You might like this site.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
http://www.realclimate.org/
Printable View
You might like this site.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
http://www.realclimate.org/
What kind of efficiency do you get with a plug-in hybrid? I agree that hydrogen fuel cell is probably not going to happen, at least for cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
What is the efficiency of a modern windmill?
What is the effciency of a modern solar cell? Can we expect any improvements in the future?
Won't respond to all of them, but I just took a class on modern solar cells, so I will respond to this. Current total quantum efficiencies of silicon (or GaAs) solar cells are on the order of 15% at peak daylight. Cost per unit area is very large (we're talking about silicon technologies here, which is certainly the biggest obstacle to being implemented in most cases), and the lifetime of the units with heavy sun exposure is 5-10 yrs at the high end. The improvements on Si and GaAs are slowing - might get to 25% or so, but probably not enough for widespread use. The other option is to make solar cells on plastic, which would lower the costs of the cells. However, efficiencies on plastics are currently on the order of 1%, and the costs aren't cheap enough to make that competitive with Si-technology at this time. Even then, the lifetime of the unit goes down considerably, and the best products have lifetimes on the order of a month.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Plug-ins still require electric power. Currently that's principally coal-driven, which i believe gets lower efficiencies than ICEs.
Thanks for that update on solar cells. Really don't know that much about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
What I was thinking about windmills and solar cells is that they don't directly pollute the atmosphere while producing electricity.
As for hybrids, it would be interesting to know their efficiency since their mileage per gallon of gas is quite good.
The point being that air pollution from coal-fired power plants can be controlled or eliminated whereas pollution from cars and trunks are harder to control.
Interesting read.
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/125/1/25
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Salty......
First you just keep spouting the doctrine of the CGW and proclaiming it as fact. This is pure BS.
As for the efficiency factor, (setting aside nuclear production of heat)you really can't get much better than a high performance internal combustion engine. Lots of energy packed in a small carrier ( gasoline or diesel). Racing car engines are close to the peak of converting the fuel energy to use as far as efficiency goes. Everything pretty much goes downhill from there. The bottom line is ....... no matter how much Al Gore and the lefty loonies want it to happen......you simply can't change the laws of physics!!!!!!!
Cold, hard science
By Tom Purcell
Sunday, February 11, 2007
I knew it! I knew that humans are the cause of global warming!
Ah, yes, you refer to a summary report recently released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It concludes that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming.
Very likely? The summary says there's a 90 percent probability that greenhouse gases, a byproduct of the fossil fuels we burn, are causing the Earth to warm.
Look, it is a fact that the Earth is warming. But the exact cause of the warming has not yet been proven. That is the unfortunate truth.
You're a Republican, aren't you?
Politics should have nothing to do with science. Scientists are supposed to follow the scientific method. They come up with a hypothesis, then apply a rigorous, objective, measurable process to disprove it. If they can’t disprove it, then in effect they have proved it. Real science works this way.
Your point?
How is it that there's a 90 percent chance humans are causing global warming? Doesn't that mean there's a 10 percent chance we've got nothing to do with it? Shouldn't scientists be more precise - that humans are causing all global warming or none of it or 28.3756 percent of it?
But the atmosphere is incredibly complex. I think you're asking a lot.
Am I? A plane is designed and built based on scientific facts and principles. Would you board a plane if it had only a 90 percent probability of arriving at its destination?
Not sober. But isn't there a consensus among the world's scientists? Many believe that humans are the cause of global warming.
The key word is believe. Scientists aren't supposed to believe. They're supposed to prove or disprove. As for consensus, Michael Crichton says it's the first refuge of scoundrels. He talked about it in a speech he gave in 2003.
Michael Crichton the novelist?
Yes. He's also a medical doctor and scientist. He said consensus is the business of politics, not science. He said that the great scientific discoveries have never come about by consensus, but by bold scientists who have struck off on their own. When a thing is proven to be a scientific truth, there's no need for consensus. You never hear somebody say "a consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2."
So what are you getting at?
It is possible that humans are causing the Earth to warm. It's also possible that it's a natural cycle -- the Earth is always warming and cooling. It's possible that the increase in greenhouse gases has nothing to do with global warming. We need our scientists to uncover the facts.
That sounds like a heck of a difficult task.
