PDA

View Full Version : Rising sea level and the flooding of the American continent



Del
02-22-2007, 09:07 PM
If the poles melted...


I've read if all the ice melted the seas would rise about 20 feet from Greenland's ice, almost nothing from the Arctic and 200 feet from Antarctica.

Is there a map somewhere that would indicate the new shape of the continent if the sea rose to its maximum?

I've found maps to about a 20 foot rise.

Short of a flood map, is there a topo map that shows general altitude of the south west? Everything I've found is much too localized.

Thanks

ideagirl
02-22-2007, 09:17 PM
I could be wrong, but I seem to recall seeing something like that someplace on this site: http://www.climatecrisis.net/ (http://www.climatecrisis.net/)

Del
02-22-2007, 10:11 PM
Thanks Ideagirl. I've been there before. This time the video actually worked. :D

Still it is the 20 foot limit. It is the difference between sea waters encroaching tens of miles vs hundreds of miles (I suspect).

What would be drowned after worst case?

Vincent
02-22-2007, 10:17 PM
Florida and Bangladesh. California's Central Valley. A lot of Louisiana. And most every coastal city in the world.

blacbird
02-23-2007, 02:31 AM
Any good contour map will show you land elevations graphically. Go to the library and look up a good atlas.

Oh, by the way, New Orleans will be flooded. In case you hadn't guessed.

caw

Del
02-23-2007, 02:49 AM
Any good contour map will show you land elevations graphically. Go to the library and look up a good atlas.

Yeah, the nerest library of any worth is 45 miles and I have travel limitations. I always get there eventually armed with all the information and misinformation I collect beforehand.



Oh, by the way, New Orleans will be flooded. In case you hadn't guessed.

caw

No, They put up sandbags. :D

Vincent
02-23-2007, 03:01 AM
Oh, and before you write the thing, really research into what it would take to get that 200 foot sea-rise. Most of the Antarctic ice shelf is very, very thick and firmly in place, and global warming itself probably wouldn't be enough to shift it anytime in the next few thousand years.

There are sections, however, that could concievably slide free and melt pretty fast, adding 20 feet. That might not sound like much, and it might not change the Atlas too much, but it would have a hell of an impact on civilisation.

But I will admit that the idea of submerged cities, coastlines, entire countries, has a kind appeal to it. Once you get past the billions of dead people.

Puma
02-23-2007, 03:17 PM
Another issue - ice is less dense than water. Only the portions of the polar areas that are actually above sea level would increase the level of the oceans, melting of the subsurface ice would decrease it (but not a lot)

Delarege - I'm not sure whether Goggle Earth has topo maps or not - it might and it's an excellent research tool. There's also a possibility you might find some world topo maps that are on the internet through a Goggle search - just be sure to put what you're looking for in quotes to eliminate random hits ("topographic map" "North America") Hope this helps. Puma

Del
02-23-2007, 07:53 PM
I've been using Google and have tried a number of criteria. Any new search gives new sites so Yes, yours helps.

Vincent
02-23-2007, 08:09 PM
One fun thing you can do if you live in a coastal city is walk down the street near the waterfront, counting up to the 15th floor or so on the taller buildings. The new watermark :)

Rekd
02-23-2007, 08:47 PM
Another issue - ice is less dense than water. Only the portions of the polar areas that are actually above sea level would increase the level of the oceans, melting of the subsurface ice would decrease it (but not a lot)


Gawd I hate politicians trying desperately to scare the crap out of us to help empty our pockets so they can fund their anti-human agenda which is FILLED with half-truths, the conveniently left out facts about the so-called hockey stick theory and grapes grown in England (amung others), and constant rhetoric that we, as humans driving our SUVs here and on Mars, are responsible for something that has been clearly and plainly happening in thousands of years cycles as far back as we can measure.



Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we (happily) find ourselves. Even the distorted United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the hysteria, finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase over the past century of man’s greatest influence, despite green claims of massive melting already occurring. Small island nations seeking welfare and asylum for their citizens such as in socially generous New Zealand and Australia have no sea-level rise at all and in some cases see instead a drop. These societies’ real problem is typically that they have made a mess of their own situation. One archipelago nation is even spending lavishly to lobby the European Union for development money to build beachfront hotel resorts, at the same time it shrieks about a watery and imminent grave. So, which time are they lying?


As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least recede after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. If retreating glaciers were proof of global warming, then advancing glaciers are evidence of global cooling. They cannot both be true, and in fact, neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be unrelated to warming. For example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is receding -- despite decades of cooling in Kenya -- due to regional land use and atmospheric moisture.

Stop being so cogently lazy and easily scared, ignoring numerous obvious facts about the myth of man made global warming.

benbradley
02-23-2007, 10:24 PM
Another issue - ice is less dense than water. Only the portions of the polar areas that are actually above sea level would increase the level of the oceans, melting of the subsurface ice would decrease it (but not a lot)
The distinction is whether the ice is sitting on land (as is, IIRC, the majority of Antarctica) or if it's a big chunk of ice on the water (IIRC the area around the North Pole). If ice on land melts, it flows into the oceans and raises the level, but ice that has ocean under it will rise when some of the ice on top melts and flows into the ocean, keeping the ocean level the same (just as ice floating in a glass of water won't raise the water level as it melts).

Higgins
02-23-2007, 10:37 PM
The distinction is whether the ice is sitting on land (as is, IIRC, the majority of Antarctica) or if it's a big chunk of ice on the water (IIRC the area around the North Pole). If ice on land melts, it flows into the oceans and raises the level, but ice that has ocean under it will rise when some of the ice on top melts and flows into the ocean, keeping the ocean level the same (just as ice floating in a glass of water won't raise the water level as it melts).

There will be some thermal expansion, so even the melting of floating ice will raise sea level a bit. Presently the biggest sea-level catastrophe would be if the ice started sliding off of Greenland a lot faster than it is at the moment (though it is already accellerating). That and thermal expansion could raise sea level a few feet in the next few decades and the results would not be pretty.

blacbird
02-23-2007, 11:14 PM
Stop being so cogently lazy and easily scared, ignoring numerous obvious facts about the myth of man made global warming.

You're missing more than a few cogent points here, Rekd, but enumerating them would take more space than this forum, or my time limits, allow. Go read a few books.

Perhaps of more importance, however, is the fact that there are a whole lot of effects from warming and melting ice that will profoundly affect human welfare long before sea-level rise gets to be an acute problem. Notably, and there are signs its already happening to some extent, is the suppression of the "global conveyor" of circulating cold oxygenated ocean water. That water circulation is what keeps the oceans productive of life, what feeds the base of the marine food chain, worldwide. If it shuts down, and the ocean basins become stably stratified, that food chain will be greatly suppressed. If you want a small example of what it will be like, look at the Black Sea, which is a stratified basin. Below the photic zone, where light penetrates, this body of water is dead. The bottom is a stinking mass of black ooze, permeated by hydrogen sulfide.

There have been episodes in the geologic past during which such conditions existed in ocean basins worldwide. The most notable one took place about 85-90 million years ago, and is known as the Turonian Anoxic Event. Black shales preserved from this period form the most prolific sources of hydrocarbons known in the geologic record (in particular the La Luna and Querecual Formations of northern South America, the source for Hugo Chavez's pile of oil in Venezuela). They are rich in undecayed organic matter because the ocean bottoms were dead, devoid of oxygen which would have permitted the residues of surface organisms (dominantly microscopic) to decay as they sank. It's this organic material that gets cooked, slowly, into petroleum compounds.

Anyone living in the Midwest, places like eastern Kansas/western Missouri, can drive along highways and see roadcuts containing thin black shale horizons sandwiched in white limestone ledges. These derive from similar depositional conditions, 300 million years ago, or so.

For the oceanic conveyor to function, we need a cold ice-bound polar continent that is not in the process of shedding lots of melting fresh water across the adjacent oceanic surface. Those conditions haven't existed always in earth's history.

That's the fifty-cent lecture; my invoice will appear shortly.

caw

Higgins
02-23-2007, 11:58 PM
For the oceanic conveyor to function, we need a cold ice-bound polar continent that is not in the process of shedding lots of melting fresh water across the adjacent oceanic surface. Those conditions haven't existed always in earth's history.

That's the fifty-cent lecture; my invoice will appear shortly.

caw

Very Nice caw...and then there's the Strangelove Ocean:

http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa051798.htm

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/largeimpacts2003/pdf/4077.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/282/5387/276

And the original article:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v316/n6031/abs/316809a0.html

And some more early Triassic:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2005.00648.x

Rekd
02-24-2007, 01:26 AM
That's the fifty-cent lecture; my invoice will appear shortly.

Save it. I'm not interested in given MORE money to support scare tactics. I'm already getting raped enough as it is.

To some extent the Man Made Global Warming Threat is the scare of the week or year or until something else comes along.

Surely you can remember back to the advent of computers when everyone was going to get cancer from cathode ray tubes. Or everyone is going to get cancer from high voltage transmission lines. Or everyone is going to get cancer from cellphone radiation. Or 30 years ago when the big thing was global cooling.

Global warming comes and goes and has come and gone by varying amounts over varying periods of time. Fortunately since around 25,000 years ago the overall trend has been upwards with a few jiggles down every now and then. You would have to do one h*** of a lot of digging in ice to find Central Park if it hadn't.

Anthropogenic Global Warming, or at least the Man Made Anthropogenic part is probably 98% myth. Real Global Warming since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago certainly has happened. However it has not been a steady rise but has bobbed around a bit. If you carefully select which 'bobs' you look at, up or down, you can prove almost anything. Well you can't prove it but if you shout loud enough you can drown out the moderate voices pointing out that you have selected things to favor your conclusion. And once you have a lot of people with a vested interest in supporting your conclusions you become difficult to stop.

I think we should be more concerned with how legislation put into place by those who stand on the GW platform is going to affect us...It's not GW itself that is the real threat...it's all the junk that is going to come out of the GW crisis mentality that is going to hurt us all. 'All of us' being the 'we' that make a living with both our hands and our brains...more legislation, rules, licenses, certifications yada yada...It would be easier to just hang your head out the front door each morning and get choked all in one shot. This is just another example of problem-reaction-solution. The solution already exists ~ more legislation (which means money)...they have presented the 'problem' and are waiting for enough to rally together with their fear-full reactions to present the solution...which is the intended agenda anyway. (how many times can we fall for this?)

Most people can't think for themselves, and adopt the herd mentality because they don't want to be on the 'unpopular team' regardless of what is factually correct. "The nail that sticks up will be hammered down." It is unplausible to believe that more than a handful of people could come up with such a 'crisis' on their own without it being spoon fed to them via the media to get us to react or be fearful so they can step in and be the benevolent hero.

