Interestingly, there was also a decrease in fossil fuel consumption relative to last January, as we had less need to heat our homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
An anthropogenic feedback system?
Printable View
Interestingly, there was also a decrease in fossil fuel consumption relative to last January, as we had less need to heat our homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
An anthropogenic feedback system?
not to mention the fact that the air is not saturated through most of the atmosphere most of the time. so even if reaching the saturation point would slowdown a runaway water greenhouse effect, we're nowhere near that point yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
my post count fast approaches the date of the founding of louisiana Tech.
Here is a rebuttal to the questions he raised in the 1994 article.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
Congrats on the #100 post. The reason why there is not a runaway greenhouse effect with water vapor is because (1) the surface temperature is not that high, (2) there is plenty of water on the planet and (3) the atmospheric pressure turns it into water thereby cooling the temperature. Bascially, the whole system settles into an equilibrium which requires external cooling or heating to change it. As the Earth gets cooler, water vapor goes down and as the earth gets hotter water vapor increases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
C14 is not created by the burning of fossil fuel. C14 gets created in the atmosphere---10 kilograms a year-- and is thus fixed in the carbon of trees and plants by the process of photsynthesis. After millions of years the C14 has decayed naturally into another carbon isotope.
By the way, you guys can't have the ice core data to prove anything if you think it is tainted. So you guys just forget about Co2 cycles of 100k years. LOL!:D
Our criticisms of the ice core data would affect the magnitudes of the peaks and not necessarily the periodic nature of the fluxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Not exactly a strong rebuttal.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Summary of Jaworoski's paper and the blogger's blog - Jaworoski points out unreasonable assumptions made by ice core analysts that cause historical CO2 levels to appear lower than actual. Jaworoski explains some principles that support some of the bases for the lower-than-actual historical CO2 levels. Jaworoski cites some third party researchers who have done some work related to the principals to further his point. Some blogger weakly criticizes "inferences" of the third party research and Jaworoski's character. This blogger seems to miss the forest for the trees. I don't think the indicted inferences are critical to Jaworoski's own expert opinion.
My above summary just shows the weakness in the argument at the logic level (assuming that the blogger is in fact correct). I am sure Randerizer will show up at some point and opine more on the substance of the argument raised by the blogger.
So a negative feedback loop then? CO2 = increase temp = increase water vapor = cooling?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
But if increased water vapor makes it hotter... ah forget it :argue:
I'm not going to dig into the whole thing, but I will address the ONLY discussion in this of the question of water in samples.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
"(3) ” … contains liquid water …”
This is just one of many deceptive statements, delivered in rapid-fire. Jaworowski likes to point to some published result, hint at a problem with measurement of gases in ice cores, and move on quickly. He says:This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to –73oC) contains liquid water[2].Mulvaney, Wolff and Oates were reporting on concentrations of H2SO4 in extremely tiny volumes at the boundaries between ice crystals. Many of Jaworowski’s claims reveal a lack of understanding of the relevant chemistry, but it is unlikely that even he believes that significant quantities of CO2 are dissolved in these interstitial volumes."
I think there is NO ANSWER in this, except to say that "Jaworowski does not know what he is talking about." As proven by the CNN article I just posted earlier, there is a significant flow of water through the ice sheets, into a series of huge lakes under antarctica. This water can dissolve CO2 and wash it out of the ice. Hence, it is inherently NOT a closed system. Moreover, this suggests that ice core CO2 levels should be expected to UNDERESTIMATE actual atmospheric CO2 levels.
You think that there is no exchange of molecules between ice crystals and liquid water flowing past them? Yet you point out vapor-liquid equilibrium theory to explain that the atmosphere is saturated with water vapor? Solids and liquids of the same compound (or different compounds, for that matter) exist in a state of equilibrium as well. There is a continuous melting and reforming of ice crystals in contact with water. If given infinite time, the crystallinity will tend to exclude imperfections (i.e., CO2), which provides an additional mechanism to kick the CO2 out of the ice sample.
Out of curiosity, is ANYONE besides salty confused about these statements? Am I alone in thinking that they have not been adequately answered?
Didn't say it was created by the burning of fossil fuel - I'm suggesting that it's already present in the fossil fuel in at least trace amounts from the last time that carbon was in touch with the atmosphere. Here's a good question for you, as you are obviously scientifically minded - if the half life of C14 is 5370 years, how long before 100% of the C14 has been converted into nitrogen? :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
But actually, I'm not so sure that the burning of fossil fuels cannot create C14. It's an energy bombardment that we're talking about. I'm quite sure that the energies involved in combustion are substantially less than the radiative energies seen in the atmosphere, but I'd have to do a little more research to convince myself that no C12 can be converted to C14 under combustive conditions.
^^ right on que (or is it "cue").
