Global Warming

[Sombeech]

We've been hearing this term for a while. Is it caused by too much CO2? Is it real? Is it fake?

What are the statistics? If the Icecaps melt, does the ocean necessarily rise?

Does global warming exist when our wasatch front still has snow on the peaks after the first week of June?

Here's the place to hash out the details on why, or why not you believe GW exists. :popcorn:

[Udink]

There's no doubt that global temperatures have gotten warmer since the ice age (duh), but I don't think anybody can reliably prove that humans are responsible for it. Hell, there was a time when the earth didn't even have polar ice caps, and there were no humans around to be blamed. It's obvious that climate changes are always occurring on this planet, so who cares if global temperatures go up or down by a few degrees? In the grand scheme of things, none of it matters.

[stefan]

As i understand it there are two types of warming.

(1) Clearly we are exiting the ice age and there has been a natural trend of warming for 10,000 years. Scientists are NOT suggesting that THIS is our fault.

(2) There is a TREND which shows a marked increase in average tempurature RISE over the past 100 years, especially the last 50. What this is demonstrating is that there is an ACCELERATION of the warming. Furthermore that this acceleration in average temp. is correlated with a related increase in the amount of carbon dioxide released during that period. it is THIS which scientists believe WE are responsible for.


it's actually dramatically impressive the amount of CO2 we can put into the atmostphere. most folks wouldn't really believe it, then again, it's hard for humans to really grasp the scope of anything large scale.

what bothers me most is that WE as humans only choose to deal with issues when they are a crisis. Rather than entertain the possibility that we are responsible and try to change it, we'd rather deny it and wait until it's a much more difficult problem.

Now i totally disagree with Udink. Who cares about a couple of degrees? Sheesh. What do you know about a couple of degrees. You and I have no concept of the implications of a couple of degrees. Now i will say that no one knows precisely what the implications are, but it's short-sighted to suggest that a couple of degrees means NOTHING, it's also very short-sighted to expect that it'll only be a couple of degrees. Plus you cannot base what happens over the course of a few years on what can happen in many years from the same result. The surface of the earth and it's atmosphere form a very complex system, for %&$#'s sake we cannot even predict the weather more than 3 days out. Tinkering with our atmosphere *potentially* can lead to dramatic consequences. I don't think this should be taken so lightly.


It's better to err on the side of caution in this case, i would think.

"Grand scheme of things", this arguement is a way to cop out of responsibility and moreover, it's absurdly in alignment with, "well, eventually, i'll be dead, so who cares about what i do in life and the value of my decisions."

[KillEmAll]

I certainly believe in global warming, in the fact that the globe is warming. But global waming is such a loosely used term. Technically the Earth is warming but there is no proof whatsoever that humans are the cause. It has been proven that throughout mankind, and before that, the earth's temperature has abruptly changed, sometimes hotter, sometimes colder. I'm not saying that humans don't need to clean up their act, but I can't stand it when humans, especially Americans, get blamed for everything "bad" that happens on this planet. I can't wait until we start getting blamed for earthquakes and volcanos. I work with a guy that really believes the government caused Katrina. He also believes the gov. blew up the World Trade Center. But that's a whole other topic.

[Sombeech]

I step outside yesterday, and start sweating immediately because of the heat this early in June. Even May had record high temps.

And then I still see snow on Mt Ogden approaching mid-June. Maybe I'll start a theory called "valley warming".

[James_B_Wads2000]

There's no doubt that global temperatures have gotten warmer since the ice age (duh), but I don't think anybody can reliably prove that humans are responsible for it. Hell, there was a time when the earth didn't even have polar ice caps, and there were no humans around to be blamed. It's obvious that climate changes are always occurring on this planet, so who cares if global temperatures go up or down by a few degrees? In the grand scheme of things, none of it matters.

You are right that the planet is and has been getting warmer for last ~200,000yrs. I don

[stefan]

I step outside yesterday, and start sweating immediately because of the heat this early in June. Even May had record high temps.

And then I still see snow on Mt Ogden approaching mid-June. Maybe I'll start a theory called "valley warming".

snow takes a long time to melt, especially when there is a lot of it and the snow is dense. Snow reflects a lot of the sun's radiation too. Last year the snow was very very deep and it seemed as though we could ski forever. ah it was fantastic. but by my last week of june and first week of july skiing the wasatch, it was becoming clear to me that the snow was vanishing superrapidly.

FYI alta measured 700" by the end of April last year, 150" above average, This year was very high too. Before last year, 1997 was the last comparable year. So the snow being around isn't a good indicator. it's the rate of melting of the snow of comparable years that, in the crudest of senses, would be marginally appropriate.

[Sombeech]

So the snow being around isn't a good indicator. it's the rate of melting of the snow of comparable years that, in the crudest of senses, would be marginally appropriate.

So does this mean it's not consistently getting warmer, but comes and goes in waves?

[stefan]

So the snow being around isn't a good indicator. it's the rate of melting of the snow of comparable years that, in the crudest of senses, would be marginally appropriate.

So does this mean it's not consistently getting warmer, but comes and goes in waves?

Well remember "warming" is in an averaged sense, there constantly are fluctuations due to rotation of earth about axis/sun, weather patterns, whatever. This means that it can be cold enough at a moment when a lot of moisture is passing through a region, i.e., enough to lay down tons of snow, but on average, be warmer from one year to the next.

I guess my point is that none of this is really cut-and-dry. For example 1997-1998 was a HUGE snow year (alta 650-700+), yet January was the 3rd warmest on record. You need to look at averages over time in many different locations, i think, to get a real sense of "warming."

[Udink]

Furthermore that this acceleration in average temp. is correlated with a related increase in the amount of carbon dioxide released during that period. it is THIS which scientists believe WE are responsible for.
You should not confuse correllation with coincidence. A correllation has not been proven.


