|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
linkExpect more extreme winters thanks to global warming, say scientists By Steve Connor, Science Editor Friday, 24 December 2010 Scientists have established a link between the cold, snowy winters in Britain and melting sea ice in the Arctic and have warned that long periods of freezing weather are likely to become more frequent in years to come. An analysis of the ice-free regions of the Arctic Ocean has found that the higher temperatures there caused by global warming, which have melted the sea ice in the summer months, have paradoxically increased the chances of colder winters in Britain and the rest of northern Europe. The findings are being assessed by British climate scientists, who have been asked by ministers for advice on whether the past two cold winters are part of a wider pattern of climate change that will cause further damaging disruption to the nation's creaking transport infrastructure. Some climate scientists believe that the dramatic retreat of the Arctic sea ice over the past 30 years has begun to change the wind patterns over much of the northern hemisphere, causing cold, Arctic air to be funnelled over Britain during winter, replacing the mild westerly airstream that normally dominates the UK's weather. The study was carried out in 2009, before last year's harsh winter started to bite, and is all the more prescient because of its prediction that cold, snowy winters will be about three times more frequent in the coming years compared to previous decades. The researchers used computer models to assess the impact of the disappearing Arctic sea ice, particularly in the area of the Barents and Kara seas north of Scandinavia and Russia, which have experienced unprecedented losses of sea ice during summer. Their models found that, as the ice cap over the ocean disappeared, this allowed the heat of the relatively warm seawater to escape into the much colder atmosphere above, creating an area of high pressure surrounded by clockwise-moving winds that sweep down from the polar region over Europe and the British Isles. Vladimir Petoukhov, who carried out the study at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said the computer simulations showed that the disappearing sea ice is likely to have widespread and unpredictable impacts on the climate of the northern hemisphere. One of the principal predictions of the study was that the warming of the air over the ice-free seas is likely to bring bitterly cold air to Europe during the winter months, Dr Petoukhov said. "This is not what one would expect. Whoever thinks that the shrinking of some far away sea-ice won't bother him could be wrong. There are complex interconnections in the climate system, and in the Barents-Kara Sea we might have discovered a powerful feedback mechanism," he said. In the paper, submitted in November 2009 but published last month in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Dr Petoukhov and his colleague Vladimir Semenov write: "Our results imply that several recent severe winters do not conflict with the global warming picture but rather supplement it." Arctic sea ice has been in retreat over recent decades, with record lows recorded in September 2007. The normal recovery of the sea ice during winter has also been affected, especially in the Barents and Kara seas which have seen significant losses of ice cover over the past decade. Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics of the oceans at the Potsdam Institute, said the floating sea ice in winter insulates the relatively warm seawater from the bitterly cold temperatures of the air above it, which can be around -20C or -30C. "The Arctic sea ice is shrinking and at the moment it is at a record low for mid-to-late December, which provides a big heat source for the atmosphere," Professor Rahmstorf said. "The open ocean actually heats the atmosphere above because the ocean in the Arctic is about 0C, and that's much warmer than the atmosphere about it. This is a massive change compared with an ice-covered ocean, where the ice operates like a lid. You don't get that heating from below. "The model simulations show that, when you don't get ice on the Barents and Kara seas, that promotes the formation of a high-pressure system there, and, because the airflow is clockwise around the high, it brings cold, polar air right into Europe, which leads to cold conditions here while it is unusually warm elsewhere, especially in the Arctic," he explained. The Independent now has a Google Chrome Extension. Get th The scientists emphasised that the climate is complex and there were other factors at play. It is, they said, too early to be sure if the past two cold winters are due to the ice-free Arctic. "I want to be cautious, but basically in the past couple of months the sea ice cover has been low and so, according to the model simulations, that would encourage this kind of weather pattern," Professor Rahmstorf said. "The last winter of 2009-10 turned out to be fitting that pattern very well, and perhaps this winter as well, so that is three data points. I would say it's not definite confirmation of the mechanism, but it certainly fits the pattern," he said. The computer model used by the scientists also predicted that, as the ice cover continues to be lost, the weather pattern is likely to shift back into a phase of warmer-than-usual winters. Global warming will also continue to warm the Arctic air mass, Professor Rahmstorf said. "If you look ahead 40 or 50 years, these cold winters will be getting warmer because, even though you are getting an inflow of cold polar air,that air mass is getting warmer because of the greenhouse effect," he said. "So it's a transient phenomenon. In the long run, global warming wins out." ------------------------------------------------------- Nice way to explain Global Warming or just a way to circle the wagons to explain why it's been colder in a lot of places recently..