What peaks??? What fluxes??? If the data is bad, it's bad. You can't have you cake and eat it too!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I'm not sure jaworoski is an expert on the ice cores. It takes more than one article to make one an expert, especially if one's area of expertise is in another field. You guys have some more experts that support Jaworoski's claims that the ice core date is bad, or is he the lone wolf out there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Actually Jaworoski's claim to fame is that he claims that the Earth is headed for another ice age!:icon_roll:
The exactly the kind of guy I would want to put on the witness stand..
Exactly the kind of misleading, oversimplified, and incorrect argument I would expect out of an Al Gore disciple.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Spring practices need to begin soon. I am starting to get a bruise on my forehead from the time spent on the Paw-litics boards.
I'm not a Al Gore disciple. But you claim the ice core results are not accurate and then you try to use them. What going on with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You make it sound like I have said that the "measured" data is worthless. It is the analysis and conclusion that is wrong. As Randerizer has pointed out it doesn't take into account the transport processes at play. All of the CO2 does not get locked into the layers, over time the CO2 (1) gets transported out through aqueous water (2) gets rejected out by the crystalization processes. That doesn't mean that measured carbon data is not relatively more concentrated in ice layers that were exposed to higher atomspheric CO2 levels (I guess it is possible, but I am not sure if anyone is suggesting that - Randerizer is this possible? I would guess there would be some constraints such as Fick's law.). What we do know is that some CO2 got leached out by these transport processes and the analysts apparantly did not take this into account. In this case, the periodic flux should still be apparent in the results, but the magnitude of the levels are likely to be off because the older ice has lost more CO2 via transport processes than the newer ice. There is likely other evidence of periodice ice age/warming than just the ice core data.
Sorry, but no matter how hard you try to spin you web of half-baked ideas, the end result is the same. Massive amount of CO2 is being dumped into the atmosphere which is slowly raising the CO2 levels in oceans, biota, and atmosphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Saying that the current situation is natural is absurd.
You are young so I suggest that you just watch and learn. During the next 30 years you will get a real lesson in climate science.
That is correct. In a perfectly mixed system, one would expect ALL CO2 levels to be the same throughout the cores. As an aside, this is what I was referring to earlier when I was saying they artificially date CO2 levels by some time, approximately 90 years. Presumably, there is a point when the change in the diffusion coefficient with depth becomes pretty steep. At that point, we have a system that is more "locked in place" than it is "mobile," but it should not be treated as exclusively "locked in place"Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
But the average diffusion coefficient is presumably pretty small. After all, we're talking about frozen gas crystals, and cold ice in equilibrium with a relatively small amount of water. Noone is saying that antarctica is 75% water, for example - there's still a lot of ice for a relatively small equilibrium amount of water to get through. I am suggesting that there is water present, and that water will tend to wash away CO2 from the ice with time. The time scales at which this water process take place are presumably pretty slow and vary with depth, but we're also talking about fairly long time scales. Only an irrational scientist would ignore this, salty... I should add, I was indifferent at the beginning of this discussion - I am no longer arguing for the sake of arguing; I think this is a serious flaw in the QUANTIFICATION of ice core samples. QUALITATIVELY, the ice core samples do clearly have some values, as they do show a trend that overcomes the experimental uncertainties, namely the fluctuation in atmospheric carbon on the time period of hundreds of thousands of years.
For reference, a simple representation of diffusion (Ficks Law) holds that the mass flux of one species (CO2) through another (water/ice) is directly proportional to both the diffusion coefficient (which is fairly small) and the concentration gradient. If the diffusion coefficient DOMINATES, one would expect to see negligible differences in concentration between samples starting at widely different initial concentrations at long times. That is, the entire sample would look roughly homogenous. But if the diffusion coefficient is small, one would still expect to see differences in ice core CO2 concentration with initial concentration. The initial concentrations would not be the same as the final concentrations (in other words, those that we measure), but there still could be qualitative differences throughout the system.
Even bad data can sometimes tell you something.
And you are old relative to the scale of normal climate fluctuations?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
In the NOAA article I posted it said, and I quote and highlight:
"During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32 degrees F (0.18 degrees C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere."
Well, thats scary enough but imagine what the next increase may be like!?!?
Do you guys think the Chinese are going to slowdown their oil/energy driven economy anytime soon? Not a chance.
So, as has been suggested by most scientists, its not a matter of how much of an increase in the relative short-term(30 yrs), its really a question of what multiple of the current increase.
Wake up people.