It surely is. Meteorologists have trouble predicting what the weather will be like in 24 hours. I can't imagine how hard it will be to prove what the climate will be like in 100 years, but that is their burden.
You're tough.
The truth is, we all need to get back to the basics. Journalists should hold scientists to account. There is a lot of fiction out there masquerading as fact and we need our journalists to get and report the truth.
What about politicians?
Some are purposely clouding the issue to raise campaign dough and curry favor with some voters. The press must hold them to account, too.
What about the rest of us?
Even if it is proven that we're not causing the Earth to warm, we should act anyhow. Why, in the most ingenious country on Earth, haven't we invented a technology fueled by our most abundant resource?
What resource would that be?
Hot air.
Tom Purcell, a free-lance writer, lives in Mt. Lebanon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
actually the part of my statement not in parentheses is completely factual, with no opinion added. you just made two statements that are not self-evident and made no attempt to support them. as for the parenthetical portion of my statement, you proved it with your subsequent attempts to support your original miscarriage of reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Fact?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../11/warm11.xml
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1363818.ece
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/te...s_solwind.html
Show where your "facts" come from.
This is a completely bogus statement. There is no existing, viable technology that removes CO2 from stack gases/ None.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
what kind of trunks are you referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
^ Elephant trunks. Notoriously hard to control.
you beat me to it. the co2 emissions are brutal, but they also often emit atomized water -- one of the leading causes of the most dangerous greenhouse gas: water vapor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You amatuer sceince/climatologist crack me up. I think I will listen to the majority of the EXPERTS.
I have posed this question on here before and not once has there been one logical answer:
"What is the agenda of the envioronmentalist or sceintist who agree that manmade causes are causing the planet to warm?" and if you answer that question with something in regards to government money, then this question: "who has the money? and why would they buy into something that degrades their market?"
This whole arguement is dumb. MGW is happening. Anytime you drill or dig out 100 million years of carbon resevoirs and turn it into gas, therefore upsetting the system, then you are going to have problems. It is pretty simple really. "but you can't model it." Horseshit.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ck-or-forcing/Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lobal-warming/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ics-2nd-round/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...y-and-climate/
:D :D :D :D
A 2 cylinder plug in hybrid is more efficient than a big v-8 in a SUV.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
I think that you have entered the Alice in Wonderland experience of trying to argue that the Emperor has no clothes because you believe he has no clothes. STudy the science.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Oh, wait, you only make use of science when it serves your purposes. Otherwise, it useless.:icon_wink:
So much for Cosmic Rays causing AGW.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ys-for-a-spin/
Nigel Calder exposed!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-the-times/
The top federal agencies currently funding global warming/climate research include the EPA and the DOE, which happen to have HUGE research budgets. What do you think is the funds distributions by these organizations to "consensus" scientists versus those that raise questions? Do you think the budgets of those organizations for GW research (and associated infrastructure within the agencies) would be as high if they could not generate fear (right or wrong) that global warming IS happening?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Now, take the case of a common researcher beginnig a tenure-track position at a university. In a scientific field at many universities, an unwritten rule for tenure might be that the researcher needs to have 10+ peer-reviewed publications and be generating $1.5M in annual research dollars by their 5th year. Say you've done your graduate work in any of a number of climate associated fields. Point me to the tree with the most fruit? Same reason so many researchers in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, etc., are trying to add "biotech" to their research arsenal - research always follows funding.
Also, there is simply a huge difference in peer scrutiny between publications that support human global warming and those that provide evidence the other way. You want the 10 papers you need - think it's going to be easier to get those by supporting a popular theory or having to go against the grain?
Not to mention, most research professors are driven by political/social acceptance of their work. Pay attention to how many researchers get acknowledged for "groundbreaking" global warming research.
Simply, the opportunity for research dollars (which also adds to the salaries of most researchers, btw.), the ability to more easily publish papers, and the ability to get political/social acceptance of the research are very good reasons for someone to start his/her research with the mindset that humans ARE contributing to global warming.
And once your hypothesis is set up that way, there's not really a way to reverse it and still save face.
<<Bill, (1) the average global temperature is rising. Fact 100% (2) 97% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the result of human activities. Fact 100% (3) the orbit and axis deviations of the Earth should be leading to decreasing average global temperatures and declining Co2 levels. Fact 100% (4) solar activity heats the planet earth and is not responsible for the recent increase in average global temperature. Fact 100% >>
Bill, you care to dispute 1 thru 4?
