PDA

View Full Version : Up 5 degrees C by 2100?



Pages : [1] 2

johnw
03-02-2010, 05:29 PM
MIT has changed its estimate on the pace of climate change.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/23/mit-doubles-global-warming-projections/


M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C

(http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/23/mit-doubles-global-warming-projections/) February 23, 2009 The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change has joined the climate realists. The realists are the growing group of scientists who understand that the business as usual emissions path leads to unmitigated catastrophe (see, for instance, “Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path (http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/21/hadley-study-warns-of-catastrophic-5%c2%b0c-warming-by-2100-on-current-emissions-path/)” and below).
The Program issued a remarkable, though little-remarked-on, report in January, “Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters (http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/abstract.php?publication_id=990),” by over a dozen leading experts. They reanalyzed their model’s 2003 projections model using the latest data, and concluded:
The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model’s first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study.
[Note: That rise is compared to 1990 levels. So you can add at least 0.5 °C and 1.0 °F for comparison with pre-industrial temperatures.]
Their median projection for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2095 is a jaw-dropping 866 ppm.
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mit-ppm.jpg (http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mit-ppm.jpg)
Projected decadal mean concentrations of CO2. Red solid lines are median, 5% and 95% percentiles for present study: dashed blue line the same from their 2003 projection.
Why the change? The Program’s website explains (http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/comparison.html):

There is no single revision that is responsible for this change. In our more recent global model simulatations, the ocean heat-uptake is slower than previously estimated, the ocean uptake of carbon is weaker, feedbacks from the land system as temperature rises are stronger, cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century are higher, and offsetting cooling from aerosol emissions is lower. No one of these effects is very strong on its own, and even adding each separately together would not fully explain the higher temperatures. Rather than interacting additively, these different affects appear to interact multiplicatively, with feedbacks among the contributing factors, leading to the surprisingly large increase in the chance of much higher temperatures.
The carbon sinks are saturating, and the amplifying feedbacks are worse than previously thought — that, of course, is a central understanding of all climate realists (see Study: Water-vapor feedback is “strong and positive,” so we face “warming of several degrees Celsius” (http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/26/study-water-vapor-feedback-is-strong-and-positive-so-we-face-warming-of-several-degrees-celsius/) for links to the various feedbacks that have been ignored by most climate models).
Andrew Freedman at washingtonpost.com (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/02/new_research_from_mit_scientis.html) has one of the very few stories on this important study and reprints this useful figure from MIT:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/images/mit-wheels.gif
He explains:
Results of the studies are depicted online in MIT’s “Greenhouse Gamble (http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/)” exercise that conveys the “range of probability of potential global warming” via roulette wheel graphics (shown above). The modeling output showed that under both a “no policy” scenario and one in which nations took action beginning in the next few years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the odds have shifted in favor of larger temperature increases.

For the no policy scenario, the researchers concluded that there is now a nine percent chance (about one in 11 odds) that the global average surface temperature would increase by more than 7°C (12.6°F) by the end of this century, compared with only a less than one percent chance (one in 100 odds) that warming would be limited to below 3°C (5.4°F).
To repeat, on our current emissions path, we have a 9% chance of an incomprehensibly catastrophic warming of 7°C by century’s end, but less than a 1% chance of under 3°C warming.
“The take home message from the new greenhouse gamble wheels is that if we do little or nothing about lowering greenhouse gas emissions that the dangers are much greater than we thought three or four years ago,” said Ronald G. Prinn, professor of atmospheric chemistry at MIT. “It is making the impetus for serious policy much more urgent than we previously thought.”
Last time we had a temperature increase along these lines, it took about 20,000 years and resulting in mass extinctions.

But of course, those reading this will likely be dead by 2100.

Nicholas Scheuer
03-02-2010, 05:45 PM
Please refrain from trying to confuse us. Global Warmly has been roundly discounted here on the WBF.

Dave Wright
03-02-2010, 05:46 PM
The real problem is that the 'deniers" have not fully understood the extent of current man made emissions. They seem to think that it is OK to carry on discussions and arguments without first quantifying these emissions and then attempting to understand their potential impact.

isla
03-02-2010, 05:49 PM
Please refrain from trying to confuse us. Global Warmly has been roundly discounted here on the WBF.

Of course we all know that Global Warmly is a company that manufactures knitted socks :D

Kaa
03-02-2010, 05:52 PM
February 23, 2009

That study was released a year ago.

Since then some things changed in climatology :-)

Kaa

Peerie Maa
03-02-2010, 06:04 PM
That study was released a year ago.

Since then some things changed in climatology :-)

Kaa

How can hacking into files in the UK change work done in Massachusetts?

huisjen
03-02-2010, 06:06 PM
In short, it can't.

Dan

Keith Wilson
03-02-2010, 06:16 PM
Very, very little has changed in climatology. Some things have changed in poltics, but it's not at all the same thing.

johnw
03-02-2010, 06:24 PM
That study was released a year ago.

Since then some things changed in climatology :-)

Kaa
If you have a more current estimate from MIT, please post it.

Dave Wright
03-02-2010, 06:29 PM
Gregg Marland who works for the U. S. Dept of Energy's Oak Ridge National Lab has done a number of interesting papers quantifying man made CO2 emissions (and other emissions). They're all pretty easy to read and the methodology isn't complex.

He's come out with some interesting estimates, for example : "The world has spewed 715.3 trillion tons of industrial carbon dioxide since 1982, which is the same amount civilization produced in all the previous years."

Of course these are "estimates," but you have to work through the methodology and demonstrate that the methodology is wrong before you can flippantly say "those are just estimates and not accurate."


Note: the quote above is from an AP news article. The quote is incorrect see my post number 125

Kaa
03-02-2010, 06:35 PM
What changed is willingness to accept the pronouncements made by AGW people as revealed truth.

I am not particularly impressed by output of highly complex and highly adjustable statistical models with no demonstrated forecasting capability.

Kaa

johnw
03-02-2010, 06:38 PM
What changed is willingness to accept the pronouncements made by AGW people as revealed truth.

I am not particularly impressed by output of highly complex and highly adjustable statistical models with no demonstrated forecasting capability.

Kaa
So, you don't have information, you've just got an attitude. Thought so.

Dave Wright
03-02-2010, 07:03 PM
What changed is willingness to accept the pronouncements made by AGW people as revealed truth.

I am not particularly impressed by output of highly complex and highly adjustable statistical models with no demonstrated forecasting capability.

Kaa

But that gives us no info as to what you understand, what it takes to impress you, what you mean by statistical models, and what you mean by "demonstrated forecasting ability."

Here's a four pager. Just let us know whether you understand it or not. A "yes" or no response will do:

http://tinyurl.com/yfkn9z7

WX
03-02-2010, 07:07 PM
http://www.tweedecho.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=84&Itemid=710

johnw
03-02-2010, 07:15 PM
http://www.tweedecho.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=84&Itemid=710
Thanks for that.

elf
03-02-2010, 07:30 PM
The deniers simply aren't interested.

No. You don't get it.

Deniers can't learn. It's something they're so afraid of - the possiblity that they might not understand what's being explained, and that might mean that there's something wrong with their entire world and life.

Deniers don't see opportunity in change. Change is terrifying. It reveals just how incapable they are of dealing with life.

Dan McCosh
03-02-2010, 08:21 PM
Gregg Marland who works for the U. S. Dept of Energy's Oak Ridge National Lab has done a number of interesting papers quantifying man made CO2 emissions (and other emissions). They're all pretty easy to read and the methodology isn't complex.

He's come out with some interesting estimates, for example : "The world has spewed 715.3 trillion tons of industrial carbon dioxide since 1982, which is the same amount civilization produced in all the previous years."

Of course these are "estimates," but you have to work through the methodology and demonstrate that the methodology is wrong before you can flippantly say "those are just estimates and not accurate."

I won't provide references, they're easy to find for those who are interested. Ther deniers simply aren't interested.

The usual estimate of manmade CO2 emissions since 1982 would be about 800 billion tons. Why the 1000X discrepancy?

WX
03-02-2010, 08:26 PM
Thanks for that.
My pleasure, I consider it to be well written.

oznabrag
03-02-2010, 08:38 PM
From someone who seems to specialize in idiotic statements, this one is a topper.

A person doesn't agree with your blind acceptance of faulty, proven-to-be-biased "science," and they become "deniers," devoid of intelligence, and riddled with fear, "incapable of dealing with life."

I don't buy the global warming science. It, therefore, stands to reason I don't buy the man-caused theory, either. I'll put my ability to "deal with life" up against yours anytime. I'm not "terrified" by anything, and I deal with change constantly and successfully.

Did anyone ever tell you that you're a jerk?

They did?

Why didn't you 'get it'?

Kaa
03-02-2010, 08:52 PM
But that gives us no info as to what you understand, what it takes to impress you, what you mean by statistical models, and what you mean by "demonstrated forecasting ability."

Here's a four pager. Just let us know whether you understand it or not. A "yes" or no response will do:

http://tinyurl.com/yfkn9z7 (http://tinyurl.com/yfkn9z7)

"yes"

:D

Kaa

Kaa
03-02-2010, 08:59 PM
http://www.tweedecho.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=84&Itemid=710

ROFL...

"...scientific method has consisted of cherry-picking the data, refusing to discard arguments when they are shown to be wrong... Suddenly we have a new scientific method. It is much more democratic than the old one: the truth is now determined by who shouts the loudest."

What, you Aussies didn't inherit *any* irony from the Brits..? :D

Kaa

L.W. Baxter
03-02-2010, 09:06 PM
WX, that whole essay appears to be devoid of irony. I think it needs loads of it.

Everything the author says about the scientific method is either false, or equally applicable to an opposing point of view. Peer review? That is no part of science, proper. That's publishing. And it's pretty much exactly what your more educated and sensible "deniers" have been on about all along.

Edit to add: Kaa beat me to the punch. I'm not cribbing, I swear.

Dave Wright
03-02-2010, 09:18 PM
The usual estimate of manmade CO2 emissions since 1982 would be about 800 billion tons. Why the 1000X discrepancy?

Well, the way this usually works is I tell you who my guy is (Gregg Marland).

Then you tell me who your guy is. Who is he?????

Then I reference my guy's paper.

Then you reference your guy's paper.

Then we compare and contrast papers, looking for fallacies or errors in either.

Would this process be acceptable to you?

elf
03-02-2010, 09:19 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/photogalleries/100301-giant-icebergs-antarctica-pictures/#025955_600x450.jpg

PeterSibley
03-02-2010, 09:21 PM
Yep ,Kaa's right ,We can use the atmosphere as a sewer indefinitely at zero cost .

Kaa
03-02-2010, 09:28 PM
Yep ,Kaa's right ,We can use the atmosphere as a sewer indefinitely at zero cost .

So is *that* the current state of the Australian irony..? :D

Kaa

WX
03-02-2010, 09:28 PM
If you don't peer review you end up with a book like the bible...full of errors and contradictions.

Kaa
03-02-2010, 09:31 PM
If you don't peer review you end up with a book like the bible...full of errors and contradictions.

The point isn't that there should be no peer review.

The point is that peer review is no guarantee of accuracy or correctness, never mind "truth".

Kaa

PeterSibley
03-02-2010, 09:44 PM
and the "truth" is that with which Kaa agrees :rolleyes:.

Keith Wilson
03-02-2010, 10:09 PM
The point is that peer review is no guarantee of accuracy or correctness, never mind "truth". Guarantees? There are no guarantees in this world but the grave, oh long and legless one. Peer review does, however make it more likely that the thing reviewed is not an incoherent piece of dreck. There are exceptions of course, like Mr. Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html), a brilliant paper which gives me hope for humanity. An explanation here. (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html)

Keith Wilson
03-02-2010, 10:20 PM
The usual estimate of manmade CO2 emissions since 1982 would be about 800 billion tons. Seems about right. 715 Trillion seems way, way off; maybe a typo? Here are the numbers from the US Energy Information Administration. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html) and from the US EPA. (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html)

Kaa
03-02-2010, 10:42 PM
Guarantees? There are no guarantees in this world but the grave, oh long and legless one.

Don't forget taxes :-)

In any case, my point is that the correct answer to "You're wrong" is "Go here, do this, and see for yourself" -- NOT "This was published in a peer-reviewed journal".

Kaa

Dan McCosh
03-02-2010, 10:52 PM
Well, the way this usually works is I tell you who my guy is (Gregg Marland).

Then you tell me who your guy is. Who is he?????

Then I reference my guy's paper.

Then you reference your guy's paper.

Then we compare and contrast papers, looking for fallacies or errors in either.

Would this process be acceptable to you?


In all the discussion about CO2 and global warming, the total annual output from man-made sources is usually cited as about 27-30 billion tons annually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

Multiply this times 27 years.

Your guy's paper seems in error.

Kaa
03-02-2010, 11:06 PM
Your guy's paper seems in error.