Reading the weather report does not convince ME of the CAUSE of the climate change. At the present time, and given the evidence that has been presented regarding this causality, it takes a PRECONCEIVED notion that we are doing something wrong to make that step. This is the fundamental difference in this debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Have you been following this conversation? We have discussed how the warming is not the result of anthropogenic CO2 - the increase levels are due the natural carbon cycle. We have very little impact on anything. Plus, we don't even know there will be severe impacts if it does continue to warm.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Whatever Mr Clueless. Ive got at least a few better things to do than read your take on this subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Yeah, just watch Al Gore's movie. He is definitely trustworthy, and you can get all the info you need on the subject from it. :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Another references to support these notions, with independent tracer experiments in greenland ice cores as a test:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 107, NO. B12, 2330, doi:10.1029/2002JB001857, 2002; Anomalous diffusion of multiple impurity species: Predicted implications for the ice core climate records
Alan W. Rempel, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA;J. S. Wettlaufer,Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Edwin D. Waddington, Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 108, NO. D3, 4126, doi:10.1029/2002JD002538, 2003; Evolution of chemical peak shapes in the Dome C, Antarctica, ice core, P. R. F. Barnes; British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK;E. W. Wolff,British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK;H. M. Mader,Department of Earth Sciences, Bristol, UK;R. Udisti,Department of Public Health and Environmental Analytical Chemistry, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; E. Castellano, Department of Public Health and Environmental Analytical Chemistry, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
R. Röthlisberger,British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK
Geophysical Research Abstracts, V7, 10540, 2005 "The GRIP ice core isotopic excess diffusion explained; S.J. Johnson, B.M. Vinther, H.B. Clausen; T.T. Creyts, I. Seierstad; A. Sveinbjornsdottir
This is CERTAINLY NOT the idea of just one scientist - I think I'd say that just ONE SCIENTIST has the BALLS to use an obvious problem to criticize a community that is supported politically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Ahh, wonderful memories of Dr. Lorhenz telling stories about getting drunk with famous engineers.:sleeping3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And just for fun (and to link the unreliability of some sorts of computer modeling with football) -
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...erbrook/070213
About halfway down he talks about hurricanes. I know this isn't directly tied to global warming (or is it? I know some think we'll see more hurricanes), but the random comments about football in this thread made me look for any reason to bring some in.
God rest his soul.Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
Altadawg is the person who started this thread. :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Normal climate fluctuations can take place in short time periods, like 10 to 30 years. The climate is a beasty animal and we are poking it with sticks. Don't be surprised if it bites you on your ass in the next 30 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Look, randerizer, the reason that we are having this argument has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the fact that you just don't like the political or economic implications of the science. If you didn't like the political implications of quantum field theory, you would be challenging it too. However, if you are like most people, you are willing to accept scientific authority to a large extent as long as it doesn't conflict with strongly-held religious or political beliefs or economic self-interest. If it does, you adopt a new higher standard of having to have the scientists convince you that they are right even without any real attempt to obtain the background to understand their evidence and arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
OK, Mr. Clueless, ignore what the world's leading climate scientists are telling you. Listen to the crack-pots and scientists turned hacks. In 30 years you will be singing a different tune.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Gonzo, check out this site. You might like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GonzoDawg
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/forcing.html
People that believe in AGW make me laugh. By the way, I have some property that you and AltaDawg might be interested in. It is in the Arizona desert, but with the rising sea levels caused by AGW it will be beach-front property in the very near future. It is yours for a very reasonable 100k per acre. I also have a few bottles of Kabbalah water that will heal all your ailments. I will sell it to you for a very reasonable 100 bucks a bottle.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I know that. But that doesn't mean he has been "following" it. Altadawg's comment seemed out of place considering what we had been discussing for the previous 20 posts or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
No doubt, very interesting. I just thought it might be interesting as well to add to the debate that not all effects of global warming are bad. I know that some will say we are headed to destruction, but during this period and in that region a least the effects did have some positives.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I agree. Unfortunately, the continued rise of CO2, while not objectionable now, is getting out of our control. in short, when that beasty creature called climate changes from sleeping to growling, there won't be much we can do.:bigcry:Quote:
Originally Posted by GonzoDawg
I have previoulsy used numbers like 7.5 gigatons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere on a yearly basis. That's an old number from 1997. Today. the number is probably closer to 9 or 10 gigatons. By 2020, it could well be 14 or 15 gigatons a year. Not only that, but there is a big risk that the portion of the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels that is current going into the biota might stop or slow down, thereby increasing the amount going into the atmosphere.
We are moving into uncharted coastal waters. WE know that the average global temperature is going to rise for the rest of this century and the next, but how the climate is going to handle that increased temperature is unknown.
If we knew our current climate would remain the same but only warmer, that wouldn't be so bad but we don't know that. There could be major shifts in rainfall amounts and temperatures on a regional basis.
I'm late to reply in this, but I'll say one more post and then hopefully not come back to this thread.
