house gas" is misleading. One argument here is that the CO2 acts like the glass on a green house. Nope. The glass acts like clouds to reflect heat across the IR spectrum. CO2 absorbs specific bands of IR and what heat it doesn't radiate in those bands, it transports away through convection. Unlike the glass, CO2 is mobile. The hotter it is, the more mobile it is.

If you wish to blame man for some perceived global warming, I would suggest you look at the massive scale to which we divert land based water for our survival. Instead of allowing it to flow to the sea, we divert it for agriculture, lawn watering, recreation, etc. This results in measurable changes in average humidity levels. The IR absorption of water vapor is far more than CO2 but wait, there's more! Water vapor condenses and forms clouds. Clouds reflect a wide spectrum of IR and really do retain heat lie a green house. Some would argue, without data, that the land masses are the minority of the Earth's surface. So what? We are talking small changes in temperature, not like Venus with its clouds. The evaporative surface of irrigated plants is higher per unit of surface area than the surface of the sea thus exaggerating its evaporative effect.

I didn't cite any specific texts in the hope the reader actually will examine those already cited by those who are adamant I am in error or re-examine them with a more open, (scientific) mind. I have read so many and they all seem to have the same flaws. Then there are the anecdotal observations often with emotional descriptions but that's another topic. In another thread, I suggested the polar ice melt was likely a result of ocean currents propelled in the polar regions by low density fresh water mixing with warmer yet denser sea water effecting deep water currents where very little measurements are made much less massive monitoring. From my experience in oscillating systems, I would expect such a system to have an asymptotic wave shape as it approached a reversal. That is exactly what is being observed. I cannot refer to a specific document but I have read that research in the geological record indicates the onset of an ice age is a rather rapid event. This would also agree with what I would expect from this ocean current theory as the fresh water propulsion would end abruptly. The currents would stop and the freeze would begin. Ice age?

As for the melt from above and land based melt, variations in solar radiation could be a factor but getting into the anecdotal description of melting glaciers, there are descriptions of the surface of cited glaciers being very dirty from centuries or eons of accumulated dust being concentrated on the surface from evaporation or sublimation. This would tend to absorb more solar heat as the melt progressed and further accelerate the melt. Again, that is what is being observed and cited by the AGW "scientists". Another asymptotic melt.

As you use your computer to rant about the impossible, remember that your PC is an array of patented technologies brought about by innovative engineers doing what those before them often said was impossible. The engineers at no point violated the laws of physics. Scientists should stick with research and stay out of policy. The laws of man do not require truth or reason and can be readily broken. The laws of physics we engineers must follow cannot be broken as they are logic and reason in its purest state.

Do you think governments or the UN might get something wrong every now and then? The UN includes some of the least functional governments on the planet. Why assume they get this right with some mystical clairity?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 27
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/15/2008 5:17:11 PM
Sorry lukus, but sunspot activity doesn't do the job. While a convincing argument can be made that the sun has some impact on world climate - the Maunder minimum, for instance - it doesn't tell the whole picture. In fact, we're currently at sunspot minimum and the sun has been blank of actual sunspots for weeks.

Which planets are experiencing global warming? How has this been assessed? Jupiter's weather is mostly internally driven by residual heat from its formation, same for Neptune and Saturn, Mars temperature ranges from 25 degrees Celsius at noon on the equator in summer to more than minus 150 degrees C at the pole in winter.

As for Venus, it's a "runaway" greenhouse which has yet to be sufficiently explained. Sorry, but you can't look to the planets to compare to Earth because they aren't Earth. They're completely different for numerous reasons.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Science of Global Warming