Dave Wright didn't seem to like my "yes" answer, either :D

Kaa

seafox
03-03-2010, 12:33 AM
isn't their a diference between the american and british numbers? IIRC in america we say hundereds, thousands, millions, billions ,trilions, while in the british commonwealth they go hundereds, thousands, millions, trillions?

that national geographic graphic of the ocean currents striks me as different in that it crosses the equator twice . I thought the currents went fron the equator to the poles. seems very strange that it goes clear from about 80 degrees north then clear around the euro-afro-asian contenant back up through the middle of the pacific to 80 degrees north and then back again. seems strange the coreoulis effect doesn't tear those currents all apart

WX
03-03-2010, 12:35 AM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/global_warming.png

varadero
03-03-2010, 05:41 AM
I am sorry guys, but I have to follow the "CO2 is a result of warming, not the cause" arguement. The recent heating untill 1995 caused by an active sun, recent cooling caused by a less active sun. Ice is not melting, Glaciers are growing. The hocky stick graph is a fraud. Science is a proven not a belief. Here are some links to another side of the story. http://www.iceagenow.com/We_overlooked_193000_square_miles_of_ice.htm http://www.iceagenow.com/Alaskas_Hubbard_Glacier_advancing_7_feet_per_day.h tm http://www.iceagenow.com/Arctic_sea-ice_500000_sq_km_more_than_last_year.htm http://www.iceagenow.com/Ice_ages_caused_by_orbital_variations–Next_ice_age _now_due.htm

seafox
03-03-2010, 10:56 AM
john W
ment to ask when was this " previous rise that took 20,000 years and caused mass extinctions?"

Phillip Allen
03-03-2010, 11:52 AM
from what I can see the global warming thing can be defined by political leaning...the left (generally) want's it to be true and the right (generally) doesn't want it to be true...comes down to political fashion

Keith Wilson
03-03-2010, 12:17 PM
comes down to political fashion . . . Whether human emissions of CO2 are causing the planet to warm up or not doesn't have anything to do with politics. It either is true or it isn't, regardless of what anyone thinks. It is no more a matter of "fashion" than gravity of the speed of light.

Phillip Allen
03-03-2010, 12:25 PM
in practical terms:

who's gonna give up:

cars

electric lights

heating their houses

cell phones

snail mail

hospitals

electronic banking

air planes

dacron sails

modern rigging

aux engins

GPS

radio communication

IN SHORT: any thing that adds heat to the earth...no, you cannot heat your house with wood or burn candels for light...

varadero
03-03-2010, 12:34 PM
www.boilerstoves.co.uk (http://www.boilerstoves.co.uk) I am buying one, not because of CO2. Because I am Scottish.

paul oman
03-03-2010, 12:45 PM
-- not to worry - Obama care will take are of us - i.e. free sun screen unless you are over 50 years old.

Does this push back the next ice age by another 100 years?

Have all the cyclic inputs into climate been turned off until 2100?

It is becoming clear that the CW 'crisis' is based on trash data.

Popeye
03-03-2010, 01:01 PM
after the party is over and everyone goes home i usually check under the sofa cushions for loose change

huisjen
03-03-2010, 01:06 PM
More like back by 10,000 years, and the cyclic inputs have been overwhelmed rather than turned off.



It is becoming clear that ignoring AGW is based on trash data.

There. I fixed it for ya.

Dan

ljb5
03-03-2010, 01:42 PM
in practical terms:

who couldn't be at least a little more efficient with:

cars

electric lights

heating their houses

cell phones

snail mail

hospitals

electronic banking

air planes

dacron sails

modern rigging

aux engins

GPS

radio communication

IN SHORT: any thing that adds heat to the earth?

==========================================

One piece of data you may have overlooked, Phillip, is that other countries (benelux, for example) have demonstrated conclusively that it is possible to maintain a high standard of living, a prosperous society and a significantly lower per-capita rate of CO2 production.

johnw
03-03-2010, 01:52 PM
john W
ment to ask when was this " previous rise that took 20,000 years and caused mass extinctions?"
Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

The good news is, it took less than 200,000 years for the earth to recover.

TomF
03-03-2010, 02:18 PM
in practical terms:

who's gonna give up: ...

cars - we mostly park ours in the summer
electric lights - switched to high efficiency
heating their houses - our central heating's been turned to about 5 degrees C since January, and we space-heat the rooms we use with (renewable) wood heat. And the embodied energy in the house itself has long since been addressed ... it's 150+ years old.
cell phones - guilty - BlackBerry required by my office for e-mail availability
snail mail - not so much. Mostly e-mail - much lower transport cost per "package" of information.
hospitals - Our family doesn't use them much, but I'm glad they exist. All of ours are undergoing energy audits and retrofits.
electronic banking - guilty - but this is a net energy loser how? Our bills are delivered and paid electronically, which uses much less energy than snail-mail
air planes - Infrequently, and mostly for work. The last trip I took was for a family wedding ...
dacron sails - Sure, but if natural fibers were still readily available, I'd use them.
modern rigging - see "dacron sails." My all-purpose tie-down stuff for everyday use is sisal; I'd much prefer good Manila, if I could get it locally.
aux engine - not in my little boat.
GPS - nope. Not even in the car.
radio communication - Guilty ... if you include internet and e-mail. Again, this is a high-energy-cost item how, compared with other options?
IN SHORT: any thing that adds heat to the earth...no, you cannot heat your house with wood or burn candles for light...No, you must use things which don't cause net warming. Wood heat isn't adding any net carbon dioxide; the greenhouse gases emitted from my chimney are no greater than the gases which would have been emitted if the tree had rotted in the forest. The net additions come from fossil fuel use - from putting carbon back into the atmosphere which had been taken out through fossilization.

FWIW, I burn beeswax candles too, when I can ... rather than paraffin. Same deal applies. :D

Popeye
03-03-2010, 02:20 PM
i got a gps

it saves me fuel

so do dacron sails

seafox
03-03-2010, 02:41 PM
Thankyou JohnW

just wondering how many trees should we plant to equell the outpouring of CO2?

if an artical in scientific americn was right agraculture about 6000 years ago derailed the ice age we would already be in. think the world does better with warmth.
if it does go up 6 dgrees metric by 2100 then we simply have reached the adverage of the last billion years.

any comments on british vrs american confusion over the word trillion vrs billions?

Keith Wilson
03-03-2010, 02:46 PM
British usage is sometimes "thousand million" where we'd use billion, other times billion. In older writing you'll see "milliard" for billion (same as French and German). Trillions are the same everywhee.

Peerie Maa
03-03-2010, 02:48 PM
if an artical in scientific americn was right agraculture about 6000 years ago derailed the ice age we would already be in. think the world does better with warmth.


That was referred to in a documentary about climate on the Beeb. All due to forest clearance and flatulent ungulates. However that only established a balance that has now been disturbed.

Popeye
03-03-2010, 02:48 PM
i like crap-zillion the most

yah , that's gotta be my favorite

johnw
03-03-2010, 02:48 PM
bil·lion (bhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifyhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn)n.1. The cardinal number equal to 10 to the power of 9.
2. Chiefly British The cardinal number equal to 10 to the power of 12.
3. An indefinitely large number.

johnw
03-03-2010, 02:58 PM
Thankyou JohnW

just wondering how many trees should we plant to equell the outpouring of CO2?

if an artical in scientific americn was right agraculture about 6000 years ago derailed the ice age we would already be in. think the world does better with warmth.
if it does go up 6 dgrees metric by 2100 then we simply have reached the adverage of the last billion years.

any comments on british vrs american confusion over the word trillion vrs billions?
I think healthy oceans could deal with more CO2 than trees, but either way we're putting greenhouse gasses in the air that typically last 100,000 years or more in the atmosphere. This is an engineering problem on a global scale. It was profitable to create the problem, I think we'll only solve it if we find a way to make that profitable too.

I also read the article in Scientific American. You know, the little ice age lasted until the beginning of the industrial era. I suspect this is not a coincidence. Some anthropomorphic global warming may have been benign. Too much could be big trouble.

varadero
03-03-2010, 02:59 PM
As CO2 increases, plant growth increases, absorbing C and releasing O2. CO2 is good for plants as O2 is good for humans , and vice versa. the balance is maintained. Water vapor is the principal green house element. Plant growth has acelerated recently ( Tree ring data, and you can see it outside). I hate pollution but I am afraid the CO2 argument is letting the main polluters off the hook by taking the attention away from far more toxic contaminents that donīt show up on the CO2 radar.

Peerie Maa
03-03-2010, 03:03 PM
I think healthy oceans could deal with more CO2 than trees, but either way we're putting greenhouse gasses in the air that typically last 100,000 years or more in the atmosphere. This is an engineering problem on a global scale. It was profitable to create the problem, I think we'll only solve it if we find a way to make that profitable too.

I also read the article in Scientific American. You know, the little ice age lasted until the beginning of the industrial era. I suspect this is not a coincidence. Some anthropomorphic global warming may have been benign. Too much could be big trouble.

There is a view that we have just about saturated the oceans with CO2, so cannot rely on that capture mechanism. The evidence is in the damage to shell fish and corals due to acidification.

Popeye
03-03-2010, 03:05 PM
the 'shell fish' thing rings a bell ,something about they have a difficult time forming a shell , or at least one that's tough enough to ward off their enemies

Dan McCosh
03-03-2010, 03:22 PM
I think healthy oceans could deal with more CO2 than trees, but either way we're putting greenhouse gasses in the air that typically last 100,000 years or more in the atmosphere. This is an engineering problem on a global scale. It was profitable to create the problem, I think we'll only solve it if we find a way to make that profitable too.

I also read the article in Scientific American. You know, the little ice age lasted until the beginning of the industrial era. I suspect this is not a coincidence. Some anthropomorphic global warming may have been benign. Too much could be big trouble.

Out of curiosity, why does CO2 stay in the atmosphere for 100,000 years while being absorbed in the ocean and by plants at the same time?

Popeye
03-03-2010, 03:23 PM
equilibrium

johnw
03-03-2010, 03:25 PM
As CO2 increases, plant growth increases, absorbing C and releasing O2. CO2 is good for plants as O2 is good for humans , and vice versa. the balance is maintained. Water vapor is the principal green house element. Plant growth has acelerated recently ( Tree ring data, and you can see it outside). I hate pollution but I am afraid the CO2 argument is letting the main polluters off the hook by taking the attention away from far more toxic contaminents that donīt show up on the CO2 radar.
Acidification of the oceans could interrupt the carbon cycle. That's why I specified 'healthy oceans.' Not only is acidity a problem, warm water does not hold as much gas in suspension as cold water. At some point, the oceans' capacity to absorb carbon will be used up.

For more on the carbon cycle, see here:

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

Popeye
03-03-2010, 03:29 PM
trees store carbon dan , yup

johnw
03-03-2010, 03:34 PM
equilibrium
Or changes in the equilibrium level. But that's not really what the remark meant. CO2 is not a very reactive gas, and unlike some gasses does not readily break down once it enters the atmosphere. SO2, for example, is quite reactive, and in contact with water forms H2SO4, falling from the atmosphere as acid rain. It therefore does not stay long in the atmosphere. Once we put cap and trade in place for SO2, we were able to bring atmospheric levels down very quickly. With CO2, we can bring increases in the level down quickly, but the existing levels will be with us for a long time to come.

Dan McCosh
03-03-2010, 03:35 PM
equilibrium


Sort of like how water vapor stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years?

ljb5
03-03-2010, 04:13 PM
Sort of like how water vapor stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years?

We've been over this several times already.

Water vapor responds to temperature, forming rain or snow and falling out of the atmosphere.

It rarely gets cold enough for dry ice to fall out of the sky.

PeterSibley
03-03-2010, 04:17 PM
the 'shell fish' thing rings a bell ,something about they have a difficult time forming a shell , or at least one that's tough enough to ward off their enemies

It's things like krill that are the main concern , the mainstay of Antartic foodsystems .If they can't live and grow everything else fails .

johnw
03-03-2010, 04:45 PM
It's things like krill that are the main concern , the mainstay of Antartic foodsystems .If they can't live and grow everything else fails .
Oh, and corals, and those little sea creatures that die and become sandstone eventually. It isn't just the critters whose shells are dissolving, it's pretty much everything, because maintaining life in a more acid environment isn't easy. You might find this interesting:


http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1423667/ocean_acidity_rises_as_marine_life_decreases/Ocean Acidity Rises as Marine Life Decreases

Posted on: Monday, 9 June 2008, 11:10 CDT
A team of UK scientists has documented the affects of carbon dioxide on marine life.

By studying naturally occurring carbon dioxide vents in the sea floor, researchers believe they were able to gauge how CO2 will impact marine life.

Writing in the journal Nature, the scientists noted a declining number of species as well as snails with their shells disintegrating. They imply that these impacts could occur worldwide with the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The team investigated these impacts in the Mediterranean Sea near the Italian coast.

"It's clear that marine food webs as we know them are going to alter, and biodiversity will decrease," said Jason Hall-Spencer from the University of Plymouth, and the team’s lead researcher.

"Those impacts are inevitable because acidification is inevitable - we've started it, and we can't stop it."

He also noted that seas have become more acidic since the industrial revolution, and even a sharp fall in emissions would not prevent further acidification.

Globally, the seas now have an average pH of about 8.1 - down about 0.1 since the dawn of the industrial age. Around the vents, it fell as low as 7.4 in some places. But even at 7.8 to 7.9, the number of species present was 30 percent down compared with neighboring areas.

The rise in ocean acidity affects marine life by slowly eliminating the concentration of calcium carbonate, which corals and other life forms use to construct their shells and external skeletons <a href=&quot;http://ad2.netshelter.net/jump/ns.redorbit/general;kw=;tile=2;sz=300x250,336x280;ord=12345678 9?&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; ><img src=&quot;http://ad2.netshelter.net/ad/ns.redorbit/general;kw=;tile=2;sz=300x250,336x280;ord=12345678 9?&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /></a>
.