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
At least they didn't come right out and say it was because of my man-made 1964 Fairlane,....but I didn't get much past Sentence Three,....  Imagine, sea ice melting in the summer. 
Last edited by OoooRahJoice; 12/25/10 09:39 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Oh my..
Replace every scientist[s] word with the word authority in this article and then re-read it, it makes sense as to why most of it does not make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,137
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,137 |
Quote:
Scientists say to expect more extreme weather due to Global Warming
Jfanent says to expect extreme weather due to the fact that's just the frickin' way mother nature works....and has always worked....and always will work. 
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316 |
it's all a haux...remember?
I'm coming home, I'm coming home, tell the world I'm coming home
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Is that the french version? 
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
Quote:
Expect more extreme winters thanks to global warming, say scientists
I wonder what the headline was back in 70's hen we had the "gloabal cooling" scares.....would we have had the converse headline:
"Expect more extreme summers thanks to global cooling, say scientists" 
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
It was global cooling, then it became global warming and now it's global climate change, kind of an all encompassing catch all for whatever the weather does. You have to wonder what the climate would have to do for them to say, "oh, this is normal"?
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
According to my dopler radar and intensive climate studies, the weather is going to change tomorrow, then the day after that. It might get warmer, it might get colder.... it has been doing that for millions of years... carry on. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
I used to work as a cameraman at a local CBS station and the weather guy there, Gary England, some of you may remember him, he was the weather guy in the movie Twister. He had an old Indian Weather Rock on his desk, a rock dangling by a string. When I asked how it worked, he replied, "When it's wet, it's raining, when it's white, it's snowing, when it's moving, it's windy, when you can't see it, it's foggy", and so on.
I think his weather rock is much more accurate than the climatologists on global warming.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175 |
Even if the weather were to suddenly stabilize absolutely, it would be because man's greenhouse gases have stopped normal climatological processes.
It's an industry; a business... they will spin everything as much as they can to keep themselves relevant and the money flowing.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Ain't that the truth,...they would be spinning for profit even if these phenomena were real.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
The smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Even if the weather were to suddenly stabilize absolutely, it would be because man's greenhouse gases have stopped normal climatological processes.
It's an industry; a business... they will spin everything as much as they can to keep themselves relevant and the money flowing.
Global Warming is big business.. That is why they spent spent $31 million to defeat California Prop 23... as opposed to $11 million for those who supported it.. and the whole time the anti-Prop 23 were complaining that the oil companies were financing Prop 23 for their benefit while Green Tech Companies were spending much more to defeat it.. For those who don't know. Prop 23 would have suspended AB32 which is bent on reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions in CA to 1990 levels.. By greenhouse gases, it is mostly CO2.
They clamor on about how many jobs it will create without realizing that it will cost many more.. The two oil companies they blast for supporting it employee thousands of Californians, even though they are Texas companies..
Another point they like to go on about is that it will create jobs... Yes once again.. more jobs to go to China..... China is already poised to corner the market there .
It's a bunch of crockpots pouring out a load of crock.