"Grand scheme of things", this arguement is a way to cop out of responsibility and moreover, it's absurdly in alignment with, "well, eventually, i'll be dead, so who cares about what i do in life and the value of my decisions."
I agree that it's a cop-out. However, who's to say that humans have a responsibility to try to propagate themselves forever? It's a matter of when, not if we go out just like the dinosaurs and wooly mammoths.


Will human contributions to global warming wipe out all life on Earth? Hell no, not possible. Will it wipe out human life on Earth? Maybe, it would take thousands of years. Will it make human life more difficult on Earth? I would say yes there is a very good chance.
I agree wholeheartedly, and this is about the most pragmatic answer we're likely to see on this board. :smile:

[stefan]

You should not confuse correllation with coincidence. A correllation has not been proven.

i DIDN'T confuse correlation with coincidence. Sure, correlation can be an indicatior of coincidence. i didn't suggest this wasn't a possibllity. i simply stated that there is a correlation and that this is one angle that scientists use to SUGGEST that we are responsible. No one's PROVING anything, mostly because it's too hard. THIS is why i would prefer the preventative approach to *potential* crises and to err on the side of caution. What is so wrong with the idea of acknowledging the possibility that we may be an influence and trying to apply measures to curb our carbon output? It has other beneficial effects also.




"Grand scheme of things", this arguement is a way to cop out of responsibility and moreover, it's absurdly in alignment with, "well, eventually, i'll be dead, so who cares about what i do in life and the value of my decisions."
I agree that it's a cop-out. However, who's to say that humans have a responsibility to try to propagate themselves forever? It's a matter of when, not if we go out just like the dinosaurs and wooly mammoths.

I think in the grand scheme of things there is no such thing as responsibility, good or bad...everything just is or is not. But i think placing value is part of what is being human (not exclusively). I place high value on OUR livelihood and believe that it shouldn't be degraded by careless economic development. Oh and if it's a matter of when and not if, then why bother living at all? what's the point? i just don't understand the meaning of this argument.


What is pragmatic is trying to analyze the effects our actions take, to evaluate the ramifications not on a purely economical basis, and try make more informed decision and changes to improve the manner in which we operate. We have a long time before we go extinct.

[Sombeech]

June 15th 2006
Mt Ogden

[ATVUtah]

I have absolute undeniable irrefutable photographic proof of Global Warming.

[Udink]

I have absolute undeniable irrefutable photographic proof of Global Warming.
:roflol: Hahaha...in that case, bring on the global warming! :naughty:

[rockgremlin]

:roflol: I'm with Udink --- bring on the warming!!! It's not hot enough!!

My supervisor went for a drive up on the La Sals a week ago. He drives a HUGE Ford F350, with an impressive lift kit. He said he got stuck in a really deep snow drift, and had to walk back for help to pull him out. Lots of snow still up there.

Its a fact that the earth is warming, but whether or not we are responsible remains to be seen. Like was mentioned above, this earth goes through periods of dramatic temperature fluctuations. What caused those fluctuations before man was burning fossil fuels?

Another thing to consider -- we only have reliable archived temperature data as far back as the mid-late 1800s. So we can only compare the current climate to that set of data. Who is to say that there weren't periods where temperatures spiked dramatically (a rapid acceleration of warming) BEFORE the 1800s? What was responsible for it then?

A good read on this topic is "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by a former bigwig for Greenpeace, Bjorn Lomborg.

[Scott P]

[quote]You are right that the planet is and has been getting warmer for last ~200,000yrs. I don

[Scott P]

Another thing to consider -- we only have reliable archived temperature data as far back as the mid-late 1800s. So we can only compare the current climate to that set of data.

Bull crap. You have no knowlege of tree ring, coring, and biological dating, sea level data, and climatic study.


Who is to say that there weren't periods where temperatures spiked dramatically (a rapid acceleration of warming) BEFORE the 1800s?

Of course there were. You fail to know your climatological history.


What was responsible for it then?

Lot's of factors can be responsible. Volcanic eruptions is a big one. If the super volcano in Yellowstone goes off, no one is going to worry about global warming, but global cooling, and rapid. (Actually if it goes off people in the Salt Lake area might not after worry about anything, as it could be destroyed). Tambora caused a huge drop in temperature in the early 1800's. Sun spot activity is also a factor. Meteorites in the past have also caused great changes. The earth's ratation is a factor. There are many, many factors that can and will continue to be causes.

[rockgremlin]

You call tree rings RELIABLE temperature data?! I'm calling bullshit on that! So just by looking at tree rings you can tell within a few degrees accuracy what the temperature was way back when?

Ya right. :roll:


Lot's of factors can be responsible. Volcanic eruptions is a big one. If the super volcano in Yellowstone goes off, no one is going to worry about global warming, but global cooling, and rapid. (Actually if it goes off people in the Salt Lake area might not after worry about anything, as it could be destroyed). Tambora caused a huge drop in temperature in the early 1800's. Sun spot activity is also a factor. Meteorites in the past have also caused great changes. The earth's ratation is a factor. There are many, many factors that can and will continue to be causes.

Thanks for validating my point. When man wasn't around to burn fossil fuels, the Earth still underwent periods of dramatic warming.


One can easily prove in a high school class room that more C02 in the atmosphere will cause warming.

Huh? CO2 by itself isn't responsible for heating the classroom. The fact that the room is full of 98.6 degree bodies breathing out air at 98.6 degrees in close proximity is responsible for warming up the classroom. Don't you remember that from your Thermodynamics courses in college?

[Scott P]

You call tree rings RELIABLE temperature data?!

No. It is just a part of it. You have to find several climatic data indicators and put them together to form a theory. Just one will not do, and is not at all reliable, just as you say. There are many more factors and experiments from which data must be compliled. Not just one.


Thanks for validating my point. When man wasn't around to burn fossil fuels, the Earth still underwent periods of dramatic warming.