GW is the new 'empire approved' crisis of the moment...funny how totally screwed up everything else is and they choose to focus on events (real, perceived or concocted) that are mostly out of our control. How convenient. What many fail to realize is that the masses are never going to evolve to the point that you hope they will in your lifetime. You have to evolve on your terms at your pace...doing what you know is right, without needed to 'check in' with status quo when the street lights come on...

Furthermore, what the U.S. government is doing when it backs the global warming agenda, 'alternative energy', and CAFE rules, is to effectively ship the productive capacity wholesale out of this country and into countries that do not suffer from these restrictions.

I mean this literally. In my industry, (CNC Machining) scrapped machines are no longer melted down -- they are shipped to China, where they are being refitted and put back to work. Same thing with a lot of electrical motors. Just talk to the industrial scrap yards. Ask them why the price of scrap copper and steel is at historic levels.

As the domestic automotive industry coughs out its last gasps, having almost completely walked away from its domestic supplier base, you bet this affects the CNC machining community. In Michigan, over 200,000 manufacturing jobs are permanently gone -- this is a conservative estimate, because numbers don't get counted on all of them. (And multiples more jobs gone from the ripple effect.) Worst hit are the small employers, who are going bankrupt or closing up and retiring. Same for California, where companies are leaving in droves because they can't afford to do business here and be competitive with other countries or even other states.

And what strategy do we get from government? Increased taxes. Increased regulations. CAFE rules aiming to torpedo pickup trucks, the last refuge of customer preference for vehicles and the last dying hope of the teetering, clueless bureaucracies of the big 2.5. Increased health care costs, due directly to government intervention in the market. Increased environmental compliance costs at all levels. Energy policy that guarantees increased cost of energy. And promises of more, more, more of the same.

As always the blame will be placed on overseas workers who make a few cents per hour. Just ask any businessman who owns a manufacturing operation what percentage of the cost of his product actually makes it into the pocket of his employees, who are an order of magnitude more productive than anyone in a third world country. The answer is very little.

The costs are dwarfed by the taxes he must pay for the employees, the cost of complying with tax policy (90% of bookkeeping and accounting expense), complying with environmental regulations, fire regulations, OSHA regulations, disability regulations, family leave act, local building codes, and so on forever. The huge productivity value of our ability to gain economies of scale is being sucked out of every enterprise at every level, to the point where it is cheaper to make something overseas under appalling conditions and ship it halfway around the world, where it gets purchased with ever fewer locally generated dollars.

"Globalization" is not just a buzzword, it's a keyword -- it means get your assets out of the U.S. if you want your company to survive.

The ultimate perversion is that there is now more freedom to create wealth in COMMUNIST countries than there is in the United States of America. All of this can be laid at the feet of the nanny state and those who support it or don't loudly oppose it.

This movement will continue, because we have passed the tipping point where politicians can promise more unearned loot to more people than can oppose it. Of the remainder, they are intellectuuote]ally unarmed, powerless to argue against the majority opinions put out in the popular press in such Orwellian fashion. It will continue while we eat our assets (seed corn), until the assets are no longer ours.

More than just an economic crime, the wholesale destruction of our productive capacity is also a huge strategic national security blunder. As we overextend ourselves in the international intrigues our founding fathers warned us about, our ability to withstand calamity and overcome any mechanized force is being demolished.

Everything we are squandering was built out of the surpluses made possible by the freedom of a man to keep what he earned, and the ability of individuals to trade with one another on mutually agreeable terms without interference by any agent of force. As we whittled away at these basic tenets of our civilization, we likewise erased the huge productivity gains that came from it and briefly gave mankind the best standard of living in human history.

Now we have come to take the benefits for granted, while joining the intellectuals in sneering at such outmoded concepts as property ownership. We have a society that would probably lose up to 50% of its population to starvation, exposure, and disease within months of losing power, whose members are openly antagonistic to the energy supply that allows them to be so helpless about basic survival skills that they don't even know how vulnerable they are.

They have been brainwashed into thinking that everything including their energy supply would be better off run by government Al-Gore types than by greedy capitalists, having been deprived of the mental capacity to judge what kind of inventions, what standard of living ever came out of the governmental systems they pine for. They fall for the envy ploy, putting themselves at the mercy of those who would (will) control them. The man who has a gun and controls your heat, your electricity, your employment, your children's education, and your food supply, controls YOU.

Proponents of governmental control over energy usage (and this includes any 'carbon tax' scheme) or any other broad restriction on industry in general, cannot be given the benefit of the doubt as to their motives. Their aims cannot be realized without putting the man of productive ability under the gun of a man with no productive ability whatsoever.

That's my U.S.-centric, manufacturer-capitalist, totally biased view of the situation.

blacbird
02-24-2007, 01:57 AM
Decaf, Rekd. Try the decaf.

caw

Rekd
02-24-2007, 02:15 AM
Decaf, Rekd. Try the decaf.

caw


Reading and comprehension, caw, reading and comprehension.

blacbird
02-24-2007, 02:47 AM
Could somebody who's good with emoticons post an eye-rolly one for me?

caw

Higgins
02-24-2007, 03:01 AM
What does any of that have to do with the facts of Global Warming? I mean if 6-8 undefinable conspiracies of billions of people are the real problem and you and your "money" are the victims, you have a much worse problem than just having the climate go wild.

pdr
02-24-2007, 06:01 AM
in New Zealand, Rekd.

If America had that great Ozone hole over it as we have, growing year by year as it has for may years...

If Americans had to cover up when they went outside and their TV weather reports carried warnings saying: 'burn time in the sun today is one minute' as we do...

If America had to watch its little island neighbours suffering from higher sea levels and raging storms which made their homes unhabitable and have to take them in as we do...

If Americans could see what is happening to the Antarctic ice and measure how fast it is melting... We had icebergs off Dunedin this year and a summer as icy to match!

Then perhaps Americans would see that there is a problem and they too are majorily responsible for the speed up of global warming. If it affected America as visibly and nastily (the rise in skin cancers in NZ is horrific!) then perhaps America might extract a digit and do something?

blacbird
02-24-2007, 08:55 AM
in New Zealand, Rekd.

If America had that great Ozone hole over it as we have, growing year by year as it has for may years...

If Americans had to cover up when they went outside and their TV weather reports carried warnings saying: 'burn time in the sun today is one minute' as we do...

If America had to watch its little island neighbours suffering from higher sea levels and raging storms which made their homes unhabitable and have to take them in as we do...

If Americans could see what is happening to the Antarctic ice and measure how fast it is melting... We had icebergs off Dunedin this year and a summer as icy to match!

Then perhaps Americans would see that there is a problem and they too are majorily responsible for the speed up of global warming. If it affected America as visibly and nastily (the rise in skin cancers in NZ is horrific!) then perhaps America might extract a digit and do something?

Some Americans do recognize the problem, pdr, especially those of us who live in the very far north, where the melting of sea ice is creating a variety of severe environmental problems already. But obviously Rekd is a member of that dwindling club that believes we can continue to consume fossil fuel energy and produce CO2 endlessly and it won't matter. Not much point in discussing the matter further. Perhaps he'll be raptured.

caw

Lyra Jean
02-24-2007, 09:29 AM
So do hybrid cars really work? I'm going to be buying a car in March and was wondering what your opinion on them was?

Winter here in Florida was hot and I mean hot for Floridians not the Yankee tourists. I don't even want to know how hot it will be this summer.

benbradley
02-24-2007, 09:47 AM
So do hybrid cars really work? I'm going to be buying a car in March and was wondering what your opinion on them was?

Really work? Work in what way? I wish I could afford the all-electric Tesla Roadster, all the reviews say it works great!


Winter here in Florida was hot and I mean hot for Floridians not the Yankee tourists. I don't even want to know how hot it will be this summer.

And if this isn't a good reason to stop driving SUVs, I don't know what is!
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/15aug_backwards.htm

Higgins
02-24-2007, 05:28 PM
Really work? Work in what way? I wish I could afford the all-electric Tesla Roadster, all the reviews say it works great!



And if this isn't a good reason to stop driving SUVs, I don't know what is!
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/15aug_backwards.htm


We should be seeing some nice Auroras soon though and SUVs might be less sensitive to the effects of ion storms than electric cars (hard to be sure...I don't think most cars are tested for resistance to electromagnetic flux). Look out though, probably the Government invented Auroras to take your money or at least to change its color slightly under certain conditions.

Rekd
02-24-2007, 06:54 PM
Like I said, reading and comprehension is key.

I believe there is global warming. But I'm not convinced WHAT is causing it.

Yes, we pollute, and we should stop. I agree to that. (If you missed that the first couple posts, go back and RE READ THEM.) We just shouldn't ruin our lifestyle (i.e. tax me and my industry out of a job) at the drop of a hat until there's more data available as to the REAL cause and if we can really do anything about it.

Higgins
02-24-2007, 07:35 PM
Like I said, reading and comprehension is key.

I believe there is global warming. But I'm not convinced WHAT is causing it.

Yes, we pollute, and we should stop. I agree to that. (If you missed that the first couple posts, go back and RE READ THEM.) We just shouldn't ruin our lifestyle (i.e. tax me and my industry out of a job) at the drop of a hat until there's more data available as to the REAL cause and if we can really do anything about it.

The data and the cause have been completely conclusive since 1983. We are now well into the actual event (ie catastrophic climatic change far beyond anything since the end of the last glacial period). If you look at things other than your taxes and your industry (and since official US policy has been to ignore the reality of climate change, you really have no gripe there), you will see the events are already well underway.

Lyra Jean
02-24-2007, 07:46 PM
Work the way they say they are supposed to work. I don't know. I don't know anything about cars.

As far as traditional cars go I've had my eye on a Chevy S10 extended cab short bed pick up truck. If I could afford a hybrid or an electric car I'll get that instead. But I don't think I can.

pdr
02-25-2007, 05:50 AM
your cheap American lifestyle is obtained at the expense of at least two thirds of the rest of the world.

You can only maintain it by business and political practises which are neither democratic nor viable in the long term.

Even now you can see how, for many countries, 'Americans' and 'America' have become regarded as a curse.

Del
02-25-2007, 10:06 AM
It is easy to say "America" is at fault. Go ahead, pass the buck. But the blame rests fully on the entire world. How does America effect the ecology any more than a great number of other countries? You cannot say America or China or Russia and then compare it to UK or Italy. There is a significant difference in size. You'd have to compare area to area. It's like saying a bus gets worst gas mileage than a family car and thus expels more emissions. But the bus caries 10 times the passengers and thereby gets BETTER fuel economy per person.

