Global Warming: Additional Information People Need

80 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sven Sven's picture
Global Warming: Additional Information People Need

 

Sven Sven's picture

It strikes me that most reports about global warming focus nearly exclusively on things like the melting polar ice caps, danger to polar bears, rising sea levels, etc. In other words, most reports focus only the [b][i]damage[/b][/i] that global warming is causing.

But, that’s only half of the picture.

The other half of the picture is what citizens must do, and the consequences they must bear, in order to drive CO2 omissions substantially downward.

Now, [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120934459094348617.html?mod=opinion_main... piece[/url] is admittedly written by someone who is skeptical about global warming. But, I’d like to see more pieces written by those who are not global warming skeptics which discuss the consequences to individuals of drastic CO2 reductions. In other words, if we are to achieve an 80% reduction in CO2 production by 2050, what would life really be like? If a person had a hot water heater, would that person literally not be able to run any other appliances, from personal computers and stereos to “refrigerators, microwaves, clothes dryers and flat screen TVs”?

It seems to me that if we are going to have an intelligent public discussion about this issue, all aspects of the issue need to be understood and discussed (both the dangers of global warming and the real-life consequences of avoiding it).

The way the current discussion is often framed, it seems to me that most people likely believe that the government can simply pass laws and the matter will magically disappear...without any burden falling on individuals. The fact is that each person’s life would have to be drastically different than it is today.

[ 28 April 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

Sven Sven's picture

Another observation:

For those who understand that global warming is a serious issue, it behooves them to accurately articulate what the consequences will be to individuals if CO2 production is to be decreased by 80% by 2050. If proponents of action leave that discussion to global warming skeptics, then the skeptics will have a free hand to completely frame the discussion in terms favorable to them.

Policywonk

Try reading [url=http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/11/07/heat/]Heat[/url] by George Monbiot or check out his website. The costs and benefits of taking action should be weighed against those of not taking action.

Trevormkidd

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
In other words, if we are to achieve an 80% reduction in CO2 production by 2050, what would life really be like?

Who knows what life would be like. It depends on what kinds of choices we make. For instance per capita France's emissions are a fraction of the US'. Is their life much different? Of course France gets most of their power from nuclear energy - the great "evil" which can never even be discussed in most environmental circles here. Interestingly Mother Jones has an article on nuclear power in their current edition where I quote:

quote:

Can nuclear power really rescue our warming planet? And if you answered quickly, answer this too: Are you for or against because you know the science, or because someone said you should be?

In the article you quote the author writes dismissively that even if every vehicle in 2050 was a Toyota Prius we would still be 40% above the 80% reduction target for that sector. But so what. A single company devouting a small percent of their research budget into fuel efficient vehicles produced a vehicle that could - in regards to that sector of our energy use - get us half way there.

Are major changes needed? Yes, but life today is way different from life 40 years ago. I know lots of people who recognize the scale of problem that global warming represents and who have made significant changes in their own lives without much difficulty considering that our government and businesses don't make it easy.

On the other hand it is hard to think of people who have recognized the severity of the issue and challenged their world view. It seems when any crisis comes along, it only confirms to most people that their long held political ideology is the only way to solve the problem. Is global warming a serious problem? Most people would say yes. Is global warming a serious enough problem that you have to question the way you live? Most people would say yes. Is global warming a serious enough problem that you have to question the way you think about problems and their solutions? Hell no - it is the other people who have to recognize that their ideology is faulty and mine is correct. It is fine and beneficial to read (as policywonk mentions) a book like Monibot's "heat" written by a long time socialist from a socialist's perspective, but is AGW a big enough problem for us also to consider the solutions offered from Lombourg's "Cool it" or perhaps from Gingrich's new book of which I haven't yet read and can't think of the name. Is the planet important enough to consider the ideas of those who we disagree with politically?

For instance Newt Gingrich and Preston Manning have both decided that global warming is a problem. Lucky for them their brand of far right free-market conservatism represents the perfect - in fact the only - solution. I don't think that they thought for a second that this issue is big enough that perhaps they should question even a small part of their political ideology to see if their might be a better solution ever crossed their mind.

On the other side many on the left who recognize the problem use this as a platform to push their socialist agenda. It isn't a possible solution, or the best solution - it is the only solution. The same goes for my Green Party and the same goes for the Liberals. The only people I can really think of are a couple Libertarians like Michael Shermer and Ronald Bailey who upon recognizing that global warming was real and human caused also recognized that their brand of libertarianism couldn't solve the problem and actually advocate a small role for government (Probably the reason why most libertarians still deny AGW. Bailey by the way had written 2 books in the late 90's and early 00's which called global warming a hoax, a conspiracy and a scam - both of which are still widely quoted by deniers despite Bailey now saying that the evidence in support of AGW is so overwhelming that anyone who still denies it ought to hang it up).

[ 28 April 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

KenS

quote:


In the article you quote the author writes dismissively that even if every vehicle in 2050 was a Toyota Prius we would still be 40% above the 80% reduction target for that sector.

This is a good example of how limited the article is. And 'limited' is an understatement.

Hybridization of vehicles makes an assumption that ALL vehicles must be able to go over 130km/h, drive an unlimited range- and do everything else ALL vehicles currntly do.

There is no questioning of whether EVERY vehicle a family owns needs to be able to drive over 100 or 200 clicks before it needs recharging. With present technology- let alone with better batteries coming very soon- we could NOW have vehicles that are all electric... forget about the gas engine. And those vehicles now would meet all the performance standards of what 20-25% of drivers actually do with their cars.

Those cars, with present technology, would not be able to drive 600km in a day. But a household only needs 1 of those- not 2 or 3. And if these cars were mass produced they would cost less to purchase than an equivalent gas vehicle, and have a fraction of the operating cost... which will remain constant as the per kilometre caost of the gas vehicle goes through the roof.

For every major energy use there are such examples of what could be done NOW- without a radical change in what people are actually able to do... let alone what is possible after 5 years technological and infrastructure breakthrough, let alone what is feasible by 2050.

Bubbles

I am not sure what additional information we need with regards to global warming. The facts seem pretty clear. We have added far more CO2 to the atmosphere then the earth can cope with, as a consequence the climate is changing. With unpredictable consequences for all life on earth.

It matters little if one is a capitalist, socialist, pink or brown, it is going to impact everyone. And all will see the obvious soon enough and will have to adapt or become extinct. Lucky for us there are communities that have a sustainable footprint. All we have to do is learn from them and adapt it to our personal situation.

It might be a bit hard to swallow for some of us that the Cubans, Peruvians and Nepalese have the high adaptive technology that we need.
[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Michael Hardner

quote:


The facts seem pretty clear. We have added far more CO2 to the atmosphere then the earth can cope with, as a consequence the climate is changing.

Actually, Bubbles, humans as the cause of GW hasn't yet been proven and that is part of the problem.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
[b]

Actually, Bubbles, humans as the cause of GW hasn't yet been proven and that is part of the problem.[/b]


Source, Michael? You'll find babblers are a tough crowd sometimes.