Last edited by ~TuX~; 12/29/10 04:17 AM.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
jc In the other thread a couple of weeks ago, we were having a good discussion on whether or not man-made global climate change was real or not. I can't remember who, but some poster said that there was an accepted warm period from the Middle Ages. He/she provided a chart only from Europe (from John Coleman?), and I argued that this is too small of a sample to draw global conclusions. Since this time, I have read several abstracts from accepted journals on the CO2 science site (Medieval Warm Project link) as well as other materials. I was incorrect in that there does seem to be a global data set from that time period (ice core data, sediment cores, etc.). Browsing through, much of the data is consistent with the Middle Ages warming period being real. My apologies. http://www.co2science.org/http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htmEven considering that there were other warming periods in history, it is not a logical leap to say that because there are other warming periods, this current one cannot have a component that is caused by man. This is the logical equivalent of saying that since there have been other murders in the past that were not committed by a particular individual, then that individual cannot have committed a current murder. Every warming period, just like every murder, has unique circumstances. Our previous discussion centered around whether warming exists and I think everyone agreed that warming exists. It's the man-made part that is in contention. Last time, we didn't even discuss the most important point to this whole theory. The greenhouse effect has been known about for better than a 100 years. A number of gases are capable of this warming effect, including CO2. There are many ways to get high CO2 in the atmosphere; large volcanic eruptions, external events that kill plants, warming by other methods evaporating the ocean, etc. But what seems to be compelling this time around is that the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be accounted for largely by calculations of the exponential increase in the burning of fossil fuels over the last 100 years, as well as (historically) large amounts of deforestation. I guess I just don't understand this. We have good data that increasing CO2 levels helps increase temperature. We have good data that both CO2 levels and temperature have been increasing over the last 100 years or so. From physics and chemistry calculations, the temperature increase matches what models predict for the given (high) amounts of CO2. And finally, we are able to attribute much of the increase in CO2 as coming from burning fossil fuels and removing plants. I'm not saying that man is 100% the cause of the warming trend, but what I am saying is that the vast majority of the evidence points to man playing a role. IMO, it would be foolish to completely dismiss this. I'm also not saying that we need drastic, immediate, economically crippling regulations. But, like with the debt, we should lay out a long term plan. On this same note, John Hofmeister was on CNN last night. He made a compelling argument. Technology exists (and is being further developed) to pump greenhouse gases into pockets under the earth where it doesn't exhibit the greenhouse effect. Oil companies (refineries) and coal companies could use this technology, but the economic reality is that they don't have enough revenue to implement it (it is expensive right now). He argues that in the short term (next few decades), allowing drilling on the Pacific coast as well as in the Gulf of Mexico would provide plenty of revenue in order to properly implement this technology. It would also increase the supply of oil enough to exert downward pressure on oil prices. This would also give us the cover of several decades to start moving away from oil. I couldn't find major fault with his arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
I'm not saying that man is 100% the cause of the warming trend, but what I am saying is that the vast majority of the evidence points to man playing a role. IMO, it would be foolish to completely dismiss this. I'm also not saying that we need drastic, immediate, economically crippling regulations. But, like with the debt, we should lay out a long term plan.
That is highly reasonable.. The problem is that a lot of people don't want a long term solution that builds up slowly.. They want it all to happen NOW! The problem is that we cannot simply drastically change things just as much as you cannot make a train to a 90 degree right handed turn. The issue is that we do not have the technology to do it right now and the tech we have for it now is expensive.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175 |
Quote:
It's the man-made part that is in contention. Last time, we didn't even discuss the most important point to this whole theory. The greenhouse effect has been known about for better than a 100 years. A number of gases are capable of this warming effect, including CO2. There are many ways to get high CO2 in the atmosphere; large volcanic eruptions, external events that kill plants, warming by other methods evaporating the ocean, etc.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Atmospheric CO2 has increased from being roughly 0.028% of the atmosphere to about 0.038% in the span of time from pre-Industrial Revolution to present.
That is low enough to easily fall within a global margin of error for computing it.... in other words, that amount is negligible.
The vast majority of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, which accounts for between zero and 4% of the atmosphere... and about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose figures you cite).
The remaining bit is methane, ozone (thank God for banning AquaNet, eh??), carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and miscellaneous other gases. Carbon dioxides biggest impact as a greehouse gas happens down here in the stratosphere, but that also happens to be where all the plant life is that needs all of that CO2 to breathe.
Here's another little tidbit, take it for what it's worth:
Quote:
Though carbon dioxide definitely absorbs IR, it only absorbs IR in two very narrow ranges of wavelengths, one between 2.5 and 3 microns, and another between 4 and 5 microns. This is a small percentage of the total IR emitted by the surface. I don't know exactly how small (because I can't find any source for the wavelength distribution of IR emitted from the surface), but it's probably less than 10%, and perhaps as low as 4%. And even in those ranges, CO2 has to compete with water vapor, which also absorbs 2.5-3-micron IR. So, even if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased a thousand-fold, and even if there was no water vapor, there is a limit to how much IR CO2 can absorb, and that limit is 10% (or less) of all the IR emitted from the surface. And of that 10%, over half of it still ends up escaping into space.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
And if you are still scared of CO2.........Plant more trees and crops......Problem fixed.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430 |
Quote:
And if you are still scared of CO2.........Plant more trees and crops......Problem fixed.