You have a poor understanding of science. Any researcher that finds evidence that AWG is NOT taking place would receive plenty of attention and more research funds. AWG is a popular theory because science has showed that it is credible.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Interesting, but very wrong. I'm telling you, as a graduate researcher in a scientific field, and after having many discussions with professors on the subject of funding, getting published, getting tenured, etc. - if you want to secure funding and publish readily, your best bet is to do it in a popular area and contribute something NEW but something that would NOT go against popular notions.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Hence, we see a proliferation of studies in this field with fairly slight differences in techniques.
And certainly, if someone were to publish a seminal paper showing CONCLUSIVELY that AWG is not happening, that person would receive considerable exposure. But, the burden of disproving a theory that has become accepted is VERY high, much higher than it is to publish a paper saying the opposite. As a tenure track professor, would you rather spend the time trying to PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that global warming is not happening (to make 1 sound, complete publication) or do several quick studies that don't tell a complete picture, but rest on a pre-accepted international hypothesis, thus getting multiple papers and recognition?
And even if you had the interest of pursuing the research, please explain to me how you are going to talk graduate students into spending 5 years pursing something that might ruin their future career, simply because they are pursuing something that is VERY unpopular?
Personally, I'd say to stay out of the field, but that's not an option for many because of previous fields of study, etc.
It wouldn't be if you were trying to haul something of substantial weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Most vehicles driving around have just one passenger, maybe 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
If you want efficiency in hauling a heavy object get an elephant.
AGW is a popular topic because it is of vital importance to the world. It's like we are all on Spaceship Earth and our biosphere is our life support system. If our life suppport system is going ####### bananas don't you think we should know about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
I really don't see your premise that because AGW research is popular it is somehow wrong.
I'm not using the argument to say that the popular theory is wrong. I'm saying its popularity (and acceptance as fact) limits a rounded discussion on the science. It is obvious to me that the cost and consequences of entering the other side of the debate are way to much for most scientists. Instead, I see many as joining the mob, accepting the core assumption, and trying to find evidence to support the assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I do question how many of the "consensus" arrived at their conclusion before they started their research.
If you weren't completely unconvincable, you would find plenty of reasons proliferated through the last 10 pages of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
And how are you so sure it can be modeled? I don't recall anyone saying that it couldn't - but I have seen plenty describe the flaws in our current models. There are many different feedback mechanisms (both positive and negative loops) that must be taken into account and many different variables to look at. The issue of "timing" must also be considered - different inputs take different amounts of time to express their effects. It is not as simple as running a basic statistical correlation of man-made CO2 to average temperature. That model would actually disprove CGW. The fact that the current models improperly "predict" temperatures over the past century should tell us something. If you created a predictive model, and your model was incorrect for predicting that which is known, what level of confidence would you put in future predictions? The GCMs do not try to take into account the changes in cloud cover (which affects reflectivity) and the effects of clouds on cosmic ray flux. These are MAJOR shortcomings.
It is funny how everytime the IPCC refines its models it discoveres new uncertainties. It would be hard to find an honest scientist that is a member of the CGW that won't admit that the models have their issues.
I have admitted that I am no expert, but it is funny how the leftists will come out now and cite "lack of expertise" to indict other people's opinions on GW when the leftists were the ones that were marginalized just a few years ago when the right-wingers were saying that we need to trust that george bush was making informed decisions mased on military intelligence we did not know about. Can't we ever learn from our mistakes?
Ah, but now you are forgetting about methane which is approximately 60 times more potent than CO2 in terms of greenhouse effect...and then there is all that water vapor. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Visit this site and you will see that climate scientists are actively considering all evidence regarding AWG. There is an active discussion if you want to join in. There is a lot of contrary opinions, but as a scientist I'm sure you will be able to judge what is wheat and what is chaff.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
http://www.realclimate.org/
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Apparantly realclimate tightly controls the content of the site (particularly when others express opposing viewpoints): http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=73
Another interesting view (apparantly RealClimate.org editors don't even like proponents of AGW if they are not enough of an alarmist): http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/an...-heretics.html
Article suggesting what RealClimate.org's "real" motivation might be: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/en...onvenient.html
Perhaps the most telling thing about this site is that the editors elect to respond to unscientific commentary by critics of AGW while choose not to respond to unscientific commentary of proponents of AGW. They also like to point to consensus (a political construct-not scientific). I am sure that the site is not as bad as these bloggers would lead you to believe, but my quick review of this site has set off my keen since of smell: this site smells like scientists with an agenda of convincing the public of the case for AGW while maintaining an "air of impartiality."