The scientists reported that coral was not present, and species of algae that rely on calcium carbonate were replaced by those that do not use it.

Snails were seen with their shells dissolving. There were no snails at all in zones with a pH of 7.4.

However, seagrasses, which benefit from added carbon, thrived in the region near the vents.

Elliott Norse said that these new findings give confirmation to those found in laboratory tests.

"I can't count the number of times that scientific talks end with 'responses have not yet been documented in the field'," said Elliott Norse, president of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute.

"This paper puts that to rest for several ecologically important marine groups."

Dr Hall-Spencer said the changes occurring around the Mediterranean Sea are likely to be seen around the world.

"I think we will see the same pattern in other parts of the world, because we're talking about keystone species such as mussels and limpets and barnacles being lost as pH drops," said Dr Hall-Spencer.

The IPCC suggests that some areas, notably the Southern Ocean, might feel the impacts at lower concentrations of CO2.

Last month, scientists reported that water with CO2 levels high enough to be "corrosive" to marine life was rising up off the western US coast.

“If [pH 7.8] is a universal 'tipping point', then it indicates that sections of the western coast waters off North America may have passed this threshold during periods when this upwelling of waters high in CO2 occurs," commented Carol Turley from Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML), who was not involved in the Mediterranean Sea study.

Organisms are also harmed by rising temperatures, and studies are ongoing into the combined effect of a warming and acidifying ocean.

During the coming week, scientists will announce the inauguration of the European Project on Ocean Acidification (Epoca), a four-year initiative aiming to find some answers.

"The reason that the oceans are becoming more acidic is because of the CO2 emissions that we are producing from burning fossil fuels," said Dr Turley.

"Add CO2 to seawater and you get carbonic acid; it's simple chemistry, and therefore certain.

"This means that the only way of reducing the future impact of ocean acidification is the urgent, substantial reduction in CO2 emissions."


Sorry, varadero, I really do think CO2 is a problem.

Dan McCosh
03-03-2010, 05:02 PM
We've been over this several times already.

Water vapor responds to temperature, forming rain or snow and falling out of the atmosphere.

It rarely gets cold enough for dry ice to fall out of the sky.

Why would you think CO2 falls out of the sky?

ljb5
03-03-2010, 05:30 PM
Why would you think CO2 falls out of the sky?

That's the point. It doesn't.

Water vapor responds quickly to temperature changes, establishing a dynamic equilibrium with liquid water.

CO2 doesn't. Once it is released into the atmosphere, there are no quick mechanisms to get it down. The mechanisms of CO2 reduction are kinetically limited and depend on other facts such as forest coverage, ocean temperature, salinity, pH and life, etc.

You asked why CO2 stays in the atmosphere so long. This is the answer: because there are no quick mechanisms to get it out of the atmosphere.

Dan McCosh
03-03-2010, 05:34 PM
The mechanisms are consumption by living organisms, and its solubility in water--these regularly absorb 98% or so of what is released into the atmosphere.

johnw
03-03-2010, 05:43 PM
The mechanisms are consumption by living organisms, and its solubility in water--these regularly absorb 98% or so of what is released into the atmosphere.
Unless, of course, these mechanisms are interrupted. See my post above.

Don't get distracted by lj's snarkyness.

Sometimes, lj, you are your own worst enemy, and given how many enemies you seems to make, that takes some doing.

ljb5
03-03-2010, 05:44 PM
The mechanisms are consumption by living organisms, and its solubility in water--these regularly absorb 98% or so of what is released into the atmosphere.

So the obvious questions are how quickly do those processes occur, what happens to the other 2% and have you taken in to account the C02 that is released by the decomposition of living organisms and dissolution from water. (i.e., the reverse of the mechanisms you just mentioned.)

If you were to operate a continuous cycle (an air conditioner, for example) in which only 98% of your medium were recovered, you'd quickly run out of medium. What you would have, basically would be a one-way pump releasing gas with no way to recover it.

Dan McCosh
03-03-2010, 06:00 PM
You might look up the carbon cycle. It's pretty well known. Of course the vast majority of the CO2 is both taken from the atmosphere, and then released into it. It is the idea that while this is going on, it also stays in the atmosphere for 100,000 years that i was questioning. The 100,000 year thing, I would guess, refers to the chemical stability of CO2l--which is actually much more unstable than, say O2. If you couldn't get O2 out of the atmosphere, we would die pretty quickly. What we need here is the myth-busters.

ljb5
03-03-2010, 06:40 PM
As is often the case, I'm not quite sure which part is giving you so much trouble.

Let's look at carbon absorption by plants. For the most part, this occurs only in certain areas of the world, only during certain times of year, only during certain times of the day, only in the presence of certain other factors (light, water and nutrients), and only in the few microns, or perhaps as much as a meter in the atmosphere directly in contact with the plants.

It also depends heavily on certain other factors (such as deforestation and desertification) and (although it does increase somewhat with increased CO2 concentration), this increase is not nearly linear. (i.e, doubling CO2 concentration does not, by itself, lead to a doubling in CO2 absorption.)

I'm not quite sure where you're getting your numbers from, or how you're defining your terms, but I've just given you a pretty good explanation for why CO2 in the atmosphere responds differently than water vapor.

Dan McCosh
03-03-2010, 06:54 PM
I only mentioned water vapor in response to Popeye's remark about equilbrium--water vapor is in equilibrium, but water does not remain in the atmosphere very long. CO2 likewise is mainly in equilibrium, but also does not remain in the atmosphere very long.

ljb5
03-03-2010, 06:56 PM
It's possible that you're trying to combine the results from two dissimilar studies.

That 98% re-absorption figure may have been specific to a certain time and certain set of conditions. It might not hold true as the amount of CO2 goes up.

Indeed, as oceans begin to saturate and forests get cut down, the total CO2 absorption will be reduced even as CO2 emissions stays the same or increases. In that case, we will start dropping below that figure of 98%.

Just a possible scenario. I'd have to know more about where you're getting your numbers from before we can really figure it out.

ljb5
03-03-2010, 07:00 PM
CO2 likewise is mainly in equilibrium, but also does not remain in the atmosphere very long.

Not sure if that's true. If the absorption processes are kinetically limited, it won't be at equilibrium.

Even if it is at equilibrium, this doesn't mean that it's not increasing.

Remember: equilibrium points shift in response to various factors including concentration, pressure and temperature. So if you take yesterday's equilibrium and then release a few billion tons of CO2, you get a new equilibrium.

johnw
03-03-2010, 07:01 PM
I only mentioned water vapor in response to Popeye's remark about equilbrium--water vapor is in equilibrium, but water does not remain in the atmosphere very long. CO2 likewise is mainly in equilibrium, but also does not remain in the atmosphere very long.
That's a new one on me. My understanding is that the carbon cycle is pretty slow. That's why burning so many fossil fuels is a problem. After all, subduction is part of the process, and that's real slow.

johnw
03-03-2010, 07:26 PM
Just to clarify, the carbon cycle involves carbon sinking to the sea floor, mainly as calcium carbonate. The sea floor is subducted under the continents, and eventually the carbon is spewed back into the atmosphere by volcanoes.

A system powered by continental drift can't be fast.

huisjen
03-03-2010, 08:07 PM
So many posters here act like the problem is ignorance, rather than stubborn and stupid. See, ignorance can be fixed.

Dan

johnw
03-03-2010, 08:10 PM
So many posters here act like the problem is ignorance, rather than stubborn and stupid. See, ignorance can be fixed.

Dan
Unless you get peoples' backs up.

huisjen
03-03-2010, 08:15 PM
Well, that's where stubborn and stupid come in.

Dan

Kaa
03-03-2010, 08:15 PM
See, ignorance can be fixed.

Not necessarily. You can lead a horse to water...

Kaa

oznabrag
03-03-2010, 08:18 PM
... See, ignorance can be fixed.

Dan


Not necessarily. You can lead a horse to water...

Kaa

Speak for yourself, Kaa.

huisjen
03-03-2010, 08:25 PM
I once heard a USMC General talk about how you can stick the horse's head under water and suck on it's ass. It's a question of dedication and motivation, I suppose.

Dan

Kaa
03-03-2010, 08:35 PM
Speak for yourself, Kaa.

Oh, I do :-)

My success at fixing the ignorance of certain local quadrupeds has been quite spotty at best :D

Kaa

Breakaway
03-03-2010, 09:00 PM
Impending disaster makes for good headlines and story titles and so sells book and newspapers. Scientists have an easier time getting grant money for a problem ( real or perceived, doesnt matter) so there's money incentive there. The reality of the situation aside, there's money to be made from a belief in global warming. There's little profit in being a denier.

__________________

shamus
03-04-2010, 04:22 AM
Looks like some more research is indicated on the shellfish thing.
Woods Hole Dec 2009 release.

“We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2,” said Anne L. Cohen, a research specialist at WHOI and one of the study’s co-authors. “What was really interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam and the lobster, for example, didn’t seem to care about CO2 until it was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm].” Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said. Above this level, calcification was reduced in the coral and the hard clam, but elevated in the lobster
The “take-home message, “ says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms.” WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded the work.
Conversely, some organisms—such as the soft clam and the oyster—showed a clear reduction in calcification in proportion to increases in CO2. In the most extreme finding, Ries, Cohen and WHOI Associate Scientist Daniel C. McCorkle exposed creatures to CO2 levels more than seven times the current level.

varadero
03-04-2010, 05:35 AM
The previous article was a study of marine life near to CO2 vents, naturally occuring geological sources of CO2, not related to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Also of note is the proliferation of sea grasses near these vents that thrive on the increased levels of CO2. Also in this report, "CO2 levels, high eneugh to be corrosive rising up off the western US coast"
Reports more natural geologically occuring CO2 sources from the sea bed "rising up", and not atmospheric CO2 settling down or being absorbed.
If the science is good, then it actually supports the argument of the "deniers" by substansiating their claim that man made atmospheric CO2 is of such a small proportion to naturally occuring CO2 that removing it would make little difference to the heating and cooling effects. That Climate change is caused by the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sunīs output.

magwas
03-04-2010, 06:21 AM
Please refrain from trying to confuse us. Global Warmly has been roundly discounted here on the WBF.

Sorry for the contradiction, but I would like to point out that there are several facts that are accepted by the scientific community as proven beyond doubt. These include:
- there is a global climate change
- the human CO2 emission is a significant contributor to the climate change

There are some areas where scientific conclusion is not reached yet. One of these is the precision of the models. However this does not mean that the overall trends depicted by the models are wrong: merely the extent of the changes are debated.

There is a thread in the physics forum which starts with the announcement that they close discussions regarding global warming due to lack of moderator resources. I recommend to read through the comments on it for yourself to figure out what the scientific community thinks about the issue.

One thing to consider is the carbon balance. The carbon we are using as oil, gas and coal had been put underground in a time period when most of the species of the world become instinct due to global warming, due to increased carbon-dioxide level of the atmosphere. The carbon has been extracted from the atmosphere by putting the bodies of the organisms down below. (And you can see the same mechanism working (and extending) in the dead zone of the Gulf of Mexico.) Those are the oil, gas and coal reserves we are depleting right now. As these reserves got depleted, their carbon content end up in the atmosphere again...

Only considering the carbon balance it is simple to understand how and why the climate changes. I am not telling you that it will inevitably lead to the same level of mass extinction (I hope that the fact that all currently living species have survived such events before means that we are more resistant overall), but rising sea levels and shifting of areas with a specific climate (meaning the viruses and bacteria accustomed to the climate), and the resulting migration of people can do nasty things.

Denying the facts won't help in solving the problems resulting from them.

varadero
03-04-2010, 06:55 AM
Unfortunately too many scientests have staked their reputations on the CO2/AGW theory.Too many polititians have been made to look gullible, and the mainstream media will not admit that they have deliberately suppressed contrarian scientestīs views.I took on board the AGW arguement untill it all started to unravel in a most disturbing way. An inconvenient truth has 35 untrue statements in it for crying out loud. To show the film in schools in the UK, now they have to explain to the students that it is largly a work of fiction. I am not a denier, I prefer to be a truth seeker. I will no longer accept evidence from any organisation that has perjured itself in so many ways, Al Gore has dropped out of my estimation, and still refuses to accept the errors he has made or the false data he has used to bolster his carbon credit brokerage business. The climate is changing. FACT. Is CO2 causing that change? and if so what percentage of that CO2 is produced by man? I dont know, I am trying to find out through as many independant sources as I have time to access. BUT if CO2 is the cause, and man made contributions are in the single digit percentages, and we have to plug the natural sources to stall it, I think, Houstin we have a problem. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12218-thousand-of-new-volcanoes-revealed-beneath-the-waves.html

Popeye
03-04-2010, 07:51 AM
--water vapor is in equilibrium, but water does not remain in the atmosphere very long. CO2 likewise is mainly in equilibrium, but also does not remain in the atmosphere very long.

the oceans surface has , up close , thousands or tiny ripples over a small area, that is the high frequency stuff ..

stand back and watch the tides roll in and out over the strand , that is the low frequency stuff ..

LeeG
03-04-2010, 08:26 AM
The point isn't that there should be no peer review.

The point is that peer review is no guarantee of accuracy or correctness, never mind "truth".

Kaa

gurantees? WTF do you want, a 30 day money back gurantee, cash or exchange in kind?

oznabrag
03-04-2010, 08:48 AM
gurantees? WTF do you want, a 30 day money back gurantee, cash or exchange in kind?