But ...... they create CO2 when not processing sunlight through photosynthesis.
That's it ..... kill all the trees! They're creating global warming!
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,657
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,657 |
You are right on both counts. The increase in CO2 is about 0.01 percent.
But don't call it within the margin of error. That is inappropriate when our ability to measure accurately is 0.0001. so 0.0380 percent can be accurately measured as well as 0.0381 percent.
The IR response is really what has the scientists in a tizzy. Nitrogen and Oxygen are fairly benign, with fairly predictable properties, but CO2 is able to absorb IR more easily and heat. A crude analogy is microwave and water. I don't agree with the "compete with water vapor" point of discussion. IR absorbance is not really a competiton.
That is essentially the discussion point, because of the small change, we get an amplification
All of this said, I have not seen one compositional comparison of a 0.0280 percent CO2 environment versus a 0.0380 percent CO2 environment at various levels of humidity that would make me jump on board with the science. That may be within the margin of error, IR spectrum included.
Actually the ozone hole has closed since we banned CFC's. And the air is better in LA since we put emmissions controls on cars. On these items the scientists were correct.
There is junk science on both sides of this discussion.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
There is junk science on both sides of this discussion.
Between this and Favre, there sure is a lot of junk floating around the news today.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,657
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,657 |
Websites like junk science rile me as much as the global warming crowd.
You will have to do a lot better than display a knowledge of the Stefan Boltzman contant to impress me. Sheesh basic college physics...
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175 |
Quote:
But don't call it within the margin of error. That is inappropriate when our ability to measure accurately is 0.0001. so 0.0380 percent can be accurately measured as well as 0.0381 percent.
Given that you can only measure it locally, yet it is being extrapolated to being a global measurement through averaging... I'd call it margin of error. Yeah, I'm probably being a little obtuse with that, but the whole thing is just extrapolations and guessing based upon lots of localized data.
Quote:
Actually the ozone hole has closed since we banned CFC's.
And Big Hair was never the same 
Actually, hasn't it been shown that it, too, simply moves in cycles?
Quote:
And the air is better in LA since we put emmissions controls on cars. On these items the scientists were correct.
There's little doubt of that, but again it was a localized issue.... and there is little way around that. You just cannot pack that much into such a small space and expect no effects... but the vastness around it mitigates it.
Quote:
There is junk science on both sides of this discussion.
No doubt about that... but only one side seeks legislation and spending in its name.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,577
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,577 |
J/C
My theory is it is in God's hands.
Some things we can't control or explain.
My next theory is the sun doesn't burn at the same rate...it gets hotter and cooler.
Expand a bit, it gets hotter on earth, contract, it gets cooler.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,657
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,657 |
God may have created it, but we do have the ability to understand it.
I will get a bit more concerned when the water shows up at my doorstep. I may get my beachfront home sooner than I anticipated.
The way I see it, global warming would have the following impacts (aside from temperature)
Melting of the ice caps and rising of the ocean levels.
More rainfall (higher temperature, more water vapor, more rain).
Changes in ocean currents.
Any single event does not make it. Nor does any point location on the planet.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Agree there. I'm just glad to have lived in this age rather than having froze to death in as a Neanderthal trying to build a fire in an ice storm, or be here later when the Sun explodes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
Agree there. I'm just glad to have lived in this age rather than having froze to death in as a Neanderthal trying to build a fire in an ice storm, or be here later when the Sun explodes.
Well...
Remember, 2012 hasn't hit yet!
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
Melting of the ice caps and rising of the ocean levels.
Help me out with this one.
Since ice is comprised of not just water but air it displaces more water than it would replace if it were just water alone. So wouldn't the ocean level actually drop if the ice caps were to melt?
If you fill a glass with ice, then top it off with water and let the ice melt, you no longer have a topped off glass of water, you have less.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
A large percentage of the ice is sitting on top of land right now.
In places like Greenland, for instance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175 |
Quote:
A large percentage of the ice is sitting on top of land right now.