Our American lifestyle is obtained through work and effort. I can see how many countries THINK they see America and it is simple prejudice. And prejudice is wrought from ignorance.

pdr
02-25-2007, 02:01 PM
Delarege, these are not my figures or my prejudices.

Americans use up more natural resources per head of the population than the people of any other country.

The American cheap lifestyle comes not from Americans' hard work in America using American resources, but from using the resources of other countries and their people's labour.

Higgins
02-25-2007, 06:21 PM
It is easy to say "America" is at fault. Go ahead, pass the buck. But the blame rests fully on the entire world. How does America effect the ecology any more than a great number of other countries? You cannot say America or China or Russia and then compare it to UK or Italy. There is a significant difference in size. You'd have to compare area to area. It's like saying a bus gets worst gas mileage than a family car and thus expels more emissions. But the bus caries 10 times the passengers and thereby gets BETTER fuel economy per person.

Our American lifestyle is obtained through work and effort. I can see how many countries THINK they see America and it is simple prejudice. And prejudice is wrought from ignorance.

No, US fossil fuel consumption per capita is the highest on the planet at the moment among the 20 most populous nation states. This is partly due to how much coal there is in the US and an irrational fear of nuclear power, but it has its nasty aspects as well. For example, the US economy is only still functioning due to foreign investment and to a significant degree, foreign labor (much of it foreign in the sense that they got their basic schooling abroad, and came to the US as highly skilled labor). So, in the Bus example, the US would be a luxury bus with a pillar of gratuitious oil-burning fire as decoration. The US bus is full of gunmen who take everyone's money as they drive along and spend it buying up most of the available fuel and hiring assistant gunmen, whereupon the gunmen in the bus say, "Well, we paid for the gas and we pay our gunmen so we can burn as much as we want and take as much as we want which is more than anyone else for starters!"


see for example (and note that the US production efficiency in relation to fossil fuel is below average):

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Fossil_Fuel_Usage_png

Lee G.
02-26-2007, 01:06 AM
Furthermore, what the U.S. government is doing when it backs the global warming agenda, 'alternative energy', and CAFE rules, is to effectively ship the productive capacity wholesale out of this country and into countries that do not suffer from these restrictions.


Why would any capitalist society want to find fault with the energy it depends on? Why would scientists attack the very technologies they helped create? They wouldn't, and that's why the whole Global Warming "conspiracy theory" doesn't make any sense. You'd have to believe 99.9% of the world's scientists and leaders are idiots or self-loathing liars. It's far easier IMO to believe that 0.1% are pathologically afraid of change or just have their hands out to receive payouts from certain corporations.

Lyra Jean
02-26-2007, 06:33 AM
Okay I guess my post never made it on the board or whatever.

I know jack about cars. So I don't know how hybrids and electric cars are supposed to work. I was just wondering if they actually worked as advertised and if they were worth getting.

Like I said, I'll be getting a car this March. Although I won't be able to afford one of these new type cars right away I would want to save up for one and use my first car as a downpayment if they were worth getting.

alaskamatt17
02-26-2007, 07:45 AM
Scientists who study global climate change acknowledge that Earth's climate has been changing for a very long time. Current global temperatures are slightly lower than mean temperatures over the long-term. I think this is part of what Rekd was trying to say.

That said, humans have been putting carbon dioxide into the air in large amounts lately--enough to keep a preexisting trend of rising CO2 from turning around when most estimates predicted it would. This really doesn't mean that we are cooking the planet or anything that drastic: the amount of CO2 in the air is still miniscule, and the processes by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere become more efficient in the presence of higher CO2 levels. It's not just trees, like a lot of people seem to think. Mountains and exposed rock outcrops are very good at removing atmospheric CO2 as well.

There is no doubt that global climate is changing. It would frankly be disturbing if it were not. What is in question is whether or not humans are responsible. In my opinion, we aren't that significant. By claiming that we are affecting the planet in such a powerful way, we are ascribing more importance to ourselves than we really deserve.

Here's a list of articles about climate change and related subjects.

"Radiocarbon Vonstraints on Ice Sheet Advance and Retreat in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica." Geology 27 (1999): 179-182

"Urban bias in temperature timeseries--a casee study for the city of Vienna, Austria." Climatic Change 38(1998): 113-128

"Relationships between interannual variability of glacier mass balance and climate." Journal of Glaciology 45(2000): 456-62

"Antarctic Climate Cooling and Terrestrial Ecosystem Response." Nature 415 (2002): 517-520

"Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn." Journal of Geophysical Research 101(1996): 4115-4128

There are a lot of articles out there in respectable scientific journals. It's better to read these than popular press articles on the same subjects, because the data is often included, and you know you are getting information straight from the researchers, based on their interpretation of the data.

alaskamatt17
02-26-2007, 07:49 AM
As for hybrid cars: I would recommend them for economic reasons more than environmental reasons. Reducing dependency on resources that aren't renewable on the human time scale is a good idea.

Del
02-26-2007, 08:06 AM
Delarege, these are not my figures or my prejudices.

Americans use up more natural resources per head of the population than the people of any other country.

The American cheap lifestyle comes not from Americans' hard work in America using American resources, but from using the resources of other countries and their people's labour.


And your references are....?

ETA: My house is all electric and gets power from a HydroElectric plant. My vehicle gets eighty(80) mpg. I'm struggling to recall the whip I use to force others to supplement my "easy cheap life". You've not given figures, just your skewed and bloated idea of this country. So just who are you condescending to?

Higgins
02-26-2007, 08:16 AM
Scientists who study global climate change acknowledge that Earth's climate has been changing for a very long time. Current global temperatures are slightly lower than mean temperatures over the long-term.


The fact that temperatures are below the phanerozoic average right now is precisely why the climate shift will be so catastrophic. For example, for most of the phanerozoic sea levels were significantly higher than they are now.

Basically we will be moving from one equilibrium that was good for human civilization to another that is not so good and the transition....well the only thing that is known about such transitions is that they are wild...

Anyway here's an online class:

http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/gases/gases_lecture_new.html

Note that human activity since the 18th century has increased atmospheric CO2 by 35% or so (270 ppm to 370 ppm) and that is a very significant change with a catastrophic impact that we are already seeing.

blacbird
02-26-2007, 08:58 AM
Why would any capitalist society want to find fault with the energy it depends on? Why would scientists attack the very technologies they helped create? They wouldn't, and that's why the whole Global Warming "conspiracy theory" doesn't make any sense. You'd have to believe 99.9% of the world's scientists and leaders are idiots or self-loathing liars. It's far easier IMO to believe that 0.1% are pathologically afraid of change or just have their hands out to receive payouts from certain corporations.

Don't you recognize that there's a vast conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of scientists and government officials to subvert our prosperity and ruin prosperity for everyone???? It's been happening ever since the Soviets tried to poison our precious bodily fluids (see the famous documentary film Dr. Strangelove, or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb if you don't believe me.

caw

blacbird
02-26-2007, 09:10 AM
And your references are....?

ETA: My house is all electric and gets power from a HydroElectric plant. My vehicle gets eighty(80) mpg. I'm struggling to recall the whip I use to force others to supplement my "easy cheap life". You've not given figures, just your skewed and bloated idea of this country. So just who are you condescending to?

You, individually, may be doing a good job at efficient energy usage, but most of the United States is not. Our infrastructure is constructed in such a way that it's difficult for us to do so. Which is not to say that we shouldn't be trying to get better at it. In some areas, we have been (air pollution comes to mind). But figures I've seen indicate that the U.S. contributes right around 20% of the man-made CO2 emissions worldwide. We have about 5% of the world's population. Do the math.

And the idea that none of this matters is such total nonsense that it's hard even to refute intelligently on a short-space forum such as this. Yes, the world's climatic conditions do fluctuate over time. The past 100 years has seen the most rapid rise in global temperature of any similar-length period in recorded history (these things can be measured in a variety of independent ways, BTW, and calibrated with great accuracy; if you're truly interested, go a-searching for the relevant scientific papers). More pertinently, that temperature rise tracks with disturbing congruence the equally-measurable man-made contribution of CO2 over the same time period.

The forensics of this case point pretty directly at a culprit, even if we don't have an eyewitness. And even if humans haven't "caused" this temperature fluctuation, it's pretty ridiculous to assert that what we're doing in regards to industrial pollution and greenhouse emissions isn't exacerbating the problem or is a good thing.

And just because earlier comments I made got criticized in a PM, suggesting that I didn't know what I'm talking about, I'm a Ph.D. geologist with thirty-plus years working in industry, and have been involved in an area directly relevant to the data-gathering about global climate and its geological history.

I can't think of anyone who wouldn't like the idea that we can have unlimited use of fossil fuel energy without any negative consequences. That would be very cool. However, realism dictates that isn't the case. No amount of ideology will change that situation.

caw

alaskamatt17
02-26-2007, 01:08 PM
Being where I am, I might be particularly biased on the matter, but I wouldn't mind if a little of that warming worked its way up here. It was -40 (C or F, take your pick) last night, and for anybody who hasn't experienced those temperatures, let me tell you, it isn't pleasant.

Isn't it also true that periods of high biodiversity coincide with periods of high global temperature? I do not remember the source for this, but to me it makes sense. Up here, biodiversity is much lower than in, say, Costa Rica. In the Cretaceous--a period of which I am inordinately fond--the diversity of life at high latitudes was lower than near the equator. I guess, though, it might be too much of an extrapolation to assume that high temperatures worldwide would correlate with higher biodiversity worldwide.

Then again, higher biodiversity might not be the best thing for us humans. Sure, we're apex consumers with only a few billion-odd (very rough figure, as in, complete guess) species out there, but what if there were more?

Higgins
02-26-2007, 05:48 PM
Being where I am, I might be particularly biased on the matter, but I wouldn't mind if a little of that warming worked its way up here. It was -40 (C or F, take your pick) last night, and for anybody who hasn't experienced those temperatures, let me tell you, it isn't pleasant.

Isn't it also true that periods of high biodiversity coincide with periods of high global temperature? I do not remember the source for this, but to me it makes sense. Up here, biodiversity is much lower than in, say, Costa Rica. In the Cretaceous--a period of which I am inordinately fond--the diversity of life at high latitudes was lower than near the equator. I guess, though, it might be too much of an extrapolation to assume that high temperatures worldwide would correlate with higher biodiversity worldwide.