Yes, this is true. I would never disagree with that. Nor would I ever disagree that the world couldn't even become colder in the future, regardless of what man does. I would say that man could add more to what nature would do regardless and that man could cause it to be warmer than what ever mother nature (God) decides to dish out.


Scott wrote:
One can easily prove in a high school class room that more C02 in the atmosphere will cause warming.

Huh? CO2 by itself isn't responsible for heating the classroom. The fact that the room is full of 98.6 degree bodies breathing out air at 98.6 degrees in close proximity is responsible for warming up the classroom. Don't you remember that from your Thermodynamics courses in college?

Huh? That's not what I meant at all. What I meant is that you can set up experiments in a high school lab that would prove having more CO2 in the atmosphere will cause heating.

What you cannot prove is how much (some argue miniscule and other's great and the affect). It would be impossible to prove how much the earth would warm, or if it would even be small or large, at least in this stage in time. Too many factors are involved that are impossible to replicate in any laboritory. The oceans absorb a huge amount of CO2, and the amount isn't even known. Forest absorb it too, though this is a bit easier to calculate. There are hundreds of other factors as well.

Also, I actually don't have any problem with anyone disagreeing with anything about global warming, and this is true even of my own writtings and experiements. I would never make any claims as to I know that much about global warming. If people with to disagree and share data and ideas I'm open.

What I do not like is people making decisions based on personal beliefs or politics. This should not be the scientific way. I believe those whom do wish to express their opinions on whether or not (and especially not) it
would at least be willing to at least do their own research, experiements, writting and verification of equasions, and comparing several data sources before thinking they can make a decision on the matter. What is wrong with that?

PS, I would be more than happy (seriously, no sarcasm) to compare yours and mine knowlege of thermodynamics. It would be fun to discuss, because I seldom find anyone whom is interested in discussing the subject

Anyone voting "no", could you please show me some of your data (not Googled data-yours), experiments, and equasions that you used to come up with your conclusions that it does not exist. I won't disagree. I would even be interested in the data.

[Udink]

Anyone voting "no", could you please show me some of your data (not Googled data-yours), experiments, and equasions that you used to come up with your conclusions that it does not exist. I won't disagree. I would even be interested in the data.
I voted "No," but not necessarily because I don't belive in global warming. Obviously, the earth's climate can warm or chill based on any number of factors. Rather, I don't believe in this whole "the sky is falling" crap that I keep hearing about global warming. Like this (http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/):

[quote]

[Sombeech]

Rush Limbaugh is a good example. He always spews about global warming, and yet he also, on the air said things like the following:


Now, I have another question -- and look, I'm not a scientist, so I'm not afraid to ask what some of you scientists might think are dumb questions, but if an iceberg at the North Pole is freshwater, I want to know where it was made and how it got there. How can an iceberg in ocean water be freshwater? I understand how it can rain freshwater over the ocean because the whole evaporation process and condensation process actually distills it, but I don't understand how an iceberg can be freshwater.

If someone is so incredibly stupid to pretend that they know alot about global warming and constantly spew information on it, yet does not even know a simple question such as where an iceberg even comes from, then that is pure foolishness. Yet, people actually believe him and others because they sound like they know what they are talking about.

I'm not a Rush fan, but I think he's just asking where freshwater icebergs are coming from.

[rockgremlin]

Huh? That's not what I meant at all. What I meant is that you can set up experiments in a high school lab that would prove having more CO2 in the atmosphere will cause heating.

What I do not like is people making decisions based on personal beliefs or politics. This should not be the scientific way. I believe those whom do wish to express their opinions on whether or not (and especially not) it
would at least be willing to at least do their own research, experiements, writting and verification of equasions, and comparing several data sources before thinking they can make a decision on the matter. What is wrong with that?

PS, I would be more than happy (seriously, no sarcasm) to compare yours and mine knowlege of thermodynamics. It would be fun to discuss, because I seldom find anyone whom is interested in discussing the subject.


Ahhh. Misunderstanding. Sorry.

No I totally agree with you about the whole "making decisions on personal research and not from political platforms" idea. One of my BIGGEST pet peeves are people who take what they hear on the news as law. :roll: Like the media has some obligation to report the truth, whole truth, and nothing but. Ya right!!

I did several research papers on GW in college. Its a touchy subject, because there are so many shades of gray.

Well, I'm afraid you're gonna have to find another person to discuss thermo with. That sound you hear is a shudder going down my spine at the very thought of discussing thermo. Once I passed that class I never looked back. :haha:

[Sombeech]

Anyone voting "no", could you please show me some of your data (not Googled data-yours), experiments, and equasions that you used to come up with your conclusions that it does not exist. I won't disagree. I would even be interested in the data.


June 15th 2006
Mt Ogden
http://uutah.com/forum/files/img_0140__small_.jpg





I'm actually wondering if I will have to prepare for snow next month in the Wind Rivers.

[rockgremlin]

I'm not a Rush fan, but I think he's just asking where freshwater icebergs are coming from.

Ok, a little chemistry lesson.

When a solution composed of water and a solute (salt in this case) is chilled to the freezing point, the pure water will start to freeze out first. Once water leaves the solution as ice, the rest of the solution becomes more concentrated because the salt stays in the liquid water. This is how icebergs of "pure water" are formed.

This is just a normal chemical process, and is also used by companies to make solutions more concentrated. (This is how they make "Ice Draft" beer).

Don't you ever notice when you freeze your Mtn. Dew that the ice floating around in your Dew came from the Dew itself, but is just pure bland water?

[Sombeech]

Don't you ever notice when you freeze your Mtn. Dew that the ice floating around in your Dew came from the Dew itself, but is just pure bland water?
Aha! But I just call that "diet" dew. :haha: Now I remember the lesson of salt and ice. The Salt water doesn't freeze. Thanks.

[Scott P]

I'm not a Rush fan, but I think he's just asking where freshwater icebergs are coming from.

