Global warming and scientists.

by Forscher 82 Replies latest members politics

• 

  SixofNine

  What difference would it make, if any, how far back you go? If there is an ACTUAL direct correlation between the two phenomenon, should you ever reach a point within the past 4.5 million years when the two diverge? The answer is an obvious one. What makes data 200,000 years old reliable and data 4.5 million years old unreliable? Wishful thinking? Certainty of position? What?

  Er, well, if our best window to the past is one set of physical data, say, I don't... ice cores, and that data doesn't go back anywhere near 4.5 million years, but does go back 200k years, then I think it safe to say the 200k data is more reliable.

  I'm still a little unclear as to your postion on this. Please state explicitly, are you saying that looking at a <200,000 year window, C02 levels DO show a direct correlation to surface temperatures? That's what I see. I want to know what you see.

  I ask you, since CO2 was singled out on the chart, how did the other ghgs match up in the 200,000 and 160,000 year windows? There is an entire spectrum of gasses identified as contributors to global warming, how do their concentrations stack up?

  Well, methane, other than water, is probably the most important in terms of affecting the climate. Here's how it and n2o "stacked up" for the past 650K:

  http://www.realclimate.org/epica.jpg (btw, if you want to make a point, you can go out, get some data, and make that point too, y'know?)

  As I said, I used to be HUGE into promoting the reduction in waste, reduction in emmissions, etc. If you want to look at a low long-term cost, quick way to acheive relative stability in the total amount of above ground (already extracted) carbon, check out the thermal depolymerization process funded by ConAgra. It still operates at a loss at the Butterball turkey plant in Carthage, Missouri, but it is not nearly as expensive as disposal would have been and produces a grade 2 to grade 4 light crude oil. That is nearly kerosene! And it is in a much cleaner state for further refining than most barreled light crudes.

  I didn't catch where you said that before, but I'll take your word for it. I just can't see any reason a person would be any less "HUGE" into promoting those things now than they were in the past. The thermal depolymerization process is one of the most exciting things I've read about in a long time. Too bad it may be headed for Europe instead of staying here. Maybe if we had less bullshit *noise* about these issues from junk scientist and robber barrons, America would have the political will to get ahead of the curve on such things.

  I am a self-confessed agnostic on this issue.

  Maybe you are now, but you certainly didn't sound like one until this last round of discussions. You used the term "agnostic" on a very specific point earlier, and in fact about a point on which there is no excuse to be agnostic. GHG's do warm the earth. It's basic physics. And if you are going to say that you only meant that you are agnostic on if additional ghg's are warming the earth more, well think about your logic; "yeah, ghg's warm the earth, but more ghg's won't warm the earth more". It's a little like saying an extra blanket won't make you warmer. (yes, it's a complex issue, but there are still some very basic principles involved).

  I am not sure. And I said so. I am NOT a disbeliever, I am a self-confessed agnostic on this issue. I converted from near-religious certainty that the ghgs were the cause of Global Warming to agnosticism on the issue. I am totally open to the possibility of changing my position, but I wouldn't have the position I have if I doubted that I had a basis for it—so obviously I argue from the standpoint of one who has a strong opinion...I have strong opinions of lots of things, and I defend them. That is not deceit nor is it closed-mindedness, that is having a spine and using it.

  Well, that's good to know. It sounds very different than the tone you struck when you first began discussing global warming on this forum.

  Personally, my opinion of opinions is a little different than most people. While I'd hate to change anyone's opinion based on anything other than data and reason, I know many people of strong opinion that I don't think of as having "backbone". As you well know, it takes alot more strength to change your mind than it does to maintain your personal status quo.

  Oy geez, I haven't even touched the meta-reply.

  being a contrarian is not the same as being skeptical, or even logical.
• 

  SixofNine

  I think this criticism says it best. Just substitute Limbaugh's name for anyone who limits their discussion to include only their favorite cause.

  So what causes, plural, do you suggest we include? Besides your obvious favourite, Del Sol de la Auld Soul, of course.
• 

  Sparkplug

  As I said, I used to be HUGE into promoting the reduction in waste, reduction in emmissions, etc. If you want to look at a low long-term cost, quick way to acheive relative stability in the total amount of above ground (already extracted) carbon, check out the thermal depolymerization process funded by ConAgra. It still operates at a loss at the Butterball turkey plant in Carthage, Missouri, but it is not nearly as expensive as disposal would have been and produces a grade 2 to grade 4 light crude oil. That is nearly kerosene! And it is in a much cleaner state for further refining than most barreled light crudes.