An international panel of scientists are in agreement that there is a [url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/15/debate_... percent chance[/url] that humans contribute to global warming.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century, ushering in the widespread human use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.

That means human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast as natural processes do, Zeebe said.

And it appears to be speeding up: the U.S. government reported last week that in 2007 alone, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 2.4 parts per million.

The natural mechanism will eventually absorb the excess carbon dioxide, Zeebe said, but not for hundreds of thousands of years.

“This is a time period that we can hardly imagine,” he said. “They are way too slow to help us to restore the balance that we have now basically distorted in a very short period of time.”


[url=http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/28/8570/]Source[/url]

Trevormkidd

While I agree with what both Fidel and M. Spector have written, neither of those provides "proof" of global warming as Michael Hardner appears to be asking for.

A greater than 90% chance that we are causing AGW is not "proof." Neither is the increase in ghg's in the atmosphere "proof" even though over a hundred years ago scientists showed that ghg's must trap gas as that still requires that ghgs follow the same laws of physics up in the atmosphere and there is no "proof" that they do (God might be sneaky or there might be some unknown force or..., or..., or...). Still no "proof." Just as there will never be "proof" of evolution for the creationists. It doesn't matter that science doesn't work that way, and it doesn't matter that they accept solid evidence for everything else. Fuck the overwhelming evidence. Fuck the predictions which have been made using that evidence and which have come true. We need "proof."

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

In the absence of any moderators, I'll point out that [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=000478]we already have another thread for discussing climate change denial.[/url] Let the skeptics post over there.

This thread was supposed to be about the [b]consequences[/b] of climate change for north americans.

500_Apples

quote:


Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
[b]

Actually, Bubbles, humans as the cause of GW hasn't yet been proven and that is part of the problem.[/b]


Nothing is ever proven in science.

Things can sometimes be proven in the social sciences, for example:

The fact commoners often use phrases like "evolution is just a theory" or "global warming is not proven" is proof we need more science education in our high schools.

And to think, did Hardner not recently post that he would want only informed people like him to get the vote? If the vote were only to go to informed voters, he would not qualify - unless his post was a sarcastic prank.

[ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Michael Hardner

Another nice false argument made on my behalf.

Thanks, 500 Apples.

Transplant

A few available technologies for home owners (some can also be used by renters) that can drastically reduce personal in-home energy use and CO2 emissions right now:

1 - Switch to low-drain compact florescent and/or LED bulbs and Energy Star appliances to reduce your need for electrical power to a minimum.

2 - Install a solar-thermal hot water system, and an on-demand water heater to top it up. This gives you the fastest pay-back on your outlay, and hot water heating accounts for ~35% of home CO2 emissions.

4 - Replace older windows with double-glazed thermopane windows and properly weather-strip all doors.

5 - Add more insulation in your attic and an attic fan (solar-electric, wind-driven or electric).

6 - Install a roof-top solar voltaic system to either supply at least part of your residential electrical needs directly, or feed back into the grid as with Ontario's "standard offer" system. In Toronto WISE (West Toronto Initiative for Solar Energy) has put together a package of a bulk equipment supply vendor, installation contractor, and financing to offer a bulk purchase price for individual home owners. Their co-op model is starting to be emulated by groups in other cities. Yes, it's expensive, but it can pay back the cost over 20 years, and let's face it, cutting CO2 byy 80% is not going to be free or painless. The gov needs to up the standard-offer per/kw price if they really want this to take off, though, as it did in Germany.

7 - Switch to a ground-source geothermal heat pump system for home heating. Yes, it's the most expensive action, but it will completely eliminate the burning of natural gas or fuel oil for home heating. It's very expensive to put in the wells, while a horizontal pipe bed needs lots of area, and you also take a bit of hit in increased electric power usage to run the water pumps. I'm working on planting the idea with my local councilor that cities should begin putting in the infrastructure to make it widespread in urban areas. For example, every time a street is torn up for repaving wells can be drilled and feed pipes laid to the edge of the city-owned street allowance, and then a hook-up and use fee can be charged to homeowners as they tie into the system. For that matter, wells can also be drilled in front yards at the edge of the street allowance, and in the centre boulevard on streets with them, and in city parks and school play yards and sports fields.

500_Apples

quote:


Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
[b]Another nice false argument made on my behalf.

Thanks, 500 Apples.[/b]


It is a correct argument, your use of the word "proven" - if you weren't being sarcastic - represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

And I do think that it's unfortunate that they don't teach more science and philosophy of science in high schools.

Michael Hardner

quote:


Source, Michael? You'll find babblers are a tough crowd sometimes.

An international panel of scientists are in agreement that there is a 90 percent chance that humans contribute to global warming.


You can't source a non-proof, Fidel. Do you have a source proving that pigs didn't build stonehenge ?

Scientists do generally think that human activity is a cause of GW but even a 90% chance is not proof. Despite what 500 Apples says, it is possible to prove this.

It's true that many of the same people who doubt that GW is caused by humans are the ones who said a few years back that there was no GW. All you need to do is show them a graph and they wither away...

But convincing proof of human made GW would hold a great political reward, in that such proof would help build support for massive societal change.

Michael Hardner

I checked Wiki on this and the term used to describe this issue is "consensus". Scientists have reached a consensus that GW is caused by Human Activity.

Proof, however, is still waiting out there...

500_Apples

quote:


Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
[b]I checked Wiki on this and the term used to describe this issue is "consensus". Scientists have reached a consensus that GW is caused by Human Activity.

Proof, however, is still waiting out there...[/b]


You should read the wiki page on Bayesian statistics to get a better understanding on how modern science is done.

Michael Hardner

I'm somewhat familiar with Bayesian statistics....

Hmmm... this could lead to an interesting side thread...

Fidel

What's wrong with this one?

Transplant

quote:


Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
[b]Actually, Bubbles, humans as the cause of GW hasn't yet been proven and that is part of the problem.[/b]

You might want to look up the work done on analysis of the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 in atmospheric CO2, the preference of plants for metabolizing C12 vs C13, and the ratio of C12 to C13 in fossil fuels, which derive from fossil plants. (Actually, from ancient sunlight, but let's not get poetic here.)

For the rest reading this, the ratio of C13 is dropping in the atmosphere, which proves without a doubt that the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to the burning fossil carbon fuels derived from plants.

Combine that with the known and experimentally demonstrated radiative physics of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses and it's as close to 'proven' as it can get that humans are indeed the primary, but not only, cause of the current warming. The only open questions are exactly how far we have perturbed the climate system and what the extent of natural feedbacks will be, keeping in mind that we have not even slowed our rate of carbon emissions, let alone stopped the increase and then drawn down.

There's no point wasting time trying to talk to let alone trying to convince outright denialists of this, and reality will, in time, convince those who are honest skeptics, so there's no point in wasting much time on them either. Ninety to ninety-five percent is much higher than the confidence level most public policy decisions are made on. It's time for us to get on with reducing CO2 as individuals, and pressuring governments to do what individuals can not do on their own.