Yep, that was my point. He is constantly spewing info about global warming and has to ask where an iceberg comes from. Some source to get info from, eh? Yet many listen to him on the matter. :nono:


I did several research papers on GW in college.

Me too. Wanna trade? Just for fun? We could critique each other's equations/data and experiments in a friendly manner. :2thumbs:


Ok, a little chemistry lesson.

When a solution composed of water and a solute (salt in this case) is chilled to the freezing point, the pure water will start to freeze out first. Once water leaves the solution as ice, the rest of the solution becomes more concentrated because the salt stays in the liquid water. This is how icebergs of "pure water" are formed.

This is just a normal chemical process, and is also used by companies to make solutions more concentrated. (This is how they make "Ice Draft" beer).

Don't you ever notice when you freeze your Mtn. Dew that the ice floating around in your Dew came from the Dew itself, but is just pure bland water?

I assume you are joking? Icebergs are freshwater because (with the excetion of an ice shelf) come from freshwater glaciers. They are not frozen ocean water. :ne_nau:


Well, I'm afraid you're gonna have to find another person to discuss thermo with. That sound you hear is a shudder going down my spine at the very thought of discussing thermo. Once I passed that class I never looked back.

Oh come on, why not? Even my fellow highway design engineers don't like to discuss it with me for fun. :roflol:

[rockgremlin]

In addition to the chemistry lesson, here's a geology lesson :mrgreen: :

What is an iceberg?

An iceberg is just a chunk that has broken away from a glacier. A chip off the old block, so to speak. And, since glaciers are just continental sized snow drifts hundreds of feet thick, it makes sense that they are pure water. (When was the last time you bit into a snowball, and it was salty?)

Ahhhh, Mr. Limbaugh....why are icebergs made of fresh water.... :roll: :roflol:

[Scott P]

Obviously, the earth's climate can warm or chill based on any number of factors.

Very true, but humancaused could be one factor, no.


Rather, I don't believe in this whole "the sky is falling" crap that I keep hearing about global warming. Sure, the globe can warm, big deal.

I agree that it wouldn't be a big deal in Utah. I usually wouldn't think about it in Colorado either.

But....I spent most of November in the South Pacific. Some of the islands are only 2-5 feet above sea level, and people have been living on them for 100's of years. Now, is the possibility of global warming a big deal to them. You bet. If you lived there, would you think it could be a big deal. I think so. Would you agree? It could affect many people.

[rockgremlin]

Beat me by 5 minutes... :roll:

[rockgremlin]

Ya your design engineers don't like to discuss it because its a four-letter word!

What did you have in mind to discuss? Enthalpy? Entropy? Fire away if you must...

What notes about GW did you have in mind? What conclusions did you come to?

[Scott P]

What did you have in mind to discuss? Enthalpy? Entropy? Fire away if you must...

Ah, just anything intelligent, except for English and spelling. No one seems to want to talk about math and science for fun. The boring Broncos, maybe, but when I start talking mathematics or equations, people start rolling their eyes, no matter how interesting. Geography, meteorology, physics, thermodynamics, whatever.


What notes about GW did you have in mind?


Any of those research papers you did, or experiments, equasions, and conclusions, and I will exchange and share mine too.


What conclusions did you come to?

That it does exist qualitatively, but also that it is quantitatively too difficult to calculate with my meager data/experience due to too many factors and unknown variables involved.

[rockgremlin]

Ah, just anything intelligent, except for English and spelling. No one seems to want to talk about math and science for fun. The boring Broncos, maybe, but when I start talking mathematics or equations, people start rolling their eyes, no matter how interesting. Geography, meteorology, physics, thermodynamics, whatever.

How about geology? Geology is a passion of mine. Specifically ore genesis, structural geology, and hydrothermal systems. One of the geologists sharing our office brought me back a few samples of Carnotite from a few miles down the road from here. I think its cool as hell, but I am unsure what to do with it? The gamma particles coming off of it were detectable with a Geiger counter at ten feet!!


That it does exist qualitatively, but also that it is quantitatively too difficult to calculate with my meager data/experience due to too many factors and unknown variables involved.

Yup. That's the conclusion I came to as well. I also felt that ratifying the Kyoto Protocol is a mistake because not only is it unreasonable, but it doesn't promote research into alternate energy sources, which I fully support. Burning fossil fuels as an energy source is incredibly cheap and easy, but its dirty (requires a lot of handling to clean up), inefficient, and finite. I feel we should be more diligently researching alternate (renewable) energy sources not really for the sake of curbing global warming, but because its smarter and more efficient.

What were some of your sources?

[stefan]

Okay this is getting out of control, the equations/theories/understanding to address this problem is FAR beyond any one single person. This is a problem addressed by many scientists across many different areas of research. so let's forget about trying to prove or best anyone else's understanding of the fundamental arguments and move onto a more practical question.

is the proper approach to wait until a situation actually becomes a crisis before acting upon it. and if so, what will we do if we should realize that the situation is substantially more difficult to reverse once we push it sufficiently far. furthermore what if the situation is complicated by hysteresis? the potentially dramatic effects of GW could be felt long after the critical point and/or subsequently reducing the carbon level at that point may not restore the previous state of the biosphere.

yes, we potentially are *risking* something of global proportions. why isn't prevention a more reasonable approach, especially if it has MANY alternatively postiive effects? is it appropriate for us to allow future generations to live with the consequences of our actions? i agree these points are dramatic, but first of all, this theory is not a whim. second of all, while it might be true that the specific predictions of scientists who model global warming are inaccurate, it may also be true that a dramatic shift in the state of the biosphere will occur regardless, with different and possibly greater effects. these systems are complicated and nonlinear, and our abilities to predict get worse as the scales of time and space grow. but what if at least the initial instability is accurate and what if they are right, that, at the LEAST, a dramatic change is imminent if we continue our progress.

what is the proper course of action? inaction? one must be convinced of a crisis before one decides to act...is this the most intelligent course of action in this case? i think one thing that EVERYONE agrees on is that we really have no realistic ideas what exactly are the consequences of pumping an undeniably extraordinary amount of carbon into the atmosphere. why do those of you who don't believe that it *could* be problem feel so comfortable and confident? AND that nothing dramatic is currently happening is not a sufficient answer. this is clearly a potentially short-sighted statement for the reasons above.