Efficient?????? A statement like that shows that you simply don't know what "efficiency" means! The term "efficiency" I was referring to is defined by how much of the energy contained in the source fuel can be delivered to (in the case of a vehicle) the drive wheels and transport a given load over a given distance in a given amount of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
In your simplistic example the 2 cylinder plug in hybrid gets its' "plug-in" energy from electricity which has to be distributed from its' generation source at significant energy loss, and the electricity was generated from a source fuel at a significant energy loss. As for its' 2 cylinder engine -- yes it is efficient in and of itself -- and the hybrid's ability to recover some of its' normal friction loss from braking activity does help out.
But what if you have 6 or 7 people to transport. Not going to do that in a 2 cylinder hybrid --unless of course you make 2 trips. In this situation your big V-8 SUV wins in overall efficiency.
(1) I don't dispute this one way or the other. I do dispute that the "proof" is 100%. The "measured" data is extremely sparse and is extremely highly clustered. Any technique to "average" this data into a "single earth temperature" suffers from enormous uncertainty. About the only way to do it would be with some type of geostatistical kriging analysis which attempts to account for the "nugget effect". And even with this technique the results can have wide variability and error spread.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
(2) Anyone who says that there is 100% PROOF that 97% of the rise in CO2 is due to human activities has been drinkinf far too much of the Koolade!!
(3) This is absurd!!!!! Orbit and axis deviations could result in either warming or cooling, depending on the directional displacement from the "Normal" orientation. So your #3 is 100% wrong!!!!!
(4) "solar activity heats the planet earth and is not responsible for the recent increase in average global temperature."??????????????????? This doesn't even make sense!
I thought the "global" temperature you and Al keep preaching about was that of the planet earth.
In fairness, a 2 cylinder plug in hybrid could conceivably get it's "plug-in" energy from an alternate energy source, such as solar power (see solar cells discussion). In this case, the "efficiency" is far worse than that of an ICE, but the energy is also "free" and "clean."Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Your keen sense of smell?? You got to be kidding. Your links just show that anyone can start a blog and post BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Anyway, if you don't like the site, fine. Their arguments and facts are what are important and you don't seem to want to discuss AGW except to say that it isn't happening. So, your opinion is noted.
I rarely see a large SUV with 7 or 8 passengers in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Bill, how efficient is a nuclear power plant?
Exactly! And it would be naive to think "scientists" aren't above it.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Ok, noted your disputes with (1), (2), (3) and (4).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
With(1) i would say that the probablility of the average global temperature not rising over the past 50 years as not been doubted by the vast majority of the world's scientists.
With (2), i would say that the probability of the CO2 rise not being related to the burning of fossile fuels is considered by the leading world's scientists as non-existent.
With (3), the movements of the Earth's axis and orbit are well known as are their relationships to the Earth's climate. So, what say thee? Where are we in that relationship?
With (4), what planet are you on?
I will post a short resume of the scientists on Real Climate if you will do the same for the people on the links you just posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Right, because having credentials makes you above bullshitting. BTW, no need to post 'em they are easy to find on their blog.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Sure would like to watch you depose these guys about global warming. What would be your first question?:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...tributor-bios/
And the background of the posters in the first two links are irrelevant to the arguments that they raised. The first person was talking about RealClimate.org's reaction to one of his posts - the fact they chose to censor it (the reaction being the issue not the substance or the credibility of his post). The second person was talking about RealClimate.org's reaction to another AGW advocate's paper (you can see their reaction on the site - I just didn't want to take credit for this guy's observation).Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I am not faulting the scientists for having an opinion. We all have them. I am not even faulting them for expressing it or any facts - that is great, too. What bothers me somewhat is that they act like it is an open an honest forum that is impartial to the viewpoints expressed. From second hand accounts and my own observation it does look heavily moderated (I am not going to make the leap and call it outright censorship). If you reread my other post you will see that I pointed out that I do not think it is bad as the bloggers are making it out to be.