First, as I mentioned before, I was not a skeptic, but only indifferent at the start of this discussion. I had not really taken the time to look at the evidence presented in support of the global warming theories that have gained so much "consensus" support in the past 10 years. I have always understood the politics of science, particularly the values of "threat construction" for the gaining and maintenance of funding/job security. But I have also known that there is this "consensus" of "experts" who state that global warming is occuring, that this global warming is the result of human activities, and that this global warming threatens our society.
But to rely on "consensus" alone is the worst scientific reasoning I've ever been heard. I believe that Newton, Galileo, etc. had to fight against a "scientific consensus" as well. Who was right in the end? More recently, I have also been challenged in my own research endeavors by experts (Nobel Laureates, etc.) who state absolutely that X result will happen if Y stimulus is applied. But no matter how many times I do the experiment X does not happen. Why? Because the "experts" jumped to a conclusion without considering Z. I know you are not interested in polymer physics, which is the field in which the particular case has come up, but anyone with any experience in experimental work should be able to relate similar stories. Anyway, my point is that "experts" are certainly not infallible, even if they are being faithful to their scientific pursuits. And the fact that many "experts" are all wrong is certainly not unheard of in our world. I like to exercise my own rationality to assess the validity of scientific theories.
I understand the concepts involved in the greenhouse effect, and I believe that science is fairly valid. I have yet to see solid evidence that a relatively small change in the total atmospheric concentration of a relatively small contributor to the overall greenhouse effect is enough to push our temperatures to the point that X,Y, and Z happen. I'm not going to say that it WON'T happen, but I'm not convinced, and my natural inclination is to say it is unlikely. But you see, I am not the kind of scientist that relies on "models" or "predictions". Very few Ph.D. level scientists are both experimentalists and theoretical modelers. I'd say with 99% certainty that NO scientist is at the top of his or her field in BOTH areas. If I see experiments on a small scale that reasonably approximate our natural system, I'd be much more convinced. Of course, if you've been reading ANY of my posts, you'd understand that this is not where I am arguing the global warming science. Others are, but for the most part, I'm generally silent on this issue.
But I do have a strong background in the concept of mass balances (which relates to the carbon cycle), thermodynamics of vapor-liquid, solid-liquid, etc., mass transfer, etc.. So I try to apply my areas of "expertise" to a limited but very important piece of global warming data. I do not see ANY answers in the scientific communities to the questions posed in this area. I see a plethora of EXPERIMENTS run by others demonstrating that (1) water flows even in deep ice sheets, and that (2) these water flows contribute to transport of various metals, organics, and gases OUT of the ice sheets. Despite these FACTS, global warming theorists continue to treat the concentrations of CO2 determined from ice core samples as ABSOLUTE rather than RELATIVE concentrations. RELATIVE concentrations would enable scientists to better understand the carbon cycle (which Salty obviously makes no effort to do). ABSOLUTE concentrations would enable one to compare previous times with our current CO2 levels. Why has this knowledge, which is very much supported by THEORY and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS, not been considered by the global warming theory? I believe the 2 reasons why it hasn't are that (1) most of the "experts" in the field are modellers, not experimentalists, so they don't catch the significance of the questions posed and (2) politically and socially, the "experts" already have so much at stake in their pursuits that they are not willing to abandon something so critical to the rest of their case.
For what it's worth, I think all politicians are silly. But I do not think that the democrats that push global warming theory are any worse than the republicans push on the war. I have no plan to work in big oil and do not feel that my long-term economic self-interest is any more damaged by the politics of global warming than the economic self-interest of all of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Thanks for that long post. Just 2 brief comments. First, ice core readings are not necessary for concluding that rising atmospheric co2 levels will lead to increase average global temperatures. Second, the amount of CO2 we are dumping in the atmosphere is not a "relatively small change in the total atmospheric concentration of a relatively small contributor to the overall greenhouse effect." It's a big increase and its getting bigger. CO2 does not degrade in the environment by chemical or physical processes.
Keep an open mind and keep reading the latest science on the subject.
you mean like the chemical process by which co2 is converted to o2 and plant mass? i can't believe all this time i have been falling for the myth of photosynthesis!Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
or by dissolution into water and forming carbonic acid?Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
good point. i was just thinking about the CO2 that doesn't go into photosynthesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
But isn't it true that even in photosynthesis the CO2 is fixed into the wood and then later when the wood burns or decomposes the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere?
CO2 dissolved in water is still CO2. It is released from the water by wind and waves. But you bring up a very good point, that the world's oceans are becoming more acidic because of the burning of fossil fuels. The future of the world's oceans are not looking very pretty at this point in time because the increase in acidity is killing coral reefs around the world. The acidity is rising so rapidly that the coral can't evolve fast enough to adapt to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Wrong. The CO2 combines with water to create a sugar molecule and oxygen.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Wrong again.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Ok, but the sugar molecule combines with oxygen later during the burning or decomposing process to create CO2.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
CO2 + H2O http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/se...oublearrow.gif H2CO3Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
H2O + C02 -> H2CO3 (carbonic acid)Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
the pH of oceanic water has decreased by 0.1 in the last 100 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
There is no proof anywhere that it is due to CO2.