Michael Hardner

Quite a rational position.

Can you give me a link - I'd like to read more...

Transplant

quote:


Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
[b]Quite a rational position.
Can you give me a link - I'd like to read more...[/b]

Thank you.

I assume you meant links for the C12:C13 ratio research. Google Scholar is your friend:

C-13/C-12 ratios in tree rings and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere
Stuiver, M.; Burk, R. L.; Quay, P. D.
Journal of Geophysical Research (ISSN 0148-0227), vol. 89, Dec. 20, 1984, p. 11731-11748
[url=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR....8911731S]http://adsabs.harvard....

A Large Northern Hemisphere Terrestrial CO2 Sink Indicated by the 13C/12C Ratio of Atmospheric CO2
P. Ciais, P. P. Tans, M. Trolier, J. W. C. White, and R. J. Francey
Science, 25 August 1995: Vol. 269. no. 5227, pp. 1098 - 1102
[url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/269/5227/1098]http://www....

Recent trends in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric carbon dioxide
CHARLES D. KEELING*, WIM G. MOOK§ & PIETER P. TANS
Nature 277, 121 - 123 (11 January 1979)
[url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5692/abs/277121a0.html]http:/...

Bubbles

quote:


Actually, Bubbles, humans as the cause of GW hasn't yet been proven and that is part of the problem.

Michael,
It is pretty difficult to prove anything in as big a place as our atmosphere since there are so many variables. But we have several correlations between changes in the atmosphere and human activity. Several have been mentioned by others above.

If someone offered you a tray with 20 attractive drinks, one of which would cause terrible agony. Would you consume one of those drinks?

And that only gives you a probabillity of five percent of getting struck by a terrible agony.

Now it seems that very many , that have been studying the atmosphere for many years, seem convinced that we are playing Russian roulette with five bullets in a six shooter.

I am not sure how else to convince you that it is a serious gamble with terrible odds that you insist on playing.

Michael Hardner

quote:


I am not sure how else to convince you that it is a serious gamble with terrible odds that you insist on playing.

For the record, my position is that CO2 emissions should be reduced.

This

This is my first post to babble. The info I have on this topic can be found yourself if you are curious.

- Volcanoes, bacteria, animals, and warmer oceans emit CO2. Humans and industry emit 3% of Earth's CO2, a figure not disputed by the UN IPCC

- This past decade has seen increasing worldwide volcanic activity. 70% of volcanoes are under water, hot lava has warmed the oceans, which in turn melts ice. Warmer oceans also have greater evaporation, which leads to more rain and snow (and floods)

- Cities are artificial living environments, black asphalt increases summer temps. Accurate temperatures are rural. The hottest year this past century in rural USA was 1936

- According to a recent BBC article, the UN is predicting this year to be colder

- The role of CO2 in the atmosphere is asymptotic, or a little goes a long way, and more doesn't make much of a difference. A little bit gives us a much needed 6 degrees of global warming, as we have currently. The very most warming that huge amounts of CO2 can give us is an additional 1.5 degrees C.

- The Earth has had 17 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere in the past as at the present level of 380 ppm. The Earth once went in to an Ice Age at 10 times our present level

- Pollution kills, but CO2 has never been a pollutant, trees and all vegetation grow faster with greater concentrations of CO2. It is part of the natural carbon cycle on Earth. The more CO2 we pump out, the more Oxygen we get back.

- Al Gore has a law firm that makes money on selling carbon credits. See:

[url=http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm]http://www.canadafre...

- 90% of the time on Earth is spent as Ice Ages, we are in an 'interglacial time period'. There will be an Ice Age in 1000 years, or sooner.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Well, I guess you are going to have to source all that or did you just paraphrase Michael Crighton's Sci-fi book?

Trevormkidd

quote:


Originally posted by This:

This is my first post to babble. The info I have on this topic can be found yourself if you are curious.


The "info" you have found on this topic shows that you have absolutely no understanding of climate science and yet through some astounding level of arrogance believe that your couple hours of searching out denier conspiracy theorists makes you more qualified than scientists who 1) actually went to school and have spent years studying how the world works and understanding laws of physics etc and 2) have spent years and sometimes decades researching climate science. That takes a real special kind of arrogance and you have it in spades.

quote:

- Volcanoes, bacteria, animals, and warmer oceans emit CO2. Humans and industry emit 3% of Earth's CO2, a figure not disputed by the UN IPCC

How many times do I have to read this stupidity? If someone chooses not to attempt to understand the simple differences between types of CO2 emissions then they shouldn't be writing or posting BS. Quite simply you prove here that you don't possess even the most simple understanding of atmospheric ghg levels. So instead of searching out more conspiracy BS you should go back to square one and start at the ground floor. It is like you are trying to write the great Canadian novel but can't read well enough to make it through a "Dick and Jane" book.

Animals emit CO2! Wow! But guess what? Animals don't create carbon!! So how do they get it?? Hmmmm a real mystery. You see what happens is plants take carbon out of atmosphere (in the form of CO2) they convert it and store it as sugars etc. Animals eat the plant transferring that carbon into themselves they then get rid of the carbon by breathing it out into the atmosphere (again in the form of CO2) and then the process repeats itself. In absolutely no way does that lead to an increase in carbon in the atmosphere (please do not continue until you understand that sentence). It is a natural cycle. The same thing goes for bacteria - they don't create carbon nor are they taking carbon that has been out of circulation for hundreds of millions of years and introducing it into the atmosphere. Oil and coal on the other hand take carbon that has been stored deep within the earth for hundreds of millions of years and spew it into the atmosphere. Completely different thing.

Your argument is the equivalent of looking at fountain in a park which has a pool with a 100,000 litres of water in it. The water fountain takes 100 liters out of the pool every minute and sprays it up into the air and it falls back into the pool - yet the water level stays the same because that is just a natural cycle (also some of the water evaporates from the pool and it rains into the pool on occasion so the water level does go up and down slightly but on the whole it stays the same and has over decades). Then one day some ignorant fool - who I will call "This" takes a hose and starts adding 5 or ten liters of water a minute from a well into the pool. Over a week or so the water level starts to rise and it is now about to overflow the sides of the pool. But don't blame "This" because in his deluded mind the fountain is much more to blame.

Volcanoes emit ghgs but the amount is miniscule (at most 4% of what humans emit if my memory serves me).

Yes warmer oceans hold less CO2. It is due to a couple simple gas laws (like Graham's law). To state things in a really basic way if there is more CO2 concentration in the atmosphere than in the ocean then much of it will diffuse into the ocean until there is equilibrium or if there is more CO2 in the ocean then much of it will diffuse into the atmosphere until there is equilibrium (hence why your open pop goes flat - the carbon diffuses into the atmosphere as it goes from a liquid with a very high concentration of CO2 to the atmosphere with a very low concentration). However when the temperature of the liquid increases it loses its ability to hold onto those gases so the equilibrium changes and it is a fear that as the ocean warms further it will lose its ability to absorb much of the CO2 we are currently emitting (I think it absorbs almost half at current) and eventually will actually start emitting CO2 instead of absorbing.