"Isn't it correct Dr. _____ that you are only partly full of shit?"Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
That one gets them everytime. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Why don't you ask them a sincere question/statement and see what kind of response you get instead of relying on the statment of a person whom you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about. My impression of the website is that it appears to me to be balanced and fair.
Maybe I will, but I would feel obligated to search the site first to see if the question was answered. That would distract me from posting on this board just when my post-count is starting to skyrocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
:laugh: :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
it's been so long since i posted on this thread that i had forgotten how funny some of salty's responses are. lets not forget, folks, salty is the expert on global warming, and he alone is capable of discerning good science from bad, based on his infinite knowledge and unbiased wisdom.
Come on, ArkBob, pray tell us what is causing the atmospheric CO2 levels to go up over the last 50+ years.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Is is cosmic rays or increased populaton growth?
are you so diametrically opposed to logic that you cannot post a single sentence that does not defy it?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
:D :laugh: :D :laugh: :D :laugh:
HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM
HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”
The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.
DC WEATHER REPORT:
Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning...then a chance of snow in the afternoon. Ice accumulation of less than one quarter of an inch. Highs in the mid 30s. Northwest winds around 20 mph. Chance of precipitation 80 percent.
Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids...EnQt0_D9.syg--
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
I hear it's cows farting. Least, that's what they say.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Honestly, Dawgbitten, do you really wan't to compare GPA's, degrees, etc.?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
It would be a pretty easy set of questions....Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Prove, conclusivelely, without speculation, what has caused the recent moderate increase in average global temperature.
Prove, conclusively, that the recent increase in average global temperature is due to CO2 emissions from human origin vs. any other source.
How efficient is a nuclear plant? You're the one extoling the virtues of alternative energy sources, certainly YOU should be able to show to us mere mortals the differences in efficiencies between coal fired, nuclear and gas fired power plants. I am sure the non-biased bastion of realclimate.org can provide us with these #'s.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
do it
This would be a very easy deposition. Unfortunately. I have been through a number of these. Your "side" would lose relatively quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
The first question would be to prove, conclusively, that the recent, moderate increase in global warming is a result of human influence and that there are no other variables that significantly affect the increase in average global temperature
I don't believe you've taken (and passed) a stats class. If you had, there is no way that you could state that the recent increase in average global temperature is due to man-made CO2 emissions. There is no statistical evidence that shows this,Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You're missing something here...Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
The most accurate measurements of surface tempertures are from the US.
The US is the biggest producer of man-made CO2 emissions.
The US has not seen an increase in surface temperature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Can you quote any site other than one that has an obviously biased agenda?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
this is a very articulate and reasonable argument for making your case for "the sky is falling".
and do you think that the Fox news channel is balanced and fair?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Doesn't matter. I obviously win hands down in reading comprehension and my acute ability of observation of the world in which I live.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
To Salty................
Please give us your definition of AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE and explain how it is calculated FOR A SINGLE POINT IN TIME.
This should be good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Bill, send NOAA an email and you can get your answer straight from the horse's mouth. BTW, it sure looks like your gov't believes that AGW is for real.:D :icon_razz:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
http://usasearch.gov/search?affiliat...&submit=Search
No need to rationalize not doing it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Come on, ArkBob, answer the question. Don't dance around it. What is causing the sustained rise in atmospheric CO2 levels?:icon_wink:
Certainly some truth to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I have a hard time believing a college graduate is out of touch with the basic science regarding the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. My God, man, burning fossil fuels dumps 6 BILLION tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, year after year, and you think atmoshperic CO2 levels are not going to be affected?Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Unbelievable.
Duh? The air over the USA changes every few days. You should watch the Weather Channel.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Are you denying that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing?
How about a link to your statement that surface temperatures in the USA have not been increasing?
