Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on December 21, 2008, 03:54:04 PM
-
that didn't come true....
at least not yet.............
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24820442-5000117,00.html
it's the SUN .....
-
:noid -5 degrees this morning, with the wind it was -27. Global warming :huh
-
shhssh I'm watching the movie, The Day After Tomorrow. Don't give away the ending! :furious
-
Waiting for the winter. Just a minute, it is winter :huh :uhoh
-
It snowed in Houston 2 weeks ago, much earlier than ever before.
-
And to think Al Gore got a Nobel for that garbage.....
-
Just wait untill la Nina wears off :t
-
The recorded history we have is a fraction of a blink in the history of the earth. Have no doubt that man has changed things here but we are not totally to blame. The "experts" are a bunch of guessers.
-
Totally to blame...oh hell no.
But to ignore that we have an influence at all, well that's the other end.
We do have a La Nina effect (actually spiced with a nice Volcanic eruption/S emission) which should form some cooling, and that was predicted, - not exactly guessed.
The big question was about the sea ice, but it didn't get to the all low minimum. Just close....
Anyway, that's good news.
-
I had 6 inches of snow in my yard a couple of weeks a go. In my 50 years of living here I have never seen that much snow. Evey 10 years or so we may get a dusting where the green grass sticks up through it. Global warming pundits have already been shown to be making a minitary killing over their falsehoods.
-
It snowed in Houston 2 weeks ago, much earlier than ever before.
Bet you guys have no clue what caused the ice age.
I will fill you in. Many years of warmer temps then high avg precipitation(snow) followed by many years below avg. temps. It snowed so much the snow never melted in summer. Next year came and boom!!!! Snow bombardment. And so on and so on. Then we cycled into mass years of cold causing ice everywhere!!!!!!!
Maybe its going to soon be the opposite. WE ARE ON THE VERGE OF AN ICE AGE!
-
I had 6 inches of snow in my yard a couple of weeks a go. In my 50 years of living here I have never seen that much snow. Evey 10 years or so we may get a dusting where the green grass sticks up through it. Global warming pundits have already been shown to be making a minitary killing over their falsehoods.
6 inches in an odd time isn't that abnormal.
(oooops, that could be misinterpreted) :t
-
drdeath, do you just hold down the enter key after you finish a post?
-
I had 6 inches of snow in my yard a couple of weeks a go. In my 50 years of living here I have never seen that much snow. Evey 10 years or so we may get a dusting where the green grass sticks up through it. Global warming pundits have already been shown to be making a minitary killing over their falsehoods.
You stare confirmation in the face with the simple statement..."in my 50 years of living here, I have never seen that much snow" and yet you misinterpret that to mean climate change is FALSE. Would you like to take a minute and think of what you just said? In actuality, more snow is directly associated with a warmer planet, due to the fact that there is more water in the atmosphere to work with, due to higher levels of evaporation. Local temperature dictates how that precipitation will fall...in your case it fell as snow. If the globe was cooling, snowfall and all precipitation in general would decrease overall, where in actuality, overall precip levels have increased steadily. The things that have changed are the ways that precipitation gets distributed, which is why the southeast is in such a bad drought for 15 years.
Making an assertion that global warming is false because it's cold in winter in your backyard is about as idiotic as saying it's true because it's hot during the summer.
-
Bet you guys have no clue what caused the ice age.
Without going into too much detail, most ice ages are caused by the orbital mechanics of the earth.
-
You stare confirmation in the face with the simple statement..."in my 50 years of living here, I have never seen that much snow" and yet you misinterpret that to mean climate change is FALSE. Would you like to take a minute and think of what you just said? In actuality, more snow is directly associated with a warmer planet, due to the fact that there is more water in the atmosphere to work with, due to higher levels of evaporation. Local temperature dictates how that precipitation will fall...in your case it fell as snow. If the globe was cooling, snowfall and all precipitation in general would decrease overall, where in actuality, overall precip levels have increased steadily. The things that have changed are the ways that precipitation gets distributed, which is why the southeast is in such a bad drought for 15 years.
Making an assertion that global warming is false because it's cold in winter in your backyard is about as idiotic as saying it's true because it's hot during the summer.
Yup I can see it now snowing on the Thames when it was iced over..... let's see... oh yes must have been all the automobiles being driven back in the early 1600s. Here all this time I was listening to these scientists saying it is a normal cycle of Earth. This was back when all the "Medicine Shows" were held on the back of a wagon, not on TV.
But then again... so goes the gullible.....
-
You have to remember guys, it's no longer global warming. It's 'climate change'. That pretty much covers it all. Including snow in Arizona in July. Moray is in fact right. Snow doesn't actually disprove a warming planet, however counter intuitive that may seem.
It doesn't matter about the debate. In my opinion the next couple of years will make or break the theory. Given all the gloomy predictions we have been subjected to recently. The warmists need at least one to actually happen soon or everyone will be a skeptic. All the ice needs to melt one summer in the arctic. As a skeptic I don't believe it will ever happen. We only have to wait.
-
We are losing 2 minutes of daylight every day since June , in the Northern Hemisphere , and scientists predict if we don't do something about it, we'll be plunged into total darkness by June 2009.
Global Warming is being blamed for it.
-
What really got me rolling on the floor laughing at the king of arrogance (Al Gore) was his belief that an essential green house gas (essential meaning without CO2 the Earth would be in a perpetual state of ice age) causes runaway warming. The reality is that the ocean releases the gas when it (the ocean) is warmed by the sun and when the Earth cools then the ocean absorbs CO2. Its a great act Gore can milk for decades.
-
The reality is that the ocean releases the gas when it (the ocean) is warmed by the sun and when the Earth cools then the ocean absorbs CO2. Its a great act Gore can milk for decades.
Challenge, with all due respect, the reality is you don't know what you are talking about. The "ocean" does not absorb CO2. Plants do that...plankton that uses chlorophyll to make adenosine triphosphate. The ocean cannot absorb CO2..... unless you figure out where exactly it can fit into the H2O bond (something which is impossible). This is why H2O and CO2 are common products in many reactions..... they can't combine. There is no free area where CO2 can be absorbed into the bond structure.
(http://www.langara.bc.ca/biology/mario/Assets/WaterH-bond.jpg)
The ocean is known as a carbon "sink" because these animals die and "sink" to the bottom, taking the CO2 with them, where it stays in limbo in a free state, under supercooled conditions, until an upwelling brings it back to the surface, where it can be released.
Like most, please take a few minutes to learn prior to posting, or simply ask. Statements such as what you just made are misleading and overtly false.
-
Challenge, with all due respect, the reality is you don't know what you are talking about. The "ocean" does not absorb CO2. Plants do that...plankton that uses chlorophyll to make adenosine triphosphate. The ocean cannot absorb CO2..... unless you figure out where exactly it can fit into the H2O bond (something which is impossible). This is why H2O and CO2 are common products in many reactions..... they can't combine. There is no free area where CO2 can be absorbed into the bond structure.
(http://www.langara.bc.ca/biology/mario/Assets/WaterH-bond.jpg)
The ocean is known as a carbon "sink" because these animals die and "sink" to the bottom, taking the CO2 with them, where it stays in limbo in a free state, under supercooled conditions, until an upwelling brings it back to the surface, where it can be released.