However the implication that many deniers are trying to make that the oceans are emitting CO2 is 100% the opposite of the truth.

quote:

- This past decade has seen increasing worldwide volcanic activity. 70% of volcanoes are under water, hot lava has warmed the oceans, which in turn melts ice. Warmer oceans also have greater evaporation, which leads to more rain and snow (and floods)

This has got be one of the most idiotic statements ever. Congratulations. Please provide evidence for this increase in volcanic activity. Please provide a calculation showing how much ocean volcanic activity would need to increase to provide the necessary energy to increase the temperature of the ocean. The amount of increased volcanic energy would need to be so high... well lets just say you are a real piece of work. (Not to mention that it wouldn't account for the surface and troposphere temperatures also increasing at the same time).

quote:

- Cities are artificial living environments, black asphalt increases summer temps. Accurate temperatures are rural. The hottest year this past century in rural USA was 1936

Guess what? In cities we generally measure temperatures not by measuring the temperature of asphalt, but in parks. There is almost no difference between increases in temperatures in urban areas vs rural areas (it is statistically insignificant and in many areas it has been warming faster in rural areas than urban areas - not too mention why is it "This" that the temperatures are rising fastest at the poles where the population is almost nil? Answer me that o-wise one.). Such are the conclusions by about dozen meta-studies looking into urban heat island effect. No deniers have ever been able to show any influence of heat islands. The US is not the whole world and the hottest year for the US was in the 30s - so what? That is the same whether they take all of the US (urban and rural) into account or just rural as the lie you are attempting. Guess what? There was a dust bowl, a massive drought across the continental US at that time. It should be no surprise that temperature were higher then with those conditions. It should be shocking to anyone with a brain that temperatures in the 90's and 00's were almost statistically identical without those extreme continent wide drought like conditions to amplify the temperature.

quote:

- According to a recent BBC article, the UN is predicting this year to be colder

Oh shit. If it doesn't get hotter each and every successive year then climate change is a fraud right?

quote:

- The role of CO2 in the atmosphere is asymptotic, or a little goes a long way, and more doesn't make much of a difference.

BS without the ghg's of which CO2 is the main one the temperature of this planet would be more than 30 degrees cooler. Hardly any difference at all.

quote:

A little bit gives us a much needed 6 degrees of global warming, as we have currently. The very most warming that huge amounts of CO2 can give us is an additional 1.5 degrees C.

Says who? Not the scientists who have spent years studying this. Sure maybe Tim Ball might say this because the note with the wad of cash from the oil companies told him to say that. I have no doubt that Tim Ball doesn't believe a single word he says.

quote:

- The Earth has had 17 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere in the past as at the present level of 380 ppm. The Earth once went in to an Ice Age at 10 times our present level

Possibly true, but completely irrelevant to current conditions. First of all the Sun used to be at about 75% of its current intensity (and yes I know you will now say "see it is the sun - it is getting hotter" and yes the Sun is getting more intense - it will be about 1% more intense in the next 100 million years or so - relevance to the world right now? None. Relevance to the current problem of climate change? Also none). Much, much higher levels of ghgs would be required to maintain the current temperature. Hence it was also very possible for the earth to go into an ice age with a higher concentration of ghgs than we currently have (Especially as Milankovich cycles influence ice age cycles). But conditions on the earth hundreds of millions of years ago or billions of years ago have about as much relevancy to current life on earth as conditions on mars do. Better would be to look at say the last 100,000 or 150,000 years when the earth had basically the exact same solar intensity and the continents were in basically the exact same locations as they are today. When you look at that it gives a pretty strong warning.

quote:

- Pollution kills, but CO2 has never been a pollutant,

So what? The Sun isn't a pollutant either and in a couple billion years it is going to completely destroy the planet earth along with the other planets close to it. Water isn't a pollutant but too much of it can kill you. And yes too much CO2 (and it doesn't take much) can kill you.

quote:

trees and all vegetation grow faster with greater concentrations of CO2. It is part of the natural carbon cycle on Earth. The more CO2 we pump out, the more Oxygen we get back.

Go talk to a farmer. There is more to crop growth than CO2 levels.

And furthermore - why in the hell do you think that it is a good thing for the planet to have more oxygen?

quote:

- Al Gore has a law firm that makes money on selling carbon credits.

The bastard. Imagine someone discovering a problem and setting up a company to try to help solve said problem.

quote:

- 90% of the time on Earth is spent as Ice Ages, we are in an 'interglacial time period'. There will be an Ice Age in 1000 years, or sooner.

That's funny - according to this wikipedia article (which I know isn't the greatest source, but a lot better than your source) on Milankovitch cycles another ice age is not expected in the next 50,000 or 100,000 years.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Present_conditions]mila... cycles[/url]

[ 08 May 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

Michelle

Trevor, I understand your frustration with This. (This, babble's "environmental justice" forum is supposed to be for people who want to discuss fair ways of dealing with climate change, not denying that it's happening.) But try to refrain from personal attacks in your response (which, by the way, was otherwise fabulous - I learned a lot from it).

Regarding Al Gore - in fact, I think that was probably the only good point that This had. Carbon credits are a sham, and rich people like Al Gore who think they're too important and special and rich to reduce their consumption and decide that instead they'll pay OTHER people to reduce THEIR consumption so that he can keep consuming at unsustainable levels - they're part of the problem. Especially when they are pretending to be environmental activists who are doing something about climate change.

KenS

Rich people have the lifestyle and level of consumption they are assustomed to.

We can be as critical as we feel like of them- and rightfully so.

But if we carry a message in the public- even an implicit one- that if you don't wear a hair shirt then what you do for climate change doesn't count... then start counting down the years until the time of our sojourn on this planet is over.

And practically speaking- its the same for the legions of friends and family we all have who consume way too much by any measure. They may not be rich, but they are just as much a part of the problem, just as much have to change.... and if all they get is guilt trips, most of them won't.

KenS

That said, when rich superstars buy big hybrid and fuel cell cars- that deserves to be criticised for the misleading gloss it is.

But, regarding Al Gore in particular.

The onlt way he could have conformed to the expressed expectations is if he and his family had an ascetic turnabout.

How many progressives do you know who aren't living contradictions? Not that extreme, so what. Give them 20 million to play with, stand back and watch.

It's perfectly understandable that Gore's mansion and lifestyle bring out cynicism.

But the reality is that 95% of the population won't even challenge the [i]ideas[/i] that underpin the way they live... and feel personally threatened to have the ideas questioned even when the implications are not directed at them.

So what Al Gore has done and is doing is not only critically useful, it takes an exceptional person to break through as he did... notwitstanding where he would not go with that.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

quote:


Humans and industry emit 3% of Earth's CO2, a figure not disputed by the UN IPCC

I always laugh at this sort of thing Trevormkidd.