What he wants is for you to chase your tail. Not because it materially benefits him, but because it amuses him.

Popeye
03-04-2010, 08:49 AM
she does that a lot

oznabrag
03-04-2010, 08:51 AM
she does that a lot

So do you.

Popeye
03-04-2010, 08:52 AM
.. amongst the innocent

oznabrag
03-04-2010, 08:54 AM
There are innocents?

I don't believe it!

Phillip Allen
03-04-2010, 08:54 AM
there's at least one (self-proclaimed) "doctor" here who considers peer review to be the golden truth against all comers

Popeye
03-04-2010, 08:56 AM
There are innocents?

I don't believe it!

you are wise beyond your years grasshopper

varadero
03-04-2010, 09:02 AM
Why does it always have to get personal? The truth is out there, find it. The fiddled numbers are out there, already found. Re work the numbers, based on truth, and science will be proven/settled. Allow for new evidence as it is dicovered, and maybe, just maybe, we can move on from this bi-polar situation.

Popeye
03-04-2010, 09:05 AM
Why does it always have to get personal?

what else is there ?

objectivity :confused: ... surely you jest

LeeG
03-04-2010, 09:06 AM
What he wants is for you to chase your tail. Not because it materially benefits him, but because it amuses him.

it's such a dumbass comment. The development of science isn't to serve some goal of consumer confidence.

oznabrag
03-04-2010, 09:08 AM
it's such a dumbass comment. The development of science isn't to serve some goal of consumer confidence.

He doesn't care what you think, just so long as you chase your tail. ;)

Phillip Allen
03-04-2010, 09:12 AM
some here invest way too much confidence into "science"
remember that science is "done" by people and not gods...they do the same things the rest of us do including lying, cheating on their spouse, and farting in church (or wherever)

the upshot is that science is just as falable as the rest of human kind

(and you guys try to tell us that you don't believe in gods)

Popeye
03-04-2010, 09:18 AM
some here invest way too much confidence into "science"

suggest a better approach ..

Phillip Allen
03-04-2010, 09:25 AM
nothing wrong with the approach but expectations are not tempered with much common sense

Popeye
03-04-2010, 09:29 AM
nothing wrong with the approach

i know , but my question was , do you have a better approach ..

Phillip Allen
03-04-2010, 09:34 AM
science while remembering that it is the best we can do but best is not the same thing as perfect

Popeye
03-04-2010, 09:36 AM
science is not perfect , it is the best we can do

Phillip Allen
03-04-2010, 09:38 AM
that's right...just don't make a religon of it

Popeye
03-04-2010, 09:45 AM
...just don't make a religon of it


never ..

:rolleyes::D

ljb5
03-04-2010, 09:51 AM
science while remembering that it is the best we can do but best is not the same thing as perfect

We all know that scientific process is subject to numerous revisions and corrections.

This is why we don't freak out whenever someone gets a comma out of place or re-adjusts their calculations by a tenth of a degree.

There are some people here who insist that these corrections and adjustments are not only a sign of weakness.... but evidence of outright fraud.

These are the people who are treating science as if it ought to be a religion. They demand infallibility and then act outraged when they don't get it.

Popeye
03-04-2010, 09:52 AM
phillip , did you know , confidence intervals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_intervals) can be used to estimate the reliability of an estimate

you can use them with confidence

Popeye
03-04-2010, 10:05 AM
science is just as falable as the rest of human kindno two scientists are ever going to give you the exact same figures when reporting their atmospheric nitrogen dioxide measurements

asking a handful of contractors for a cost estimate to build a new fireplace gets you another bunch of quotes to figure out

on the day the best contractor you hired , shows up to do the work , and there is a sudden hike in the price of mortar , does not make him out to be a bad mason

varadero
03-04-2010, 10:11 AM
Oh! now itīs the masons. I knew it was a conspiracy!

Phillip Allen
03-04-2010, 10:12 AM
just where are you going with this line?

Popeye
03-04-2010, 10:17 AM
am i on course or did i hit a brick wall ..

varadero
03-04-2010, 10:27 AM
I know, itīs all getting a bit "Alice in wonderland", but I did try to be serious, I read all the links provided by both parties, I submit a few links of my own, I doubt they were read! Now I shall just show caution and stick to my own system of morality. Awaiting the next serious comment.

Popeye
03-04-2010, 10:30 AM
i am trying to cement a good relationship but phillip just keeps pointing things out

Phillip Allen
03-04-2010, 10:36 AM
i am trying to cement a good relationship but phillip just keeps pointing things out

so far, not enough to "perch" on (look it up)

Phillip Allen
03-04-2010, 10:42 AM
oh, you'll never find it...a perch of brick is 24 3/4 cubic feet

Popeye
03-04-2010, 10:49 AM
does it come from the angled thingy they hoist onto their shoulder ? , for getting up a ladder with a load ..

Dave Wright
03-04-2010, 10:52 AM
In all the discussion about CO2 and global warming, the total annual output from man-made sources is usually cited as about 27-30 billion tons annually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

Multiply this times 27 years.

Your guy's paper seems in error.


You were right and I was wrong.

I posted a quote from an AP news article from Nov 17, 2009. The AP reporter mistakenly wrote 715.3 TRILLION tons. He should have written 715.3 BILLION tons.

You were correct, the quantity was off by 1000 times.

I should have caught this mistake before posting the quote.

The article appears all over the web without correction, for example:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/17/tech/main5684430.shtml?source=related_story

The scientist Gregg Marland made no error, the reporter misquoted.

So, we six billion plus humans have only put 715.3 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 27 years. I don't see this as a positive situation. I guess lot's of people don't see it as a negative situation.

Dan McCosh
03-04-2010, 11:41 AM
Just think of all those other nasty little animals that have dumped 20 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere during the same time period. Guess we are lucky most of it comes back out.

Brian Palmer
03-04-2010, 11:57 AM
Impending disaster makes for good headlines and story titles and so sells book and newspapers. Scientists have an easier time getting grant money for a problem ( real or perceived, doesnt matter) so there's money incentive there. The reality of the situation aside, there's money to be made from a belief in global warming. There's little profit in being a denier.

__________________

As someone married to a scientist who has actually applied for research grants (biomedical research, not climate change research), I have to say this is the most poorly informed fallacy posted on this thread so far.

Funding academic research is brutally competitive, and if people can't replicate your published results, you're done. Period.

Brian

Popeye
03-04-2010, 12:04 PM
Just think of all those other nasty little animals that have dumped 20 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere during the same time period. Guess we are lucky most of it comes back out.

sure it does

now quantify it

johnw
03-04-2010, 01:34 PM
Impending disaster makes for good headlines and story titles and so sells book and newspapers. Scientists have an easier time getting grant money for a problem ( real or perceived, doesnt matter) so there's money incentive there. The reality of the situation aside, there's money to be made from a belief in global warming. There's little profit in being a denier.

__________________
As long as there are coal and oil companies, there will be far more money on the side of the deniers.

johnw
03-04-2010, 02:11 PM
Why does it always have to get personal? The truth is out there, find it. The fiddled numbers are out there, already found. Re work the numbers, based on truth, and science will be proven/settled. Allow for new evidence as it is dicovered, and maybe, just maybe, we can move on from this bi-polar situation.
We've allowed for an awful lot of evidence to be discovered, and people still fiddle while Rome burns.

I'm not as comfortable as you are with fundamentally changing the chemistry of the oceans. From the Washington Post:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400772.html

Money quote:

Stanford University marine biologist Robert B. Dunbar has studied the effect of increased carbon dioxide on coral reefs in Israel and Australia's Great Barrier Reef. "What we found in Israel was the community is dissolving," Dunbar said.
Caldeira has mapped out where corals exist today and the pH levels of the water in which they thrive; by the end of the century, no seawater will be as alkaline as where they live now. If carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current levels, he said, "It's say goodbye' to coral reefs."
Although the fate of plankton and marine snails may not seem as compelling as vibrantly colored coral reefs, they are critical to sustaining marine species such as salmon, redfish, mackerel and baleen whales.
"These are groups everyone depends on, and if their numbers go down there are going to be reverberations throughout the food chain," said John Guinotte, a marine biologist at the Marine Conservation Biology Institute. "When I see marine snails' shells dissolving while they're alive, that's spooky to me."

Popeye
03-04-2010, 02:14 PM
save the snails

johnw
03-04-2010, 02:20 PM
save the snails
Salmon like to eat them. A 10% drop in the snail population leads to a 20% drop in salmon weight, according to the University of Alaska. And we're seeing terapods in the open ocean with dissolving shells.

Popeye
03-04-2010, 02:25 PM
we're seeing terapods in the open ocean with dissolving shells.? 'decapod' ..

varadero
03-04-2010, 02:38 PM
Not arguing the CO2, arguing the source.
Shall I repeat......
Not arguing the CO2, arguing the source.
Shall I repeat??

Popeye
03-04-2010, 02:46 PM
Re work the numbers, based on truth, and science will be proven/settled.

yah , rework those numbers until we get the correct answer

:D

varadero
03-04-2010, 02:49 PM
Gore and the CRU already done that!

Popeye
03-04-2010, 02:51 PM
false reasoning !

varadero
03-04-2010, 02:58 PM
I agree, lets leave on the concept that its dogma.
NO, lets look at the source!!!

johnw
03-04-2010, 02:59 PM
Not arguing the CO2, arguing the source.
Shall I repeat......
Not arguing the CO2, arguing the source.
Shall I repeat??
Repeat all you want, it doesn't amount to a convincing argument.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

Popeye
03-04-2010, 03:02 PM
lets leave on the concept that its dogma

a declaration , not a fact

Popeye
03-04-2010, 03:04 PM
lets look at the source!!!

please do and while you are at it , tell me how it is possible to prove your statements are correct based upon asserting someone else's statements are incorrect

varadero
03-04-2010, 03:04 PM
You have an old graph there pre CRU meltdown. There is no medievel warming period. Try this. http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m2d18-Global-warming-ended-in-1995-top-climate-scientist-tells-BBC

varadero
03-04-2010, 03:12 PM
Oh yeah, and CO2 level rise after temperature, CO2 dont cause temp rise.
Donīt you get up to date news west of 50 degrees?

Brian Palmer
03-04-2010, 03:16 PM
The previous article was a study of marine life near to CO2 vents, naturally occuring geological sources of CO2, not related to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Also of note is the proliferation of sea grasses near these vents that thrive on the increased levels of CO2. Also in this report, "CO2 levels, high eneugh to be corrosive rising up off the western US coast"
Reports more natural geologically occuring CO2 sources from the sea bed "rising up", and not atmospheric CO2 settling down or being absorbed.
If the science is good, then it actually supports the argument of the "deniers" by substansiating their claim that man made atmospheric CO2 is of such a small proportion to naturally occuring CO2 that removing it would make little difference to the heating and cooling effects. That Climate change is caused by the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sunīs output.

Funny, you seem to be arguing that in the last 150 years, we have seen:

an increase in sea vent activity causing CO2 levels to increase from 250 ppm to 380 ppm and and causing oceans to become more acidic; and
a change in the eccentricty of Earth's orbit around the sun that is causing observed global warming.
These are your two hypotheses. Can you provide data to support the validity of these hypotheses? Have you applied for funding yet?

And yet, you think that that this (increased CO2 and warming) has nothing to do with the huge consumption of fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution which just so happens to have occurred at pretty much the same time?

What data do you actually have to counter and disprove these hypotheses?

So many climate change deniers just do not really appreciate the scale of what we are pumping into the atmosphere.

Just a case in point: there is a power plant serving the Atlanta, Georgia (USA) metro area. It burns a 1.25 mile long train of coal cars every 8 hours. Three trains a day, every day of the year. That is one plant in the United States, and there are thousands of plants just like it around the world doing the same thing.

Brian

johnw
03-04-2010, 03:18 PM
The previous article was a study of marine life near to CO2 vents, naturally occuring geological sources of CO2, not related to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Also of note is the proliferation of sea grasses near these vents that thrive on the increased levels of CO2. Also in this report, "CO2 levels, high eneugh to be corrosive rising up off the western US coast"
Reports more natural geologically occuring CO2 sources from the sea bed "rising up", and not atmospheric CO2 settling down or being absorbed.
If the science is good, then it actually supports the argument of the "deniers" by substansiating their claim that man made atmospheric CO2 is of such a small proportion to naturally occuring CO2 that removing it would make little difference to the heating and cooling effects. That Climate change is caused by the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sunīs output.
You assume that climate scientists are unaware of the role of the earth's orbit. You are wrong. They are also aware of the changes in solar output, which tend to vary with sun spots. We are currently at a solar minimum.

You don't seem to know much about ocean acidification. Perhaps this will help.