Like most, please take a few minutes to learn prior to posting, or simply ask. Statements such as what you just made are misleading and overtly false.
I know you love the oceans but this time you stepped in something that might be wet but I wouldnt swim in it. I did read and I learned from reading which you dont seem to do so well at (or failed research 101). I think you take things too seriously and love to put people down. Please refrain from this in the future it makes you look bad.
From Harvard Magazine:
The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere in an attempt to reach equilibrium by direct air-to-sea exchange.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/11/the-ocean-carbon-cycle.html
From NewScientist: (This is actually an attempt to FORCE global warming to be a viable topic)
One of the world's largest carbon sinks has stopped soaking up the carbon dioxide that humans are pumping into the atmosphere, according to a new study.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11876-southern-ocean-already-losing-ability-to-absorb-cosub2sub.html
Hmmmmmm you were wrong on that one!
From HabitableZone:
They also play a vital role in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which could break down.
http://www.habitablezone.com/flame/messages/531704.html
-
We are losing 2 minutes of daylight every day since June , in the Northern Hemisphere , and scientists predict if we don't do something about it, we'll be plunged into total darkness by June 2009.
Global Warming is being blamed for it.
:rofl :rofl :rofl funniest thing i have seen all day!! :rofl :rofl :rofl
:salute
-
Got a foot and a half of snow last night, they can shove it
-
Challenge, with all due respect, the reality is you don't know what you are talking about. The "ocean" does not absorb CO2. Plants do that...plankton that uses chlorophyll to make adenosine triphosphate. The ocean cannot absorb CO2..... unless you figure out where exactly it can fit into the H2O bond (something which is impossible). This is why H2O and CO2 are common products in many reactions..... they can't combine. There is no free area where CO2 can be absorbed into the bond structure.
...
Like most, please take a few minutes to learn prior to posting, or simply ask. Statements such as what you just made are misleading and overtly false.
MORAY, you should apply your own advice to yourself. CO2 dissolves in water and I bet you've seen it a million times - in your soda drinks. The ratio between the dissolved and gas phases, like in every two-way reaction equilibrium depends on the temperature. There is by far more CO2 dissolved in the earth's oceans than in the atmosphere. This acts as a reservoir that release/dissolve CO2 as the temperatures change - warming causes an increase in atmospheric CO2, not the other way around. Most of the CO2 released by humans / animals / volcanoes / whathaveyou goes into the ocean instead of increasing atmospheric CO2, corresponding to the equilibrium fractions.
CO2 is an incredibly inefficient greenhouse gas. Almost the entire effect is caused by water vapor and methane with a tiny contribution of the CO2. In addition, what a lot of people (including MANY scientists) don't understand is how radiation transfer work. The greatest effect of changing atmospheric composition is to change the vertical thermal structure of the atmosphere - not necessarily and usually hardly changing the temperature at the base. Latest full-3D radiation transfer calculations give a change of 0.05 of a degree (at ground level) for composition with double atmospheric CO2. Even 50 times atmospheric CO2 does not give more than 1/2 a degree at ground level. Granted, these model make some simplifying assumptions, but still several orders of magnitude better than what global climate models use. Global climate models use an extremely simplified atmospheric model. This is OK for small variations and if you want an accuracy of +-5 degrees, not for creating a global panic.
-
drdeath, do you just hold down the enter key after you finish a post?
I am being followed(Again)
-
You stare confirmation in the face with the simple statement..."in my 50 years of living here, I have never seen that much snow" and yet you misinterpret that to mean climate change is FALSE. Would you like to take a minute and think of what you just said? In actuality, more snow is directly associated with a warmer planet, due to the fact that there is more water in the atmosphere to work with, due to higher levels of evaporation. Local temperature dictates how that precipitation will fall...in your case it fell as snow. If the globe was cooling, snowfall and all precipitation in general would decrease overall, where in actuality, overall precip levels have increased steadily. The things that have changed are the ways that precipitation gets distributed, which is why the southeast is in such a bad drought for 15 years.
Making an assertion that global warming is false because it's cold in winter in your backyard is about as idiotic as saying it's true because it's hot during the summer.
When continental drift creates mountains, or when a continent drifts over a pole, then snow starts to fall. Snow reflects the Sun's heat back into space, so cooling the Earth. Overabundance of snow eventually cools the atmosphere. This is not a year or 2. This is like decades. It was caused by the probable merging of continents but this remains a fact: There was many years if not decades of massive amounts of snow that never melted. Ice age is always interpreted as sub zero temps. 32 degrees is all it takes. The avg. temp of the world was drastically reduced but there still were season changes. We will never know how warm summer was. Maybe it was 30 maybe 50 in the equator region. It did warm up to start the thaw but never totally melted. This compacted the snow to "ice". The next year the same thing happened thus starting the ice age!
Moving continents also change the flow of water from one ocean to another and mountains affect the winds. So in many ways continental drift affects the climate. Eventually continental drift separates the continents, weathering wears down the mountains, and the climate goes back to its normal warm state. If continental drift happens in cycles, that would explain why ice ages seem to occur every 250 million years or so.
Another theory notes that sometimes in history there were mountains without an ice age. Perhaps changes outside the Earth also played a part in starting ice ages. Changes in the Sun or its movement round the Galaxy might have lessened the sunlight reaching the Earth. It takes about 250 million years for the Sun to travel once round the Galaxy. Coincidence?
Seeing it takes so long for these cycles to happen, it is reality we are in global warming. The weather does have patterns but it is very unlikely the avg. temp of the air and our oceans rise over a few decades so drastically. Just because we may be having a cold winter or more snow is masking the fact our environment is suffering from global warming. Earth does not lose 1/3 of its glaciers in just 1 or 2 decades. Ocean temps do not rise 2 degrees in 1 or 2 decades unless the sun moved out of position or a freak event happened.
Actually, I learned this neat stuff in geography.
-
I thought the last ice age was caused by a big meteorite striking earth and the big dust cloud 'shaded' the sun causing the cooling.
It's been snowing here 6 months of the year for centuries and not resulting in an 'ice age'.
Climate changing? Sure. Global Warming? Still not proven. Should we look at ways to cut down on pollution, sure that would be the
responsible thing to do.
-
Skern. I believe it wasn't. Ask Skuzzy that was 250 million years ago.... LOL
-
Moray read my post above^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. The idiotic statement seems to be......ummmmm.... kinda reversed. Wouldn't you agree?
-
I love it when the laymen lecture the scientists. Keep at it gentlemen. Where's my popcorn?
-
I thought the last ice age was caused by a big meteorite striking earth and the big dust cloud 'shaded' the sun causing the cooling.
Things change I guess. Nowadays that same thing would seem to cause global warming.
-
I know you love the oceans but this time you stepped in something that might be wet but I wouldnt swim in it. I did read and I learned from reading which you dont seem to do so well at (or failed research 101). I think you take things too seriously and love to put people down. Please refrain from this in the future it makes you look bad.
From Harvard Magazine:
http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/11/the-ocean-carbon-cycle.html
From NewScientist: (This is actually an attempt to FORCE global warming to be a viable topic)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11876-southern-ocean-already-losing-ability-to-absorb-cosub2sub.html
Hmmmmmm you were wrong on that one!