The amount of the human contribution to CO2 is higher or lower depending on what is being measured. But in any event, it is seldom measured much higher than 5%. So the deniers say, "our contribution isn't big enough to have an impact!"

Yes, and splitting a tiny atom wouldn't do a darn thing. That tiny microscopic bacteria couldn't possibly hurt you. And PCBs measured in parts per million, what can they do?

It is an asinine argument at best. It is even more asinine as it only looks at the human contribution to GHGs and ignores human destruction of the earth systems that then manage, or at least did manage, GHGs for us.

I have given up arguing with the skeptics as it is a waste of time.

Trevormkidd

quote:


Originally posted by Michelle:
Trevor, I understand your frustration with This. (This, babble's "environmental justice" forum is supposed to be for people who want to discuss fair ways of dealing with climate change, not denying that it's happening.) But try to refrain from personal attacks in your response (which, by the way, was otherwise fabulous - I learned a lot from it).

Michelle, I will try to clean up the personal attacks this afternoon.

quote:

Regarding Al Gore - in fact, I think that was probably the only good point that This had.

Certainly I think that Gore could do things better. My main concern about when Deniers attack Gore etc for climate change related business is that they seem to be implying that Gore is using "a hoax" like climate change to make money - as if there are not a hundred thousand ways that Gore could have been getting a better return on his investment than credits.

Gore's main motivation in the carbon credits (whether they are right or wrong, whether they will be effective or not) was the environment, not the profits.

Trevormkidd

quote:


Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I have given up arguing with the skeptics as it is a waste of time.

Well I will always argue that they are not skeptics but deniers. I have long considered myself a skeptic and to me that means that I accept things based on evidence. So in the case of climate change it is simple one side has come with a testible theory that upholds all current evidence, natural laws, makes predictions that can and have been tested etc, etc. The other side has come with nothing. Their claims go against all the evidence. (And at the same time both Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine have each produced two specials on climate change - in each case coming down very strongly on the side of science.)

But the word denier fits well. For instance someone is not a "Holocaust skeptic" because denying the holocaust means denying the evidence. If they were to use any degree of skepticism towards their own position it would fall apart same goes for the climate change deniers.

[ 08 May 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

Transplant

quote:


Originally posted by This:
[b]This is my first post to babble. The info I have on this topic can be found yourself if you are curious.[/b]

What info? All I see are a few examples of poorly understood facts and misinformation, deliberately fabricated disinformation, and outright lies spun by the global warming denialspere.

I'm afraid it's not enough to be curious, one has to be critical in discerning of the sources a google search returns to determine if they are legitimate or not, and I'm afraid that you were not critical or discerning.

Trevormkidd did a good job of slicing, dicing and shredding each of your talking points, but here are a few additions:

- Blaming respiration for rising CO2 levels is about the dumbest mistake you can make when it comes to discussing global warming. CO2 from respiration is part of the normal day-to-day, month-to-month and year-to year carbon cycle. It has no impact what so ever on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere beyond the measured annual rise and fall caused by deciduous trees dropping their leaves each winter. All food you or any other animal or plant consumes is made from carbon that was in the atmosphere just a short time ago. That carbon, in the form of CO2, was fixed by plants and turned into cellulose, starch and sugar only days, weeks, months or perhaps a few years ago, and those plants were eaten by either you or by the animals that you eat. As you metabolise the carbon in that food you respire it as CO2 back into the atmosphere. There is no loss or gain since it is the exact same carbon being recycled over and over again. This you could look up in any high school biology or physical geography textbook.

- CO2 from burning fossil fuels is an entirely different mattter, though. The carbon in oil, natural gas, and coal also comes from plants, but fossil plants that died and were buried in sediments hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of years ago. That means the carbon in fossil fuels has been locked out of the normal carbon cycle for that long. It is effectively "new" carbon in the atmosphere, and it is accumulating in the atmospher because it is being added faster than the biosphere and ocean can naturally absorb it. We know it is accumulating because we have been measuring it since 1958 (look up "Keeling curve"), and we know that the increase comes from burning fossil fuels because we know about how much oil, gas and coal are burned each year so we can easily calculate how much CO2 is produced. We also know that the increase is from burning fossil fuels because we can measure the ratio of the isotope carbon 13 to normal carbon 12 in atmospheric CO2. Plants prefer 12C to 13C, so fossil fuels, which are derived from plants, are low in 13C, and measurements show that the level of 13C in the atmosphere is falling from natural levels.

- Blaming volcanoes for rising CO2 levels is the second dumbest mistake you can make. It's easy to see where this one comes from, though, when you look at a photo of an explosive volcano spewing a huge dark grey cloud. But the fact is the vast majority of material in that cloud is ordinary water vapour and ash, plus lesser volumes of sulfur dioxide and CO2. You can look this up in any reference on volcanos. The ash and sulfur dioxide actually produce a cooling effect, and as for the CO2, each year volcanic action emits between 155 and 255 million tonnes of CO2, depending on how many volcanic eruptions there are and how big they are, even in a year with a big eruption, as with Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. That's less than one percent as much CO2 as human activity produces each year, which is around 29 [i]billlion[/i] tonnes, not counting respiration, which we already covered.

- The ocean both absorbs and emits CO2, but it is a net absorber by about 2 gigatonnes (a Gt is 1 billion tonnes). But, just as with your favourtite carbonated beverage as it become warmer, as seawater wars it can hold less dissolved CO2, and in fact there is evidence that the ocean is now absorbing less CO2 than it did in the past.

Whew, that's just the misinformation in your first point.

- As for the assertion that volcanic activity is on the rise worldwide, it's pure claptrap and easy enough to look up at a reputable reference such as the US Geological Survey. Why didn't you do so before repeating such utter nonsense? Same for the ludicrous idea that volcanos are warming the oceans enough to melt polar ice and cause global warming. This is gullibility at its worst. True, there are a few volcanoes in polar regions that locally melt surrounding ice, but all one has to do to debunk this nonsense is look at the sea surface temperature record.

- Warmer oceans do promote greater evaporation, but for that water vapour to remain in the atmosphere you have to increase either the pressure or the temperature of the atmosphere, or both. Look up relative and absolute humidity.

- The urban heat island effect is a well known phenomena, so you're not pointing out anything that we don't already know. What I'm sure you don't know is that this bias is filtered out when the raw temperature data is processed and analysed. But you know what, even if you use only temperature data from rural weather stations you still get the same rising temperature trend. Furthermore, the same rising trend is also clear in night time-only readings. And yes, the hottest year this past century in the US was 1936, by .05°C, but the hottest year world-wide was still 1998. But in nay case, earlier your seem to be arguing that the warming is natural, now your seam to arguing that it's not warming. Which is it?

- The assertion that adding CO2 will not produce more warming flies in the face physics and laboratory experiment, not to mention what is observed to be happening on Venus, where the atmosphere is almost entirely CO2. I would suggest that you do some reading on the radiative physics of greenhouse gases, but I seriously doubt that you could follow it since it consists mainly of equations.