[QUOTE]
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010846811_ocean21m.html
Pacific's rising acid levels threatening marine life

A sweeping 15-year study of pH levels in the Pacific Ocean confirmed that upper reaches of the sea are becoming increasingly more acidic.
By Sandi Doughton (http://search.nwsource.com/search?searchtype=cq&sort=date&from=ST&byline=Sandi%20Doughton)
Seattle Times science reporter

Related


Archive | Oysters in deep trouble: Is Pacific Ocean's chemistry killing sea life? (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009336458_oysters14m.html)


The most extensive survey of pH levels in the Pacific Ocean confirms what spot measurements have suggested: From Hawaii to Alaska, the upper reaches of the sea are becoming more acidic in concert with rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
"If you see these changes across an entire ocean basin, you can be assured it's happening on a global scale in other ocean basins around the world," said Robert Byrne, a marine chemist at the University of South Florida and lead author of an upcoming paper in Geophysical Research Letters.
Ocean acidification is a threat to shelled creatures and other marine life, and is a leading suspect in the ongoing crash of Pacific oyster populations in Washington.
Byrne collaborated with Seattle scientists on the survey, which was 15 years in the making. The team first measured acidity along the 2,800-mile sweep of ocean between Oahu and Kodiak in 1991. They returned in 2006 aboard the University of Washington research vessel Thomas G. Thompson, working around the clock in shifts to collect and analyze nearly 1,500 water samples over two months.
It's the first time measurements have been taken across such a wide area, said co-author Richard Feely, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle.
"The fact that we saw this very significant change over the last 15 years is a reminder of how mankind is affecting the oceans at an ever-increasing rate," Feely said.
In addition to contributing to a global greenhouse effect, some of the carbon dioxide from cars, factories and power plants dissolves in the ocean, creating the same carbonic acid that gives soda pop its tang. The process makes seawater slightly more acidic, and also gobbles up carbonate, a basic building block of seashells.
The result can be an environment where shells dissolve, destroying plankton, marine snails and other small creatures that sustain the rest of the marine food web. Acidified water also can kill fish eggs and larvae.
Byrne and his colleagues developed a more precise way to measure pH, using a dye that turns from purple to bright yellow as acidity increases. On board the ship, they used instruments called spectrophotometers to measure the color change and nail pH levels 10 times more accurately than possible before.
Debby Ianson, an ocean climate modeler for Canada's Institute of Ocean Sciences who was not involved in the project, said the approach is a good one. "We need studies like this," she wrote in an e-mail.
As expected, the researchers found acidification was strongest in the top layer of water, closest to the atmosphere. Normal seawater is slightly alkaline, with a pH value of about 8. Over the past 15 years, average pH levels in the top 300 feet of the ocean dropped 0.026 pH units. That sounds tiny, but is equivalent to a 6 percent jump in acidity, Byrne said.
Working a thousand or more miles off the West Coast, the scientists took samples down to the ocean floor. They found no change yet in acidity at the deepest levels. But as carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to climb, natural mixing eventually will raise acidity throughout the water column, Byrne said.
http://local.ads.nwsource.com/ads/adv.gif

varadero
03-04-2010, 03:26 PM
To the first two points, yes.
You guys do not read the links, I knew it! Look back at the other posts, and at least keep an open mind, I am not a denier, only seeking the truth.
Seek, search, question. I do not believe any testimony from a perjured man.

johnw
03-04-2010, 03:29 PM
You have an old graph there pre CRU meltdown. There is no medievel warming period. Try this. http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m2d18-Global-warming-ended-in-1995-top-climate-scientist-tells-BBC (http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner%7Ey2010m2d18-Global-warming-ended-in-1995-top-climate-scientist-tells-BBC)
You ought to read this stuff before you post it. That's the opposite of what the article says.

Breakaway
03-04-2010, 03:34 PM
As long as there are coal and oil companies, there will be far more money on the side of the deniers.

Sure. But they've had gobs of money since before GW was a catchphrase.

I don't know where I stand on the issue, but since I'm not a climatologist, I have to rely on third part info from the scientists. But which ones? Considering the source is always essential. To ignore the monetary aspect, among many other things, to me at least, would be bad "considering."

varadero
03-04-2010, 04:19 PM
Come on JW, your graph leaves out the MWP as did the pre CRU scandal graphs. I am sorry if my English is hard (difficult) to understand.
Dont just look at the pictures, read the text (writing).

johnw
03-04-2010, 04:25 PM
What is MWP?

Dan McCosh
03-04-2010, 04:56 PM
sure it does

now quantify it

The usual data is about 99% or so.

johnw
03-04-2010, 05:47 PM
Come on JW, your graph leaves out the MWP as did the pre CRU scandal graphs. I am sorry if my English is hard (difficult) to understand.
Dont just look at the pictures, read the text (writing).
Oh, I get it, the Medieval Warm Period.

Nope. It's a graph of CO2, not temperature. Read the text, don't just look at the pictures. The Medieval warm period was not caused by CO2, so it wouldn't appear on a chart of CO2 activity.

Whether you choose to believe in it or not, the Medieval warm period happened. While it was fairly benign in Europe, it caused civilizations to fall elsewhere, mainly through droughts. There's quiet a good book on it called "The Great Warming," by Brain Fagan. I recommend it.

PeterSibley
03-04-2010, 06:39 PM
Here's something of interest .

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/man-made-climate-change-evidence-stronger-study/story-e6frg6n6-1225837229301


EVIDENCE that human activity is causing global warming is much stronger than previously stated and is found in all parts of the world, according to a study that attempts to refute claims from sceptics.

The "fingerprints" of human influence on the climate can be detected not just in rising temperatures but in the saltiness of the oceans, rising humidity, changes in rainfall and the shrinking of Arctic Sea ice at the rate of 600,000sq km a decade.
The study, by senior scientists from Britain's Met Office Hadley Centre, the University of Edinburgh, Melbourne University and Victoria University in Canada, concluded that there was an "increasingly remote possibility" that the sceptics were right that human activities were having no discernible impact. There was a less than 5 per cent likelihood that natural variations in climate were responsible for the changes.

The study said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had understated mankind's overall contribution to climate change. The IPCC had said in 2007 that there was no evidence of warming in the Antarctic. However, the panel said the latest observations showed that man-made emissions were having an impact on even the remotest continent.
The panel assessed more than 100 recent peer-reviewed scientific papers and found that the overwhelming majority had detected clear evidence of human influence on the climate.
Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office, who led the study, said: "This wealth of evidence we have now shows there is an increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors."
However, a section of the study that said changes in hurricane activity were poorly understood is likely to be seized on by sceptics, who argue that disasters such as Hurricane Katrina have been falsely blamed on man-made global warming.
Publication of the research in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change comes as two inquiries are being held into accusations, based on leaked e-mails, that scientists at Britain's University of East Anglia mani- pulated and suppressed climate data.
The study found that since 1980, the average global temperature had increased by about 0.5C (0.9F) and that the Earth was continuing to warm at the rate of about 0.16C a decade.
This trend is reflected in measurements from the oceans. Warmer temperatures had led to more evaporation from the surface, most noticeably in the sub-tropical Atlantic, said Dr Stott.
As a result, the sea was getting saltier. Evaporation in turn affected humidity and rainfall. The atmosphere was getting more humid, as climate models had predicted, and amplifying the water cycle. This meant more rain was falling in high and low latitudes and less in tropical and sub-tropical regions.

varadero
03-05-2010, 05:36 AM
A nice article from balmy europe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1255643/Dramatic-rescue-1-000-people-trapped-ferry-50-ships-stuck-Baltic-Sea-ice.html
And some interesting reading for your lunch hour
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Popeye
03-05-2010, 07:25 AM
The usual data is about 99% or so.

wicked

Popeye
03-05-2010, 07:26 AM
A nice article from balmy europe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1255643/Dramatic-rescue-1-000-people-trapped-ferry-50-ships-stuck-Baltic-Sea-ice.html


good gravy man , now you are posting weather events to try to bolster your position

.. give up now :rolleyes::D

ljb5
03-05-2010, 08:00 AM
And some interesting reading for your lunch hour
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

My Gosh! Not this OISM crap again!

We have been over this several times on the forum already.

The OISM is a fraud. It's a complete hoax.

It is not a research institution... it's a nutcase and his kids living on a small farm in rural Oregon.

They call themselves an "Institute of Science and Medicine" but they have no doctors or nurses, they don't study medicine, they don't do any research at all. They don't have any students or research facilities.

They make their money by selling home schooling kits to nutcases worried about socialism in public schools and they solicit donations for their petition project.

Please don't bring this hogwash into a serious discussion about science!

High C
03-05-2010, 09:28 AM
...

The OISM is a fraud. It's a complete hoax.

It is not a research institution......
Please don't bring this hogwash into a serious discussion about science!

It recent weeks the IPCC's reputation has become almost as bad. :rolleyes:

varadero
03-05-2010, 09:51 AM
I wouldnt dream of debating with a whole bunch of people who agreed with me. I need you to persuade me to change my views. You are not succeeding. Remember I used to hold your view.

Dan McCosh
03-05-2010, 10:03 AM
Not sure if that's true. If the absorption processes are kinetically limited, it won't be at equilibrium.



I was just thinking that this is a strong statement that undermines one one of the fundamental assumptions in the broader theory of what sets the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Have you become a closet denier?

Dave Wright
03-05-2010, 12:06 PM
[QUOTE=seafox;2510877]

...just wondering how many trees should we plant to equell the outpouring of CO2?
QUOTE]


Here's an annotated list to get you started Mr. Seafox, (sorry if I keep referring to a particular author, I try to read all I can from one source before moving on to the next one):

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/band.html

Kaa
03-05-2010, 12:25 PM
By the way, Dave, what was the point of making me read that 4-page statistical exercise?

Kaa

Dave Wright
03-05-2010, 01:45 PM
By the way, Dave, what was the point of making me read that 4-page statistical exercise?

Kaa

I think in one of your initial posts you said: "I am not particularly impressed by output of highly complex and highly adjustable statistical models with no demonstrated forecasting capability."

It seemed to me that you were conveying a "feeling" but nothing else; you didn't give anything of substance to bring us around to sharing your feelings.

I thought that if you had made your statement, and then provided any example that you felt was relevant, and said something like: "...the following model demonstrates what I am talking about, and here are the specific points in that model that I take issue with, and these same issues can be found in many other models, for example; ......."

So....since you didn't do this, or anything similar, I was left with just the expression of your feelings, but you hadn't demonstrated that your feelings had objective basis.

So I gave an example of a very small, published statistical exercise, that is probably representative of many efforts in the climate sciences. It's conclusions are gentle and reasoned and give us a small sense of direction, i.e., the results suggest (and nothing more!!) a relationship between CO2 and global warming.

I wondered if this was something that might be representative of the statistical models you mentioned. I wondered if you understood it, and I wondered if it might be an example that fits with your feelings. I thought that you might want to run with it and dissect it in a way that demonstrated that your feelings were justified.

johnw
03-05-2010, 01:55 PM
A nice article from balmy europe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1255643/Dramatic-rescue-1-000-people-trapped-ferry-50-ships-stuck-Baltic-Sea-ice.html
And some interesting reading for your lunch hour
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
There's been a theory circulating for some years that global warming could produce a new ice age in Europe. Here's a link to a 1997 article:

http://www.albionmonitor.com/free2/oceancollapse.html

And here's a more recent one:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

If that theory is correct, this year could be a foretaste of what lies in store for Europe as a result of global warming.

Dave Wright
03-05-2010, 02:08 PM
John, barring some cataclysmic event (a large meteor hit for example) I'd have to wonder what sort of time interval it might take to significantly change direction of the mass of moving water in flows like the gulf stream.

The article you mention is from 1997, so 10 years have past, is there any evidence of significant ocean flow shifts affecting Europe? I'm not discounting the article or the theory, just leaning more to the guess that Europe is seeing bad weather (of course the bad weather may be related to some aspect of global warming)

Kaa
03-05-2010, 02:19 PM
It seemed to me that you were conveying a "feeling" but nothing else; you didn't give anything of substance to bring us around to sharing your feelings.

Not exactly. I was conveying an "attitude" :-) and no, I don't expect to bring people around to sharing my attitudes -- at least, a significant number of people.

On the other hand, we can discuss how did that attitude arise :D


...but you hadn't demonstrated that your feelings had objective basis.

LOL. Searching for an objective basis to feelings is a path fraught with difficulty :-)


So I gave an example of a very small, published statistical exercise, that is probably representative of many efforts in the climate sciences.

I certainly hope not!

This was a very basic, student-level exercise with no new contributions and, frankly, doubtful methodology.

Basically, it went through the statistical motions with very little thought devoted to the meaning of the relationships and models involved.


I wondered if this was something that might be representative of the statistical models you mentioned.

Actually, no. The models in that 4-page paper are very simple and are explanatory, that is, they use contemporaneous variables and do not forecast. That makes them quite different from the models used in the report -- models that are (1) forecasting models; and (2) highly complex models with a large number of parameters and degrees of freedom.

To put it in crude terms, I suspect that the models used in the MIT report do not account for all the uncertainty in the inputs and data used. I also suspect that they were fine-tuned to produce the "expected" results, though things like that are almost impossible to prove.

There are also the issues of suspect input data (see Climategate materials) and doubtful assumptions (e.g. about lack of correlation between economic growth in different regions of the world)...

Kaa

johnw
03-05-2010, 02:47 PM
John, barring some cataclysmic event (a large meteor hit for example) I'd have to wonder what sort of time interval it might take to significantly change direction of the mass of moving water in flows like the gulf stream.

The article you mention is from 1997, so 10 years have past, is there any evidence of significant ocean flow shifts affecting Europe? I'm not discounting the article or the theory, just leaning more to the guess that Europe is seeing bad weather (of course the bad weather may be related to some aspect of global warming)
The second article was published in 2004.