From HabitableZone:
http://www.habitablezone.com/flame/messages/531704.html
Chalenge, did you even read past the first paragraph on your first source? I mean past the point where you thought you were already right, and you weren't....LOL. If you did, you'd see it's exactly what I said. The only way H2O takes up any CO2 by itself, is by making carbolic acid (c6H5OH), and that is incredibly slow, and involves breaking the strong bonds H2O contains.
This process takes place at an extremely low rate, measured in hundreds to thousands of years. However, once dissolved in the ocean, a carbon atom will stay there, on average, more than 500 years, estimates Michael McElroy, Butler professor of environmental science.
If you look back, you might understand what it is the folks at Harvard were talking about.
-
Yes I can see how you might reach that view point Moray especially if you stopped reading after the first sentence of the second paragraph. There are over 286000 articles on how and why the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide. Yes it is slow but given that is a life-cycle process of the Earth it goes on continuously and always will go on and on a massive scale given the size of the oceans (over 70% of the Earth). I realize that complex systems like the Earth and its oceans are more then can be duplicated in laboratories which is why it works contrary to popular thinking but the fact is that the ocean does absorb massive amounts of carbon dioxide and it also releases massive amounts.
The sun warms the seas (which warm much more slowly then terra firma and humans) and just when we think its hot it starts cooling down as the ocean releases CO2. Are the two related? I think there is a direct connection between the Sun warming the sea and CO2 emissions. I dont know about CO2 releases and global cooling. The picture that Gore uses in his argument is that the two are related. It is true and it is also true that the CO2 emissions trail the warming of the Earth by about 800 years. So if you yell and scream and pass laws to prohibit CO2 emissions prepare to never exhale again and prepare to hold the oceans in contempt.
Cows burp poop and politicians deliver speeches and the result is the same.
Thats about what your selling too.
Merry Christmas
-
Yes I can see how you might reach that view point Moray especially if you stopped reading after the first sentence of the second paragraph. There are over 286000 articles on how and why the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide. Yes it is slow but given that is a life-cycle process of the Earth it goes on continuously and always will go on and on a massive scale given the size of the oceans (over 70% of the Earth). I realize that complex systems like the Earth and its oceans are more then can be duplicated in laboratories which is why it works contrary to popular thinking but the fact is that the ocean does absorb massive amounts of carbon dioxide and it also releases massive amounts.
The sun warms the seas (which warm much more slowly then terra firma and humans) and just when we think its hot it starts cooling down as the ocean releases CO2. Are the two related? I think there is a direct connection between the Sun warming the sea and CO2 emissions. I dont know about CO2 releases and global cooling. The picture that Gore uses in his argument is that the two are related. It is true and it is also true that the CO2 emissions trail the warming of the Earth by about 800 years. So if you yell and scream and pass laws to prohibit CO2 emissions prepare to never exhale again and prepare to hold the oceans in contempt.
Cows burp poop and politicians deliver speeches and the result is the same.
Thats about what your selling too.
Merry Christmas
The difference between us is that you've already decided that you are smarter than those that do the work. Somewhere along the lines of Lazs and "It's the sun, stupid." , like that's the last place anyone with a PhD would look..... :lol
Your argument is flawed by one simple point. We've already proven that by absorbing CO2 into the ocean slowly, you make carbonic acid. This is the way H2O can take up any CO2 by itself. By making carbonic acid, you lower the pH of the ocean due to raising the acidity. We've proven the pH of the ocean is decreasing in this manner (http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249 (http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249))
So then.... if the ocean is releasing all this C02 because you say it's the sun warming it and releasing the CO2, doesn't that mean that the carbonic acid was already there? The pH of the ocean should then be rising, by your argument, due to the release of all this stored CO2, when in fact it has been proofed repeatedly that the exact opposite? Explain to me if I've misunderstood your argument.
CO2 lagging previous temperature changes is easy..... Those were natural climate shifts (see: WE WEREN'T PUSHING CO2 into the system), and were not initiated with a change in atmospheric content.... Meaning something else changed to start the shift (generally orbital cycles, Milankovich cycles), and the feedback loop of CO2 pushed further. CO2 didn't start it, it pushed the balance after it became higher in concentration. The only way that your skeptic "lag theory" could hold any amount of credence is if CO2, but more importantly CH4, were not greenhouse gases. If this were true, then it could be stated that a natural exterior force drove the previous climate shifts, and that gaseous concentrations were a byproduct, having nothing to do with the climate shift. We both already know that CO2 and CH4 are proven greenhouse gases.
I'm not selling you anything. But I am glad to you are reading, at least. Now drop the preconceived notions that you have, and maybe you'll see the forest for the trees.
-
I thought the last ice age was caused by a big meteorite striking earth and the big dust cloud 'shaded' the sun causing the cooling.
The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. There are no impact craters large enough to cause what you describe of that age. Perhaps you are confusing the end of the Cretaceous Period, when the dinosaurs went extinct, 65 million years ago.... around 928 different "ice ages" ago. (on a 70,000 year average timeline of glaciation)
Ice cores are used to obtain a high resolution record of recent glaciation. It confirms the chronology of the marine isotopic stages. Ice core data shows that the last 400,000 years have consisted of short interglacials (10,000 to 30,000 years) about as warm as the present alternated with much longer (70,000 to 90,000 years) glacials substantially colder than present. The new EPICA Antarctic ice core has revealed that between 400,000 and 780,000 years ago, interglacials occupied a considerably larger proportion of each glacial/interglacial cycle, but were not as warm as subsequent interglacials.
-
Acidification is defined as an increase in the concentration of H + in a solution or a lowering of a solutions pH. Ocean acidification is therefore the reduction of the pH of the world's oceans and not the increase you are looking for. I think you have the process inverted which is precisely the same thing Gore did.
-
Acidification is defined as an increase in the concentration of H + in a solution or a lowering of a solutions pH. Ocean acidification is therefore the reduction of the pH of the world's oceans and not the increase you are looking for. I think you have the process inverted which is precisely the same thing Gore did.
Can you read?
What I just typed-------> Your argument is flawed by one simple point. We've already proven that by absorbing CO2 into the ocean slowly, you make carbonic acid. This is the way H2O can take up any CO2 by itself. By making carbonic acid, you lower the pH of the ocean due to raising the acidity.
Raising the acidity (lowering the pH) IS an increase in hydrogen ions. Your comprehension skills lag behind the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Please feel free to re-read my previous post until the little light bulb goes off over your head. I was showing you that your logic in the release of CO2 from the ocean is inherently flawed due to the pH of the oceans are currently going...here I'll put it in bold for you and capitalize...DOWN and/or DECREASING, REDUCING, LOWERING. Corresponding with you is almost as difficult as Lazs...if that is even possible.
-
Challenge, with all due respect.....
<snip>
Like most, please take a few minutes to learn prior to posting, or simply ask.
What respect? You show zero respect to anyone who disagrees with you.
The impression anyone will get from your posts on climate discussion is that you're a self-aggrandizing windbag. There isn't the slightest doubt that you'll verify this with your reply....
You stated in your last post; "We've proven the pH of the ocean is decreasing in this manner."
My question is, who is "we" and what did you contribute to the study?