Check out the NOAA website. It's your government and tax dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
:laugh: Do you trust George W. Bush?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Fluxes in the carbon cycle mostly (which contribute over a magnitude more of the CO2 than people) - the same thing that has caused it to increase and decrease in a periodice fashion every 100,000 years. Interestingly we happened to reach local maximums of atmoshperic CO2 100,000 years ago, 200,000 years ago, 300,000 years ago, and 400,000 years ago. Looking at the historical trends it would be very surprising if we were not in a high period of CO2. The ice core samples clearly show the periodic nature of the carbon cycle, but many scientists have noted problems in deducing the actual concentration of atmospheric CO2 from these samples. Dr. Jaworski's (a Polish scientist who has studied glaciers for over 40 years) comments below:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
But Dr. Jaworowski says that the ice core-based CO2 estimates are unreliable.
First, ice core-based CO2 estimates vary even more than the 19th century direct measurements, generally ranging from 160 ppm to about 700 ppm with some readings as high as 2,450 ppm. But because the higher estimates are politically incorrect – that is, they don’t support the notion of manmade global warming – Dr. Jaworowski says they haven’t been mentioned in the published scientific literature since the mid-1980s when global warming fever began to spread.
The official “rationale” for ignoring the higher ice core readings is that they supposedly have been “contaminated” by the contemporary atmosphere – but it’s an excuse that actually undermines the validity of all ice cored-based measurements. Ice core data do get contaminated, according to Dr. Jaworowski, but in the opposite direction.
In order for ice core data to be considered reliable, the ice matrix must be a closed system – that is, once air is trapped in ice it should remain unchanged. But Dr. Jaworowski says that glaciers aren’t closed systems. Liquid water is present even in the coldest Antarctic ice (-73 degrees Centigrade).
“More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusion in polar ice,” Dr. Jaworowski told Senators.
The act of drilling for ice core samples further alters the composition of the trapped air. As deep ice is compressed, trapped air bubbles turn into tiny crystals. Drilling decompresses ice cores – causing cracks in the ice and decomposition of the crystals into gases which differentially escape at varying pressures and depths – leading to a net depletion of CO2 in the air trapped in the ice cores, according to Dr. Jaworowski.
“This is why the records of carbon dioxide… in deep polar ice show values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now,” Dr. Jaworowski testified.
If pre-industrial CO2 levels are in fact closer to the directly measured 19th century average of 335 ppm versus the questionably estimated 280 ppm, then human activity would be correlated with a much smaller increase in atmospheric CO2 levels – which only adds to the confusion over global warming.
Mean global temperature appears to have warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit during the 20th Century. About half that warming occurred prior to 1940, while most of the century’s manmade greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940. The global cooling that occurred from 1940 to 1970 – which led some worriers to sound alarms during the mid-1970s about a looming ice age – actually occurred simultaneously with increasing manmade greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr. Jaworowski???????
THANKS FOR THE LAUGH!!!!
Hearing on Global Warming Cancelled after Ice Storm
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
SAVE IT FOR A SUNNY DAY: Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area cancelling screening of Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' because of a snowstorm...
The orbital cycles operate over 100,000, 41,0000, and 22,000 years. First, i don't think mainstream science accepts the notion that the ice core readings have been contaminated or otherwise altered to comform for the AGW crowd. Second, in the previous cycles the CO2 atmospheric concentration peaked at 275 to 300 ppm and it took hundreds of years to climb from levels lower than 200 ppm. Today, atmospheric Co2 is rising between 1.5 to 2.5 ppm a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The idea that the carbon cycles "fluxes" (whatever that means!!!) is not valid. The carbon cycle is very finely balanced system and the amount of carbon we are putting into the cycle is HUGE compared to natural inputs.
For your information, the natural cycle of maximum atmospheric CO2 occurred 11,000 years ago at about 268 ppm.
Sounds to me that Dr. Jawowoski is a buddy of that whacko Oklahoma Senator Inhofe.
Why don't you study some real science instead of believing crackpots and paid hacks? Take a look athe NOAA website. It's your government and tax dollars at work.:icon_wink:
Well, it is the middle of winter. Perhaps you think that global warming means no more winter storms?Quote:
Originally Posted by skilldawg
The question is not if I trust George W. Bush, but if you do?:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I don't think Dr. Jawoworski was claiming the samples have been purposefully contaminated. I think he is suggesting that the AGW people saw something that thought would help their case and ignored some of the issues with the data. You have to seriously misconstrue his analysis to arrive at that point (of course, that is probably what you do when you read most reports of the critics of CGW). He explained why the core samples more than likely reflect lower atmospheric C02 than was actually present. What is wrong with the points he raised? What is your problem with Dr. Jawoworski? His his work not appreciated on RealClimate.org? He is a real scientist, you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Really? Who is the guy except he is a Polish scientist. Where did you get the info? What hearing did he testify before?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The bottom line is that there is no conspiracy among the world's leading scientists to misrepresent the data from the ice cores. The CO2 levels recorded in them are accurate. Why do you accept the analysis of some unknown polish scientist but not that of the world's leading climate experts?