[Wasatch Rebel]

Just a question. I don't know anything about equations, inequations, or downright blasphemies of science, but what about the aftermath of World War II. During World War II, incredible volumes of so-called "greenhouse gasses" were released into the atmosphere because of the tremendous amount of artillery and other equipment that was needed by the millions of soldiers, pilots, and sailors who were defending that world. It is my understanding that despite those billions upon billions of cubic yards of CO2 etc., that went into the atmosphere at that time, that for the next two decades, the average temperature world wide actually was cooler. So how does that jibe with global warming theories?

[Scott P]

It is my understanding that despite those billions upon billions of cubic yards of CO2 etc., that went into the atmosphere at that time, that for the next two decades, the average temperature world wide actually was cooler. So how does that jibe with global warming theories?

Don't forget that airborn particles and other pollutants actually cause cooling, and not warming. Such is the case with volcanic eruptions, even though they release greenhouse gasses as well. I would bet the "dust" and particle matter generated by explosions would be far greater from WWII than any CO2 released.

Of course, I doubt the cooling was caused by WWII.

[Scott P]

PS, just for fun (since this is a Utah board):

http://www.summitpost.org/article/186144/100-years-on-the-timpanogos-glacier.html

[stefan]

tonight, i just saw An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore's movie on global warming). i thought it was very well done. i definitely don't think that it preaches to the choir, but it does make the assumption that you can handle the fact that all different sides will not be expressed, that all the details won't be discussed, and that you will be faced with a large and coherent barrage of evidence in support of the premise.

i am curious what others' views are. i definitely don't believe this film is propaganda, in fact very far from it. i think anyone who has any thoughts about the issue of GW should see the movie with an open mind, but of course be very critical of it.

i'd like to mention that you should think twice about walking in and thinking that you can simply dispell many statements as twisting of the facts or manipulation. this is not michael moore we're talking about here, this is far more bona fide in all regards...you will be very challenged not to think that it is something that you should, at the least, be concerned about.

[M&TheBunnies]

tonight, i just saw An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore's movie on global warming).

Sorry, I would have a hard time believing anything said, written, produced, or endorsed by the man that 'invented the internet'.

[M&TheBunnies]

Sheeesh, I know this discussion is way over but.... I'll throw in my couple cents worth so I can get berated by Patterson :haha: I can tell he knows his stuff very well though, so I won't be offended, just corrected.

I learned that pollution in the air from volcanos causes the ground temperature to cool a few degrees by reflecting the sun. (Yeah, I know this has already been said in this thread). This happened after Mt St Helens erupted and caused the surrounding states to have a climate significantly cooler for several months/years. The same has also been documented near other volcano eruptions. Even though the volcano releases a large amount of hot air, smoke and possibly magma, the sediment in the air then reflects the sun, providing a cooling period on the ground. The point is that the earth will compensate for changes in the environment just like the human body will compensate for changes in its environment. (up to a point)
So if the history of climate change goes: Ice age > Warming > Ice age > Warming... then my take is that we are on the upswing of a warming trend.
Do humans have an effect on the earths atmosphere? Yeah, probably, but not drastic. I think the earth will compensate for now, but when the population soars out of control in the future, the earth may get a bit pissed off at the abuse and either freeze or heat up and kill a bunch of us off. I don't think the earth will be destroyed because of the abuse, just kill us off so it can repair itself. I think there will still be inhabitable places even in an ice age. It'll be back to the old "survival-of-the-fittest" prehistoric times. Lucky for us, we're all pretty fit and familiar with how to survive in the great outdoor extremes, right?

[stefan]

tonight, i just saw An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore's movie on global warming).

Sorry, I would have a hard time believing anything said, written, produced, or endorsed by the man that 'invented the internet'.

nice cheap shot.

so then simultaneously you are saying you don't believe all of the bona fide science which he is essentially quoting, packaging and (admittedly) additionally spinning. perhaps the spinning is fine to agree or disagree with, but it's hard to say so simply that you disagree with all of the science, which is a good chunk of the film.



I learned that pollution in the air from volcanos causes the ground temperature to cool a few degrees by reflecting the sun. (Yeah, I know this has already been said in this thread). This happened after Mt St Helens erupted and caused the surrounding states to have a climate significantly cooler for several months/years. The same has also been documented near other volcano eruptions. Even though the volcano releases a large amount of hot air, smoke and possibly magma, the sediment in the air then reflects the sun, providing a cooling period on the ground.


well ... global warming due to carbon emission and cooling due to volcano eruption are different. volcanos emit sulphur dioxide which converts to sulphuric acid, that condenses in the atmosphere to form fine sulphate aerosols. this film of aerosols increases the amount of the sun's radiation reflected back into space ... hence cooling. while volcanos also release greanhouse gasses, this aspect of volcanos can be very strong as it prevents the radiation from entering the lower atmosphere to begin with.



The point is that the earth will compensate for changes in the environment just like the human body will compensate for changes in its environment. (up to a point)
So if the history of climate change goes: Ice age > Warming > Ice age > Warming... then my take is that we are on the upswing of a warming trend.
Do humans have an effect on the earths atmosphere? Yeah, probably, but not drastic.


i suppose the big question is ... why is it so easy to dismiss it, when scientists have provided much evidence for it, and only a VERY small faction of atmospheric scientists have vocally/officially demonstrated their skepticism?