From that article:


And, incredibly, the Great Conveyor Belt has hesitated a few times in the past decade. As William H. Calvin points out in one of the best books available on this topic ("A Brain For All Seasons: human evolution & abrupt climate change"): ".the abrupt cooling in the last warm period shows that a flip can occur in situations much like the present one. What could possibly halt the salt-conveyor belt that brings tropical heat so much farther north and limits the formation of ice sheets?



Oceanographers are busy studying present-day failures of annual flushing, which give some perspective on the catastrophic failures of the past. "In the Labrador Sea, flushing failed during the 1970s, was strong again by 1990, and is now declining. In the Greenland Sea over the 1980s salt sinking declined by 80 percent. Obviously, local failures can occur without catastrophe - it's a question of how often and how widespread the failures are - but the present state of decline is not very reassuring."



Most scientists involved in research on this topic agree that the culprit is global warming, melting the icebergs on Greenland and the Arctic icepack and thus flushing cold, fresh water down into the Greenland Sea from the north. When a critical threshold is reached, the climate will suddenly switch to an ice age that could last minimally 700 or so years, and maximally over 100,000 years.

Dave Wright
03-05-2010, 03:50 PM
Could be John, I've never studied the gulf stream, and it tells us that we have to continually fund studies of these issues.

My uneducated guess, removed from any reading of gulf stream literature, was that there might be many drivers of the gulf stream, but that the underlying mechanism had to be north south delta T. So in the "weather" examples previously posted of a colder Europe, with no corresponding cooling in the tropics, north south delta T actually increases. So my guess is that some of the drivers (wind for example) might increase with the above "weather" scenario, with the momentarily cold weather strengthening the gulf stream flow.

I also thought that the momentum of the gulf stream would be an astronomically large number, tending to keep the flow moving through intervals of "weather" change.

Hell, I don't know. My belief is that global warming is real; man contributes to it; limitation of man made emissions and pollution is a step in the direction of "goodness;" and that changes, when they occur (and they will occur) will be gradual rather than cataclysmic.

johnw
03-05-2010, 03:55 PM
I guess we'll get to see what happens when we don't act to prevent these changes. I'm still hoping the colder Europe theory is wrong, because it could shut down a lot of agriculture. Historically, the change has been surprisingly sudden.

PeterSibley
03-05-2010, 04:00 PM
Could be John, I've never studied the gulf stream, and it tells us that we have to continually fund studies of these issues.

My uneducated guess, removed from any reading of gulf stream literature, was that there might be many drivers of the gulf stream, but that the underlying mechanism had to be north south delta T. So in the "weather" examples previously posted of a colder Europe, with no corresponding cooling in the tropics, north south delta T actually increases. So my guess is that some of the drivers (wind for example) might increase with the above "weather" scenario, with the momentarily cold weather strengthening the gulf stream flow.

I also thought that the momentum of the gulf stream would be an astronomically large number, tending to keep the flow moving through intervals of "weather" change.

Hell, I don't know. My belief is that global warming is real; man contributes to it; limitation of man made emissions and pollution is a step in the direction of "goodness;" and that changes, when they occur (and they will occur) will be gradual rather than cataclysmic.

Excuse my ignorance Dave , but wouldn't the tropics get hotter , not having energy extracted from their area ?

oznabrag
03-05-2010, 04:06 PM
... Historically, the change has been surprisingly sudden.

Very sudden. I seem to remember that studies of Greenland ice cores revealed changes in average global temperature of 10/15 degrees F in the space of 15 years.

THAT, sir, is some scary shtuff.

Dave Wright
03-05-2010, 04:08 PM
Excuse my ignorance Dave , but wouldn't the tropics get hotter , not having energy extracted from their area ?


But Peter, I said I thought the underlying mechanism was temperature difference north to south. I said : "a colder Europe, with no corresponding cooling in the tropics, north south delta T actually increases. So my guess is that some of the drivers (wind for example) might increase with the above "weather" scenario, with the momentarily cold weather strengthening the gulf stream flow."

In other words, the hotter tropics, if they are hotter, drive mechanisms like the gulf stream and winds to restore global equilibrium.

I don't think we have any differnces here:).

PeterSibley
03-05-2010, 04:44 PM
But Peter, I said I thought the underlying mechanism was temperature difference north to south. I said : "a colder Europe, with no corresponding cooling in the tropics, north south delta T actually increases. So my guess is that some of the drivers (wind for example) might increase with the above "weather" scenario, with the momentarily cold weather strengthening the gulf stream flow."

In other words, the hotter tropics, if they are hotter, drive mechanisms like the gulf stream and winds to restore global equilibrium.

I don't think we have any differnces here:).

Except that the Gulf Stream functions because of haline as well as thermal differentials .It the haline that are diluting so it may not function :confused:,no mater what the temperature differences .

WX
03-05-2010, 04:57 PM
I did read somewhere that the warm ocean currents have moved further North. This has caused higher precipitation along the coast of Norway and an increase in some glaciers.

Dave Wright
03-05-2010, 05:17 PM
Except that the Gulf Stream functions because of haline as well as thermal differentials .It the haline that are diluting so it may not function :confused:,no mater what the temperature differences .

I'd never used the word "haline" Peter, so I had to look it up. I guess it's equivalent to "saline."

So what principally drives the gulf stream: temperature, wind, salinity? Can we quantifythese factors? Can we then rank the factors? Is density difference the real driver, with density being determined by both temperature and salinity? I don't know, I've never studied the oceans.

I guess the proponents of cataclysmic change are looking for factors that are beyond the normal ken of "men in the street" like me. I'm open to all of the arguments, and since I already believe that global warming is real and that man contributes to it, I'm receptive within the bounds of reason.

johnw
03-05-2010, 05:24 PM
Salt water on average weighs 64 lb. per cubic foot, fresh water 62 lb. The saltier the water, the heavier. Introduce some cold water with less salt and you disrupt the usual pattern.

Dave Wright
03-05-2010, 05:38 PM
I see seawater density typically varies by up to 9 kg/cubic meter at the surface.

Fresh water density varies by about 2 kg/cubic meter per 10 deg C in the 15 to 30 deg C range.

So I guess I would conclude that salinity differences drive density more than temperature differences. Which appears to be what Peter and John are telling me.

OK, that's reasonable.

johnw
03-05-2010, 06:01 PM
So you see the irony of people arguing that the cold weather in Europe and the East Coast of the US means there is no global warming when in fact it could be caused by global warming. Scientists like to be very sure before the attribute causes, so I expect several years of study before they are willing to say what they think is causing the cold in Europe. I'm hoping this is a blip on the way rather than the big change.

Dave Wright
03-05-2010, 06:13 PM
Maybe time to reread the piece I posted on another climate thread a week or so ago:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf

johnw
03-05-2010, 08:01 PM
Interesting. And as the article says, we can't yet assess the effects of sea ice melt. I'm still hoping the cold winter for the east coast and Europe is an anomaly.

PeterSibley
03-05-2010, 08:19 PM
John ,I was told by one of our British corresponents that there were no decernable changes in their ocean temperatures and that the recent very cold weather was the result of a terrestial weather pattern .

johnw
03-05-2010, 08:27 PM
Yeah, the jet stream has been funny this year. Who knows, maybe the albedo from this event will help preserve the sea ice.

ljb5
03-05-2010, 10:10 PM
I was just thinking that this is a strong statement that undermines one one of the fundamental assumptions in the broader theory of what sets the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Have you become a closet denier?

You're not thinking at all.

CO2 is released into the atmosphere at a rate X.

CO2 is re-absorbed from the atmosphere at a rate Y.

Both X and Y depend on a larger number of factors such as temperature, concentration, plant and animal growth/decomposition and human activity.

If X is greater than Y, the CO2 concentration goes up.

Nothing in that statement undermines the fundamental assumptions of carbon concentration.

It's not rocket science, but understanding science might help.

Dan McCosh
03-05-2010, 10:43 PM
You're not thinking at all.

CO2 is released into the atmosphere at a rate X.

CO2 is re-absorbed from the atmosphere at a rate Y.

Both X and Y depend on a larger number of factors such as temperature, concentration, plant and animal growth/decomposition and human activity.

If X is greater than Y, the CO2 concentration goes up.

Nothing in that statement undermines the fundamental assumptions of carbon concentration.

It's not rocket science, but understanding science might help.


It isn/t rocket science, but if you look at the basics, the idea that CO2 is in equilibrium is basic to the idea that man-made CO2 has destabilized that equilibrium. Your statement attacks the idea that system has been stable. This is a fundamental assumption. If it is an unstable system--and, in fact, it is difficult to model a stable system--then the reasons for the instability multiply. You have yet to explain why CO2 falls out from the sky.

Dave Wright
03-05-2010, 10:54 PM
Forgive me for interupting Dan, but are you disputing Charles Keeling's CO2 measurements? Measurements that have shown increasing atmospheric CO2 since he first made the measurements in the late 50's?

This stuff was done before the internet and global warming flame wars. (He also showed a strong correlation between the increasing CO2 levels and fossil fuel consumption, but we can leave that for another post).

ljb5
03-05-2010, 10:55 PM
I think I was perfectly clear in post #183. Please re-read it.

If CO2 is released into that atmosphere faster than it is absorbed from it, the concentration in the atmosphere goes up.

The concept of 'equilibrium' as you are attempting to use it, is a bit misleading because equilibrium is only achieved after relatively long settling periods and the equilibrium point may shift in response to several factors. (i.e., even if it was at equilibrium yesterday and is at equilibrium today, there is no guarantee that yesterday's equilibrium is the same as today's.)

If I were trying to explain it to a complete moron, I'd say it this way: 'If you release CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will go up. If some, or even most of this CO2 is re-absorbed, the net result is still an increase.'

I think a moron would be able to understand that.

Dave Wright
03-05-2010, 11:00 PM
Here you go, something nice and straightforward for simpletons like me:

http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/story_archive/Measuring_CO2_from_Space/History_CO2_Measurements/

Dave Wright
03-05-2010, 11:12 PM
Pretty straightforward stuff, the argument was settled in 1959. Roger Revelle of Scripps disputed that CO2 levels were increasing and hired Keeling to prove he was right. Keeling found that levels were increasing, proving that his boss was wrong. End of story.

Then the internet happened and jack asses said Keelings findings were invalidated by Mauna Loa. But Keeling had repeated his measurements in Antarctica - same story - CO2 levels were increasing with strong correlation to fossil fuel consumption.

oznabrag
03-05-2010, 11:34 PM
I think I was perfectly clear in post #183. Please re-read it.

If CO2 is released into that atmosphere faster than it is absorbed from it, the concentration in the atmosphere goes up.

The concept of 'equilibrium' as you are attempting to use it, is a bit misleading because equilibrium is only achieved after relatively long settling periods and the equilibrium point may shift in response to several factors. (i.e., even if it was at equilibrium yesterday and is at equilibrium today, there is no guarantee that yesterday's equilibrium is the same as today's.)

If I were trying to explain it to a complete moron, I'd say it this way: 'If you release CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will go up. If some, or even most of this CO2 is re-absorbed, the net result is still an increase.'

I think a moron would be able to understand that.

Jeezle, LJ! You two are on the same side, it's pretty clear to me!

Sometimes you're a jerk.

Dave Wright
03-05-2010, 11:46 PM
Jeezle, LJ! You two are on the same side, it's pretty clear to me!

Sometimes you're a jerk.

The dispute is between LJ and Dan, and they're distinctly not on the same side! LJ is stating fact, Dan is disputing fact.

oznabrag
03-06-2010, 12:40 AM
The dispute is between LJ and Dan, and they're distinctly not on the same side! LJ is stating fact, Dan is disputing fact.

Well, OK.

The fact is that, sometimes, LJ's a jerk. He's usually got his facts straight, but....

Anyway, Dave, er Mr. Wright, thanks for that clarification. I hope they can sort it out without undue....I can't think of a word that doesn't convey 'Sometimes LJ's a jerk', so...:p

ljb5
03-06-2010, 05:14 AM
Well, OK.

The fact is that, sometimes, LJ's a jerk. He's usually got his facts straight, but....

Anyway, Dave, er Mr. Wright, thanks for that clarification. I hope they can sort it out without undue....I can't think of a word that doesn't convey 'Sometimes LJ's a jerk', so...:p

Apparently, so are you.

You misunderstood, then insulted me.

It would have been nice to get more of an apology than "Well, OK."

Dan McCosh
03-06-2010, 09:24 AM
I think I was perfectly clear in post #183. Please re-read it.

If CO2 is released into that atmosphere faster than it is absorbed from it, the concentration in the atmosphere goes up.

The concept of 'equilibrium' as you are attempting to use it, is a bit misleading because equilibrium is only achieved after relatively long settling periods and the equilibrium point may shift in response to several factors. (i.e., even if it was at equilibrium yesterday and is at equilibrium today, there is no guarantee that yesterday's equilibrium is the same as today's.)

If I were trying to explain it to a complete moron, I'd say it this way: 'If you release CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will go up. If some, or even most of this CO2 is re-absorbed, the net result is still an increase.'

I think a moron would be able to understand that.

I wouldn't call you a moron, and you are correct in what you say, and seem to understand it. It doesn't have anything to do with my reference, however.

Dan McCosh
03-06-2010, 09:35 AM
The dispute is between LJ and Dan, and they're distinctly not on the same side! LJ is stating fact, Dan is disputing fact.

What fact am I disputing? You may be confusing LJ's non sequiturs with what I have posted.

High C
03-06-2010, 09:45 AM
....you are correct in what you say....It doesn't have anything to do with my reference, however.