In places like Greenland, for instance.
And a small island called Antarctica.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Atmospheric CO2 has increased from being roughly 0.028% of the atmosphere to about 0.038% in the span of time from pre-Industrial Revolution to present.
That is low enough to easily fall within a global margin of error for computing it.... in other words, that amount is negligible.
That is not negligible, even though they are small numbers. Those numbers come from readings from around the world, and the error as I understand it is 0.001%, meaning that the measurements are highly accurate, and the difference in highly statistically significant.
Quote:
The vast majority of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, which accounts for between zero and 4% of the atmosphere... and about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose figures you cite).
The remaining bit is methane, ozone (thank God for banning AquaNet, eh??), carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and miscellaneous other gases. Carbon dioxides biggest impact as a greehouse gas happens down here in the stratosphere, but that also happens to be where all the plant life is that needs all of that CO2 to breathe.
I won't argue with most of this. Reading your whole link to the bottom, these authors suggest that humans are responsible for a 25% increase in the current total CO2 in the atmosphere, or about 2.5% of the total "greenhouse effect." Even though that seems like a small number, over the 60 years since 1950 they argue that we could have accounted for 0.3 degrees of the 0.6 degree global temp increase via CO2-mediated effects.
The one thing I will argue with is that they make the point that pre-1950 accounts for the other 0.3 degrees of warming, but they dismiss the increase from 280ppm CO2 to 320ppm as negligible. This is incorrect, as they go to great pains to point out that the models they use are logarithmic. That means that the increase from 280 to 320 from 1880 to 1950 can have a similar effect as the increase from 320 to 380 from 1950-2010. It is even in the graphs they showed, so I'm not really sure how they came to this conclusion, other than they wanted to believe it. I would say, based on the models they quote, that all 0.6 degrees of temperature increase would be consistent with the increases in CO2 levels.
The historical record suggests that earth can withstand a global mean temperature plus or minus 2 or 3 degrees on either side of a "norm" (based on data from the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age). But we really don't have data outside this plus or minus 2 or 3 degrees, so we really don't know the consequences of pushing it even further. And further is where we'll be in a few hundred years if current rates of CO2 production continue and the earth can't adapt in some way to deal with the excess CO2. This doesn't call for drastic measures, but it also doesn't call for sticking our heads in the sand. We should lay out a long term plan to deal with all this. I actually think that over that several hundred years, technology will have helped us supplant fossil fuels as the primary energy source, circumventing most of the problem, but that is just my hunch without any evidence.
What's worse is that many of the largest countries in the world are only recently (within the last few decades) coming online with large amounts of industry and automobiles. Rates of human CO2 production are not going to go down any time soon, and haven't nearly reached a peak yet. This is reflected in the CO2 data that shows a somewhat greater than linear increase. The rates as a trend were generally below 1 ppm/year in the early 1960's, but have accelerated to closer to 2 ppm/year recently. We aren't just adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, we are adding more faster than we have in the past.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
This doesn't call for drastic measures, but it also doesn't call for sticking our heads in the sand. We should lay out a long term plan to deal with all this. I actually think that over that several hundred years, technology will have helped us supplant fossil fuels as the primary energy source, circumventing most of the problem, but that is just my hunch without any evidence.
The problem is those who believe 100% that Global Warming is human caused and go at it as a religion. They want drastic action... They want it now. They want it now even though we don't have the technology to fully go at it in the proper way. They want a drastic change.. Look at California and specifically AB32..
I'm all for changing over to newer technology, but you have to let that technology develop first.. It's not going to appear overnight nor is it going to appear via legislation.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
And it ain't gonna appear before somebody has the ability to make it more profitable than fossil fuel either,....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
And it ain't gonna appear before somebody has the ability to make it more profitable than fossil fuel either,....
Green tech is very profitable for those who build it.. The problem is that it isn't efficient or cost effective for most consumers/business to use in all facets of energy use. Green tech still has a ways to go... And right now Green tech companies are trying to make sure it's legislated so business *have* to use it.. They spend a lot of money to defeat Prop 23 in California.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,449
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,449 |
Quote:
Even considering that there were other warming periods in history, it is not a logical leap to say that because there are other warming periods, this current one cannot have a component that is caused by man.