[stefan]

Sorry, I would have a hard time believing anything said, written, produced, or endorsed by the man that 'invented the internet'.

i wasn't originally gonna comment on this, but what the heck.

you are aware of the fact that gore never said he invented the internet. his exact quote was "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet." now you may argue that he was embroidering his role in this achievement, but there is an element of truth to his statement here. his comment was later changed to "invented" to make the ambiguity less obvious.

gotta love the media

[Sombeech]

http://uutah.com/forum/files/gorec9va.gif

[Mtnman1830]

This is my 2 cents...
When things get warmer, they expand.
With continuing climbing temps, the earth will get bigger
then the place wont be so crowded.

[Scott P]

With continuing climbing temps, the earth will get bigger
then the place wont be so crowded.

You forgot that Americans in general are getting fatter as well. The average American is getting fatter at a higher rate than the earth is expanding, leaving less room. :lol8:

[Wasatch Rebel]

Back to the global warming original topic. A great new book has come out with page after page of footnotes dedicated to disproving the trendy "Global Warming" theory. It's called "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years". Here's the link: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-09-2006/0004471126&EDATE

[stefan]

yes fred singer is one of the most vocal, credentialed opponents to man-induced global warming. he also is a strong believer in the insignificance of CFCs to ozone depletion, for which there is more or less the opposite consensus amongst scientists ... also questions effects of second hand smoke, and has consulted with phillip morris.

science is tough ... it's always a mystery, putting together pieces of the puzzle with evidence ... what you find more often than not in science, is folks pushing one perspective over the other. it could be that both play a role, but the argument is clearer and simpler to focus only one ... hence the typical powerplay.

but one thing i disagree with his approach ... he suggests that carbon emissions will not induce an effect, and has consulted with oil companies along such lines. this may not be true ... whether or not his theory is right ... whether or not global warming is directly connected to atmospheric carbon, surely massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere can have dramatic effects regardless.

[billh]

Dude, for the thread starter the animated Gore image is a bit over the top...

and actually while there are points in the presentation i might contest it is a good start and you might learn something if you watched it, on the other hand, maybe you know all there is to know, i certainly don't.

[Wasatch Rebel]

but one thing i disagree with his approach ... he suggests that carbon emissions will not induce an effect, and has consulted with oil companies along such lines. this may not be true ... whether or not his theory is right ... whether or not global warming is directly connected to atmospheric carbon, surely massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere can have dramatic effects regardless.

His research shows that the heating precedes the CO2 increase, in other words, the warming causes the CO2--most likely through an increase of CO2 emitting algae in the oceans.

[stefan]

His research shows that the heating precedes the CO2 increase, in other words, the warming causes the CO2--most likely through an increase of CO2 emitting algae in the oceans.

i understand what he is suggesting ... however i am speaking about the carbon generated by humans. this is an extraordinary amount over a very short period of time ... many have calculated estimates of this and it is by no means small. he downplays this aspect a great deal, often dismissing it as negligible ... and furthermore continually touts how beneficial to life (and the pursuit of happiness) a warmer climate will be, as it has been in the geologic past.

it's not negligible and the increasing rate of emission will push it very far from negligible.

i dunno ... maybe i need his book to understand .... maybe you can explain it if he goes in more detail but how does he look at this image and say that human carbon output is negligible?

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


Data Sources

1. (blue) Vostok ice core: Fischer, H., M. Wahlen, J. Smith, D. Mastroianni, and B. Deck (1999). "Ice core records of Atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations". Science 283: 1712-1714.
2. (green) EPICA ice core: Monnin, E., E.J. Steig, U. Siegenthaler, K. Kawamura, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, T.F. Stocker, D.L. Morse, J.-M. Barnola, B. Bellier, D. Raynaud, and H. Fischer (2004). "Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C and DML ice cores". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 224: 45-54. DOI:10.1016/j.epsl.2004.05.007
3. (red) Law Dome ice core: D.M. Etheridge, L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola and V.I. Morgan (1998) "Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
4. (cyan) Siple Dome ice core: Neftel, A., H. Friedli, E. Moor, H. L

[Wasatch Rebel]

First of all, you should read the book. His citations include research from scientists all over the world, not his own research alone. Secondly, one of the things he mentions is that the polar caps have actually gone down significantly temperature-wise in the past century--except for the Antarctic Peninsula, which because it is the only place near the poles that supports Greenhouse theory, is the only place advocates of that theory measure. I'm only maybe a quarter through the book, and don't have it memorized by any means, but a lot of things have jumped out at me as being pure speculation on the part of the Greenhouse theorists.

But here's part of it---over time as these natural sun-caused heating cycles occur, vast amounts of C02 are emitted as microscopic ocean life reproduces and multiply. Thus the lag of CO2 emissions post warming trend. However, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has led to vast increases of plant life in the past periods of warming. At least, that's how I remember it from the book.

The bottom-line to my way of thinking is that it's far less threatening than we are being led to believe. Sure, we should take care of the environment, but not at all costs. Sure there are polluters that need controlling, but unfortunately most of those are in third-world to second-world countries that are just developing now--countries like China. Not very likely that they'll agree to cut back production anytime soon.

[Wasatch Rebel]

Some more discussion on the topic: http://greenspin.blogspot.com/

[stefan]

But here's part of it---over time as these natural sun-caused heating cycles occur, vast amounts of C02 are emitted as microscopic ocean life reproduces and multiply. Thus the lag of CO2 emissions post warming trend.

okay but in the graph you see the trend and the trend over the past. the question i am asking is how does he dismiss the "apparent" largest CO2 concentration AND concentration change which just so happens to occur (during the past 400,000) coincidentally with the post-industrial revolution?



However, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has led to vast increases of plant life in the past periods of warming. At least, that's how I remember it from the book.


uh huh ... what they aren't is experts in understanding precisely what will happen. i wouldn't be so cavalier as he seems to be. he is only guessing at how things will change and how easily it will be for us to adapt. this is the part where i take it with a very small grain of salt.