Whether or not you trust George W. Bush, do you trust the NOAA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_JaworowskiQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
also, speaking of consensus, here is a list of several scientists who have not yet "come into line". I think the writers of this wikipedia page are heavily leaning with the consensus, but there are certainly some "experts" who are presenting some contrarian evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ming_consensus
Hmm, not a scientific paper, but at least a referenced read on the taking of CO2 samples.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
http://www.aetherometry.com/global_w...ction_I_6.html
Note the treatment of Figure8 and Figure9, which are referenced from the following:
36. Neftel, A et al (1985) “Evidence from polar ice cores for the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries”, Nature, 315:45.
37. Friedli, H et al (1986) “Ice core record of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries”, Nature, 324:237.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
This link gives the full report, the date of the hearing before the US Senate, and his qualifications.
Again, you are misinterpreting what I said. I did not say there was a conspiracy, just that proponents of AGW lached on to the data without questioning certain assumptions. We certainly can get information about CO2 levels from the cores (he is not saying that you can't). He is just suggesting that the analysis of the proponents of AGW are flawed because it doesn't take into account different things, that if taken into account suggest that CO2 levels were actually higher than what was thought.
I am skeptical of representations made by ALL politicians and political bodies.
Here is the crowd you are running with.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
http://www.aetherometry.com/index.html:D :D
I would not exactly call the NOAA a political body. Anyway, the next time they issue a hurricane evaluation order, just ignore it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
As for your Polish Professor, here is his title: Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Warsaw, Poland
Why don't you question the scientists at Real Climate about this issue? Should make an interesting read.
I assume you mean "evacuation." And I have never waited on them to send the evacuation order. If it looks like it is coming my way, I get the hell out of Dodge.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Salty - I have to hand it to you. You may believe you are with the "consensus" of scientists, but you are not with the consensus of engineers and amateur experts on this board. You are almost single handedly having to swat off the growing swarm of cynics.
Well, digging into the articles...Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
"To calculate the mean age difference between the ice and the enclosed air, and the age distribution width, we have to assume an age of the air in the open pore volume at the transition zone which is connected to the atmosphere by many meters of permeable firn. Assuming that the air is well mixed with the atmosphere in all permeable layers, then the mean difference between the age of the ice and the age of the air entrapped in its bubbles is about equal to the age of the ice at a depth where half of the final amount of air is closed off. For Siple Station the mean age difference obtained this way is 95 yr."
You think that is a good approximation for accurately calculating CO2 content?
I PERSONALLY think this has several significant flaws, just off the top:
1) Permeable vs. impermeable? Are you kidding me? So you have some parts of the ice where the mass transfer coefficient of CO2 is zero, and some places where it is not? It's all the same material? This suggests that we are talking about porosity differences, which might exist and could be much better modeled as a function of depth.
2)The net movement of CO2 would be OUT of the ice due to a deltaP, so artificially aging the air seems stupid
3)They present an argument that air is "well mixed" within "permeable" layers in order to support their dating. This just does not make physical sense, so they are simply bullshitting. It's a transport problem that can be closed. What they are saying is "we really don't see much difference between layers X, Y, and Z." Perhaps an alternate explanation is that the atmosphere is not really changing that much? A SCIENTIFIC way to run that experiment would be to grow layers of ice under widely different atmospheres with independent measurable gases with known mass transfer coefficients in ice. Then, allow "equilibration" and measure those measurable gases within the ice. How low did the gas placed in the upper layers go? How high did the gas in the lower layers go? Now you've got a better transport problem.
4) It assumes that once ice is "impermeable", gas transport stops. Even if you buy that the mass transfer coefficient takes a dive, the layers they are referring to are MUCH OLDER than the ones that are "semipermeable" or "permeable". So at worst the transport occurs on a different timescale, but we're talking about ice that formed over the course of hundreds of years.