Yes, that's part of the carbon cycle you (incorrectly) keep referencing. Any form of carbon, when combusted in the presence of oxygen, will yield CO2 (and CO for that matter).Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
To clarify, if my arguments are true, whatever results will happen from global warming are an inevitable part of the carbon cycle. Ice core readings are not necessary to prove that the greenhouse effect is a real thing or that increased CO2 levels will lead to more global warming. But they are very important, at least at the present time, in showing that the CO2 that is in the atmosphere is really above the baseline levels that we would otherwise expect at this point in the carbon cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
"CO2 does not degrade in the environment by chemical or physical processes." - these are the kinds of blanket statements that make "experts" wrong all of the time. The statement is an attempt to simplify a problem when there are too many factors to consider. BTW, this is the same kind of simplification that the Nobel Laureate I was referring to earlier used with respect to the specific field I am in - and he was WRONG in that instance.
When you make statements like this you break your own case.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Yes, there are normal climate fluctuations. Ice core samples prove that. They can occur over short and long periods of time.
The climate is "beasty". We are "poking it with sticks", Especially with the models that are used to predict what will occur tomorrowm next week, bext month, next year, by the end of the century. The further you get away from today, the further in error your model is.
Yes, I will be surprised if it bites me in the ass in thirty years. What I won't be surprised by is that the climate will stabilize and turn cooler, part of the natural climate cycle. However, people like you will claim that it is because there was a reduction in CO2 emissions (even though global Co2 emissions are likely to be higher thirty years from now).
Since Kyoto was signed in 1997, how many major producers have reduced their CO2 emissions (I think the answer is 1)?
Since 1997, of the major producers, what country had the smallest increase (USA?)?
What country, which is not regulated by the stricter guidleines of Kyoto, will soon pass the US in CO2 emissions? China
I'm hoping that all your "sky is falling buddies" will start dumping their beach property soon so that it will deflate the property values on the coast. I (and many others) will be more than happy to pick up those soon to be underwater properties at a mere fraction of their current values.
30 years from now, I'll be having a party on one of those (still dry) properties, laughing all the way to the bank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Great argument there Alta. You call somebody clueless in the same line that you refuse to read anything that offers an opinion contradictory to your own.
The reason we are having this argument is because you (and many others) ARE neglecting the science. I promise you that if the science was there to support the theory that man is what is causing the recent increase in global temperatures, I would be vehemently arguing that we should do something.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I (nor is Randerizer or Guisslapp, et. al.) are like most people. We're not sheep. We're not going to blindly follow what any supposed scientific body says (i.e., IPCC), especially something that has been as highly politicized as global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Great way of making your point there Salty. Weren't you the one chastising someone for calling names (something along the lines of saying that it is typical of right wingers to start throwing around names when they are losing an argument)?
Many of those "world leading climate scientists" you keep referencing are crack-pots and hacks. Their bread is buttered by global warming hyteria; i.e., no global warming hysteria= no grants = no job.
There are many "world leading scientists" that say that global warming is occuring, but disagree that man is the cause.
I'll be waiting for your "but the latest IPCC release" response.
and one more thing, if (whoever you are) that wants to red dot me, please do so, but at least have the guts to sign them. (FYI they wound up being grey dots)
If you don't like what I'm saying, good. At least hop in the thread and give Salty a little back up rather than lurking in the shadows.
Oh my goodness, 17,000+ scientists and professionals that disagree that global warming is caused by humans burning hydrocarbons.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
The audacity of these crack-potted hacks.
This is one of the few statements you've made that I can actually agree with (yes, I know I ended the sentence with a preposition). Yes, the rise of CO2 is out of control. Just as the decreases in CO2 are out of our control. It is a natural phenomena. Man cannot control it.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Even your friends in the IPCC say that if we reduced man-made CO2 emissions today, we would see little affect.
You continue to use absolute statements that you can't back up scientificaly. We do not know that global temperature will rise for rest of the century. None of the models are accurate enough to accurately predict what will happen tomorrow, much less 100 years from now.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
And we don't know if there will be NO major shifts in rainfall, hurricanes, droughts, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I heard that you can buy some land down in Gulfport for a pretty good price.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
The Kyoto agreement is old news and needs to be re-done because it is so old.
The USA is the largest producer of CO2 so naturally it would have the lowest percentage increase. India and China need to control their CO2 emissions.