The bottom-line to my way of thinking is that it's far less threatening than we are being led to believe.

yeah, well it all depends. IF there is already a considerable increase in carbon, and the graph shown above is correct, and that considerable increase of carbon IS credited to us, then we really do not know and his theory MAY NOT be applicable to the current trend. moreover what will be the effect of our continued increase. he casually dismisses this aspect. i would like to read what aspect of the book address this increase in carbon, how it is insignificant.

the point is the graph demonstrates something unprecedented over the past 400,000 years ... yet his theory is based upon this past. :ne_nau: if the graph is somehow wrong, misrepresenting the past for whatever reason, then that's one thing, but if it's accurate?

if he tries to claim that the causal relationship is temperature increase followed by carbon increase, then he doesn't know what will happen if we push carbon concentration well beyond what apparently is the natural cycle maxima over the past 400,000 years. how does he address this fact, why should he dismiss it?

yes i know read the book. i'd prefer to read papers and not pay for his book.

what i completely disagree with is anyone who tells you increasing carbon can only be beneficial to life and can stabiliize the atmosphere. speculation. complete speculation. we don't know this and i would put my trust in it either. equally i would agree with the fact that the greenhouse proponents don't precisely know what will happen either. hence my stance is that i would prefer not to push the system and find out ... that is, ii'd prefer that we didn't treat the situation as a grand science experiment.

[Sombeech]

I'm starting to hear that the earth is actually beginning to cool a little bit. It's been warming for the last few decades, but future projections show that it's cooling.

[stefan]

I'm starting to hear that the earth is actually beginning to cool a little bit. It's been warming for the last few decades, but future projections show that it's cooling.

well when it comes down to it i am a selfish bastard ... i am only jumping on the bandwagon to ensure good skiing in the future


:lol8: :lol8: :snowguy: :snowguy: :snowcloud: :snowcloud: http://209.85.12.227/554/120/emo/Strider.gif :snowcloud: :snowcloud: :snowguy: :snowguy: :lol8: :lol8:


in all seriousness though, you're gonna hear a lot of things, we've been hearing a lot of things, it's about which studies one wants to pay attention to.

regardless, we do really have a concern with the amount of carbon we output and the truly unknown consequences of doing so.

[stefan]

First of all, you should read the book. His citations include research from scientists all over the world, not his own research alone.

so i as i mentioned in thread on the documentary, Fred Singer has hardly published anything as far as hard reasearch goes in peer reviewed scientific journals over the past 23 years.

the documentary gave me the inkling to check on this. he's published a lot of critical commentary pieces, virtually no hard research. in 2004 he published two papers with 2 other authors on computer models and temperature discrepancies. others have disagreed with his interpretation of these data. scientist look very critically on how much a researcher publishes. through peer review of this work one becomes an expert.

as he has published virtually nothing in the field as far as hard science and since he is not regarded within the field as an expert, i really don't know how much credibility one should necessarily attribute to him.

my guess is that if his book cites tons of other research to some degree its contents will be scruitinzed. but when it comes to the science world, fundamental research is not first published in books, it's published in peer reviewed journal articles. i would be highly skeptical what you read.

ask lots of questions. look at what he cites and what he leaves out that others cite. just like a good lawyer, one can weave nice theoretical stories with a constellation of scientific evidence.

[Wasatch Rebel]

look at what he cites and what he leaves out that others cite. just like a good lawyer, one can weave nice theoretical stories with a constellation of scientific evidence.

And the same can be said about greenhouse theorists. Check this out Stefan.

Here is a paper on the Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon dioxide: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Here is a list (see left column signers) of over 17,000 scientists who have signed a petition refuting the current global warming theory as expressed in the Kyoto Protocol: http://www.oism.org/pproject/. More than 2600 of the signers of this anti-Kyoto petition have climate science credentials.

[billh]

look at what he cites and what he leaves out that others cite. just like a good lawyer, one can weave nice theoretical stories with a constellation of scientific evidence.

And the same can be said about greenhouse theorists. Check this out Stefan.

Here is a paper on the Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon dioxide: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Here is a list (see left column signers) of over 17,000 scientists who have signed a petition refuting the current global warming theory as expressed in the Kyoto Protocol: http://www.oism.org/pproject/. More than 2600 of the signers of this anti-Kyoto petition have climate science credentials.

While you were/are doing your homework, I'm sure you must have been carefully through this set of information about the topic:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/index.htm

I think i might well purchase a carbon offset for you. Rather than this poll, a more interesting take is what is happening on the various organized markets for cabon exchange. Whenever faced with public goods questions there are those that will always choose to freeride. In this instance it is the whole country. :roll: Maybe things will begin to change in the new federal policy making environment. :2thumbs:

[Wasatch Rebel]

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/index.htm[/url]

I think i might well purchase a carbon offset for you. Rather than this poll, a more interesting take is what is happening on the various organized markets for cabon exchange. Whenever faced with public goods questions there are those that will always choose to freeride. In this instance it is the whole country. :roll: Maybe things will begin to change in the new federal policy making environment. :2thumbs:

Singer definitely takes up the IPCC 2001 report in his book. Rather than bore you with more quotes and links, I'll just end my takes with this thought. We need to protect the planet to a large degree. That degree is determinable by the effect it has on the jobs of people, and quantifiable proof that the earth is being destroyed. Find that proof with incontrovertible evidence and you've sold me. Otherwise, I'll continue to agree with Fred Singer's compilation of research.

[billh]

Singer definitely takes up the IPCC 2001 report in his book. Rather than bore you with more quotes and links, I'll just end my takes with this thought. We need to protect the planet to a large degree. That degree is determinable by the effect it has on the jobs of people, and quantifiable proof that the earth is being destroyed. Find that proof with incontrovertible evidence and you've sold me. Otherwise, I'll continue to agree with Fred Singer's compilation of research.