Widewing
-
This may be a dumb question. How fast does the CO we emit from all these cars and factories change to CO2?
-
Aces high members are now physics experts!!!! Woot Woot!
Moray,quit pretending you know anything about the ice age. I studied it in college and you are copying all your info from the internet. You started out with this comment which is far from any truth. You simply gave your opinion which to the average person may make sense but it is untrue. It can snow at any temperature. Each of your opinions here are not entirely correct.
Most of these arguments are theories. We know mankind has not helped in this "climate change". There is a high probability that we are in global warming status. We actually have measuring sticks available to see it happening. If this is true we could be in trouble sooner than later so we should not ignore it or say it is not true. Maybe my belief is not true but it seems to be what is happening.
What really is the norm for temperatures on earth. We only have hundreds of years of data. The current norm is measured in a short period(actually a small fraction) of time.
Weather happens in cycles. El Nino and La Nina has a lot to do with your southwest drought situation. Theoretically, this could happen weather we have global warming or not. I do however believe global warming is contributing to this. Although it can snow at any temperature, heaviest snows do happen closer to the freezing mark. I do give you that. Heavy snows generally lead to lower temps because it reflects sunlight. Like the ice age, if we get heavier snow like we did 20, 30, 100 years ago, maybe the avg. temps will drop. This still will not replace the glaciers that have mass melted. It will take hundreds of years to replace that damage which basically happened over a 20 year period.
Mount Saint Helens had a huge effect on our avg. temps for many years. There are many volcanos that erupt under our oceans that emit gases into the atmosphere that many of us never really hear of. Most of these are inactive but they do exist. 1 major eruption anywhere in the world could change things quickly.
There just are too many variables that change things.
You stare confirmation in the face with the simple statement..."in my 50 years of living here, I have never seen that much snow" and yet you misinterpret that to mean climate change is FALSE. Would you like to take a minute and think of what you just said? In actuality, more snow is directly associated with a warmer planet, due to the fact that there is more water in the atmosphere to work with, due to higher levels of evaporation. Local temperature dictates how that precipitation will fall...in your case it fell as snow. If the globe was cooling, snowfall and all precipitation in general would decrease overall, where in actuality, overall precip levels have increased steadily. The things that have changed are the ways that precipitation gets distributed, which is why the southeast is in such a bad drought for 15 years.
Making an assertion that global warming is false because it's cold in winter in your backyard is about as idiotic as saying it's true because it's hot during the summer.
:lol :lol
-
Muray, CO2 absorption in the oceans is a "slow" process, but what is "slow"? If you look at your own signature, you will notice that the ocean covers 2/3 of the earth - That is a "large" surface area. The rate of absorption is proportional to the area of the gas-liquid inter phase and the "large" offsets the "slow". The result is that the typical time scale for excess CO2 absorption is more like 30-50 years. I admit that chemistry is not my expertise, but I've been told that the rate of CO2 absorption and dissipation was actually measured from radioactive isotopes produced in the nuclear explosion experiments in the 50-60s. The result is even a little quicker than what the theoretical models gives.
Physics is my expertise and the part I do know and understand much better is the effect of CO2 on the "greenhouse effect". Whether there is a global warming or not, whether it is man made or not, CO2 is not the direct and major cause of it. Correlations are tricky. The funniest example I know of is that if you check the life expectancy in various countries in the world, or any other health indicator for that matter, you will find a VERY tight correlation between good health and CO2 emission. Conclusion: CO2 is good for your health.
-
Muray, CO2 absorption in the oceans is a "slow" process, but what is "slow"? If you look at your own signature, you will notice that the ocean covers 2/3 of the earth - That is a "large" surface area. The rate of absorption is proportional to the area of the gas-liquid inter phase and the "large" offsets the "slow". The result is that the typical time scale for excess CO2 absorption is more like 30-50 years. I admit that chemistry is not my expertise, but I've been told that the rate of CO2 absorption and dissipation was actually measured from radioactive isotopes produced in the nuclear explosion experiments in the 50-60s. The result is even a little quicker than what the theoretical models gives.
Physics is my expertise and the part I do know and understand much better is the effect of CO2 on the "greenhouse effect". Whether there is a global warming or not, whether it is man made or not, CO2 is not the direct and major cause of it. Correlations are tricky. The funniest example I know of is that if you check the life expectancy in various countries in the world, or any other health indicator for that matter, you will find a VERY tight correlation between good health and CO2 emission. Conclusion: CO2 is good for your health.
What?? CO2 isn't good for chordates health??? lol. That correlation is funny to be sure. Kind of like the study that came out in the mid eighties that said "You are 100 times more likely to die in a car accident within 15 miles of your home" or something like that. What they failed to mention is people spend 99% of their time within 15 miles of their residence, so, of course you're more likely to die within that distance.
I do agree with your point about CO2 not being a major contributor though. What high levels of CO2 allow for though, is just enough warming to get methane clathrate (hydrates) released from permafrost and deep ocean reservoirs. If CO2 was the major problem, we'd already be too late, since levels are higher than they have been in millenia. Methane release starts once temperatures get past the freezing point in a given location, although it can remain stable up to 18 degrees C if the pressure is high enough (deep undersea). CH4 is a much more efficient greenhouse gas, as I'm sure you know.
[url]http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/01071/EGU2007-J-01071.pdf?PHPSESSID=e]http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html[url]
[url]http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/01071/EGU2007-J-01071.pdf?PHPSESSID=e (http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html[url)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,547976,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,547976,00.html)
-
What respect? You show zero respect to anyone who disagrees with you.
The impression anyone will get from your posts on climate discussion is that you're a self-aggrandizing windbag. There isn't the slightest doubt that you'll verify this with your reply....
You stated in your last post; "We've proven the pH of the ocean is decreasing in this manner."
My question is, who is "we" and what did you contribute to the study?
Widewing
Widewing, I respect those who respect me. Undoubtedly, you feel the same way.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFMOS11C0385C (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFMOS11C0385C)
http://minmag.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/72/1/359 (http://minmag.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/72/1/359)
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18848 (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18848)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19033205 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19033205)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6876/full/416070a.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6876/full/416070a.html)
-
Widewing, I respect those who respect me. Undoubtedly, you feel the same way.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFMOS11C0385C (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFMOS11C0385C)
http://minmag.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/72/1/359 (http://minmag.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/72/1/359)
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18848 (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18848)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19033205 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19033205)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6876/full/416070a.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6876/full/416070a.html)
It doesn't work that way... You don't wait for respect to offer it. It's not a quid pro quo thing at all. Do you wait for someone to open a door for you before you do it for another?
You can certainly make your argument without "talking down" to folks, right?
Moving forward, you present several links above to studies on ocean pH levels. That's great, interesting reading. However, you haven't addressed my questions.
Re: You stated in your last post; "We've proven the pH of the ocean is decreasing in this manner."
My question is, who is "we" and what did you contribute to the study?
The term "We" (the first part of your "we've" contraction) connotes your participation.... What was your contribution?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Moray.... Never studied physics or chemistry. Your on your own.