That's him in a nutshell! :D

oznabrag
03-06-2010, 10:07 AM
Apparently, so are you.

You misunderstood, then insulted me.

It would have been nice to get more of an apology than "Well, OK."

Maybe you should start with apologizing to Dan for calling him a moron.

I don't think anybody but a moron could call Dan a moron with any seriousness.

So, you get that straightened out, and I'll see if it qualifies you for being considered a little less of a jerk, OK?

ljb5
03-06-2010, 10:35 AM
What fact am I disputing? You may be confusing LJ's non sequiturs with what I have posted.

That's an interesting question... what exactly are you disputing?

It does seem clear that you've been trying to dispute something, yet some of your posts are so filled with gibberish that I can't tell where your misunderstanding lies.

You've clearly accused me of saying something that undermines conventional AGW theory, yet I have not. I think my posts have been pretty straight-forward and factual.

Could you be more clear about what you're disputing?

Dan McCosh
03-06-2010, 10:42 AM
The fact I disputed was the 700 trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, which was mis-reported in a news story. The rest is your conjecture, followed by you arguing with your own conjecture.

ljb5
03-06-2010, 10:52 AM
The fact I disputed was the 700 trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, which was mis-reported in a news story. The rest is your conjecture, followed by you arguing with your own conjecture.

My conjecture?

You're the one who said I made "a strong statement that undermines one one of the fundamental assumptions in the broader theory of what sets the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere."

I explained to you that I did not undermine the theory.

Then, you said, "Your statement attacks the idea that system has been stable. This is a fundamental assumption. If it is an unstable system--and, in fact, it is difficult to model a stable system--then the reasons for the instability multiply."

So I explained it to you again.

Now you're going to deny you ever even had the argument?

If I have erred here, it is only in trying to have a serious discussion with a guy who posts gibberish just to be argumentative.

varadero
03-06-2010, 12:43 PM
This is how you behave and you agree with each other!
Hey I tried a scientific experiment last night. Nothing to do with CO2, the wife wouldnt let me. I was going to run a bath so I ran it cold 18 deg C, I set a 1KW radiator in the bath room, and closed the door.. I waited and waited.
I had to go to bed with out a bath, despite getting the room to a toasty 27 deg C, the bath temp stubbornly stayed at 18 degs. The wife was not happy despite my not letting loose a couple of Kilos of CO2, This morning the water was still at 18 degs. I then set up a 1KW immersion element I use at work, plugged it in and presto, I had the temp up to 22 degs inside of 30 minutes.
I would have run the experiment longer, but my wife and kids wanted to wash, and do not share the same intrest I do in science. Can you guys please explain the problem I had heating up water with air (atmosphere).
Regards
Bobby

Dan McCosh
03-06-2010, 12:59 PM
That's a demonstration of specific heat capacity--which means some materials absorb and transfer heat more readily than others. Air is low in specific heat capacity; water is relatively high. The air doesn't transfer much heat to the water.

varadero
03-06-2010, 01:06 PM
I remember that from school, there was also latent heat I think. Was that additional energy required to change, say water, from a frozen (solid) state at 0 degrees C to a liquid state at the same temperature?
Bobby.

ljb5
03-06-2010, 01:16 PM
Heat capacity doesn't really come into play here. That will tell you how much heat is needed to raise the temperature (about 3.7 Million joules for a 180 liter tub), but doesn't really explain why one type of heat source is more effective than another (assuming they both provide the same energy output.)

It's merely a question of where the heat is directed and how easily it can move from one material to another.

The immersion heater heats the water directly.

The radiation heater heats the walls, ceiling floor, counter, cabinets and air.

Heat then moves around the room according to the mechanisms of conduction, convection and radiation. Some of these processes are quite slow. (i.e, wood and drywall are poor heat conductors, and there is no convection in solid materials.) Radiation depends on the surface quality and color of the material, in addition to the direction it is facing.

Also, of course, some heat leaves the room through the window, air gaps and conduction through the floors and wall.

It's really the same problem as trying to heat a pot of water by placing it on the stove, or next to the stove. The total heat output is the same, but one is more direct.

varadero
03-06-2010, 01:39 PM
Radiation, covection, and stuff. Heating and cooling a transfer of heat or energy.
water with a specific heat capacity of approx 4.187kJ/kg K and a mass of aprox 1000kg / M3.
Air with a specific heat capacity of 1.294 kj/kg K and a mass of 1.29 kg / M3.
At 1m2 It would take about 7,500m altitude of air to affect 3m depth of water to the same energy transfer of 3m water to 3m water, am I getting this right. Correct my math if it is wrong, please.
Bobby

High C
03-06-2010, 01:55 PM
This should be amusing. :D

ljb5
03-06-2010, 02:11 PM
I think you're confusing heat capacity with heat transfer. Heat capacity is not really relevant to your question.

Heat capacity is a measure of how much heat something holds, or would need to have to achieve a certain temperature. It's a static measurement like the size of your bank account or amount of your debt.

Heat transfer is a dynamic measurement, like how much you save or spend per month. The two are not necessarily related.

Another example is a battery. A large D-Cell battery has a greater capacity than a small AAA, but both operate at the same voltage.

2,500 m^3 of air needs the same amount of energy as 1 m^3 of water to increase increase the temperature by the same amount... but that's a measure of how much energy it holds, not a measure of how heat moves.

Think of your bathroom as a chain of materials in which each link can pass heat to the next. If all you want is hot water in the tub, heat the water in the tub directly. Heating one link and waiting for the heat to be transfered down the chain will be much slower.

Dave Wright
03-06-2010, 02:15 PM
I guess we'll get to see what happens when we don't act to prevent these changes. I'm still hoping the colder Europe theory is wrong, because it could shut down a lot of agriculture. Historically, the change has been surprisingly sudden.

John, I read a little more last night about the possibility of a sudden shutdown of the gulf stream. I'm bothered by the mechanics, because no matter what happens the world temperature difference between north and south remains no matter what, and I don't have the expertise to decide if the shutdown scenario can override the basic delta T drivers (principally wind).

If it's of any comfort to you, I did find an individual, Dr. Richard Seager, a climatologist at Columbia, who suggests that the disaster scenario you worry about might not be so dire (if it ever should occur). For what it's worth he says:

"The Gulf Stream and future climate change
A slowdown of the Gulf Stream and ocean circulation in the future, induced by freshening of the waters caused by anthropogenic climate change (via melting glaciers and increased water vapor transport into high latitudes) or simply by warming, would thus introduce a modest cooling tendency. This would leave the temperature contrast across the Atlantic unchanged and not plunge Europe back into the ice age or anything like it. In fact the cooling tendency would probably be overwhelmed by the direct radiatively-driven warming by rising greenhouse gases. "

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/people/seager/

Click on relevant topics there.

His 2002 paper on the gulf stream and European climate is interesting and uncommon:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/pubs/Seager_etal_QJ_2002.pdf

Dave Wright
03-06-2010, 02:22 PM
..2,500 m^3 of air needs the same amount of energy as 1 m^3 of water to increase increase the temperature by the same amount... but that's a measure of how much energy it holds, not a measure of how heat moves.



In heat transfer class we were always happy that this particular problem simply boiled down to mc(delta T) of the first body = mc (deltaT) of the second body.

johnw
03-06-2010, 02:41 PM
John, I read a little more last night about the possibility of a sudden shutdown of the gulf stream. I'm bothered by the mechanics, because no matter what happens the world temperature difference between north and south remains no matter what, and I don't have the expertise to decide if the shutdown scenario can override the basic delta T drivers (principally wind).

If it's of any comfort to you, I did find an individual, Dr. Richard Seager, a climatologist at Columbia, who suggests that the disaster scenario you worry about might not be so dire (if it ever should occur). For what it's worth he says:

"The Gulf Stream and future climate change
A slowdown of the Gulf Stream and ocean circulation in the future, induced by freshening of the waters caused by anthropogenic climate change (via melting glaciers and increased water vapor transport into high latitudes) or simply by warming, would thus introduce a modest cooling tendency. This would leave the temperature contrast across the Atlantic unchanged and not plunge Europe back into the ice age or anything like it. In fact the cooling tendency would probably be overwhelmed by the direct radiatively-driven warming by rising greenhouse gases. "

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/people/seager/

Click on relevant topics there.

His 2002 paper on the gulf stream and European climate is interesting and uncommon:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/pubs/Seager_etal_QJ_2002.pdf
That's interesting. He does say that about a quarter of the difference can be attributed to the currents, which seems substantial to me. I was also under the impression that heat differences from the currents were one of the drivers for the wind patterns, so the atmospheric heat transfers might not be so easily disentangled from the effects of warm currents.

I suppose we'll get to see what effects warming has, although the worst effects aren't likely to hit in my lifetime. I'm not convinced they know what caused those cooling events that turned up in the paleoclimatology studies.

varadero
03-06-2010, 02:59 PM
Correct Mr. Wright, Wright is wright. WITH THE PLANET BEING COVERED 75% with water it is about as possible for me to dramaticaly raise the temperature of my bath water with air, as it is the oceans using air. or put another way. If i run my bath at ten minutes after eight (2010) It will be very very dificult to raise the temperature by 5 degrees by nine oīclock(2100)
Bobby.
one of the small factors ommited from the computer modelling has been illustrated above, not by me, by you. Off now to try another experiment in the bathroom, methane and ice cubes.

johnw
03-06-2010, 03:11 PM
So, lj, much luck convincing people of the rightness of your point of view by calling them morons? This does not strike me as an intelligent form of argument.


Bobby, it's generally considered that without the greenhouse effect, the earth would be a ball of ice. And I notice that about August, the water in Lake Union, which is near my house, is much warmer than in the winter (I've capsized boats at both times of year.) So I'm quite sure ambient temperature affects water temperature. Sorry you weren't able to recreate this in your bathroom, but I admire your spirit of scientific inquiry. It may be that the water evaporating from the surface of the tub is cooling the water and 18 degrees is the equilibrium state. I suppose if you put two pans of water out in the sun, one with a greenhouse (an inverted glass punch bowl might serve) and one without, you'd have better luck.

Dave Wright
03-06-2010, 03:28 PM
Correct Mr. Wright, Wright is wright. WITH THE PLANET BEING COVERED 75% with water it is about as possible for me to dramaticaly raise the temperature of my bath water with air, as it is the oceans using air. or put another way. If i run my bath at ten minutes after eight (2010) It will be very very dificult to raise the temperature by 5 degrees by nine oīclock(2100)
Bobby.
one of the small factors ommited from the computer modelling has been illustrated above, not by me, by you. Off now to try another experiment in the bathroom, methane and ice cubes.

I believe you are confused and simply missunderstand. But best regards anyway.

Paul Girouard
03-06-2010, 03:39 PM
Bobby, it's generally considered that without the greenhouse effect, the earth would be a ball of ice. And I notice that about August, the water in Lake Union, which is near my house, is much warmer than in the winter (I've capsized boats at both times of year.) So I'm quite sure ambient temperature affects water temperature. Sorry you weren't able to recreate this in your bathroom, but I admire your spirit of scientific inquiry. It may be that the water evaporating from the surface of the tub is cooling the water and 18 degrees is the equilibrium state. I suppose if you put two pans of water out in the sun, one with a greenhouse (an inverted glass punch bowl might serve) and one without, you'd have better luck.



I'd say his bath tub test was used #1: cuz it was sort of easy. #2: It took the sun out of the equation, mostly, sure the sun was hitting the house, so in ways it was heating the air in the house, BUT but mainly the air inside was the heat source.

I could have that wrong , but thats my take on his test, using air as a heat source to warm water. Period.


I'd say in the Puget Sound 'test' you used as a example the sun was the heat source, and it did / does most of the heating of the water.

varadero
03-06-2010, 03:51 PM
Water has impressive stratification, at 200m the temp does not change much August - Feb. That is why I stuck to 3m. AGW theory also says that the sunīs effect is a constant. So I left that out. But my house has better insulation than a layer of CO2. The climate is changing, I dont argue that. I disagree with the diproportionate focus on CO2 as being the cause.
Regards all
Bobby

ljb5
03-06-2010, 03:56 PM
So, lj, much luck convincing people of the rightness of your point of view by calling them morons?

Don't be silly. These people won't be convinced of anything that they don't want to, no matter how politely we butter them up. :rolleyes:

Leave a pan of water out in the sun, it heats up. Who would deny that?

ljb5
03-06-2010, 04:11 PM
Correct Mr. Wright, Wright is wright.

I don't think you understood him.

He said: "mc(delta T) of the first body = mc (deltaT) of the second body."

It's the "delta T" that we call "warming."


It will be very very dificult to raise the temperature by 5 degrees by nine oīclock(2100)

Can you quantify "very, very difficult"?

Building the pyramids was very, very difficult... and yet they got built.


...one of the small factors ommited from the computer modelling has been illustrated above, not by me, by you.

What makes you think that was omitted?


AGW theory also says that the sunīs effect is a constant.

It does? Where does it say that?

ljb5
03-06-2010, 04:17 PM
If i run my bath at ten minutes after eight (2010) It will be very very dificult to raise the temperature by 5 degrees by nine oīclock(2100).

I'm not sure I understand your math here.

How did you get a conversion factor from 50 minutes to 90 years?

Did you just make that up?

varadero
03-06-2010, 04:36 PM
24 hr clock?

ljb5
03-06-2010, 04:54 PM
24 hr clock?