- The current level of atmospheric CO2 is 385 ppmv, and rising a 2.5 ppm per year, which is 33 times faster than at any time in the past nearly 1,000,000 year old ice core record. Yes, there was far more CO2 in Earth's atmosphere in the far distant past, but don't make the mistake of assuming that CO2 is the only thing that can increase temperature. As Trevormkidd pointed out, the Sun was much weaker in that distant past, and the onset and end of glaciations is governed by Earth's orbital and axial changes, not by CO2. Do some reading on the geologic paleohistory of Earth.

This is getting tiring....

- The last of your items that I'm going to bother with is "There will be an Ice Age in 1000 years, or sooner." Who ever wrote this does not know a thing about the mechanics of glaciation. Here's something I wrote on another blog on this exact foolish assertion:

Ahhh, no, the next ice age is not due any century now.

And apparently you have a very poor understanding of how glaciations are initiated. What it takes is warm winters, which means more snow fall, and cool summers, which means that snow doesn't melt.

The driver of glaciation is the Milankovic cycles, which govern the shape and attitude of earth's orbit and rotation. There are three of them: orbital eccentricity, which has a nominal period of ~100,000 years; axial tilt, which has a nominal period of~ 41,000 years; and precession, or wobble of axis, which has a nominal period of ~23,000 years.

At first glance, the 1000,000 year period of earth's orbital eccentricity seems a perfect match for the nominal ~100,000 year period of the glaciations of the past 1,000,000 years or so, but the ice core paleorecord tells us that the exact period and length of a glaciation and interglacial is not constant or even consistent. The timing and length varies by several even tens of thousands of years.

That's because the amount of variation in solar insolation--the amount of solar energy falling onto the surface of earth--caused by earth's eccentric orbit alone is not sufficient to initiate the onset or end of a glaciation. It takes the coincidence of two or all three of the cycles to determine when and how rapid and how severe the onset of a glaciation will be.

Because axial tilt determines how much insolation the poles receive in winter, it affects the strength of earth's winter season. Counter-intuitively, less tilt produces a warmer polar winter, which yields higher polar snowfall, and thus promotes ice sheet growth.

Precession is the final kicker. It determines which pole faces toward the sun at earth's closest and furthest points of its eccentric elliptical orbit. When earth's northern hemisphere tilts away from the sun when earth is at its furthest point from the sun, then northern hemisphere winters will be most severe. Meanwhile, summer will occur at earth's closest approach to the sum, making it much warmer.

At present eccentricity is almost at minimum, producing only a 6% difference in solar insolation between earth's closest approach to the sun, or perihelion, in January and aphelion in July, out of a potential maximum difference of 20-30%. No danger of the next ice age from eccentricity any time soon.

Axial tilt is presently at 23.5° out of a range of 21.5° to 24.5°. No danger of semi-permanent warm polar winters for quite a while yet either.

As for precession, at present earth's closest approach to the sun is near winter solstice, while aphelion is near the summer solstice, thus moderating northern hemisphere winters and summers. This should induce a warmer Arctic winter with more precipitation, but it's being counteracted by the steep tilt of earth's axis, which produces a colder Arctic winter.

If this current peak in precession coincided with the peak of one of the other two cycles, it would initiate a new glaciation. But it does not coincide, so it is not going to bring on a new glaciation. Based on the very predictable Milancovic cycles the next ice age isn't due for another 10,000 to 15,000 years minumum, perhaps as much as 40,000 to 50,000 years.

In other words, we are fortunate to live in one of the longer lived interglacials. And that's a very good thing.

But hey, never let the facts get in the way of a good global warming denial argument.

Bubbles

quote:


Based on the very predictable Milancovic cycles the next ice age isn't due for another 10,000 to 15,000 years minumum, perhaps as much as 40,000 to 50,000 years.


But are you not forgetting about the civilization cycle? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] It is probably a new kid on the block and its operating paramaters are still somewhat uncertain, but it could relegate the Milancovic cycles to a byproduct of civilization, the scrapheap. If we can alter the climate into unpredictabillity, it is not difficult to imagine that the Milancovic cycles might be destined for man induced manipulation in a misguided atempt towards getting global climate control. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Transplant

quote:


Originally posted by Bubbles:
[b]But are you not forgetting about the civilization cycle?...
If we can alter the climate into unpredictabillity, it is not difficult to imagine that the Milancovic cycles might be destined for man induced manipulation in a misguided atempt towards getting global climate control.[/b]

It's conceivable that anthoropogenic climate change could negate a "weak" coincidence of two of the Milancovic cycles, which is why the 10,000-15,000 range is uncertain. And should some of the larger natural feedbacks start to kick in in earnest, such as large releases of seabed methane calthrates, all bets would be off.

Or are you suggesting that humans could actually try to alter earth's orbit or tilt of axis?

Bubbles

We are getting a fair understanding of what goes on around us, Transplant, but seem to have still little understanding about ourselfs. Sometimes I think that the key to all these messes we get into is a better understanding of ourselfs.

quote:

Or are you suggesting that humans could actually try to alter earth's orbit or tilt of axis?

I would not put it past us to try that. All we need is to find the lever. And the earth with its atmosphere and oceans with its tides, a magnetic iron core floating in molten rock and a big moon nearby, would suggest that the material to make that lever is not impossible to conceve.

This

Here's some homework for anyone interested in becoming well informed on this topic. It's really well written, and understandable. I think most of the important technical questions asked of me are answered in it:

[url=http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html]http://www.middle...

I can supplement further, especially on the ocean warming topic.

Transplant, we got off topic a bit discussing Ice Ages which is my fault for bringing it up. Regarding the Milankovic cycles being used as predictors for Ice Ages. If you look further in to it I think you'll find it was disproven for this back when radiocarbon dating came out. Milankovic’s models ‘predicted’ ice ages at 25,000 and 72,000 years ago, but there are geologic records of 25,000 year old peat (warm time) and ice retreat 72,000 years ago for instance. Other problems with his theories are noted here:

[url=http://www.detectingdesign.com/milankovitch.html]http://www.detectingdes...

Trevormkidd

quote:


Originally posted by This:
Here's some homework for anyone interested in becoming well informed on this topic. It's really well written, and understandable. I think most of the important technical questions asked of me are answered in it:

[url=http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html]http://www.middle...


Yawn. There are 1000s of scientific journals out there - let me know when this clown publishes his amazing global warming is hoax findings in any of them.

He doesn't even allow comments on that page - which to me means he is only interested in telling sheep what to think and not interested in debate. Reminds me more of the likes of Singer and Ball who hide, then respectable "skeptics" like the Pielke's.

Policywonk

quote:


Here's some homework for anyone interested in becoming well informed on this topic. It's really well written, and understandable.

And quite wrong, even hilariously so. Using the percentage of emissions that is anthropogenic in origin is a ridiculous way of determining the anthropogenic contribution to the greenhouse impact of carbon dioxide. Even if his physics were correct (and it's not), he would be off by a factor of 10 in the human contribution (30% or so of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is anthropogenic).