-
Moray:
"I do agree with your point about CO2 not being a major contributor though. What high levels of CO2 allow for though, is just enough warming to get methane clathrate (hydrates) released from permafrost and deep ocean reservoirs. If CO2 was the major problem, we'd already be too late, since levels are higher than they have been in millenia. Methane release starts once temperatures get past the freezing point in a given location, although it can remain stable up to 18 degrees C if the pressure is high enough (deep undersea). CH4 is a much more efficient greenhouse gas, as I'm sure you know. "
Now, this is the creepy part, and the main issue to the "doomsday" theory, - when methane goes wild, and eventually surface water goes boiling...you're in hell.
But when that methane was tied down, from the air, how did that happen? Is it the Gaia theory at work, - the earth stabilizing back from the wildest of meneuvers before going "Venus"?
Anyway, while it's at the "wild ride", I'd rather not be there, and doubt civilization would survive.
-
Hard to know what's true when the science gets so tied up in the politics of BOTH sides. Everybody applies their spin so much that you can't help but feel dizzy.
What's most concerning to me is the indisputable fact that our climate has warmed substantially in the last 150 years. Simply looking at photos of glaciers (like those on glacier national park) can show that the overall average temperature must be increasing. And consider the large changes already noted in Antarctic ice shelves, the decreasing ice mass near the north pole, and the fact that some low lying islands are losing surface area, the fact that the Great Lakes no longer overfreeze (which ironically LOWERS their water level through winter evaporation)...Not sure how else to interpret those measures of LONG TERM temperature change.
I suppose reasonable people (if any such beast inhabits the O club) might disagree about the causes, but even IF the process is entirely natural it seems to me that man made greenhouse gas production could only make things worse.
Unfortunately both sides of the discussion tend to go to extremes and absolutes, when it seems to me that we should approach the situation in terms of balancing the cost of reduction against the benefits to be gained.
-
Now that was a very good input!
-
Mar's temp rose 1 degree. If we drive less and clean up our act a bit more maybe Mar's temperature will return to normal.
I'm only 1 percent sure the sun had anything to do with it.
-
Moray:
Its not that I think I am smarter then you as clearly you have a great mind but it is a fact that I have seen both sides of this coin now (being old and gray does have some merits). I have seen scientists say that carbon dioxide is essential to life in and on the earth and that emissions from automobiles are not a bad thing as long as it is carbon dioxide and water. That line has changed in just the last five years. I can actually point to the beginning of this trend as one commentator on a BBC program on nature many years ago. Scientists at that time were saying it was dangerous to let him continue and yet the BBC kept him and his notions andthe trend built until today 'climate change' has become not only political but religious.
The indisputable fact that a single volcanic eruption has and will again expel many more times the carbon dioxide than man could ever emit from his engines and devices is lost upon the cult of politics and religion of today. The Earth has in fact been destroyed before (if you consider mass extinction a destruction) and man was not present. At the time of the mass extinction I am referring to the first system to recover was the sea and it was nearly immediate and so you must be wrong in your conjectures.
All that aside I want to point out something to you. When you enter into discussions (and by 'you' I mean YOU) there is a most decided tendency for you to attack and berate and badger anyone that has an opposing viewpoint (I think widewing said the same of you). Even though your wisdom and intellect shine forth when you resort to the methods you have used it takes away a great deal from your argument strength.
And despite having valid points on the processes in seawater... this time you are on the wrong side. Global warming is a political ploy and a position of bad-science/religion. Whenever someone brings up global warming I think of the guys in the Ape movie with the cataracts protecting the nuke. Misguided comes to mind too.
-
"Global warming is a political ploy and a position of bad-science/religion."
That's what YOU say....
Must work well enough to affect nature. A well made ploy...
-
Hope everyone had a great holiday and spent it with family and friends.
Chalenge, you are probably right about some things about me. I do tend to charge instead of sit there and scrape my feet. My apologies if I offend. The problem being, I severely dislike opinions being brought into science. I know good science that has been ruined by opinion. I did not use opinions to state my case. I used science. Your "opinion" that global warming is a ploy does not reflect out into the scientific realm. The truth is what is there, and climate is undeniably shifting.
The sun is currently "stuck" in a minimum, between solar cycles, and this is adding to the problem by masking some effects in global temperature. Below is a picture of the sun (TODAY), and the clean optical disk (no sunspots) that has been there for months now. And yet, even at low output, there are still climate issues around the globe.
(http://www.spaceweather.com/images2008/26dec08/midi512_blank.gif?PHPSESSID=q262kkl6r2jlj4r75mfhm3a6m7)
But, maybe we'll get lucky and the sun will stay at this low activity for a long time. We entered solar cycle 24 a few months ago, and have only had 8 sunspots since. This indicates the 11 year cycle is kind of in a "holding pattern", and the solar output is way down (solar wind is below 300 km/s-1) There is a little talk that we could be entering into another long term "minimum". I don't subscribe to that, due to the slight slight uptick of sunspot (ie solar) activity towards the end of the graph below.
(http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif)
Honestly, and you can quote me, I'm waiting to see what the outliers are, climatologically speaking, when we get into 2011-2012. Scientifically, that should be when the sun is at historical norms as far as output. If we see huge variations in climate versus the historical average, we'll know we have serious issues coming. I'm not a "sky is falling" kind of guy...I didn't buy into the hype in the early days. Scientifically, the principle on climate change that has been put forth is sound. CO2 is not a major greenhouse gas, and is generally short lived <50 years in the atmosphere, but it does initiate feedback loops that make things happen. Specifically, CH4 and water vapor increases in the lower and middle atmosphere.
Our current orbital mechanics are such that there aren't natural reasons that we should be in a shift. As far as warming on Mars (Tool), please see this article on the simple reason. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html) You remember how darker clothes get warmer? It works everywhere, it turns out.
-
As far as warming on Mars (Tool), please see this article on the simple reason. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html) You remember how darker clothes get warmer? It works everywhere, it turns out.
"The study also predicted that Mars will continue to warm, due in part to a cycle caused by the planet's darkening surface." BUt does not say what the other part or parts are.
I don't know how long it takes for the effects of a sun flare to reach earth but I do know it can change our normal weather patterns. There are just to many unknown and known factors to consider when predicting the effects of any type of natural occurrence. We can hardly make accurate weather predictions and look at all the knowledge and tools we have.
There will always be arguments when in comes to natures science. Most of what you hear are just opinions backed up by his or her's selected authoritative persons best educated guess on that particular subject of lifetime focus.....kind of like the weatherman. One channel says one thing and another says something similar but neither are exact and many times wrong... until it's actually happening.
I prefer to just let nature be , realize that I do have an impact on my own environment and use my best judgment to contribute less to any damaging affect.
Worrying about something I have little to no control over will just upset my friends and stomach for absolutely nothing :) I'll long be dead before something truly bad happens to this planet or try to avoid/accept death with the rest of you if it comes sooner.
Mother natures an unstoppable Biatch
-
"The study also predicted that Mars will continue to warm, due in part to a cycle caused by the planet's darkening surface." BUt does not say what the other part or parts are.
I don't know how long it takes for the effects of a sun flare to reach earth but I do know it can change our normal weather patterns. There are just to many unknown and known factors to consider when predicting the effects of any type of natural occurrence. We can hardly make accurate weather predictions and look at all the knowledge and tools we have.