The models are not perfect and are probably on the conservative side. The Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than was forecasted by the models. As time progresses, the models will improve. Most of the model deal with the effects of the temperature rising. We know the temperature is going to rise because of atmospheric physics but we don't know how fast or to what degree since climate change is a multifactorial process and there are a number of unknows such as cloud cover changes.
i said climate can change rather rapidly. Many of the ice ages started suddenly. Of course, climate change in a region can be slow processes as well.
CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to rise through this century and into the next even if we stop all burning of fossil fuel today.
What will the climate be in 30 years? Can't really say in a particular region of the world. All we can say is that the average global temperture will be higher. Some areas could be very much colder and others very much hotter. Other areas near the equator might not change at all.
From Scientific American:Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Many conservatives regard the "scientific consensus" about global warming as a media concoction. After all, didn't 17,100 skeptical scientists sign a petition circulated in 1998 by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? (See www.oism.org/pproject and www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html on the World Wide Web.)
Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community
Tell ya what, you people are nuts. This thread is starting to rival the Best Thread Ever in its length. If you're gonna talk about the world warming up, that means women can wear less clothes, so bring up some pics!
Salty.......Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You are full of BS!!!! You have no qualifications to say that the "models.........are probably on the conservative side." You cherry pick, then cut and paste so much of this crap that you start believing you have some expertise in this area, which you obviously don't!!
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...id-oceans.html
Bill, always good to hear your sincere opinion.:D However, the climate models under-estimated the amount of glacier melting on Greenland. Now, whether it was because the models were conservative or some other factor i don't know. Since you feel you know so much on this topic why don't you tell me why the models did not predict the more rapid rate of Glacier melting on Greenland?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Umm, tell me you know SOMETHING about pH and acidity. Or maybe you really NEVER had a class in the physical sciences.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I should add - I actually agree that pH shifts in the ocean are much more likely to have a major impact than the global warming effects that you are talking about - that is, CO2 would probably change the pH of oceans BEFORE it contributes enough as a greenhouse gas to cause the drastic global climate changes we hear about. But there is some buffering capacity of the oceans, and I'm not really sure that the pH will ever dip to a point that it will be corrosive to the majority of sealife. Frankly, freshwater systems seem much more likely to be affected.
However, until someone overcomes the whole inevitability argument that I have posed about 20 times now, the discussion is pointless. Further, if the CO2 levels have been anywhere near what they are now (which I currently believe to be the case), and sealife survived (there is certainly sea-life that is closely related to species that existed 100k years ago), then I don't buy the talk of catastrophe.
Moving on...
yes, we are all NUTS! Take a peek at Debbie, who thinks that there is nothing wrong with global warming. Photos taken near Anchorage, AK.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
http://www.absolute-bikini.com/debbie.htm
Yes, that non-biased bastion of credibility SA.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
These numbers make no sense. First, a "random" sampling of 30 of a pool of 17,000 signatures is statistically insignificant. There is some obvious bias in how they picked their pool. Why only contact the ones who had PhD's? Apparentally, having an MD, an MS, a BS, a BA, etc.. don't qualify for being considered "qualified"? BS alright.
But let's take the numbers. Of the 30:
4 were not located
5 did not respond
3 "did not remember" the petition
1 was dead
6 would not sign the petition
11 would still sign the petition, according to SA,
1 was an active researcher,
2 had relevent experience (based on SA's non-biased evaluation)
8 signed based on informal evaluation
To get to the "crude" 200, SA either had to extrapolate 200 vs. 17000 or 200 vs. 1400. It look like what they did was:
1. Used only PhD as their basis.
2. Used a ratio of 3 divided ~ 21, multiplied by 1400 to get to the "200 climate researchers"
There are multiple issues with this.
1. Of the original sampling of 30, only 17 responded yay or nay.
2. What about the non-PhD researchers? Assuming that only persons with PhD's are "real" climate researchers is ludicrous.
3. The denominator in their ratio appears to be reduced by the 4 they could not locate and the 5 that did not respond. It should also have been reduced by the 3 that did not remember and the one that was dead.
4. The 6 that said they would not sign the petition were not interviewed to see if they were "real" climate rearchers. Let's assume the ratio for them is the same as the positive
responders; i.e., 3/21*6 or just less than 1 was a "real" climate researcher.
5. There is no explanation for why the 6 that would not sign again would not do so. Just because they would not sign the petioin does not mean that they have changed their viewpoint. For the numbers below though, I'll include them as if they've changed their stance.
Thus, let's correct the numbers a bit. Of the PhD pool: 3 "real" researchers of the 17 positive respondents would still sign the petition.
3/17*1400 = 247 PhD degreed climate rearchers disagree that global warming is man-made and signed the petition
Assuming the same ratio of climate researchers in the rest of the pool, 3/17*17000 = 3000 climate researchers disagree that global warming is man made and signed the petition.