How about we call it noise on a longer term climate signal? It only make sense, no?
Does anyone really, REALLY, believe the climate and CO2 content of the atmosphere was constant until man started utilizing fossil fuels? 
Did we have an ice age or not? What happened to the ice? Whale fart induced climate warming? Yeah thats the ticket!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
And it ain't gonna appear before somebody has the ability to make it more profitable than fossil fuel either,....
Green tech is very profitable for those who build it.. The problem is that it isn't efficient or cost effective for most consumers/business to use in all facets of energy use. Green tech still has a ways to go... And right now Green tech companies are trying to make sure it's legislated so business *have* to use it.. They spend a lot of money to defeat Prop 23 in California.
Kind of along with this thought.....in my "backyard"..........about 400, maybe 500 yards away, a business put in a wind turbine. If I remember correctly from the zoning application, the tower is 200 ft. high, the blades are about 50 feet in length (the overall height, with a blade straight up, is 250 ft.)
Cost was slightly under $1 million dollars - of which the business owner will get grant money and tax breaks to pay for about $450,000 of it......... The owner is figuring 6 1/2 to 7 years before he recoups the investment outlay HE spent, out of his pocket. But, at about that time, he also will need to have it refurbished at a cost of who knows how much? (He doesn't know for sure either, it all depends on so many variables)
It was just completed a little over a week ago, but it is not yet running. It looks cool as hell though. Especially being so close. I can't wait for it to be functional and running (hopefully Monday) - I want to hear .........will it be loud and annoying? A mild drone in the background? Something I don't hear at all?
Regardless, without tax money, and the tax breaks, it was a flat out no go for him to do it.
I'll put a picture of it on here sometime soon. Taken from my back porch.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And it ain't gonna appear before somebody has the ability to make it more profitable than fossil fuel either,....
Green tech is very profitable for those who build it.. The problem is that it isn't efficient or cost effective for most consumers/business to use in all facets of energy use. Green tech still has a ways to go... And right now Green tech companies are trying to make sure it's legislated so business *have* to use it.. They spend a lot of money to defeat Prop 23 in California.
Kind of along with this thought.....in my "backyard"..........about 400, maybe 500 yards away, a business put in a wind turbine. If I remember correctly from the zoning application, the tower is 200 ft. high, the blades are about 50 feet in length (the overall height, with a blade straight up, is 250 ft.)
Cost was slightly under $1 million dollars - of which the business owner will get grant money and tax breaks to pay for about $450,000 of it......... The owner is figuring 6 1/2 to 7 years before he recoups the investment outlay HE spent, out of his pocket. But, at about that time, he also will need to have it refurbished at a cost of who knows how much? (He doesn't know for sure either, it all depends on so many variables)
It was just completed a little over a week ago, but it is not yet running. It looks cool as hell though. Especially being so close. I can't wait for it to be functional and running (hopefully Monday) - I want to hear .........will it be loud and annoying? A mild drone in the background? Something I don't hear at all?
Regardless, without tax money, and the tax breaks, it was a flat out no go for him to do it.
I'll put a picture of it on here sometime soon. Taken from my back porch.
Like I said... It's very profitable for those who make green tech... and even with those subsidies it may still not be cost effective. The Green people always clamor on about how much the Oil companies are in it for the profit and call them greedy, when in fact the green tech companies do the same.. They just cannot be seen as evil as easily as the oil companies.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175 |
Quote:
That is not negligible, even though they are small numbers. Those numbers come from readings from around the world, and the error as I understand it is 0.001%, meaning that the measurements are highly accurate, and the difference in highly statistically significant.
Statistically significant based on previously accepted values, perhaps.
I will still respectfully disagree, however. No matter how you slice it, you are measuring one very finite location and extrapolating that to represent an entire area. You are then taking multiples of those extrapolations worldwide and creating an average... the whole process is fraught with margins of error.
Have you ever seen reports - anywhere - that discuss the warming effects of greenhouse gases with similarly accurate measurements of moisture and clouds?
It's a secondary gas that doesn't even have the most significant impact on things, yet it receives the focus. Why is that? Could it be because you couldn't create an industry mitigating water content?
Quote:
This doesn't call for drastic measures, but it also doesn't call for sticking our heads in the sand.