Then again, higher biodiversity might not be the best thing for us humans. Sure, we're apex consumers with only a few billion-odd (very rough figure, as in, complete guess) species out there, but what if there were more?

Periods with high biodiversity come in the wake of periods where there was some major extinction event associated with a broad spectrum of shifts in climate and ecology (eg. Jurassic-Cretaceous after the Permian catastrophe and the very low diversity of the early Triassic). There have been a number of catastrophic extinction events and we are witnessing one now.

Del
02-26-2007, 09:05 PM
The forensics of this case point pretty directly at a culprit, even if we don't have an eyewitness. And even if humans haven't "caused" this temperature fluctuation, it's pretty ridiculous to assert that what we're doing in regards to industrial pollution and greenhouse emissions isn't exacerbating the problem or is a good thing.

And just because earlier comments I made got criticized in a PM, suggesting that I didn't know what I'm talking about, I'm a Ph.D. geologist with thirty-plus years working in industry, and have been involved in an area directly relevant to the data-gathering about global climate and its geological history.


caw

It is human nature to POINT at someone. I am weary of the finger always pointing to the US.

I don't challenge your credentials, Bird. You've never given me cause to doubt you. (Not a defense but a pat on the back)

First, the AMERICAS cover two entire continents so do the stats involve America or the US? Second, there are millions of immigrants annually. Define Americans. Third, The US is the manufacturing capital of the world, for world wide products. How much of the problem is caused by the production of products exported to the very countries that are complaining?

We cannot live on this planet without changing it. Global warming is a natural cycle though there is little doubt that people are affecting it. I have a problem with the whiny accusations that AMERICANS are at fault for the world’s problems and are seen as a "curse" (prejudice) on the rest of the world, like we sit over here snorting cocaine off of million dollar coffee tables, one huge careless party while we blithely let the rest of the world die a cold hungry death. Pollution, emissions, over population are all problems that need to be addressed--everywhere. I think the concern is aptly notable and solutions are being responsibly sought.

What PDR is expressing is Anti-American rhetoric. We are guilty but it is still a world issue and it is a matter of the US being only more guilty, which is like a thief calling a bigger thief a thief. The world seems to spit upon the very idea of America while their hands reach greedily for American products and money. I don’t mind giving, helping, doing what I can. It’s the blinded, limited, one-sided, single-minded American bashers that bug me.

Higgins
02-26-2007, 09:32 PM
Global warming is a natural cycle though there is little doubt that people are affecting it.

This terminology may be part of what is confusing people. "Natural cycle" has a nice ring to it, but it is also part of the "natural cycle" that large bolides hit the Earth from time to time...for example. The last time there were climate fluctuations anywhere near as big and fast as the one
we are entering was during the end of the last interglacial (ie before the recent warming, ie not 10,000 years ago but 200,000 years ago). From the ice-core evidence the kind of climate change we are experiencing is characterized by very fast and very unstable transitions and it does not look like having people pump vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere is going to make things any better. There is undoubtedly a natural equilibriium point for a hotter world, but it may be very bad for the current state of civilization and might well require a much lower human population.

Rekd
02-26-2007, 09:46 PM
Y

And the idea that none of this matters

Who said that?:Shrug:

Del
02-26-2007, 10:17 PM
Being where I am, I might be particularly biased on the matter, but I wouldn't mind if a little of that warming worked its way up here. It was -40 (C or F, take your pick) last night, and for anybody who hasn't experienced those temperatures, let me tell you, it isn't pleasant.


I have experienced -20. I can only imagine -40.

I think I have noticed that upon this complex organism we call Earth, when an extreme is experienced in one region that there is an opposite extreme in another, not necessarily simultaneously but at least within the opposing season (cold vs. hot). A drought in one region usually is countered by flooding in another.

We tend to think we have a God given right to live where ever we want and that nature should yield to our whim. We oppose change, fight nature and complain when we lose (not directed at Matt). New Orleans is forever fighting their coastline. They are sand bagging and pumping when they should be moving out. They are 6 feet below the sea level that is only miles away. I think the same about global warming. We have an option to blend with it instead of fighting it. That doesn't mean ignore our involvement. We just need to understand and comply.

alaskamatt17
02-27-2007, 12:03 AM
Oh, I haven't lost yet. And if the topic of this thread is any indication, I'm far from losing. I just need to hold out for a while and it'll be nice n' toasty here.

So really, I'm sitting pretty good here. Just as long as nature doesn't start complaining about fighting me and losing.

blacbird
02-27-2007, 12:18 AM
It is human nature to POINT at someone. I am weary of the finger always pointing to the US.

You may be weary of it, but:

What nation consumes per capita, by far, the largest percentage of the global energy supply?

In addition to petroleum, of which everyone knows we are the world's largest net importer, where do you suppose our nickel, chromium, aluminum, manganese, copper . . . comes from? And how much energy do you suppose it takes to extract those raw materials?

This is not to say that the developing nations, in particular the big ones, China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, are angels about their pollution and environmental care. Far from it. But when you're the biggest gorilla in the zoo, you're going to be the one people point at first.

caw

pdr
02-27-2007, 05:12 AM
I am sorry you're taking this personally, Delarege.
Perhaps it would help to think of yourself as a citizen of the world first and the USA second? And then look at living in Bangladesh, one of many countries which will be severely affected by climate change. It's very hard to see the USA refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement as you sit and suffer from pollution and economic practices that are not caused by your own country.

No, I was not America bashing, although I feel like shaking your president, who won't ratify the Kyoto agreement. I suggest reading those Kyoto documents although it's a long dry read.

However if you search the net you will find a lot of information repeating what I have said with the figures you demanded to prove it.

I've avoided the Earth Watch and GreenPeace and similar group stats as you will only say they are biased. Here's an American site

http://www.cslforum.org/usa.htm
The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum

'Overall Production and Consumption
Even though the United States is the world's leading energy producer by a wide margin, it is also the world's leading energy consumer by an even wider margin. The net result is that United States is the world's greatest net energy importer, presently consuming about 1.4 times as much energy as it produces, and is dependent on outside sources for crude oil and natural gas. The United States presently accounts for about 17% of the world's total annual energy production and about 23% of the world's total annual energy consumption. An historical summary of Total Primary Energy Production (TPEP) and Consumption (TPEC) for the United States is shown in Table 1.'

The next is the UK's National Energy Advice site

http://www.nef.org.uk/energyadvice/co2emissions.htm
UK National Energy Foundation
'Many people are aware that the USA is the world's largest producer of Carbon Dioxide.'

This is the U of Texas, a lesson plan for Grades 6-8 about the world's resources.
http://www.utexas.edu/research/ceer/tree/98/Carrera/world.htm
Look at the tables and note that the USA is at the top.
I've chosen these sites for you because they are a quick read. I am not perverting facts and figures nor am I America bashing. The statements I made are being made by Americans.

I appreciate that you personally are doing something, but the world would appreciate it if the gov of the USA did something too.

The world seems to spit upon the very idea of America while their hands reach greedily for American products and money.

That is a rather xenophobic statement. The American Way of Life is not what most countries want. They would prefer their own culture and cultural things with products made by themselves in their own countries.

Del
02-27-2007, 06:14 AM
I had this whole big xenophobic defense thing posted but really, I didn't mean this to be political. I am interested in the natural affect of rising water on the land masses. And what affect a 10 degree increase in water temperature might cause weather wise.

Higgins
02-27-2007, 06:24 AM
I had this whole big xenophobic defense thing posted but really, I didn't mean this to be political. I am interested in the natural affect of rising water on the land masses. And what affect a 10 degree increase in water temperature might cause weather wise.


My god I hope it is not that bad. 10 degrees of increased ocean temperature would be off the scale of anything in the phanerozoic.

Lyra Jean
02-27-2007, 08:28 AM
A 10 degree rise in the Earth's temprature would bring about a large worldwide extinction. That's how the Permian extinction happened. I saw it on National Geographic Channel.

pdr
02-27-2007, 08:39 AM
according to the facts and figures available from the NZ gov., from my own reading and observations and from the research my Research Scientist son is invovled in - for New Zealand - a mere 3 degree rise in the planet's overall temperature will result in:

1. our coastal cities drowning.
2. Severe changes in weather patterns, regular vicious cyclones with our rain coming overnight instead of over weeks.
3. Milder winters but cooler summers.
3. Loss of certain bird and animal species.
4. Loss of certain crops.

There is speculation that the rising sea temps will affect krill, which means that the ocean food chain is affected with the loss of the big sea mammals and disasterous effects on fish.

Doubtless something will multiply to fill the niches.

Antarctica is difficult to talk about as there is the 'There's no global warming, nothing is happening there' school versus the 'Oops we forgot to allow for xyz in our calculations and the ice is going faster than we thought.' school.
Certainly weird things are happening in the Weddel Sea and ice bergs have appeared off New Zealand's South Island coast this summer. That is not a usual occurence.

Speculating on the worst possible results a ten degree rise could well spell a radical change in all living species and even the end of human dominance.

Rekd
02-27-2007, 06:52 PM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/algoreoscar.jpg

Yes my home in TN consumes more energy in a month than the average American home does in a year.....but thats not the point ya see the ice caps are melting and the earth is getting hotter.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54450


Al Gore deserves an Oscar for hypocrisy to go along with the two Academy Awards his movie won last night, contends a think tank from his home state Tennessee.

The former vice president's mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, says the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service.

Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth, a 95-minute film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made "global warming," won the award for best documentary feature and best song.

(Story continues below)


"My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis," Gore said after taking the stage. "It's not a political issue, it's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it."

Standing with Gore on the stage last night, actor Leonardo DiCaprio said, to applause, "The American film industry has always taken its obligations to society very seriously and it's now stepping up once again. Tonight, we're proud to announce that for the first time in the history of the Oscars, this show has officially gone green.

Gore then followed with, "Which means that environmentally intelligent practices have been integrated fully into every aspect of the planning and production of these Academy Awards. And you know what: It is not as hard as you might think. We have a long way to go. But all of us can do something in our own lives to make a difference."

But according to the Tennessee think tank, while the average American household consumed 10,656 kilowatt-hours last year, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 – more than 20 times the national average.

Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson said that "as the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use."

Last August alone, according to Johnson' group, Gore burned through 22,619 kilowatt-hours of electricity, more than twice the amount in one month that an average American family uses in an entire year.

Gore's average monthly electric bill, the think tank says, is $1,359.

Since the release of Gore's film, the former vice president and presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.

The Tennessee group also points out natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

Gore paid a total of nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

Responding to critics, Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any plane flight or car trip by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere."

Inconvenient all right.