This pool is based ONLY on people who heard of and decided to sign the petition.
3000 is a pretty large number. How many degreed climate researchers are there?
"inevitability argument"???? Maybe the 21st time will be the ticket.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
You need to read the NG article again.
Another one of these scientific things you don't understand. I stand by my statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Inevitable because of the natural carbon cycle... See the debate over quantification of ice core data and what it means to the big picture GW debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Which model are you referencing that specifically predicts glacier melting in Greenland?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Come on, Dogtor, would you be impressed if 270,000 climate scientists and professionals signed a petition saying AGW is a real threat to our environment? Heck, about 2,700,000?Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Some background on the skeptics organizations: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...nizations.html
Debbie is a true field scientist.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Not a great argument there. The countries that signed Kyoto were supposed to be reducing their CO2 emissions. Overall, they didn't. Only a couple did. Overall, the US has reduced it's rate of CO2 increase better than those that signed Kyoto.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
As of 2004 data, the USA is the largest producer of man-made CO2. At the rate China is increasing, they may surpass the US this year.
You are the one that keeps using broad statements that there are only a handful of climate scientists and professionals that disagree that global warming is a result of fossil fuel burning by man. And you repeatedly say that those that disagree are hacks or crazy. You are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I would sign a petition saying AGW is a real threat to our environment. It's such a broad statement. You're damned right a 100 deg C in AGW would be a bitch. Noone can prove what a 1-3 deg increase in AGW will do to the environment. They can speculate, but they can't prove it.
The AGW in my office just went up a few degrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I agree with Bill on this one. You have real no basis for making a claim that the models are probably on the conservative side. A model is just that. A model. GIGO. There is also something called modelller bias that can come into play.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
And as you admit, a global climate model is multi-factorial and there are a number unknowns (cloud cover, ocean cycles, volcanic cycles, etc.). That's why the models are interesting predictions, but wholly scientifically inaccurate.
Another absolute statement that you can't back up. Today, the planet could start the process of cooling and we could could go into another Ice Age (we're overdue) just like it has done throughout natural history. Along with this decrease in temperature, you'd see the corresponding delayed decrease in CO2 (because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has consistently FOLLOWED temperature, not vice versa).Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You're the one that keeps making the statements re. "in thirty years".Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You can say the AWG will be higher. You can predict it. You can't prove it.
You're using the UCS as a basis for determing the un-biased credibility of another organization? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You can predict the Sun will come up in the morning but you can't prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
in the previous ice ages, CO2 went down because of the lower temperatures and lower solar radiation hitting the north hemisphere. Today, we are burning fossil fuels so CO2 levels would not go down very quickly.
one cycle is natural and the other is un-natural.
No, but you did NOT refute their statements about the skeptics organizations and their funding by fossil fuel companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Based on many, many years of very reliable, predictable data, tomorrow's sunrise can be predicted within less than a one minute accuracy.
so your finally admitting that CO2 in the atmosphere followa temperatureQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Another absolute statement with nothing to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Why do I need to refute anything? There is nothing there that says that OISM is backed by fossil fuel companies. From the Site:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.
Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.
Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.
Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz
You should go visit a triathlon website I used to frequent. The general section of that forum is filled with GW stuff. Much more intense and educational than this. I must say, however, that our skeptics here can make much better arguement over those there that reguritate inane nonsense from what they have heard on the Rush Liimbaugh show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
I was intrigued until the Rush Limbaugh thing. I hear plenty of that here in Ruston without going looking for it. :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
I lived overseas for a few years in the late 90s, and one of the things that I was most surprised by when I got back was that he was still on the air. The other big surprise was that the Falcons and the Buccaneers actually had competitive football teams.
Updated 7:15 AM on Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Scientist says public gets global warming
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO - A top scientist in the study of climate change says she is optimistic about public understanding of the dangers of global warming.
"I'm incredibly encouraged," Susan Solomon beamed after speaking to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Solomon, a scientist at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was instrumental in developing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released earlier this month in Paris.
That report reaffirmed ongoing global warming, said it is 90 percent likely to have been caused by human activity and added changes in rain and snowfall to the hotter climate expected with continuing change.
"Evidence of climate change is now unequivocal," she said.
Changes already under way will require adaptation in the short term, Solomon said, while efforts to reduce or reverse change will only occur on a long term.
"I am personally an optimist" about increased governmental and public understanding of the problem, Solomon said.
But, she added, "It is complicated. You can't see it, you can't smell it, you can't taste it."
She likened understanding of global warming to that of the ozone hole a few years ago. Once scientists were able to tell the story clearly, the public understood it, she said. Now science is on the same track with climate change.
Global warming has seen the planet's average temperature rise by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, largely due to the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
"We are forcing the climate system in a new way, outstripping the sun," Solomon said.