Three percent of emissions are anthropocentric, but about half of this plus all of the natural emissions are reabsorbed, hence concentrations are increasing gradually but significantly due to human emissions.

The following websites either debunk the arguments made in the article or give a good summary of the science.

[url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-... Saturated Gassy Argument[/url]

[url=http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki]RC Wiki[/url]

[url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in... CO2 problem in six easy steps[/url]

Oh, and by the way, the Medieval Warm Period was from 900 to 1300 CE (before his graph starts) and was was cooler than the present (and probably not global). While the start of the Little Ice Age is disputed, 1400 CE is certainly not during the MWP.

[ 11 May 2008: Message edited by: Policywonk ]

Policywonk

quote:


- 90% of the time on Earth is spent as Ice Ages, we are in an 'interglacial time period'.

While we are certainly in an interglacial of the Pleistocene Ice Age, I'm not sure what you mean by the first statement. If talking about humans (our time on Earth), the figure is either 100% (Homo Sapiens evolved during this ice age) or somewhat less, as even the more recent interglacial periods are considerably longer than 10% of the length of glacial periods between them.

If you are talking about the Earth, ice ages are a very small percentage of the total geologic history of the Earth.

This

Policywonk, an Ice Age thread could be quite interesting, I’d be interested in learning more on that topic. We are now in the Holocene ‘epoch’ apparently, leaving the big old Pleistocene behind, 11500 years ago. I brought up Ice Ages because the fear around us is of overheating, but the Earth may have other plans. As humans we tend to think the climate will (and should) stay the same as it has been in our lifetime, but the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age a few centuries ago should remind us that climate always changes. We shouldn’t let politicians blame us for natural events, especially when their solution points towards gradual genocide. We can’t exist without producing CO2, and the alarmist science hinges on an academically dishonest and disproven ‘hockey stick’ graph, that neither the UN nor Al Gore have disowned.

[url=http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2328#comments]http://www.climateaudit.org...

There are small Ice Ages within warm periods, as in 300 years ago. If you look at the graph shown by Prof. Bob Carter at:

[url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI]http://youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze...

you’ll see where I got the 90% figure from. What I should say is that the Northern Hemisphere enjoys warm periods like today 10% of the time. Technically Ice Ages seem to span 50% of Earth’s history from what I’ve read. That video is the most watched factual youtube video in Australia by the way.

I read the RealClimate links you provided, perhaps you might find this one interesting. It certainly is scientific I would say. This talk given by David Archibald is making lots of waves because it comes up with factual representations of the role of CO2. It uses the ‘MODTRAN’ facility at the University of Chicago.

[url=http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf]http://www.w...

I’d like to finish with an excerpt from the following...

[url=http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1041]http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?...

“To my way of thinking, the earth is either warming or cooling. It is always doing one or the other. As to trends over time, it depends on when you want to measure from or to. I could show dates that currently show that we are in a warming trend and others that show that we are in a cooling trend. Alarmists only allow dates that support their alarmism and refute all other dates as meaningless.

We should stop worrying about CO2 and start tackling the problems that DO exist. Tackling the destruction of ancient forests, the massive damage done to the Amazon and the ancient forests of Borneo must be a high priority. The Orang-utang is facing extinction because of the desire to grow palm for palm oil.

This kind of rape and butchery of nature must be stopped. We should clean up genuine pollution. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. We must grow crops for food, not oil! We are witnessing mass starvation in much of the world so that the political class can feel pleased with themselves that they are "tackling climate change" in their knee-jerk over-reaction to a false alarm. Tackle climate change? that has to be the worst and most brain dead slogan I have ever heard. What do they propose to do? Move the earth further from the sun? This is truly the science and politics of King Canute.

[ 11 May 2008: Message edited by: This ]

Transplant

quote:


Originally posted by This:
[b]Here's some homework for anyone interested in becoming well informed on this topic. It's really well written, and understandable.[/b]

Which does not make any of it correct.

Why is it that those who are in denial about global warming almost [b][i]always[/b][/i] provide links to opinion pieces that offer an interpreted view of the science and almost [b][i]never[/i][/b] provide links to actual scientific papers?

For one thing, the vast majority don't know how to find them.
For another, they don't know how to read and understand them when presented with them.
And for another thing, there are very, very few that support any of their assertions.

But that doesn't prevent them from happily taking someone on the internet's word for it that those who actually do the science, write it up, present it at scientific conferences and publish it in the scientific journals to be critically examined and reviewed by their peers and colleagues don't know what they are talking about.

At first pass it looks like your James A. Peden, who is on Senator Inhofe's list of 'expert' scientists, has assembled the usual denialist arguments and made the usual factual blunders, but since he does indeed hold a Phd in physics he is worth more than a cursory look, so I googled his name and came up with this little [url=http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:9oCAN_jmtIMJ:answers.yahoo.com.au/qu... e-cached[/url] critique of what he wrote:

quote:

Thats two more papers than I surmised by reading part of the article. There are more errors in the paper than I want to list, but the first few are:
1. Peden does not understand PCA and accepts McIntyre's mistaken view uncritically. PCA is basically an eigenvalue method that uses the dot products of all pairs of (normalized) data vectors to form a covariance matrix. The covariance matrix is diagonalized to yield eigenvalues and eigenvectors and the original data vectors can be represented as a linear combination of eigenvectors. If the method works well, most of the variance is explained by the first few eigenvectors. If random data is entered, correlations between data vectors vanishes and a straight line result is expected. The baseline for the pre-industrial period is flat because the data fluctuations are random. Steve McIntyre wasted two years discovering the obvious. He could have arrived at the same result in less time by enrolling in an 1 term undergraduate course in linear algebra. It took me just 2 days to code the PCA algorithm in C++, including the supporting vector and matrix class hierarchy and a GUI.

2. The first figure is poor and the second figure representing the thermal black body curve is wrong. The Planck distribution is well known an not that hard to calculate. As a 'scientist', Peden ought to get this elementary feature right.

3. Peden confuses atomic spectroscopy (electronic transitions) with molecular spectroscopy (vibrational and rotational transitions).

4. Peden does not understand that a saturated absorption broadens and the wings become important. There is no mention of thermal broadening or collision induced broadening.

5. Peden confuses the Van der Waals size of a molecule with its absorption cross section and arrives at an incorrect and misleading result citing Dr. Heinz Hug. Peden ought to have consulted Dr. Gerhard Hertzberg instead who worked out the basic physics 50 years earlier and received a Nobel Prize in Physics for his contributions. I suspect that Hug is a proctologist rather than a physicist.

6. Peden then makes the comment "Man-made CO2 doesn't appear physically capable of absorbing much more than
two-thousandths of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere." which directly contradicts Dr. Hug's experimental data cited immediately before. (Hug does the wrong experiment with an unsuitable instrument and botches the interpretation, but his data is essentially right). In fact, the absorption is quite strong: My spectrometer can follow changes in the local CO2 concentration with every breath of a person standing near the instrument.