Rekd
02-27-2007, 06:59 PM
Our inputs are likely negligible in the overall scheme of things, and predicting that our inputs are the cause of changes that already happen naturally is logically unwarranted.

Along with this logically unwarranted assertion comes a demand for us to submit to world rule (socialism at the least) by those who posit the scenario. Turns out the politicians are paying the scientists, who are feeding the politicians the data they want to hear, all for the purpose of leading the gullible to believe that the 'middle of the road most sensible' approach, is to just give in, give them the power, sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice. They are smarter than us, and they will do our thinking for us, and tell us what the truth is, and tell us what to do.

You will end up feeding them out of the product of your efforts while they use everything they gain from you to drum up support for more and more control over your life. And they know -- once they control your access to energy, and the energy input to everything you can buy or eat (which starts out as dirt until you put energy into it), they've got you under control, with no escape possible.

I suggest reading Karl Marx and other socialist/communist thinkers. Just substitute the word "environment" wherever you see the words "society" or "downtrodden workers", and the ruse becomes clear. It's an attempted power grab on an unprecedented scale. The difference is, once the downtrodden workers find out they will be slaves, they can throw off the yoke of the parasite masters. Since that ploy didn't work, a victim that can't talk back had to be found. The 'environment' will be ever silent, and her changes will happen slow enough that they might be able to gain power before she changes her fickle mind and starts cooling again.

With the common man unable to comprehend high school chemistry and physics, our society will swallow this hocus pocus hook, line and sinker, never adding up the data for themselves. When the new dogma comes to be enforced with the power of the government gun, arguing about the science will not only be pointless, it will be loudly shouted down by all the true believers, who are comfortable in their 'knowledge'.

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!"

I'd be a happier man if someone would prove me wrong on any of this. :D

Rekd
02-27-2007, 09:07 PM
As for the "consesnus", to which 17,000 scientists disagree, perhaps a bit of time looking at data (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm) which is not manipulated is in order.

I particularly liked fig. 3, 'cause it shows earth's temperatures drive solar cycles. If we don't take responsibility NOW and stop global warming, we're going to ruin the sun.

Fig. 11 is my other fav.....it shows a growth trend in IPCC stocks unmatched in any other sector. Through the use of their unique GCMs, they can chart like no one else. Not even Mann's 4th quarter hockey stick with it's tree-ring penny stocks will hold up to the long term IPCC growth.

Also be sure to check out figure 14.

This is the basis upon which we are supposed to destroy our standard of living. The avalanche of data in 'support' of the global warming hypothesis contains an awful lot of this.

(for those just joining in, a GCM is a "general circulation model", a computer program that predicts climate based on input parameters. There's a bunch of 'em, and none of 'em work. They can't even predict what HAS happened based on known data.)

Now, one more bit of chemistry/physics/math then I'll step aside and let the ignorants and alarmists have the floor back...

At the current rate of sea level rise of (depending on which data set used....I'll use some actual 20th century physical observations) some 1.8mm/yr (that's ~.071" for us non-metric types).

At that rate, it'll take (12/.071*3=507) about 500 years for a 3 foot rise in sea level to happen. Sorry, I probably won't be around to witness it and share your agony.

You'd prefer the cooler times? Here's a little tidbit for all to ponder on the down side of a little ice age and it's effects on mankind..
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

What I surmise from your posts are typical global warming alarmism, with attendent exaggeration.

The real issue here, correct me if I'm wrong, is that of anthropogenic forcing. Is man causing global warming by "excessive" CO2 emmissions?

Maybe someone can explain why the ice caps on Mars have been in recession....all without the aid of SUVs.

The single largest greenhouse gas is .....drum roll.....H2O.
At any given time there is between .3% to 3% gasseous water in the atmosphere. We have NO idea how much the total is, where the concentrations lay, and the actual effect. It's a science in it's infancy. Clouds at one altitude reflect UV, clouds at a different altitude trap. It's complex, and it's massive. And it's not understood. (btw, recent work has revealed that cosmic rays affect cloud formation. Another little factor somewhat outside our control).

But noooooo......somehow we're all excited about a gas that comprises ..... .038% That's POINT Zero three eight percent!! On top of that a gas who's effect is logarithmic..Each increase in the gas level has less and less an effect on warming.

My personal take is that while we're puking pollutants into the air, which is a BAD thing no matter how you look at it, land use is every bit as bad, if not worse.

That said, my advice is to have your house moved back from the beach, buy some waders now while they're cheap, and stock up on some good seeds. Your growing season is getting better!


"...and wall impregnable of beaming ice. The race of man flies far in dread; his work and dwelling vanish…"
--Percy Shelly

I recall when I was in school, that Earth Day they had. They took all the kids into the gym, where they had a stage, and someone talked about the population bomb, and the coming ice age, and pollution. Then they made us all go outside and pick up litter on the school grounds. It was surreal.

I came away with an entirely different lesson than they intended. Being a stoopid noob, I asked out loud whether they didn't have people that got paid to keep the school nice. So they told me it was a lesson in 'community' or something. It didn't help when I pointed out that I didn't put the litter there. And it didn't help when I wondered aloud whether the earth was really going to freeze over, and the population bomb was going to make it so everyone starved. So I learned that 'community lesson' means being made to clean up other people's messes even though someone else gets paid to do it, and being made to just shut up and do what you're told instead of asking all those stoopid questions. I guess I was just sort of an inconvenience to all those nice teachers who were just trying to do the right thing and teach us all the right values. Some of us never learn.

The goody-two-shoes in the group were all too happy to join in a chorus to keep the lone voice silent. I'm kinda glad I landed on the other side of that imaginary line. They can't imagine being like me, and I can't imagine being like them.

a tree of night
02-27-2007, 09:57 PM
With the common man unable to comprehend high school chemistry and physics, our society will swallow this hocus pocus hook, line and sinker, never adding up the data for themselves.

Part of the problem is that the data itself is meaningless without a lot of context. "The average temperature of the planet has increased n units over t time period" doesn't mean anything unless you tell me where on the planet you took the measurements, how you took them, and what you're comparing them to so that their significance can be evaluated.

The failure to distinguish between correlation and causation does not help, either.

Rekd
02-27-2007, 11:35 PM
Part of the problem is that the data itself is meaningless without a lot of context. "The average temperature of the planet has increased n units over t time period" doesn't mean anything unless you tell me where on the planet you took the measurements, how you took them, and what you're comparing them to so that their significance can be evaluated.

The failure to distinguish between correlation and causation does not help, either.

Someone is finally starting to see my point. :D That lack of data is NOT meaningless, it's purposefully left out of context and incomplete to get you to shut up and conform.

The earth has warmed steadily only over the last 25 years, and evidence from satellites is not consistent with the idea that global warming (http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=291) is actually global. Not to mention that the earth actually cooled between 1942 and 1980.

Any data can be used however someone sees fit by the simple exclusion of one or two small but important facts (*cough*hockeystick, little ice age, mars getting warmer, cows passing gas, solar events, H20 as biggest greenhouse gas *cough*.)

The results are directly linked to the blind adherence of those too ignorant or too lazy to do the research themselves, and we end up with a world-wide panic and complete social restructuring over something that is clearly unclear, yet is staunchly portrayed as fact, while those that question it are ridiculed. (Note I said those that question it are ridiculed, not those that deny it, because very VERY few people deny it.)

If they were to give you all the facts they have about Global Warming and put it all into perspective in a nice, neat little package, it would be very easy for even the most lazy, ignorant people to come to the same conclusions I've come to; Global Warming is a natural trend that we, as lowly insignificant and un-adapting humans can probably do little (if anything) about, and even if we could do something about it, do we really want to? We don't know enough about it to make that decision. (If you're confused or mad, take 10 minutes and actually read some of the posts I made above instead of blindly and foolishly following Al Gore's green path to socialism.)

Also, don't ignore what I've said about pollution being bad and that we need to stop it. It IS bad, and we DO need to stop it.

Rekd
02-27-2007, 11:52 PM
Oh, yeah, I do read Hansen, and Schneider, and Mann, and Alley, Schmidt... so who is it with their head in the sand that only looks at one side of the argument, yet tells me to "read a few books"???
;)

pdr
02-28-2007, 05:33 AM
The problem is the individual mind set isn't it? Emotional attachments to ideas prevents the logical side of the brain being used. The emotions are too powerful. People find it very hard to be dispassionate.

Statistics, sets of figures, simple facts exist. It's what we do to them that causes the confusion and problems.

I think it's fair to say from what we have seen in the posts here that Rekd will only see a conspiracy to socialise the world and that is more important to him than the damage being done now. If this were 1955 I can see Rekd jumping up and down in support of McCarthy because he has a strong emotional hatred of socialism. I can't see him ever accepting that the facts of global warming could point differently from the way he sees them emotionally.

In her posts Delarege seems to have an emotional attachment to national pride so again facts and figures count for little. There might be global warming, but it isn't the USA's responsibility to do anything at gov level.

I don't know how blacbird or myself can have a powerful emotional attachment to the dangers we see ahead for the planet or the fact that we can see human beings are in a tricky position re survival. Maybe we are emotionally attached to the survival of the human race? But whatever we disparate posters are never going to 'hear' each other or admit that while global warming and cooling are natural occurrences it's what we humans are doing that is causing the problems right now.

Rekd
02-28-2007, 05:46 PM
Statistics, sets of figures, simple facts exist. It's what we do to them that causes the confusion and problems.

I think it's fair to say from what we have seen in the posts here that Rekd will only see a conspiracy to socialise the world and that is more important to him than the damage being done now. If this were 1955 I can see Rekd jumping up and down in support of McCarthy because he has a strong emotional hatred of socialism. I can't see him ever accepting that the facts of global warming could point differently from the way he sees them emotionally.


So when I put information in front of you FROM BOTH SIDES you still refuse to allow me to make my own comprehensive decisions based on information, and you resort to diversion from the facts put forth and call me emotionally seperated from a theory that I too once believed in, blindly, like you?

:D

I have read FACTS and FIGURES from BOTH SIDES and came to my own conclusions, I have spelled them out clearly to you, and you continue beating the blind drum of ignorance and subversiveness and belittlement of me for looking at both sides.

I don't let my love of animals and nature cloud my judgement or blind me from those that are trying to use a serious problem to take advantage of me. If you're incapable of that, it's ok, I forgive you. :Hug2: (Don't worry, I won't pity you, I'll just forgive your ignorance and weakness)

Rekd
02-28-2007, 06:36 PM
The 100,000-Year Ice-Age Cycle Identified and Found to Lag Temperature, Carbon Dioxide, and Orbital Eccentricity


"....Hence, the 100,000-year cycle does not arise from ice sheet dynamics; instead, it is probably the response of the global carbon cycle that generates the eccentricity signal by causing changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5486/1897


....Whoa...hold on a minute....did I just read that the 100,000-year cycle causes CHANGES in atmospheric CO2????