Overall there are more warm nights and fewer cold ones, a change that affects crops and animals as well as people.
Detecting change can be difficult in one place, she said, because local changes one way or the other can vary widely from the average changes around the world.
"It requires you to think beyond your own back yard," she said.
Solomon discussed the climate change reported so far, noting that further studies due out in the spring will address the effects of the change and what actions could be taken to reduce those effects or slow or reverse change.
So now you expect the public opinion on global warming should affect my personal judgements as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I really don't care. I do care about public opinion because their support will be necessary to make the changes necessary to reduce the dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere..Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
your first credible comment of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Out of curiosity, how many of the world's "experts" that currently support the notion of AGW would need to change their minds before you even began to question?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
If Dawgbitten and Altadawg changed their minds about AGW, I would consider their arguments very carefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
As for climate scientists changing their minds, they would have to present their reasons for doing so. In that regard, absolute numbers would not be as important as the soundness of their reasoning.
So the fact that I, a scientist, have gone from indifferent to very skeptical, and I have presented sound scientific reasons, does not even lead you to delve into those reasons?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I didn't know that you were a climate scientist. Does Dawgbitten and Altadawg know this?Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
BTW, my sister has a Ph.D. in microbiology from Boston University. She first learned of AGW in 1988 and didn't think it wa credible at that time. In 1998, she changed her mind and thinks that AGW is taking place. She is tenured professor at Goucher College in Baltimore.
What scientific field did you get your Ph.D.?
I've posted an article before that describes the general knowledge area of microbiologists relavent to the global warming debate. Generally, there is no background in a microbiology education for the broad understanding of mass transport, thermodynamics, etc. required to understand the carbon cycle or the reading of ice core samples. There is certainly valuable information in the field of microbiology with respect to the role of climate change on specific biological systems, but I seriously doubt there is the background from that field to establish the CAUSE of the climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
How about you? Because right now all I have read is some unknown education trying to tell chemical engineers they need to read a text book or read some more info on the subject. I don't intend to dive into this topic with you (not enough time with finals this week) but please tell me why anyone one here should listen to you when half your posts are "you need to read X article again."Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
The Cardinal has me convinced. It is all just hysteria. Nothing to see here. Just move along.
Sunday Telegraph (Australia)
Keeping a cool head amid warming hysteria
By CARDINAL GEORGE PELL
Opinion / Op Ed; Pg. 81
February 18, 2007 Global-warming doomsayers were out and about in a big way recently, but the rain came in central Queensland, then here in Sydney.
January also was unusually cool.
We have been subjected to a lot of nonsense about climate disasters, as some zealots have been presenting extreme scenarios to frighten us.
They claim ocean levels are about to rise spectacularly, there could be the occasional tsunami as high as an eight-storey building, and the Amazon Basin could be destroyed as the ice cap in the Arctic and Greenland melts.
An overseas magazine called for Nuremberg-style trials for global-warming sceptics, and a US television correspondent compared sceptics to ''Holocaust deniers''.
A local newspaper editorial's complaint about the doomsayers' religious enthusiasm is unfair to mainstream Christianity.
Christians don't go against reason, although we sometimes go beyond it in faith to embrace the probabilities.
What we were seeing from the doomsayers was an induced dose of mild hysteria -- semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition.
I'm deeply sceptical about man-made catastrophic global warming, but still open to further evidence.
I would be surprised if industrial pollution and carbon emissions had no ill-effects at all.
But enough is enough.
A few fixed points may provide light on the subject.
We know that enormous climate changes have occurred in world history -- for example, the ice ages and Noah's flood, when human causation could only have been negligible.
Nor should it be too surprising to learn that during the past 100 years, the media has alternated between promoting fear of anew ice age and fear of global warming.
Terrible droughts are not infrequent in Australian history, sometimes lasting seven or eight years.
We all know that a cool January doesn't mean much in the long run.
But neither does evidence based on only a few years.
Scaremongers have used temperature fluctuations over limited periods and in a few places to misrepresent longer patterns.
Warming evidence is mixed and often exaggerated but can be reassuring.
Global warming has been increasing constantly since 1975 at the rate of less than one-fifth of a degree
Celsius per decade.
The concentration of carbon dioxide increased surface temperatures more in winter than in summer, especially in mid and high latitudes over land, while there was a global cooling of the stratosphere.
Britain's University of East Anglia climate research unit found global temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2005, and a NASA satellite recently found the southern hemisphere had not warmed in the past 25 years.
Is mild global warming a northern phenomenon?
We may have been alarmed by the sighting of an iceberg as large as an aircraft carrier off Dunedin, but we should be consoled by the news that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing there.
The science is certainly more complicated than the propaganda.