5) Doesn't adequately describe the role of water in relation to "pores." Ice exists in equilibrium with water, and that equilibrium is shifted towards water (more dense) at higher pressures (i.e., older ice). Water flows (and has a higher solubility for gases). Closer to the surface, water acts to "cure" pores, which are imperfections in the crystal structure of ice. Ice that is frozen faster will have more grains than ice that is frozen slower. Those pores are critical to the mass transfer assumptions that the scientists are making, but they suggest that the "pores" are static, but changes in local water concentration would probably make that a bad assumption. I find it very hard to believe that it takes 95 years for water to close the pores.
I'm not convinced that it's worse than the group at realclimate.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
What else is new. The other AGW guys have given up, not that I blame them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Summarizing from above in slightly less convoluted form:
The raw ice core data is arbitrarily adjusted by a time correction factor. The problem is complex but could possibly be solved. The data that are the basis of the CO2 numbers from 1700-at least the mid 19th century in the IPCC climate report and others just chooses to make the simplifying assumptions as a matter of convenience. I don't think it's good enough. They divide ice into 2 types - permeable and impermeable. Everything in a "permeable" layer is "well-mixed", and everything in an impermeable layer is static. In actuality, dry CO2 is always moving up (pressure difference), and water is always moving down. Water can also solubilize CO2 (which decreases the freezing point at STP, I should add), and as water moves, CO2 can also move. So does the net flow of CO2 go up or down, and at what rates as a function of ice depth and real differences in atmospheric CO2 with time? I don't know - that's a problem that could be predicted with enough evidence, though. They just don't do the experiments necessary to convince me that the assumptions they make are valid in light of this.
Simply, it's something they don't consider, because I think the data trend the way they would want it to trend (CO2 levels increasing). I am more apt to trust Jawoworski's take on this, if nothing else than because he has specifically considered the transport issues involved in the problem. At least he's not assuming away the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
I want to hear it from YOU! You're always on here ranting about "100%" facts and making absolute statements that GW (BTW, what is "A"GW????) is so certain. I would think that you would have some inkling of how all the various measured temperatures and all the imputed temperatures ( by far the majority of the data) are combined to give a single number!!!!!After all, that single number is what all the hysteria is about!!Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I think you need to slug it out with spinoza.:D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Duck Bill will tell you what the "A" in AGW stands for since he was the first to use it here.
Saltydawg
How would you explain global warming on Mars?
Well, if my family and I lived on Mars, I might be concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by NTXDawg
Since some of you chose to question hard science on this planet, where are all of these temperature readings coming from on Mars? How was this determined?
From Martians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
You should be concerned with truth. IF there is evidence that suggest Mars may be underdoing global warming. And I will readily admint the evidence is preliminary. But if there is evidence, then that would be important to how we study global warming on Earth. We orbit the same star. There are plenty of scientist, with "hard science" that suggest that solar activity as it relates to GW swamps any result that man may have on the environment with CO2 emissions.
Some interesting things going on out in California. They have passed a initiative of sorts that deals with younger forests, which as everyone should know, but unfortunately don't, are much more efficient at photosynthesis than the old forests are. They are promoting younger healthier forests as a way to help combat the green house effect. All the opponents of managing timber on our national forest who want to see "old growth timber" need to think again about that, if they are the enviromentalists they claim to be, or are they really just preservationists. Did I just interject another debate into an already heated one?
come on, salty, ask a relevent question. i have never denied that the level of co2 is rising, or that human activity contributes to it. only that the overall effect of human activity on climate is not nearly as significant as many want to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
salty, these relative newcomers to this thread have yet to find out how frustrating it is to argue with you. the reason being that you either cannot, or will not, take a critical view of any scientific study. if it says what you want it to say, it is gospel. if it opposes your opinion, it was written by hacks and sell-outs. you're good at reciting what you've read, but you have made it obvious over the course of 1000 posts on this thread that you do not understand the science behind the issue.
and here's something to think about: what is it that makes a scientist an "expert"? is a climate "expert" more qualified to analyze the dynamics of ice core gas than a transport expert?
As best as I can remember from my undergraduate days at Tech, it has to do with geothermal water transported via a network of canals.Quote:
Originally Posted by NTXDawg