There will always be arguments when in comes to natures science. Most of what you hear are just opinions backed up by his or her's selected authoritative persons best educated guess on that particular subject of lifetime focus.....kind of like the weatherman. One channel says one thing and another says something similar but neither are exact and many times wrong... until it's actually happening.
I prefer to just let nature be , realize that I do have an impact on my own environment and use my best judgment to contribute less to any damaging affect.
Worrying about something I have little to no control over will just upset my friends and stomach for absolutely nothing :) I'll long be dead before something truly bad happens to this planet or try to avoid/accept death with the rest of you if it comes sooner.
Mother natures an unstoppable Biatch
I would also wish to point out that direct observational data from Mars is non-existent. It has not been directly verified that there has been any warming on that planet, all measurements are of infrared and other source base. It's tough enough with good observational data on the planet (Earth) we inhabit to get a handle on causality. On a planet (Mars) we've only had a handful of direct observations for the past 30 years.... a little more challenging. Those that point out warming within the solar system measured by indirect methodology as being indicative of purely solar forcing..... yet contend the analytical data on this planet is too rough to make an astute observational theorem, are true marvels of inept thought. Of course, that does not make them wrong, only inept.
Also, Widewing....
I honestly do not feel comfortable in making my real life identity known on this particular BBS. Review of my published work will not give answers to your confrontational discourse. My work deals primarily with coastal impacts of water chemistry, especially with invertebrates (Cnidaria). I am a co-author on some of those papers I cited. I work in Florida, currently. I hold a master's and I'm currently scheduled to present my doctoral thesis in April. I apologize if I've been confrontational to you. I don't, looking back in pages, see where I have. Perhaps maybe you just want to stick up for Chalenge, or feel he needed your assistance. Whatever your reason, it is misguided. I have previously thought of your posts as intelligent and considered....perhaps that last one was simply an aberration.
-
So you would know your stuff about...saturation ;)
-
This may add to it!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
-
OOOPS and here is more.....
http://www.examiner.com/x-431-SF-Politics-Examiner~y2008m12d22-Cracks-in-the-global-warming-consensus
-
Only 650? I thought they were...more. :t
-
...
Scientifically, the principle on climate change that has been put forth is sound.
...
And here is the source of the problem - science and "climate change". The climate always changes, that is true and sound. Beyond that is where science becomes fuzzy. It is NOT well established that there is global warming, that is why the term was replaced by climate change, which could mean anything. There are endless things that are disputed in the "evidence" for abnormal climate, I have no wish to get into that.
The worst part is the immediate following assumption that if something has indeed changed, SOMEONE is to blame for it. This is the door through which politicians, world views, personal interests and panic mongers creep through. This is where the real damage is being done. OK, lets say we do get to the conclusion that the climate is "changing" from empirical data. We still don't know the cause and it is very likely that it is not us to blame for it. Now we have the option of blowing billions of dollar, time and other resources, trying to prevent this from happening - which may turn out to be just as effective as sacrificing a goat, or we can spend them on trying to figure out how to deal with it.
Can't we just sacrifice a goat and move on to the serious stuff? By the time humanity has reduced the CO2 emission to what we think is "low enough" (a random goal that will be pulled out of our oscar), we will discover that we kept the larger fraction of humanity as under developed countries, that we poisoned ourselves with other kinds of real pollution and inspite of all our dead goats and efforts, the weather kept doing his own thing - whatever that may be.
-
Totally to blame...oh hell no.
But to ignore that we have an influence at all, well that's the other end.
We do have a La Nina effect (actually spiced with a nice Volcanic eruption/S emission) which should form some cooling, and that was predicted, - not exactly guessed.
The big question was about the sea ice, but it didn't get to the all low minimum. Just close....
Anyway, that's good news.
ummm yeah, New England is setting record lows and record highs tempwise every summer and winter for a few of the past 5 years.
-
And here is the source of the problem - science and "climate change". The climate always changes, that is true and sound. Beyond that is where science becomes fuzzy. It is NOT well established that there is global warming, that is why the term was replaced by climate change, which could mean anything. There are endless things that are disputed in the "evidence" for abnormal climate, I have no wish to get into that.
The term "global warming" was changed to favor " anthropogenic global climate change" due to the properties of thermodynamics applied to the theory. When one part of a system gets warmer, scientifically, another must lose thermal energy. This is why the entire globe is not warming uniformly, and why other parts (Antarctica) are actually showing cooling. You have obviously started your position with an opinion, and worked your way back to theory. This, sir, is exactly opposite to the route that deductive reasoning takes. While technically, the average temperature of the globe has increased, cases can be shown that individual locations have cooled. Although "warming" has far exceeded the "cooling", skeptics such as yourself will latch on to the individuality of the data, i.e. the "tree" instead of the "forest" surrounding it.
"Global warming" as a statement, is often misrepresented and attacked by those who are not familiar with the principles behind the empirical data. I, for one, wish the terminology had been contemplated better, or that it had not been represented in such a blanket manner.
One needs only to look at the way the climate system is currently responding, to realize there is something out of whack. The sun is in a low output period, our orbit is snug and non-eccentric at this time, and it was 70 in the upper midwest a couple days ago. 70 yesterday in the Mid- Atlantic. Tornado warnings in the heartland in late december. These things are out of whack for the amount of energy being put into this closed system called earth.
I do agree though, we get past causal blame, and get on to negating the effects. I still maintain that, in 4 or 5 years, when the sun begins to reach it's 11 year maximum in activity, we're going to realize how exponential the problem really has grown. I'm not a "sky is falling" type of person.... just realize that we were granted a slight reprieve based on our sun's normal cycle. That reprieve could prove disastrous, though, as it surely could be masking the full effect that is sitting over our heads.
-
I dont know moray it sure 'feels' like you are a 'sky is falling' type person. :)
For a long time I thought the real reason the Earth is experiencing these problems is the orbital path... summer being closer and winter being further rather then the closer orbit we have been used to. The problem with that is the period shift of orbital variation is 11000 years and we would be seeing frost even in the summer of Alabama. Unless solar flares are ongoing at just the right points through the year this shouldnt be the case.
But looking at the chemistry of carbon dioxide I have to stick with my original impressions. Firstly that the popular films on global warming ('climate change') have inverted the cause/effect argument of reality and second that the people studying the lesser causes are living in a glass bottle (my analogy of trying to recreate the eco-system of Mars in a beer bottle). The cart has been tipped for quite awhile. Laboratories (more correctly scientists in laboratories) cannot create life and yet scientists want us to believe they can understand a complex environment like the Earth. And Al Gore always tells the truth.
I am old and gray and my 'opinion' no longer matters but I am going to leave you with an impression of mine I have held my entire life. In education there are two types of people. First is the type that learns and learns and comes to the conclusion he knows it all. Second is the type that learns and learns and comes away realizing how much he doesnt know. Neither one is absolute truth but the interesting part is what makes the difference in the persons involved. That is something science is just as poor at discovering as it is in determining the cause of political or religious subjects.
Now... if the environment is really on the edge of peril then certainly the first volcanic eruption we experience will tip the scales and the Earth will be destroyed. Yeh... right!
-
Moray, it is not unusual to see periods that have warm days in winter but it is not common. Scientists look at averages and long term patterns not 1 warm spell.
-
Moray, it is not unusual to see periods that have warm days in winter but it is not common. Scientists look at averages and long term patterns not 1 warm spell.