Must admit that i have not been through his book and i'm sure he must have convinced you with irrefutable evidence to support the testable hypotheses that must have been developed. Certainly difficult in this realm to get to the deductive logic that "proof" requires. Me, i'm inductive by the necessity of circumstance and unfortunately must draw conclusions in terms of probability and inference. Thus when we formulate the null hypothesis (hope you had a statistics course at some point) that global warming is a figment of the liberal imagination (no global warming) versus the alternative that it is not (the earth is heating up) and then based on an information set fail to reject the null...we are either correct or have made a type II error and what is the consequence of the type II error? If we think that there is sufficient evidence to reject the null then we are either correct or we have made a type I error and what are the consequences here? When i think about the consequences of concluding no global warming versus those from rejecting the null i think i would rather see an error on the latter side. I am reminded here of the clip from an inconvenient truth where on one side of the balance is the earth and on the other side are bars of gold. What to choose? Hmmmmmm. I think that you might be surprised by the "jobs for people" that would be generated by rejecting the null hypothesis (concluding that global warming is an issue).

[Wasatch Rebel]

Well, that's interesting Bill. Neither I nor Singer has ever argued that there is no global warming, just the causes of it.

[stefan]

Well, that's interesting Bill. Neither I nor Singer has ever argued that there is no global warming, just the causes of it.


does it not concern you that he's published almost zero original work in peer reviewed journals in this field of research? doesn't this dramatically lower your preception of his credentials?

one could argue that he's like a mechanic, who's read a number of manuals about some cars, has never REALLY worked on a car but has changed out an alternator once or twice ... and, moreover can dazzle you with stories about how the inner workings of how a car should work.

just curious, but how have you gotten yourself around this?

[Wasatch Rebel]

one could argue that he's like a mechanic, who's read a number of manuals about some cars, has never REALLY worked on a car but has changed out an alternator once or twice ... and, moreover can dazzle you with stories about how the inner workings of how a car should work.

just curious, but how have you gotten yourself around this?

I think it's more like a researcher who never fought or participated in World War II, but has done his homework enough to know that war inside and out through researching others who were there, then writing a book on it. You already said that you haven't bothered to read the book, then are you, like that faux mechanic qualified to comment on it?

[stefan]

one could argue that he's like a mechanic, who's read a number of manuals about some cars, has never REALLY worked on a car but has changed out an alternator once or twice ... and, moreover can dazzle you with stories about how the inner workings of how a car should work.

just curious, but how have you gotten yourself around this?

I think it's more like a researcher who never fought or participated in World War II, but has done his homework enough to know that war inside and out through researching others who were there, then writing a book on it. You already said that you haven't bothered to read the book, then are you, like that faux mechanic qualified to comment on it?

first off you haven't answered my question.

second, comparing history to science?? damn that kind of comment is precisely the kind of scary logic i worry about in this debate. i am sorry but this is NOT how science works. science doesn't get broadcast FIRST to the lay people to decide, it gets judged by the science community. fred singer has hardly allowed for the science community to do this. i know you know this, why on earth would you argue along these lines???


now ... if you view his work as commentary ... fine ... but it needs to be peer reviewed to be given stronger credit. otherwise it's too easy to dupe those of us, the general public, without a detailed understanding of the relevant science.

third, i DIDN'T comment on the book except

(1) to be skeptical of any claims made (nothing wrong there)

(2) from what i have read elsewhere, i criticized that he has completely glossed over the fact that, by a CONSIDERABLE amount, the CO2 level is currently higher now than it has been in at least 400,000 years. i asked you if he mentioned it in his book. i have now read a few science "letters" that he has written, and he makes no mention of it.

i will add ...

also his satellite measurements have been criticized as only sampling a small set of measurements, and no one has claimed that some areas will not see cooling. on the other hand his argument that the "warming" is only seen since measurements are occuring in cities and cities are warming up is WRONG, since we've been measuring many locations far outside of major cities and non-cities are apparently warming up to. so i would question that as well.

(3) I also challenged anyone who says high CO2 is good for everyone, when we have no real live experience of such ... extrapolating from the past geologic history is one thing for general physical conditions, but i would a REAL scientist wouldn't traipse out on a such tenuous thread of knowledge, when discussing how the weather and life will respond to it. everyone knows that warming and increased CO2 helps many plants grow. but this is such a simplified picture of what additional complexities might/likely will arise, that i think it is a blatant disregard of science.

back to your war analogy ...
i can't help but think he sounds like bush entering the iraq war, thinking it's going to be a piece of cake, when all hell breaks loose.

[Wasatch Rebel]

does it not concern you that he's published almost zero original work in peer reviewed journals in this field of research? doesn't this dramatically lower your preception of his credentials?

one could argue that he's like a mechanic, who's read a number of manuals about some cars, has never REALLY worked on a car but has changed out an alternator once or twice ... and, moreover can dazzle you with stories about how the inner workings of how a car should work.

just curious, but how have you gotten yourself around this?

first off you haven't answered my question

Yes I did, you just didn

[Sombeech]

I sure could use some of that Global Warming this morning. It's frickin' cold outside. :cold: :cold: :cold:

[stefan]

[quote=jimflint1]

Yes I did, you just didn

[Wasatch Rebel]

Stefan, you've made some valid points and I've appreciated the opportunity to debate this issue with you. One more thing you should consider--Wikipedia is not considered to be a source without bias and without error, with many of its articles being written by the good Lord knows who.

[stefan]

I've appreciated the opportunity to debate this issue with you.

agreed



One more thing you should consider--Wikipedia is not considered to be a source without bias and without error, with many of its articles being written by the good Lord knows who.

then a point is made about throwing up questionable websites for supporting arguments ... on the other hand, it should be noted that the claim by scientific american (which can be found on their site) should throw some doubt on the validity of the number and specific backgrounds of the signatories, i.e., i wouldn't take it at face value by any means.