7. Peden repeats Dr. Spenser's incorrect estimate of the water vapor contribution to the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, but the contribution is more like 75% - 85% rather than 95%. At least Spenser does not make the absurd claim that Peden does to the effect that O2 and N2 are greenhouse gasses. These molecules do absorb in the infrared, but their absorption cross sections are 12 orders of magnitude smaller than the absorption cross sections of greenhouse gasses like H2O and CO2.
8. Oxygen at 35% of the atmosphere??? Fine until there is a little spark.

I find it difficult to conceive of a practicing scientist making so many blunders. Is Peden actually alive, or is someone else abusing a name taken from a tombstone? If he were dead that would explain the lack of papers.


I'll go through Peden's missive tomorrow and then post my own comments on what he presents at your link.


quote:

[b]Transplant, we got off topic a bit discussing Ice Ages which is my fault for bringing it up. Regarding the Milankovic cycles being used as predictors for Ice Ages. If you look further in to it I think you'll find it was disproven for this back when radiocarbon dating came out. Milankovic’s models ‘predicted’ ice ages at 25,000 and 72,000 years ago, but there are geologic records of 25,000 year old peat (warm time) and ice retreat 72,000 years ago for instance. Other problems with his theories are noted here:[/b]

If I were you I would be hesitant to quote Sean D. Pitman, MD, on anything seeing as he's a notorious proponent of the pseudoscience known as intelligent design.
One might suspect that as a believer in ID/creationism he has motive to disprove cycles that have periods longer than 6000 years.

Again, why link to a reputable reference when you can grasp at the first wingnut naysayer that google turns up.

[ 11 May 2008: Message edited by: Transplant ]

This

[url=http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1091/552/1600/314973/nwarm05.gif]ht...

We all know this is an important issue, and we all can get irritated if people are flippant about what will definitely affect our future. I show the two graphs above to illustrate what I see as a deception against humanity.

I remember a professor once telling our class how it was possible to lie with graphs in all kinds of ways, and we should be on the watch for it. It was kind of funny at the time. The 'Hockey Stick' graph that the UN IPCC holds on to, and that appears in the movie An Inconvenient Truth is an example of willful deception on a layperson audience.

Both graphs are of the same time period. The top graph is of temperature 'anomolies' and that's the key to the deception. On another thread here on Babble someone has posted another 'anomolly' graph, I presume unknowingly. Do you think scientists have different ways of measuring historical temps than gathering current ones? Obviously, and I suspect that's why the modern 'anomolly' temps are so different. Perhaps someone else can shed light on this, I am not an expert. There is so much wrong with the top graph it's not funny.

source for graph: [url=http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/search/label/graphs]http://tomnelson.blogs...

[ 12 May 2008: Message edited by: This ]

Transplant

Once again, This goes not to scientific sources for graphs, data or explanation and interpretation of that data, but to sites operated by those who have already concluded that climate change is bunk and seek out, cherry-pick and collect illustrations of how it is bunk.

Exactly what does This expect to find on such sites, objectivity???

The very first critique point of This's Peden reference that I found and posted above describes how Steven McIntyre is utterly wrong about the statistical technique used to generate Michael Mann's 'hockey stick' graph, yet This accepts McIntyre's critique of Mann's work without question.

Ignorance is a correctable condition. Willful ignorance, on the other hand, is not. Denial is a very powerful psychological defense mechanism when one's ideology or fundamental world view is challenged by reality.

It's crystal clear from his writings here that This is starting from the same conclusion as the references he seeks out, namely that human activity is not causing climate change.

I see no further point in engaging him.

Policywonk

quote:


We are now in the Holocene ‘epoch’ apparently, leaving the big old Pleistocene behind, 11500 years ago. I brought up Ice Ages because the fear around us is of overheating, but the Earth may have other plans.

I should have said Quaternary Ice Age, since it started before the Pleistocene, and is of course still going on. Some scientists would call the period we're living in now the Anthropocene.

quote:

the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age a few centuries ago should remind us that climate always changes.

So does the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum]Paleocene-... Thermal Maximum[/url], which reminds us that climate change can be even more catastrophic than that humans have experienced and that we shouldn't try to trigger a similar event.

quote:

We shouldn’t let politicians blame us for natural events, especially when their solution points towards gradual genocide. We can’t exist without producing CO2, and the alarmist science hinges on an academically dishonest and disproven ‘hockey stick’ graph, that neither the UN nor Al Gore have disowned.

The science speaks for itself. Their solutions have thus far been totally inadequate and we seem to be heading towards mass extinction and genocide in any case (for a host of reasons). We can and have existed while producing a whole lot less Carbon Dioxide and other GHGs per capita. The science of anthropogenic climate change is alarming, not alarmist, and does not depend on the so-called "hockey stick" graph. It is the so-called refutations that have been discredited.

[url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-rega... versus facts regarding the "hockey stick"[/url]

quote:

Technically Ice Ages seem to span 50% of Earth’s history from what I’ve read.

Less than 20% actually. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age]Ice Age[/url]

quote:

There are small Ice Ages within warm periods

These are called stadials. Short warm periods within glacial periods are called interstadials.

quote:

This talk given by David Archibald is making lots of waves because it comes up with factual representations of the role of CO2.

Archibald is associated with the Lavoisier Group, which receives funding from the coal and oil industry. Burning coal is a problem beyond climate change because of mercury emissions.

[url=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group]Lavoisier Group[/url]

In 2001 Australian economist John Quiggin wrote that the Lavoisier Group is "devoted to the proposition that basic principles of physics...cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry."

quote:

We should stop worrying about CO2 and start tackling the problems that DO exist. Tackling the destruction of ancient forests, the massive damage done to the Amazon and the ancient forests of Borneo must be a high priority.

Deforestation releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, so is also part of the problem.

quote:

We should clean up genuine pollution. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

Anything in the wrong place and in high enough concentrations can be a pollutant. None of your links deal with ocean acidification, which would be a problem even if carbon dioxide were not a greenhouse gas.

Finally tornado fatality trends (part of the last link) are not indicative of anything except better severe weather forecasting and disaster preparedness.

[ 12 May 2008: Message edited by: Policywonk ]

Transplant

Policywonk, it is clear that This is not at all interested in learning more about the science of climate change. He has consistently demonstrated that he is perfectly happy reading and uncritically regurgitating pseudoscience talking points without making any attempt to understand them. If he had he would have quickly found out that not only are they not right, but that they are not even wrong.

In other words, This is simply trolling.

Policywonk

I agree.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

I agree with the trolling thing, but I just wanted to say that I personally appreciate the info that's given in response to it. It helps a lot when I hear the same sort of comments elsewhere whether netwise or face to face.
There is a lot of 'crap' out there about this issue and it helps when people that have a deeper understanding of the science involved and can point out the the spin and 'crap' for people like me at least.
So a big thank you. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Pages