HEY!!!! I thought that was MY job!! :flag:

Del
02-28-2007, 08:18 PM
In her posts Delarege seems to have an emotional attachment to national pride so again facts and figures count for little. There might be global warming, but it isn't the USA's responsibility to do anything at gov level.



You are SO far off the mark. I've been screwed so often by 'my fellow Americans' that I couldn't fart audibly if I wanted to. The US government is filled with slight of hand and spin experts to the extent that they don't take responsibility for anything, neither domestic or abroad. There is NO ONE here that I care to defend. I am not relieving the US of responsibility. I am condemning the rest of the world along with it! Read my lips. IT IS A WORLD PROBLEM!

I want to hear you say WE just once, PDR. I want all the flags and the border gates to fall into the sea and then I want the world to say WE SCREWED UP. Am I clear enough now?

Higgins
02-28-2007, 09:42 PM
So when I put information in front of you FROM BOTH SIDES you still refuse to allow me to make my own comprehensive decisions based on information, and you resort to diversion from the facts put forth and call me emotionally seperated from a theory that I too once believed in, blindly, like you?

:D



The basic science on this matter is quite clear. There are not two sides, there are basic findings (ie that we are entering a catastrophic period of human-caused climate change) and then there is a lot of other stuff that simply doesn't work out consistantly. So you can take the simple, consistant basic answer or you can wander from one crackpot non-explanation to another. I advise taking the simple, consistant, basic findings and moving on from there. Methodologically it makes much more sense.

Rekd
02-28-2007, 10:05 PM
(ie that we are entering a catastrophic period of human-caused climate change)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/FukNRekd/Smile/spit.gif

OMG! That's priceless! No debate about who or what causes global warming?? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/FukNRekd/Smile/rotflmao.gif

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! *puff puff pass* (don't forget to pass)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/FukNRekd/Root/48273475rbYcpZ_ph.jpg

Higgins
02-28-2007, 10:15 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/FukNRekd/Smile/spit.gif

OMG! That's priceless! No debate about who or what causes global warming?? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/FukNRekd/Smile/rotflmao.gif


Some things are just true. It's not a conspiracy, its a matter of figuring out what the basic facts are. If you look at all the overall trends and connect them up with the only parameter that has changed in the current climatic equilibrium (increasing use of fossil fuels), the answer could not be more clear: we are entering a period of catastrophic change between one equilibrium (ie one set of natural cycles) and another totally different set of natural cycles. There is no reason to think this is a good thing and every reason to expect the worst.

blacbird
02-28-2007, 10:17 PM
I suggest reading Karl Marx and other socialist/communist thinkers.

I knew it wouldn't take long for this flag to get raised. Now, let's hear about how wrong evolution is, that being a communist conspiracy, too.

caw

a tree of night
02-28-2007, 10:22 PM
The basic science on this matter is quite clear. There are not two sides, there are basic findings (ie that we are entering a catastrophic period of human-caused climate change) and then there is a lot of other stuff that simply doesn't work out consistantly. So you can take the simple, consistant basic answer or you can wander from one crackpot non-explanation to another. I advise taking the simple, consistant, basic findings and moving on from there. Methodologically it makes much more sense.

The basic science is not clear. It is extremely complex and the conclusions that are being made are based on assumptions and methodology that are not consistently explicitly stated.

I can state with conviction that it's 20 yards from my front door to the road and it sounds simple and irrefutable, but if I don't tell you if I determined 20 yards by

a) measuring with a string, from the doorknob, around the car to the mailbox;
b) measuring with a laser at a right angle to the door;
c) looking at a planning map of my development from two years before my house was built;
d) looking at a satellite photo and gauging by relative scale of the known length of the house; or
e) by walking from the door to the road and estimating the length of my stride,

you don't have any idea how far it is from my door to the road. Global climate change is infinitely more complex and involves different types of data that were measured in different ways being compared, projected, and manipulated to show trends.

I don't have anywhere near the specific background to support or refute the conclusions, but I do have the general science background to evaluate the validity of the methodology, assumptions, sample size, error analysis, etc. given enough information. Right now, I don't have enough of the information (due in part to my own negligence in pursuing it, but also in some part to papers that fail to disclose relevant information) to do so, but I can assure you that the issue is complex enough that there is room for question.


the only parameter that has changed in the current climatic equilibrium (increasing use of fossil fuels)

erm. I'm afraid we just disagree on that one.

Higgins
02-28-2007, 10:37 PM
erm. I'm afraid we just disagree on that one.

The basic questions are extremely simple: is a "climate" a state of dynamic equilibrium? Are there signs in the past of catastrophic shifts from one such state of dynamic equilibrium to an other?

If the answers are yes and yes (and they are) then several things follow: the idea of "natural cycles" can be completely disposed of: there are no natural cycles, ie nothing holds a given climatic regime within a range of observed states except some limited set of parameters. And there are such parameters and we know which ones have been changing. The critical parameter that is changing right now is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. All the rest follows logically, and what follows logically is that we are entering a catastrophic transition from one equilibrium to another.

Rekd
02-28-2007, 11:27 PM
I knew it wouldn't take long for this flag to get raised. Now, let's hear about how wrong evolution is, that being a communist conspiracy, too.

caw

I believe in evolution very strongly. You keep trying to pick and choose your battles with me without responding to anything important. How convenient to not have to justify yourself as you just keep looking more and more ignorant and closed minded. ;)

Do yourself a favor.... READ.

READ BOOKS, like you suggested I do, only this time, read books that talk about BOTH aspects, not just YOUR side. Then go back and re-read what I posted, (I am only giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually read what I posted the first time, but by your response (or better, lack of response), it seems you didn't.)

Either way, you have yet to put up anything substantial. You simply try to attack my character instead of debate me with facts. Likely because you just don't have the ability to debate me because I've covered most of the aspects already and all you can do is cling to one or two things I stated in regards to socialism.

If you want to debate me, then eat a sack lunch and get some facts together. Don't sit there and try to judge me without a shred of substance.

Sokal, The basic question is: Are humans to blame for Global Warming? NOBODY has been able to prove that we are to blame by any substantial amount. All they can say is "we're LIKELY to be" or "we SEEM to be" etc.

If humans are to blame, how do you explain the countless number of cycles (just like the one we SEEM to be experiencing now) that have happened over the last hundreds of thousand of years BEFORE SUVs? How about the SAME cycles on Mars?? Damn humans and thier SUVs on Mars! Explain why cosmic rays are man made, or why H2O (the biggest Green House Gas there is) is man's fault.

:roll:

Higgins
02-28-2007, 11:33 PM
Sokal, if humans are to blame, how do you explain the countless number of cycles (just like the one we SEEM to be experiencing now) that have happened over the last hundreds of thousand of years BEFORE SUVs? How about the SAME cycles on Mars?? Damn humans and thier SUVs on Mars!

:roll:

There are no natural cycles. So there are no "same cycles" on Mars.

As I have noted, the basic questions are: are climates systems in dynamic equilibrium? Are there signs that there have been catastrophic shifts from one state of dynamic climatic equilibrium to another? It appears that the answers are yes and yes and the rest follows logically.

Rekd
02-28-2007, 11:47 PM
There are no natural cycles. So there are no "same cycles" on Mars.

As I have noted, the basic questions are: are climates systems in dynamic equilibrium? Are there signs that there have been catastrophic shifts from one state of dynamic climatic equilibrium to another? It appears that the answers are yes and yes and the rest follows logically.

LMAO!! Even YOU are simply speculating.... "It appears" ??? LoLoL!

Oh, and you still refuse to answer my questions. Oh, and how, exactally, do you explain that there are no "natural cycles" ??? :ROFL:

Higgins
02-28-2007, 11:59 PM
LMAO!! Even YOU are simply speculating.... "It appears" ??? LoLoL!

Oh, and you still refuse to answer my questions. Oh, and how, exactally, do you explain that there are no "natural cycles" ??? :ROFL:

There is no special category of causality that we can identify as a
"natural cycle"....climate is a system in dynamic equilibrium.

You state some things about Mars. I have stated some about the Earth's climate. I will restate these two simple questions about the Earth's climate. Is the observed oscilliatory structuring that we describe as a climate a system in dynamic equilibrium? The answer appears to be yes.
Are there signs of catastrophic shifts between such states of dynamic equilibrium in the Earth's past? The answer appears to be yes. From that it follows that if it appears that one parameter in the dynamic equilibrium of a climate system is changing radically, you are going to get a catastrophic shift to a different equilibrium. This does appear to be true of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere and the change in the CO2 is due to human activity. All very simple.

Rekd
03-01-2007, 12:01 AM
There is no special category of causality that we can identify as a
"natural cycle"....climate is a system in dynamic equilibrium.

You state some things about Mars. I have stated some about the Earth's climate. I will restate these two simple questions about the Earth's climate. Is the observed oscilliatory structuring that we describe as a climate a system in dynamic equilibrium? The answer appears to be yes.
Are there signs of catastrophic shifts between such states of dynamic equilibrium in the Earth's past? The answer appears to be yes. From that it follows that if it appears that one parameter in the dynamic equilibrium of a climate system is changing radically, you are going to get a catastrophic shift to a different equilibrium. This does appear to be true of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere and the change in the CO2 is due to human activity. All very simple.


You still refuse to tell me how we, as humans driving SUVs, are responsible for the climate changes (both UP and DOWN) that have been happening for eons and on other planets, regardless of if it's a "natural cycle".

If you can't, just say so. Either way, stop trying to ignore the question.

blacbird
03-01-2007, 12:04 AM
There's little point in engaging Rekd in a continuing argument here. The arguments abound in all kinds of venues, easily googled, among other things. In the interest of fairness, I just found this, which seems to me to be a detailed and objective summary gathered by Scientific American of the various objections to the concept of anthropogenic contribution to global warming (or to global warming as a concept all by itself). I think you'll find all of Rekd's various points clearly made here. Go see what you think. My observation is that the bulk of Rekd's enthusiasm is contained in point VII.

caw

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic_p art_ii_1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Rekd
03-01-2007, 12:11 AM
There's little point in engaging Rekd in a continuing argument here.

You can't refute what I've said? You know why? Because I've LOOKED AT BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE, unlike you.