Fully realized, my friend. Also realized is the shear amount of "outliers" in the data. Whence outliers become norm, the norm has shifted.
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/cei/dk-step4.01-12.gif)
-
It may snow too much in some US states, and the prediction is cold for the UK over the new year. Meantime, I am worried about ploughing jobs hitting me when I have no plan for them,,,in January,,,in Iceland.
This is climate change I guess, and on my Icy turf it is Warming.
(just to counter the snow complaint, for it only requires air temp of a couple degs to turn that into rain.)
-
The term "global warming" was changed to favor " anthropogenic global climate change" due to the properties of thermodynamics applied to the theory. When one part of a system gets warmer, scientifically, another must lose thermal energy. This is why the entire globe is not warming uniformly, and why other parts (Antarctica) are actually showing cooling. You have obviously started your position with an opinion, and worked your way back to theory. This, sir, is exactly opposite to the route that deductive reasoning takes. While technically, the average temperature of the globe has increased, cases can be shown that individual locations have cooled. Although "warming" has far exceeded the "cooling", skeptics such as yourself will latch on to the individuality of the data, i.e. the "tree" instead of the "forest" surrounding it.
"Global warming" as a statement, is often misrepresented and attacked by those who are not familiar with the principles behind the empirical data. I, for one, wish the terminology had been contemplated better, or that it had not been represented in such a blanket manner.
...
MORAY,
I have a PhD in physics and currently hold a post doctoral fellowship in quite a respectable institute. Trust me, I know a few things about the "principles behind the empirical data". Just because of this I am a skeptic and know how to read a plot with a line that goes through it with no theory behind it. Outliers don't mean a thing and are usually a result of systematic errors (theory or empirical). You can plot a line through the data and call it science, but if you don't understand the principles of the process behind the system, your prediction is not scientific. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that whatever is happening, if anything is happening at all, is man made. ZERO. Instead, there is a hypothesis that "we" must have caused this and we need to figure out how we did it. Anyone who tries to suggest that we should consider the possibility that it is not our fault and we should just deal with it instead of trying to prevent it, is being attacked because it is no longer a hypothesis - it is an agenda.
-
i predict this thread will burn a large hole in the atmosphere, :huh
please stop, :furious
can't you see all this fighting is going to hurt our planet :O
we must stop the giant sized rants, there to big, they burn to much fuel, :cry
try some one liners, maybe even some one word rants,
better yet, just be nice, no rants at all, we used to live in a rant free world, :cool:
give earth a chance :salute
:noid
see i just changed from cars to rants, lol see, see, :cool:
i was afraid you wouldn't get it :rofl :rofl
-
MORAY,
I have a PhD in physics and currently hold a post doctoral fellowship in quite a respectable institute. Trust me, I know a few things about the "principles behind the empirical data". Just because of this I am a skeptic and know how to read a plot with a line that goes through it with no theory behind it. Outliers don't mean a thing and are usually a result of systematic errors (theory or empirical). You can plot a line through the data and call it science, but if you don't understand the principles of the process behind the system, your prediction is not scientific. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that whatever is happening, if anything is happening at all, is man made. ZERO. Instead, there is a hypothesis that "we" must have caused this and we need to figure out how we did it. Anyone who tries to suggest that we should consider the possibility that it is not our fault and we should just deal with it instead of trying to prevent it, is being attacked because it is no longer a hypothesis - it is an agenda.
Would you claim that man has no influence on the surface and atmosphere at all?
Would you then claim that the atmosphere and the surface of the planet have no inflence on climate?
-
I still say all those that think man is the problem should eliminate themselves to "reduce" the problem. Oh wait, forgot. They're not the probem, just everyone else who doesn't "believe" the hype.
Face it, if "man" is such a problem for the planet to handle then maybe we need to get rid of half the population on this rock. You can't regulate the atmosphere or control the weather, but we can control the population.
-
Every one of us expels huge amounts of carbon dioxide during the course of our lives. Prepare to pay higher taxes.
-
MORAY,
I have a PhD in physics and currently hold a post doctoral fellowship in quite a respectable institute. Trust me, I know a few things about the "principles behind the empirical data". Just because of this I am a skeptic and know how to read a plot with a line that goes through it with no theory behind it. Outliers don't mean a thing and are usually a result of systematic errors (theory or empirical). You can plot a line through the data and call it science, but if you don't understand the principles of the process behind the system, your prediction is not scientific. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that whatever is happening, if anything is happening at all, is man made. ZERO. Instead, there is a hypothesis that "we" must have caused this and we need to figure out how we did it. Anyone who tries to suggest that we should consider the possibility that it is not our fault and we should just deal with it instead of trying to prevent it, is being attacked because it is no longer a hypothesis - it is an agenda.
I do wonder if your "respectable" institute is the same as my own "respectable" institute, as that is the same way I would frame it. You headquartered in a castle by chance?
As to your post.... there is something to be said for the tail end of it. I don't like the fact it's become an all encompassing "agenda" to some in our line of work. Yet, going back to the data, there have been exhaustive studies on other causal agents that have panned out flat. Earth is a closed system with only one source of energy. That source of energy didn't increase in magnitude, yet still we have these things going on.
Zero evidence? C'mon. Talk about starting from a position and working your way back to theory. There's plenty of evidence, both historical and current. Where that evidence fits, only further time will tell. But, i see you live in the camp that states..."It's simply massive coincidence this all started when man began to put CO2 into the atmosphere by the Industrial Revolution." Millenia of stable temperatures that all changed in one hundred and fifty years, with no solar shift (actually a lag) or orbital wobble.....but there's no evidence. Even the most skeptic skeptic has to agree... there's at least a smidgeon of evidence.... We see a direct correspondence to CO2 and CH4 concentrations to global temp in the historical record. Of course CO2 concentration lags the temperature, that's because the last shifts in climate were started NATURALLY. CO2 and CH4 were released, THEN pushed the temp in a feedback loop. In this case, we put them into the air first, without natural, outside the system input.
And, you're right about outliers... to a point. As any self respecting scientist knows, outliers don't mean a thing unless they become the norm. We all love that tight grouping of data points, though.
I would like to entertain your own personal theory though. What explains all this? If you are so willing to disprove the prevailing ideology, there must be your own reasoning, or that of your advisor. Physicists are always a wily bunch, prone to ignore the empirical and embrace the hypothetical at a moments meandering.
-
I still say all those that think man is the problem should eliminate themselves to "reduce" the problem. Oh wait, forgot. They're not the probem, just everyone else who doesn't "believe" the hype.
Face it, if "man" is such a problem for the planet to handle then maybe we need to get rid of half the population on this rock. You can't regulate the atmosphere or control the weather, but we can control the population.
Now, that is the whole question. Maybe we're at it ourself at an impressive pace....
-
I would like to entertain your own personal theory though. What explains all this? If you are so willing to disprove the prevailing ideology, there must be your own reasoning, or that of your advisor. Physicists are always a wily bunch, prone to ignore the empirical and embrace the hypothetical at a moments meandering.
I doubt we are from the same institute, given that if you try to squeeze all the people in my institute into a castle, even if you fill up the dungeons many will still be falling off the walls. It is one of the largest in Europe and I do not wish to get into details for the same reasons you mentioned.