  How in the heck does auldsoul know of this place? I have been there. It is an underground cave. Freezer. Really neat place. My ex husbands family lives just down the road from there. You could have been twins for a moment...arguing poitics, agnostic, heck he was even into promoting the reduction in waste...But he tried it by going into septic tank (pond) cleaner business in a town run on city sewage.

  *****tiptoes out of room knowing she just came onto the stage like Rogger Rabbit singing ("TA DAH!")******closes door behind her*****winces a little at her own stupidity.
• 

  AuldSoul

  And if you are going to say that you only meant that you are agnostic on if additional ghg's are warming the earth more, well think about your logic; "yeah, ghg's warm the earth, but more ghg's won't warm the earth more".

  I meant that I am an agnostic with regard to whether the ghgs are the most significant factor and whether current rapid reduction in ghgs is sensible given current sun cycles. For exacty the reason you stated. ghgs act as a blanket. I have lived where it is snowy, and a blanket is the best friend you can have.

  Over 600,000 years earth has usually been iced over, punctuated by increases in temperature that spike or spike and plateau for much shorter periods of time. I have nothing against Winter sports, but snow gets VERY old after a few months of nothing but snow.

  

  Temperature data inferred from measurements of the ratio of oxygen isotope ratios in fossil plankton that settled to the sea floor, and assumes that changes in global temperature approximately tracks changes in the global ice volume . Based on data from J. Imbrie, J.D. Hays, D.G. Martinson, A. McIntyre, A.C. Mix, J.J. Morley, N.G. Pisias, W.L. Prell, and N.J. Shackleton, in A. Berger, J. Imbrie, J. Hats, G. Kukla, and B. Saltzman, eds., Milankovitch and Climate, Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 269-305, 1984. From Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record

  Prior to 1970 there was a HUGE scare that the earth was about to go into a cooling cycle, with rapidly dropping temperatures over the following couple of decades—another Ice Age was upon us. Well, they figured out that the temperatures on the surface of the earth tend to follow after the trends of the sun, by a few decades. Before it started its cooled cycle, the sun was at its highest output. Obviously, that meant that there would be a few decades of increasing temperatures.

  Rgeardless, if man-made CO2 emissions are not the largest contributor, or even a significant contributor, to the increase in temperature then why is there a huge rush to resolve emissions? It makes no sense, in that case. It is without question (as far as I am concerned) that human emissions is a contributing factor, but the extent to which that is the case is what determines the reasonable reaction, not whether it is the case.

  Humans will always affect our environment, all animals do. Some animals have eaten themselves into extinction, earth didn't care. It went right on existing with species thriving without blinking its eye. Other animals have gone extinct due to the emergence of new capabilities, again...the earth didn't care. And guess what? Despite the absolute worst imaginable thermo-nuclear war scenario, life would continue, the earth wouldn't care a bit. One thing that could reset the clock would be a superflare from the sun cooking off the oceans, but still...the earth wouldn't care.

  You might invonvenience humanity, you might not. At this point, any action or inaction could have either effect and we don't have an effective crystal ball. If by 2050 we have dropped by.5 degrees and we show every indication of a continuing southward trend on the thermometers by 2100, we might start wishing we hadn't refitted all our emitters of CO2. The reality is we just live here, we are puny and insignificant little lumps of animate carbon. The forces at work are at such awesome scale that we can't really make a conscious choice to tilt the scales one way or the other and see success.

  We can't ensure an Ice Age anymore than we can ensure the melting of the polar ice caps. I guess, ultimately, I am an agnostic when it comes to our perception. I see it as so limited that any action or inaction humanity takes is a crapshoot. You apparently have more confidence in the capabilities of the species.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  M.J.

  Another Roger Rabbit "Ta da!"...

  ever see the "Global Warming Christmas Special" on SNL? I loved that one!

  http://snltranscripts.jt.org/90/90hglobal.phtml
• 

  Sparkplug

  Sally Struthers: We can't allow this to happen.. Won't you please, please send money.. to wherever.. money is sent.. to fix.. this terrible.. tree thing.. Please..!

  That was funny!
• 

  M.J.