The arguments abound in all kinds of venues, easily googled, among other things. In the interest of fairness, I just found this, which seems to me to be a detailed and objective summary gathered by Scientific American of the various objections to the concept of anthropogenic contribution to global warming (or to global warming as a concept all by itself). I think you'll find all of Rekd's various points clearly made here. Go see what you think. My observation is that the bulk of Rekd's enthusiasm is contained in point VII.

caw

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic_p art_ii_1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1


Yeah, 17,000 scientists can't be right (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm), can they? Nice try. ;)

BTW, I hadn't seen that site before, thanks for the link. It pretty much covers all the bases doesn't it? :tongue

:edit:

Ohh, found a great link from your link which talks about climate researchers hiding data (http://www.climateaudit.org/). Great site, with side by side comparisons of the fear monger's assesment vs the assesments made with ALL the data. Good job! :clapping:

:edit2:

Oh, lookie here, more good stuff from your link, this time it's admitting ERRORS in the computer models (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4923248.stm) used to scare all of you into thinking there is man made global warming. BBC Link. ROTFLMAO!

caw = open mouth, insert foot. :)

blacbird
03-01-2007, 12:14 AM
You still refuse to tell me how we, as humans driving SUVs, are responsible for the climate changes (both UP and DOWN) that have been happening for eons and on other planets, regardless of if it's a "natural cycle".

If you can't, just say so. Either way, stop trying to ignore the question.

Rekd has brought up a number of points having various cogency about this issue. This one, however, is silly beyond comprehension. No one anywhere is arguing anything about humans being responsible for, or contributing to, any fluctuations in climate (which without question do occur) prior to the current one. Why? First, data suggest pretty strongly that the current one is proceeding with alarming and accelerating speed, and that it correlates equally alarmingly with what we've been able to measure about industrial greenhouse gas emissions over the past century or so.

I won't even go into the issue of other planets.

The point has been made elsewhere in this thread that "correlation doesn't equal causation", a point also made in the article I just cited. True, in purest philosophical terms, but deductive scientific thinking starts with observation, and finding data that correlate provokes finding explanation. The stronger the correlation, the stronger it points toward causation.

It might have just been a correlation phenomenon that placed the bodies of all those young men and boys in John Wayne Gacy's crawlspace, too.

caw

Higgins
03-01-2007, 12:22 AM
You still refuse to tell me how we, as humans driving SUVs, are responsible for the climate changes (both UP and DOWN) that have been happening for eons and on other planets, regardless of if it's a "natural cycle".

If you can't, just say so. Either way, stop trying to ignore the question.

Well...if any entity dumped a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere it would have the same effect. In our present case, human activity has dumped massive abouts of CO2 into the atmosphere, hence the current departure from our earlier equilibrium and our current catastrophic state.

There have been other transitions from one equilibrium to another that did not involve SUVs. We can observe the present state and we can see that it does involve SUVs. I don't see how this is a problematic thing. Different events can have different causes. As it happens, we are discussing the present event and one of the causes is lots of SUVs.
Note that the present climatic catastrophe is clearly a different event from whatever happened on Mars. And as I've suggested, it is possible for different events to be caused by different things.

Higgins
03-01-2007, 12:29 AM
Rekd has brought up a number of points having various cogency about this issue. This one, however, is silly beyond comprehension. No one anywhere is arguing anything about humans being responsible for, or contributing to, any fluctuations in climate (which without question do occur) prior to the current one. Why? First, data suggest pretty strongly that the current one is proceeding with alarming and accelerating speed, and that it correlates equally alarmingly with what we've been able to measure about industrial greenhouse gas emissions over the past century or so.

I won't even go into the issue of other planets.

The point has been made elsewhere in this thread that "correlation doesn't equal causation", a point also made in the article I just cited. True, in purest philosophical terms, but deductive scientific thinking starts with observation, and finding data that correlate provokes finding explanation. The stronger the correlation, the stronger it points toward causation.

It might have just been a correlation phenomenon that placed the bodies of all those young men and boys in John Wayne Gacy's crawlspace, too.

caw


There seems to be a lot of confusion about causality in the very strange proposition that "global warming is a natural cycle"...It looks like people use the term "natural cycle" as if it were an entirely isolatable type of causal structure. One that is "the same" on Mars and the Earth.
Apparently a "natural cycle" has some built-in, self-sustaining causal core that very mysteriously is not dependent on any external effects and requires no explanation. It's just "natural" (whatever that means) and a "cycle" (apparently closed away from other causes and self-sustaining?)...

a tree of night
03-01-2007, 01:05 AM
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Or more precisely, I don't see where you distinguish between an "oscillatory" equilibrium and a cycle. I think we all agree that the climate has changed, independently of human interaction for several billion years, right? And those changes exhibit a distinguishable pattern? Are we talking semantics here or am I misreading?

Higgins
03-01-2007, 01:18 AM
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Or more precisely, I don't see where you distinguish between an "oscillatory" equilibrium and a cycle. I think we all agree that the climate has changed, independently of human interaction for several billion years, right? And those changes exhibit a distinguishable pattern? Are we talking semantics here or am I misreading?


The idea of a "natural cycle" seems to be confusing people. There is no special category of causality that we can identify as a "natural cycle".

Climate change does have a pattern: there are relatively long periods of dynamic equilibrium and short, catastrophic transitions from one equilibrium to another. So in a sense it is wrong to make a blanket statement about climate change since any change in any parameter could potentially cause a transition from one equilibriium to another. So there have been equilibria and transitions in the past and the features of these equilibria and transitions tells us that there is a limited set of parameters that can cause transitions. What we know about the current transition is that the parameter that has changed is increased CO2 in the atmosphere and that human activity has caused that increase.

a tree of night
03-01-2007, 01:48 AM
The idea of a "natural cycle" seems to be confusing people. There is no special category of causality that we can identify as a "natural cycle".

Climate change does have a pattern: there are relatively long periods of dynamic equilibrium and short, catastrophic transitions from one equilibrium to another. So in a sense it is wrong to make a blanket statement about climate change since any change in any parameter could potentially cause a transition from one equilibriium to another. So there have been equilibria and transitions in the past and the fearures of these equilibria and transitions tells us that there is a limited set of parameters that can cause transitions.

Got it, thanks for the explanation.


What we know about the current transition is that the parameter that has changed is increased CO2 in the atmosphere and that human activity has caused that increase.

I've got a call, I'll have to come back to this later.

Rekd
03-01-2007, 01:56 AM
What we know about the current transition is that the parameter that has changed is increased CO2 in the atmosphere and that human activity has caused that increase.

You mean "What you THINK you know."


The RATE of growth during the last few decades has increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year, which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

Besides, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere, water vapor constitutes ~3%, and it is widely thought (although rarely stated) that water vapor constitutes 60% of the cause of the warming effect.

But it's ok, you go ahead and keep ignoring the other side of the argument.

Higgins
03-01-2007, 02:54 AM
You mean "What you THINK you know."


Besides, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere, water vapor constitutes ~3%, and it is widely thought (although rarely stated) that water vapor constitutes 60% of the cause of the warming effect.

But it's ok, you go ahead and keep ignoring the other side of the argument.

CO2 is the parameter that has changed. I'm not ignoring anything. There is no other side to this argument as far as which parameter has changed. "The warming effect" (call it variable w1) that is 60% water vapor is part of the dynamic equilibrium from which we are departing. "The warming effect" (call it variable c1) based on the change in CO2 is the parameter that has changed. We know that w1 is part of the equilibrium. We know that c1 is the parameter that has changed and we can observe both the increase in c1 and the associated departure from equilibrium.

pdr
03-01-2007, 09:01 AM
we're never going to get Rekd to lose his emotional hold on his ideas.

Oh and got you, Delarege, we are all humans so we stuffed up, yes I will agree, but it's very hard to tell Pacific island and some African nations, who are suffering from the effects of Global Warming, that. They don't have any industry, much electricty or many cars or air conditioning, their countries have signed the Kyoto agreement and they are busy doing their bit.

And that's the thing isn't it? There are some simple things we can do as individuals. There are some things our govts can do but we need to do something now.

All the jumping up and down and screaming that my figures are right and yours are wrong is being a bit of a Nero isn't it? Nothing gets done and the problems increase.

Rekd
03-01-2007, 06:17 PM
CO2 is the parameter that has changed. I'm not ignoring anything. There is no other side to this argument as far as which parameter has changed. "The warming effect" (call it variable w1) that is 60% water vapor is part of the dynamic equilibrium from which we are departing. "The warming effect" (call it variable c1) based on the change in CO2 is the parameter that has changed. We know that w1 is part of the equilibrium. We know that c1 is the parameter that has changed and we can observe both the increase in c1 and the associated departure from equilibrium.

Oh, I see.

So what about the evidence that says that CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so? ;)


Oh and got you, Delarege, we are all humans so we stuffed up, yes I will agree, but it's very hard to tell Pacific island and some African nations, who are suffering from the effects of Global Warming, that. They don't have any industry, much electricty or many cars or air conditioning, their countries have signed the Kyoto agreement and they are busy doing their bit.


What about the evidence that "Global" warming may not be "global"?


All the jumping up and down and screaming that my figures are right and yours are wrong is being a bit of a Nero isn't it? Nothing gets done and the problems increase.

It's not about fingers, which are in plain view, it's about what's in the box that we cannot see.

Do try to keep up.

Higgins
03-01-2007, 06:39 PM
Oh, I see.

So what about the evidence that says that CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so? ;)



What difference does that make? It certainly is not what is happening now. The CO2 is just a parameter of a system in dynamic equilibrium. I can think of plenty of mechanisms where the isotope levels in a sediment or ice core change before the signature of the CO2 changes. That is not a fundamental issue. The data in the ice core or sediment merely gives indications of past states, it does not change causality.
I should also point out that many of your statements seem to suggest that you consider any verbal designation to have a causal implication. The fact is that putting something into one verbal category or another does not act as an overall causal explanation at all. For example "before" or "after" in the data from an ice core or sediment does not directly translate into causal statements that invalidate the mechanism where CO2 absorbs and emits photons of different wavelengths, thus capturing energy in the atmosphere that would otherwise radiate quickly back into space. To put it another way, the causes working in the timing of signatures in ice cores or sediments are not the same as those happening when photons hit CO2 molecules: the photons add energy to the atmosphere and the signatures in the cores or sediments show the end results of atmospheric processes.


As I've said, there are two basic questions: 1) is a climate a system in dynamic equilibrium? and 2) is there evidence from the past of catastrophic shifts from one such dynamic equilibrium to another? The answers to these two questions appear to be yes in both cases. The rest follows logically.