I do not deal with global warming so I have no theories of my own. I know some of the people that do, but aside from attending their seminars and coffee talks I have no independent sources of data or information about other research. As to my personal views, I have no clear preference as I have nothing to base it on. All I know is that all evidence is extremely marginal, so much so that there may not be anything to explain. More importantly, nothing I have seen so far suggests that if that elusive climate change is indeed meaningful, it has something to do with humans. I am sorry, but the fact that it happens now does not mean that it is because human industry has changed. If the change started in the 70s, maybe I did it, because I was born in 1975. Or maybe it was cellular phones - it killed the bees didn't it? To me, the immediate assumption that humans did it is just a self centric point of view. Exactly the same as the old obvious assumption that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it - without real information, isn't that the most obvious thing to assume?
I'd hate to see large scale operations set into motion based on such thin foundations, trying to treat a disease that may not even be there. It is not like we have nothing to loose. Humanity has so many better paths to improve its situation that I can't see the justification in combating CO2, while we have other kinds of real pollution, poverty and famine or can find ways to deal with the inevitable. I support every dollar that goes into research as long as it is reasonable, but object to all the CO2 deals, treaties, low CO2 power plants and laugh at silly things like hybrid cars. The absolute worst thing that can happen is... nothing. Lets say that we get all worked up by this CO2/global change thing, spend billions to trying to prevent it, but fail to reduce CO2 emission due to our expected incompetence and politics. Then, in spite of that, nothing happens. The public will demand blood and science as a trusted method will suffer a huge hit. This is not something to be taken lightly, science depends upon the public's trust in it.
I am not sure where your remark about physicists being "prone to ignore the empirical and embrace the hypothetical at a moments meandering" comes from or what it refers to. I will just ignore it was actually posted here and assume that there was a joke there. Just like that.
I think this thread is pretty much exhausted.
-
Bozon:
"There is absolutely ZERO evidence that whatever is happening, if anything is happening at all, is man made. ZERO."
Sounds like a theory ....
-
I doubt we are from the same institute, given that if you try to squeeze all the people in my institute into a castle, even if you fill up the dungeons many will still be falling off the walls. It is one of the largest in Europe and I do not wish to get into details for the same reasons you mentioned.
I do not deal with global warming so I have no theories of my own. I know some of the people that do, but aside from attending their seminars and coffee talks I have no independent sources of data or information about other research. As to my personal views, I have no clear preference as I have nothing to base it on. All I know is that all evidence is extremely marginal, so much so that there may not be anything to explain. More importantly, nothing I have seen so far suggests that if that elusive climate change is indeed meaningful, it has something to do with humans. I am sorry, but the fact that it happens now does not mean that it is because human industry has changed. If the change started in the 70s, maybe I did it, because I was born in 1975. Or maybe it was cellular phones - it killed the bees didn't it? To me, the immediate assumption that humans did it is just a self centric point of view. Exactly the same as the old obvious assumption that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it - without real information, isn't that the most obvious thing to assume?
I'd hate to see large scale operations set into motion based on such thin foundations, trying to treat a disease that may not even be there. It is not like we have nothing to loose. Humanity has so many better paths to improve its situation that I can't see the justification in combating CO2, while we have other kinds of real pollution, poverty and famine or can find ways to deal with the inevitable. I support every dollar that goes into research as long as it is reasonable, but object to all the CO2 deals, treaties, low CO2 power plants and laugh at silly things like hybrid cars. The absolute worst thing that can happen is... nothing. Lets say that we get all worked up by this CO2/global change thing, spend billions to trying to prevent it, but fail to reduce CO2 emission due to our expected incompetence and politics. Then, in spite of that, nothing happens. The public will demand blood and science as a trusted method will suffer a huge hit. This is not something to be taken lightly, science depends upon the public's trust in it.
I am not sure where your remark about physicists being "prone to ignore the empirical and embrace the hypothetical at a moments meandering" comes from or what it refers to. I will just ignore it was actually posted here and assume that there was a joke there. Just like that.
I think this thread is pretty much exhausted.
It amazes me we can agree on so much, and yet come to so different an opinion on this one topic.
Such is life though. Inconveniently complex.
We are not from the same institute, or you would have gathered the castle reference quickly. Besides, you are based in Europe, meaning CERN, NPL or RISO.
-
Both of you have enough evidence within this one thread to solve the issue.
I blame mother nature herself. How dare she have so many eruptions in such a short period of time! I mean its no wonder we have so many problems with carbon dioxide since Mt St Helens alone probably let off more then ten times to carbon dioxide of mankinds total! We should sue the Earth for attempting suicide.
-
Bozon:
"There is absolutely ZERO evidence that whatever is happening, if anything is happening at all, is man made. ZERO."
Sounds like a theory ....
That is not a theory, this is a simple statement of the facts. If there is evidence, please bring it to my attention and no, correlations are not evidence. I don't say that humans are not responsible - what I say is that we have no evidence that support this, so it COULD be true. The current situation does not justify a world wide operation to restrict economies of developing countries, or damaging those of the developed ones, nor does it justify the waste of time and resources. I don't say "do nothing". Further research should be conducted and development of measures of dealing with weather extremes will not be a waste either way. This should not be done in "panic" mode though.
-
Okay, to work from what we know. And it's evidence is ample...
1. Atmosphere ingredients affect the temperatures we trap.
2. Earths surface affects radiation input.
3. Earths vegetation affects both.
For what we should know is that mankind affects all 3, noteably 2 & 3. The manner affected is most for warming effect, although there is some on the cooling effect. (dimming). So, we do not know exactly how much, but that's about it. No theory.
-
You armchair researchers are still lecturing the real scientists on how to interpret their data? :P
-
One needs only to look at the way the climate system is currently responding, to realize there is something out of whack. The sun is in a low output period, our orbit is snug and non-eccentric at this time, and it was 70 in the upper midwest a couple days ago. 70 yesterday in the Mid- Atlantic. Tornado warnings in the heartland in late december. These things are out of whack for the amount of energy being put into this closed system called earth.
Moray.... All your rhetoric really is what "Theory" you belive in. Take all you data and yes you see a trend. Trends do happen in climates. Although it is not common, even in cold periods, there could be 70 degree temps in the winter in the midwest. If you really knew more, you would realize jet streams have a lot to do with real time weather. I am not totally disagreeing with you. You are getting hooked into trying to show that you are right. Any short term data will have certain interpretations. We will not know if this is "Global Warming" for hundreds if not thousands of years from now.
One thing is for certain. Drastic changes are happening over a short period of time(decades). If we ignore the fact that this may be 'Global Warming" and we are wrong, we may be in serious trouble. Models show in the next 50-100 years there may be no snow or ice left at the Artic Circle. The Northwest traffic lanes will be open for transportation. Countries are currently negotiating with the UN for sea rights! We cannot ignore this anymore and we should try to help the environent as much as we can. Moray jr. will definitely see the effects. LOL
-
If you decrease earths forestral vegetation by 50% and replace with something that traps sunlight much better, then double co2 AND methane, well, you have a formula that will cause warming. No theory at all. The only debate is the extent of the effect, ranging between miniscule and enough to worry. No hype or silly theory here.