  My favorite:

  Paul McCartney (Dana Carvey): Well, we just thought we'd drop by and do our part, 'cause you know, it's global warming, it's madness! You know, it's killing us! You know, the other day I said to Linda, "We're losing the bloody planet!" And after the planet, what have you got? You can't live in the sky or in the sun! There's nowhere to stand! you know, you'd just be falling all the time, and then what have you got? I mean, think about it, you know? You could bring a chair, so that you could have a sit. But if you think that chair's not gonna fall, you'd be bloody wrong. 'Cause it will, and then what have you got? You're right back where you started, standing in the sun without a chair. It's bloody madness!

  (uh, sorry 'bout the distraction)
• 

  AuldSoul

  I think I see another thing I may not have communicated well enough. I don't know (am agnostic) on whether certain GHGs are the dominant cause of Global Warming, they certainly seem to accompany Global Warming, but I am downright skeptical of whether human emissions of CO2 is even a significant factor in global warming.

  The Holocene Maximum can't be explained by human emissions, its onset was swift and the top of its bell was rather wide compared to other warm periods. Between 1000 AD and 1300 AD there was another elevation that produced temperatures higher than we have currently, yet...no Industrial Revolution to account for it.

  Since these well known periods existed without human interaction with the environment (of any sufficiency to explain the changes in temperature), why the leap to such conclusions now?

  I don't see a need to rule out GHGs, but I think we are still at the learning phase of which came first, the chicken or the egg. We only know for sure that humans account for a miniscule portion of the global increases in GHGs through direct emissions. So is the sun doing the rest? Is some other process at work that we don't fully understand?

  We have just been through a period of human discovery unparalleled (as far as we know) in our species history during the last 100 years.

  100 years ago this discussion would not even be happening. What a LUCKY break that we just happened to be able to measure precisely the CO2 increases in the atmosphere while humans were emitting it to such a degree that cessation or dampening of emissions will preserve much of our coastline for earth's inhabitants in 2100! We can narrow the window down even further, we figured it out during the DECADE in which changes MUST be made for the future of earth! It is incredible. Besides, what if we are going to develop gills? We'll need more water. And big sticks for sharks.

  Just on the basis of this stretch of the imagination, I am suspect about the degree of anthropgenic causation. I am also thinking we have time to take a more reasonable approach to emissions reduction (which I still believe would improve the quality of our air and water, and are needed solely on that basis—if no other).

  Basically, I think humans can't predict the future very well. We suck at it. We are never right in the absolute sense. In 1860 the big environmental hubbub gripping booming metropolises world-wide was how we were EVER going to cope with all the buildup of horse manure! As cities grew and joined it became a bigger and bigger problem. It terrified the scientific community. There were horrible projections about where the world would be by 1950 if the trend continued.

  And they couldn't have imagined the last hundred years on their best day. We SUCK at predicting the future.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  SixofNine

  A little more on that "trend" stuff:

  Oops, Sorry About That: Climate Change is Real, After All | Alex Steffen

  QuickChanges see all posts in this category

  RealClimate today points out that the key piece of peer-reviewed research used politically by climate denialists was, well, botched:

  Today, Science published an important comment pointing out that there were serious errors in a climate research article that it published in October 2004. The article concerned (Von Storch et al. 2004) was no ordinary paper: it has gone through a most unusual career. Not only did it make many newspaper headlines [New Research Questions Uniqueness of Recent Warming, Past Climate Change Questioned etc.] when it first appeared, it also was raised in the US Senate as a reason for the US not to join the global climate protection efforts. It furthermore formed a part of the basis for the highly controversial enquiry by a Congressional committee into the work of scientists, which elicited sharp protests last year by the AAAS, the National Academy, the EGU and other organisations. It now turns out that the main results of the paper were simply wrong.

  The full post at RC is worth reading, in part because it gives some useful insight into the process by which the science eventually corrects itself. But the capsule take away is this: Climate is complex. Science is complex. There's still a lot of research to be done to explain how quickly climate change is unfolding and what its impacts are and will be. But with every passing day, it is clearer and clearer that climate change is here.
• 

  SixofNine

  Rgeardless, if man-made CO2 emissions are not the largest contributor, or even a significant contributor....

  
  

  
  Just curious, what font size and bolding weight should I attribute to that "if"?

  If I have your style chart figured out correctly, an "if" that potentially affects my daughter and grandchildren and (mostly underpriviledged) entire populations, would be just a normal font size and weight? And an "if" that might cost extremely wealthy people market share of an industry they have a stranglehold on, should be in 72 point bold?

  Because heaven knows we can't afford to do now what we'll have to play catch up on later.