Higgins
03-01-2007, 06:45 PM
What about the evidence that "Global" warming may not be "global"?



The Earth only has one atmosphere. If you change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you change the amount of energy that the atmosphere captures. Generally, adding energy to the atmosphere is a matter of heating up the atmosphere. The heat energy is manifest also in stronger storms and other increases in dynamic components (winds, shifts in the jet stream and ocean currents, snow, rain etc.).

Del
03-01-2007, 08:30 PM
All the jumping up and down and screaming that my figures are right and yours are wrong is being a bit of a Nero isn't it? Nothing gets done and the problems increase.

With this I am in complete agreement.

There are some simple things that would make a good start on reducing our part. A four day work week might reduce emissions about 15%. This has been put on the table before. I don't know what became of it. Also, the internal combustion engine has reached its maximum efficiency. Unless there is a substantial improvement in lubrications, fuel economy has reached it's peak. Smaller cars is the only way to improve on it. I hear hydrogen fuel cells are coming along nicely but even that has a trade off with the electricity needed to produce hydrogen. If power comes from a fossil fueled electric plant we haven't reduced much in the way of GHGs.

This is a world on the move. The only way to power it pollution free is electrically. I've heard fusion power might actually happen in this lifetime. What negative drawbacks we will find with that, I don't know, but there will be something, I'm sure.

More to the present, electric cars are improving in efficiency and I can see the internal combustion engine being replaced in my lifetime. Instead of filling stations we will have battery exchange stations. Now, what we will do with all the defunct batteries I don't yet know. Recycle is probable. In any case, it will be localized (like tires) and other countries won't have to deal with our mess.

Solar cell power has taken a leap forward as well. There is supposed to be a new panel available this year that additionally utilizes the infrared spectrum for a 30% efficiency increase. Hardly a world solution and it will likely cost too much initially but it does give hope that solar panels might one day be able to replace the electric meter on the side of the house and cars with solar paint jobs might occupy the streets.

a tree of night
03-01-2007, 08:58 PM
I've got a call, I'll have to come back to this later.

Actually, I won't. As it turns out, I'm too busy (read : lazy) to address this at the fundamental level. Let's just say I appreciate your point of view, but I can't accept it given my current understanding of the underlying principals. I don't flat out reject it, either, mind you, but I'm not convinced to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Rekd
03-02-2007, 12:54 AM
Also, the internal combustion engine has reached its maximum efficiency.

Actually, they are improving considerably every year. Don't be naive. Smaller engines, producing more power and using less fuel.

Unfortunately, the big oil companies are not allowing it to progress as it should.


The only way to power it pollution free is electrically.

That would require all hydro-electric power stations, wind farms and solar fields, something the oil companies and the environmentalists are not allowing to progress as it should.

Right now, I believe we use mostly oil and/or coal to make electricity. So you'd be simply shifting the problem around, not solving it.

To solve it we will have to completely change the ENTIRE infrastructure of the civilized world. Good luck with that!


Solar cell power has taken a leap forward as well. There is supposed to be a new panel available this year that additionally utilizes the infrared spectrum for a 30% efficiency increase.


I have a very effecient house. A solar voltaic system on my roof. (My meter spins backwards most of the day). I have a solar water heater. I have everything very nicely insulated, double pained glass, a pellet stove, and a well on the property for irrigation.

I also have a diesel truck that can run on veggie oil. (I've been considering producing an affordable stil to convert veggie oil so people don't have to convert thier diesel engines, but don't have the time now).

The other vehicles I drive are economic, (motorcycles and small 4 cylindar cars). I'm considering getting a hybrid as my next car, and adding some of the new solar panels to my existing system, as well as a wind mill.

I'm all for reducing pollution and being more effiecient, as many of you have completely ignored.

I'd bet I'm already doing more than some folks here who are claiming I'm a denier.

I simply see further than the fuzz on my nose. Most of you here refuse to even accept the possibility that there's something else going on and that the governments are trying to capitilize on your ignorance via their (effective) scare tactics.

It's easy to look at different things and still stay on a good course like I am doing. But you're too stubborn and too easily led. Think for yourselves.

I'm done with this thread.

blacbird
03-02-2007, 01:01 AM
This is a world on the move. The only way to power it pollution free is electrically.

This, of course, depends entirely on how you produce the electricity. You don't charge up batteries on prayer. Solar recharging would be nice, but isn't anywhere near practical reality right now. In the U.S., the vast majority of our electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, with no sign that's changing anytime soon, either. Neither hydro nor wind are without trade-offs and drawbacks, and, though both are desirable under certain circumstances, those circumstances aren't available in a lot of places. Among people claiming to be environmentalists there is a lot of naïveté on this issue of electrical power for vehicles. Lack of knowledge is never a virtue.

caw

blacbird
03-02-2007, 01:06 AM
Actually, they are improving considerably every year. Don't be naive. Smaller engines, producing more power and using less fuel.

Unfortunately, the big oil companies are not allowing it to progress as it should.

Correct. So, if it doesn't matter that humans are contributing greenhouse emissions to the atmosphere, why does this matter?

caw

Rekd
03-02-2007, 01:58 AM
Correct. So, if it doesn't matter that humans are contributing greenhouse emissions to the atmosphere, why does this matter?

caw

:sigh:
I never said it didn't matter, have you been reading my posts? :Shrug:

blacbird
03-02-2007, 02:20 AM
Our inputs are likely negligible in the overall scheme of things,

?

caw

Rekd
03-02-2007, 02:40 AM
?


Reading and comprehension are key.


Our inputs are likely (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/likely) negligible (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/negligible)

There's a big difference. If you had read any of my posts you would have known that I'm not denying it. Just trying to show you it's possible that it's not humans.

For the record, by negligible I mean of lesser importance that the main contributing factors, not the actual meaning that they're not worth bringing up, so good call on that.


Also, while you're quick to point out the negatives, you still refuse to acknowledge the possibility, as well as my own efforts to curb my own "carbon footprint"

Just another indication of your complete and blind following of those that may be probably are taking advantage of your ignorance.

greglondon
03-02-2007, 03:01 AM
constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere, water vapor constitutes ~3%, and it is widely thought (although rarely stated) that water vapor constitutes 60% of the cause of the warming effect.

If CO2 goes up, and that causes some warming, and that warming causes more moisture to remain in the atmosphere (because the warmer the air, the more moisture it can hold), and that moisture causes more warming, which causes more moisture, then you have an avalanche effect, triggered by CO2.

Do you think it would be wise to reduce CO2 levels so as to prevent an avalanche from being triggered? Or should we wait for the avalanche to bury us and after the fact debate whether it was the trigger or the avalanche that killed us?

blacbird
03-02-2007, 03:40 AM
Reading and comprehension are key.



There's a big difference. If you had read any of my posts you would have known that I'm not denying it. Just trying to show you it's possible that it's not humans.

For the record, by negligible I mean of lesser importance that the main contributing factors, not the actual meaning that they're not worth bringing up, so good call on that.


Also, while you're quick to point out the negatives, you still refuse to acknowledge the possibility, as well as my own efforts to curb my own "carbon footprint"

Just another indication of your complete and blind following of those that may be probably are taking advantage of your ignorance.

For starters, I have read your posts, although I must say they tend to blend into repetitive white noise after a while. And as far as your personal carbon footprint, you're to be commended. In my dictionary "negligible" isn't synonymous with "lesser", so perhaps we have a terminology issue.

As far as "possibility" that human contribution are not either effecting or affecting the global warming, it's "possible" that O.J. Simpson didn't do it, but I suspect otherwise. As long as we're in agreement that continuing to pump increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere isn't such a good idea (which wasn't really clear from many of your earlier posts), we can proceed in a positive direction.

caw

alaskamatt17
03-02-2007, 06:33 AM
Among people claiming to be environmentalists there is a lot of naïveté on this issue of electrical power for vehicles. Lack of knowledge is never a virtue.

caw

The worst demonstration of ignorance I've ever seen was a Discovery Channel special in which "environmentalist filmmakers" extolled the virtues of a car powered by compressed air. They passed it off as a car that ran with no input of external energy. There was even a computer simulation showing how the car, which ran off compressed air, could use that same air to power a generator which could compress more air. Think of the possibilities! All you need is one canister of compressed air to start with, and voila! Instant perpetual motion device!

Higgins
03-02-2007, 05:49 PM
The worst demonstration of ignorance I've ever seen was a Discovery Channel special in which "environmentalist filmmakers" extolled the virtues of a car powered by compressed air. They passed it off as a car that ran with no input of external energy. There was even a computer simulation showing how the car, which ran off compressed air, could use that same air to power a generator which could compress more air. Think of the possibilities! All you need is one canister of compressed air to start with, and voila! Instant perpetual motion device!

Well, you could power the compressor off of solar or wind or geothermal sources. I'm sure the overall process would add some heat somewhere, but you could argue that that heat would radiate off the planet much more efficiently if you reduced the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is an entirely theoretical scenario, mind you. There is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it would take a lot more than a few thousand compressed-air-powered cars to make any difference....for example.

Del
03-02-2007, 07:05 PM
We should bolt magnets to the front of all our vehicles. We can just drag ourselves behind the car in front.

Vanatru
03-02-2007, 11:23 PM
We should bolt magnets to the front of all our vehicles. We can just drag ourselves behind the car in front.

For the most entertaining answer, you Sir, get a point.

KanShu
03-04-2007, 06:04 AM
The 100,000-Year Ice-Age Cycle Identified and Found to Lag Temperature, Carbon Dioxide, and Orbital Eccentricity



http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5486/1897


....Whoa...hold on a minute....did I just read that the 100,000-year cycle causes CHANGES in atmospheric CO2????


Actually, I believe you may have misread the article. The researchers found that the 100,000 year (100ky) ice age cycle lags behind the similar cycles found in global temperature, CO2, and orbital eccentricity by roughly 14ky.

Their thesis that "the 100,000-year cycle does not arise from ice sheet dynamics; instead, it is probably the response of the global carbon cycle that generates the eccentricity signal by causing changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration" is based on this evidence that the ice volume lags behind these other 3 variables. They conclude that it is the changes in CO2 levels that bring about the changes in ice volume, given the 14ky lag and established mechanism.

It is actually a very nicely written article, albeit a bit dense. I'd recommend you read it sometime.

Evaine
03-04-2007, 03:56 PM
There was a silent film where the main character had a car that worked with an electro-magnet on the front, that he pointed at other vehicles. Being a slapstick comedy, it all went horribly wrong, of course....