I see. You're one of those. :rolleyes:

Here's some information about solar water heaters. (http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12850) Are you going to tell us that they don't work?

varadero
03-06-2010, 05:01 PM
Tommorow, its late now

johnw
03-06-2010, 08:04 PM
I'd say his bath tub test was used #1: cuz it was sort of easy. #2: It took the sun out of the equation, mostly, sure the sun was hitting the house, so in ways it was heating the air in the house, BUT but mainly the air inside was the heat source.

I could have that wrong , but thats my take on his test, using air as a heat source to warm water. Period.


I'd say in the Puget Sound 'test' you used as a example the sun was the heat source, and it did / does most of the heating of the water.
That's why I suggested testing greenhouse vs. non-greenhouse. The pans would get the same exposure to the sun.

johnw
03-06-2010, 08:06 PM
I see. You're one of those. :rolleyes:

Here's some information about solar water heaters. (http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12850) Are you going to tell us that they don't work?
That seems misdirected, since his question was about the greenhouse effect. He's arguing that the global warming is caused by a difference in solar radiation, rather than greenhouse effect. He has not, however, provided evidence of an alternative source of heat.

ljb5
03-06-2010, 10:35 PM
That seems misdirected, since his question was about the greenhouse effect. He's arguing that the global warming is caused by a difference in solar radiation, rather than greenhouse effect. He has not, however, provided evidence of an alternative source of heat.

It's not quite clear what he's arguing.

He seems to think that his bathtub experiment has proved that radiation cannot heat water, yet we all know it can.

He said that AGW theory does not account for changes in solar radiation, yet those of who have actually read the reports know it does.

He said heat capacity has been "omitted from computer models," yet we know it has not...

So, although it's not clear exactly what his point is, it's become quite clear that he's willing to say just about anything to deny AGW.

Dave Wright
03-06-2010, 10:45 PM
That's interesting. He does say that about a quarter of the difference can be attributed to the currents, which seems substantial to me. I was also under the impression that heat differences from the currents were one of the drivers for the wind patterns, so the atmospheric heat transfers might not be so easily disentangled from the effects of warm currents.

I suppose we'll get to see what effects warming has, although the worst effects aren't likely to hit in my lifetime. I'm not convinced they know what caused those cooling events that turned up in the paleoclimatology studies.

John, I have a full stomach and just a few minutes before moving on to other activities, but you and Peter really got me thinking about this perhaps rapid change of the gulf stream many thousands of years ago - the events you mention in paleoclimatology.

I won't reference paragraph and line at this point, but I followed through to the Woods Hole blurb which touted the sudden gulf stream change in paleohistory. They mentioned that there were flow patterns etched on the ocean floor which indicated cold water had flowed southward. However they left us with the impression that today's glacial melting could do the same thing. It seemed to me that etched seabed patterns might not occur without extremely greater flows that we now have, or might have in the next several years or decades.

Then, in reading Seager's stuff, he mentions evidence of vast glacial lakes breaking through ice dams in ancient times. This sort of event it seems to me, in other words a cataclysmic event in itself, might be necessary to make any significant change in the gulf stream. And, this sort of event would leave evidence of its flow on the ocean floor.

So my thought at this point is, if we can find a country sized glacial lake held back by a fragile ice dam somewhere in Greenland or the far north, we might have immediate concern. But, I don't think that one currently exists. Of course if we found one we could perhaps implement slower, safer drainage. Otherwise we can put you and Peter more at ease. We can seriously downgrade the potential for immediate gulf stream damage, and we can continue discussing and researching all sides of this particular issue.

Once again I'll leave with a statement of my beliefs, I wish everyone here would state theirs, it would make communication so much easier: Global warming is real. Man contributes to Global warming. Anything we can do to limit emissions and pollution is a step in the direction of "goodness." And finally, changes to climate will occur, but they are unlikely to be catacysmic (by that I mean suddenly catastrophic). However, they might be very bad, but over decades long time intervals.

Kaa
03-06-2010, 10:53 PM
Anything we can do to limit emissions and pollution is a step in the direction of "goodness."

That statement is either meaningless or unsupportable.

Kaa

Dave Wright
03-06-2010, 11:15 PM
That statement is either meaningless or unsupportable.

Kaa

So you think the world wide curtailment of flourocarbon propellants sometime ago was not a step in the direction of "goodness?"

Look, if you want any further communication with me, send me your real name and location by PM. Real people occupy plenty of my time, I don't need to circle jerk with a phantom.

PeterSibley
03-06-2010, 11:17 PM
Global warming is real. Man contributes to Global warming. Anything we can do to limit emissions and pollution is a step in the direction of "goodness."[/B] And finally, changes to climate will occur, but they are unlikely to be catacysmic (by that I mean suddenly catastrophic). However, they might be very bad, but over decades long time intervals.

Pretty well were I stand with the addition of considerable concern about biofeedback ....meaning as the Siberian and Nth American peats and permafrost melt and release what could be truly supendous amounts of CO2 and methane ,warming could increase much faster than the business as usual model .There is melting there already , it's not something that appears to be reversing itself .

PeterSibley
03-06-2010, 11:20 PM
Something strange happened to that quote !

Kaa
03-06-2010, 11:36 PM
So you think the world wide curtailment of flourocarbon propellants sometime ago was not a step in the direction of "goodness?"

It's the "anything" part that's interesting. For example, letting AIDS ravage Black Africa will "limit emissions and pollution".

So if you actually mean "anything", I don't think your position is supportable. And if you actually mean "depends on the price we have to pay", the statement is meaningless.


Look, if you want any further communication with me, send me your real name and location by PM.

LOL. I don't think this is going to happen. You are entirely free to talk to me or ignore me.

Kaa

johnw
03-07-2010, 02:32 PM
John, I have a full stomach and just a few minutes before moving on to other activities, but you and Peter really got me thinking about this perhaps rapid change of the gulf stream many thousands of years ago - the events you mention in paleoclimatology.

I won't reference paragraph and line at this point, but I followed through to the Woods Hole blurb which touted the sudden gulf stream change in paleohistory. They mentioned that there were flow patterns etched on the ocean floor which indicated cold water had flowed southward. However they left us with the impression that today's glacial melting could do the same thing. It seemed to me that etched seabed patterns might not occur without extremely greater flows that we now have, or might have in the next several years or decades.

Then, in reading Seager's stuff, he mentions evidence of vast glacial lakes breaking through ice dams in ancient times. This sort of event it seems to me, in other words a cataclysmic event in itself, might be necessary to make any significant change in the gulf stream. And, this sort of event would leave evidence of its flow on the ocean floor.

So my thought at this point is, if we can find a country sized glacial lake held back by a fragile ice dam somewhere in Greenland or the far north, we might have immediate concern. But, I don't think that one currently exists. Of course if we found one we could perhaps implement slower, safer drainage. Otherwise we can put you and Peter more at ease. We can seriously downgrade the potential for immediate gulf stream damage, and we can continue discussing and researching all sides of this particular issue.

Once again I'll leave with a statement of my beliefs, I wish everyone here would state theirs, it would make communication so much easier: Global warming is real. Man contributes to Global warming. Anything we can do to limit emissions and pollution is a step in the direction of "goodness." And finally, changes to climate will occur, but they are unlikely to be catacysmic (by that I mean suddenly catastrophic). However, they might be very bad, but over decades long time intervals.
Pretty much mirrors my beliefs. As stated previously, I expect I'll be dead before we see the worst effects of global warming. Still, there was a line in the article I linked to that gave me pause;


And, incredibly, the Great Conveyor Belt has hesitated a few times in the past decade.We are engaged in an experiment with an outcome we cannot know. I find it incredible that so many assume this means the outcome will be benign, when the best minds working on the problem don't think so.

Phillip Allen
03-07-2010, 02:42 PM
John, I think a lot of variables are being left out...I'd discuss it face to face but haven't the energy to type it all out

our scientists have a vested interest in a spectacular outcome (good or bad) because that's where their public power comes from...if it doesn't mean much, the "scientist" is almost superflous (his efforts become no more than a curiosity)...therefore, it MUST be significant in the eyes of the public or funding dries up

Dave Wright
03-07-2010, 03:17 PM
John quoted: And, incredibly, the Great Conveyor Belt has hesitated a few times in the past decade.

I came across this piece yesterday:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.78.4948

John if you have the time, download the full text and give it a read. Esentially a first known observation of a breach of the gulf stream off Cape Hatteras. Caused by 3 days of unusual winds. Of course a breach doesn't mean a stoppage, but perhaps illustrates the complexity of the system. We need to know what is meant by hesitation and then think real hard as to what the causes might be.

Phillip, I respectfully can't agree. Scientists that I personally know put their work ahead of any considerations of power or funding. Funding is a consideration but it doesn't alter the outcomes of their work. Maybe I'm wrong??? Maybe the people I know are not representative?

Phillip Allen
03-07-2010, 03:21 PM
John quoted: And, incredibly, the Great Conveyor Belt has hesitated a few times in the past decade.

I came across this piece yesterday:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.78.4948

John if you have the time, download the full text and give it a read. Esentially a first known observation of a breach of the gulf stream off Cape Hatteras. Caused by 3 days of unusual winds. Of course a breach doesn't mean a stoppage, but perhaps illustrates the complexity of the system. We need to know what is meant by hesitation and then think real hard as to what the causes might be.

Phillip, I respectfully can't agree. Scientists that I personally know put their work ahead of any considerations of power or funding. Funding is a consideration but it doesn't alter the outcomes of their work. Maybe I'm wrong??? Maybe the people I know are not representative?

you'd have to view scientific organizations from the top down and not the bottom up

the top is political

Dave Wright
03-07-2010, 03:40 PM
you'd have to view scientific organizations from the top down and not the bottom up

the top is political

Probably true of all organizations, but the nature of the work is different and I think more attention is paid to the role of ethics. I'll just try to evaluate the work as best I can because evaluating the politics is no fun, and provides only info on human behavior rather than physical processes.

But I appreciate and respect your view that politics is prime, because it really is in so many other endeavors.

johnw
03-07-2010, 03:43 PM
I get very tired of people impugning the integrity of scientists based on the fact that they don't like what those scientists have found out. Phillip, there is far more money in disproving global warming than in proving it. You want to talk about vested interests? Our whole economic system is threatened by what climatologists have learned. How's that for a vested interest?

Phillip Allen
03-07-2010, 03:45 PM
piltdown man

Phillip Allen
03-07-2010, 03:47 PM
the doctors leakey insist their own discoveries are more valuable than non Leakeys

johnw
03-07-2010, 03:47 PM
piltdown man
A pretty good example of why scientific frauds don't hold up. Other scientists took a close look at it, and showed that it was a fraud.

ljb5
03-07-2010, 03:48 PM
piltdown man

When my in-laws put an addition on their house, the bricklayers over-charged them by a very large margin, used inferior bricks and got the job done three months behind schedule.

Is it safe to conclude that all bricklayers are dishonest?

Phillip Allen
03-07-2010, 03:49 PM
A pretty good example of why scientific frauds don't hold up. Other scientists took a close look at it, and showed that it was a fraud.

took em a while didn't it?

Phillip Allen
03-07-2010, 03:50 PM
When my in-laws put an addition on their house, the bricklayers over-charged them by a very large margin, used inferior bricks and got the job done three months behind schedule.

Is it safe to conclude that all bricklayers are dishonest?

perfectly safe

Phillip Allen
03-07-2010, 03:51 PM
have we spoken about cold fusion yet?

ljb5
03-07-2010, 03:59 PM
have we spoken about cold fusion yet?

Do you think it's relevant?

You're not interested in discussing all the times science has been proved right?

Does your computer work? Thank a scientist.

Your radio? Science.

Electricity? Science.

Penicillin? Yup.

Steam engines, anti-lock brakes, contact lenses, lasers, fire extinguishers, tempered glass, water filters, incandescent light bulbs, diodes, triodes, vacuum tubes, transistors, superconductors, magnetoresistors, hard drives, flash memory, bluetooth, cell phones, CAT scans, PET scans, MRIs and ultrasound....

Shall I go on?

Phillip Allen
03-07-2010, 04:02 PM
big pharma?

cigarette science?

are they relevant?

ljb5
03-07-2010, 04:05 PM
Phillip,

You cannot prove something is wrong by arguing that someone else was wrong about something else at some other time. It's not logical.

If you have anything to say about AGW, feel free to address that. But we all know you lack the intelligence, diligence, background and training to have an effective discussion about the subject.

So you're reduced to diversionary tactics.

I'm sure not all bricklayers are dishonest, but I know you are.

Phillip Allen
03-07-2010, 04:05 PM
Edison/Tesla

50% right or 50% wrong

Phillip Allen
03-07-2010, 04:06 PM
"You cannot prove something is wrong by arguing that someone else was wrong about something else at some other time."

but YOU can...

Phillip Allen
03-07-2010, 04:07 PM
"It's not logical"

I believe you told me logic was trumped by facts and figures...more than once

Phillip Allen
03-07-2010, 04:09 PM
"But we all know you lack the intelligence"

who else can you get to sign on to THIS scientific "fact"?

Phillip Allen
03-07-2010, 04:09 PM
I looked it up...an idiot has an IQ of 30 or less

ljb5
03-07-2010, 04:11 PM
Take it easy, old timer.

If you've got something to say about AGW, come out and say it. Otherwise, you're just barking at the wind.