This still implies the arrogance that we can actually affect anything.... or that we currently are. There is absolutely zero proof that any warming that is occurring is anything beyond historically normal warming. All there is is someone pointing to a chart and saying that it is getting warmer - just as it always has in the past - and we think we have some extra CO2, too.... and did you notice the charts where the two don't even correlate?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
I will still respectfully disagree, however. No matter how you slice it, you are measuring one very finite location and extrapolating that to represent an entire area. You are then taking multiples of those extrapolations worldwide and creating an average... the whole process is fraught with margins of error.
Even though common sense tells you that it should give very high errors, the data is actually about as good as you can get; the margins of error are exceedingly small. There is a worldwide network of measurements. When all averaged together, they agree to a very high extent. For example, the average for all marine surface sites in 2010 was roughly 388 ppm of CO2, + or - 0.57 ppm. That means that almost every single measurement from around the world was in the range of 387.4 - 388.6 ppm. With error like that, the statistics would tell you that we are 99.999999% sure that current measurements are much higher than historical measurements in the same locations.
Scientists use remote marine sites (usually tropical islands) of high altitude because the wind patterns are much more predictable, the altitude is high enough to measure air masses that are representative of large areas, and the influence from local effects is minimal, with little industry or automobiles (for example, you get much, much higher readings in a steel mill town or at rush hour in New York).
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html
Quote:
Have you ever seen reports - anywhere - that discuss the warming effects of greenhouse gases with similarly accurate measurements of moisture and clouds?
It's a secondary gas that doesn't even have the most significant impact on things, yet it receives the focus. Why is that? Could it be because you couldn't create an industry mitigating water content?
I was under the impression that most think that water is a part of this. I don't think I ever said that CO2 is the only component of the warming. Nor do I ever see that in the scientific literature. I think current thinking is that CO2 is the primary "forcer" of temperature increase, and this incremental temperature increase leads to more evaporation of water, a higher water vapor concentration, and a feedback effect. Physical models fit this idea very well.
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Schmidt_et_al%202010.pdf
If CO2 is the primary effector, or the initial event that gets the ball rolling, that is what you go after, not the feedback mechanism. Further, we have or will have the means in the near future to address CO2 production; we are just as able to control the water cycle as we are to turn a thermostat on the sun to turn it down. That is why CO2 receives the focus.
Quote:
This still implies the arrogance that we can actually affect anything.... or that we currently are. There is absolutely zero proof that any warming that is occurring is anything beyond historically normal warming. All there is is someone pointing to a chart and saying that it is getting warmer - just as it always has in the past - and we think we have some extra CO2, too.... and did you notice the charts where the two don't even correlate?
Again, I will say that just because there was warming in the past does not mean that the warming this time around is exactly the same. This only means that CO2 is not the only variable in history. It does nothing to disprove that current warming trends could be linked to CO2.
This is logically fallacy, that if warming has happened in the past without CO2 linkage, that it must be occurring now without CO2 linkage. Replace "warming" and "CO2 linkage" with any number of analogies and you'll see why. For example, if murder has happened in the past without a knife, then it must be occurring now without a knife. Doesn't work.
And I would be interested in seeing the chart where CO2 and temp have no correlation for the current warming event over long time scales.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
This is logically fallacy, that if warming has happened in the past without CO2 linkage, that it must be occurring now without CO2 linkage. Replace "warming" and "CO2 linkage" with any number of analogies and you'll see why. For example, if murder has happened in the past without a knife, then it must be occurring now without a knife. Doesn't work.
But logically speaking, the possibility still stands that there is no CO2 link and the correlation that CO2 levels are higher along with temps are higher are pure coincidence. Just as one can say that there is still a possibility that a murder could occur now without a knife as well..
One can also say that in 1900 there were only 1.25 billion people on Earth and in 2011 there will be 7 Billion people... and global temperature has risen so therefore, people are causing Global Warming.
People just need to stop thinking that Humans causing Global Warming is a fact, in which, it is not. There are plenty of variables out there and they only want to focus on the human aspect because a) it's one they can make money off of through fear and b) makes us think there is something we can do about the problem..
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Scientists say to expect more
extreme weather due to Global
Warming
|
|
