Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Sorry for reproducing in full, but it saves you a button click and at 4,647 bytes it is hardly using too much bandwidth.

This is partially in response to Uncle Al et al. who seem to think that human produced CO2 is utterly insignificant.

Four lines of evidence prove conclusively that the recent buildup of carbon dioxide arises largely from human activities.

From United Nations Environment Programme - World Meteorological Organization

1. The nuclei of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, oil, and natural gas (fossil fuels) differ in their characteristics from the nuclei of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide emitted under natural conditions. Coal, oil, and natural gas were formed deep underground tens of millions of years ago, and the fraction of their nuclei that were once radioactive has long ago changed to non- radioactive carbon. But the carbon dioxide emitted from natural sources on the Earth's surface retains a measurable radioactive portion. As carbon dioxide has been emitted through fossil fuel combustion, the radioactive fraction of carbon in the atmosphere has decreased. Forty years ago scientists provided the first direct evidence that combustion of fossil fuels was causing a buildup of carbon dioxide and thereby diluting radioactive carbon in the atmosphere by measuring the decreasing fraction of radioactive carbon-14 captured in tree rings, each year between 1800 and 1950.

2. Secondly, scientists began making precise measurements of the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and at the South Pole in the late 1950s. They have since expanded their observations to many other locations. Their data show convincingly that the levels of carbon dioxide have increased each year worldwide. Furthermore, these increases are consistent with other estimates of the rise of carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity over this period.

3. A third line of evidence has been added since 1980. Ice buried below the surface of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps contains bubbles of air trapped when the ice originally formed. These samples of fossil air, some of them over 200,000 years old, have been retrieved by drilling deep into the ice. Measurements from the youngest and most shallow segments of the ice cores, which contain air from only a few decades ago, produce carbon dioxide concentrations nearly identical to those that were measured directly in the atmosphere at the time the ice formed. But the older parts of the cores show that carbon dioxide amounts were about 25% lower than today for the ten thousand years previous to the onset of industrialization, and over that period changed little.

4. The final line of evidence comes from the geographic pattern of carbon dioxide measured in air. Observations show that there is slightly more carbon dioxide in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. The difference arises because most of the human activities that produce carbon dioxide are in the north and it takes about a year for northern hemispheric emissions to circulate through the atmosphere and reach southern latitudes.

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of sources, and over 95% percent of these emissions would occur even if human beings were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. But these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, and some is removed by plants as they grow.

As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels.

Direct atmospheric measurements of other human-produced greenhouse gases have not been made in as many places or for as long a period as they have for carbon dioxide. However, existing data for these other gases do show increasing concentrations of methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons over recent decades. In addition, ice core data are available for methane and for nitrous oxide that demonstrate that the atmospheric concentrations of these gases began to increase in the past few centuries, after having been relatively constant for thousands of years. Chlorofluorocarbons are absent from deep ice cores because they have no natural sources and were not manufactured before 1930.


Blacknad.

.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tuned.htm

The Kyoto Accords are not insanity, they are purposeful criminality. EACH YEAR global wildfires equal the whole world burning 100% of recovered petroleum for 337 YEARS.

THEY ARE LYING TO YOU.


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Al,

1. CO2 is not solely responsible for warming. Please figure in Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Ozone, CFCs and deforestation.

2. Wildfire areas quickly become massive CO2 sinks and contribute a net increase of zero CO2 over a period of a few deacades (only if the land is not reclaimed for other purposes).

You say 0.3% human contribution to CO2 levels. UN says 5%.

The universe is filled with all types of incredible balancing acts such as the cosmological constant etc.

Who is to say that the planet is not as equally delicately balanced?

Who is to say that even an 0.3% increase in CO2 from unnatural sources won't upset the balance and tip us into who knows what?

And if it is actually nearer 5% then even you probably couldn't argue that this is entirely insignificant.

Remember, natural release of CO2 (wildfires etc.) comes with inbuilt sinks that maintain a balance. Human induced release of CO2 come with no such thing but we have to rely upon oceanic uptake.

Blacknad.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
who is to say? how about ice cores and such. the temperature has been much higher in the past. the co2 has also been much higher in the past. while there is something of a discernable connection, the interpretation is still open to debate. People claim that the green house gasses are going to cause the temperature to increase and have used the graph to show that there is a pattern, then they totally ignore the fact that the co2 increase came about as much as 150 years after the temperature increases they supposedly caused.

it also shows a major amount of variation in both co2 and temperature.

the real problem is that the ice cores vary from one location to another, even those only a few feet apart can show major differences.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
In that case if the ice cores vary so much it invalidates your statement:

"then they totally ignore the fact that the co2 increase came about as much as 150 years after the temperature increases they supposedly caused"

You can't have it both ways. How do you come by the statement, if not by the data from ice cores? And if they are as unreliable as you say then...


...we rely upon what we do know:

1. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap longer-wavelength solar radiation from the sun, thereby raising the temperature.

2. We are putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than would occur naturally.

Now join the dots.

Blacknad.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Hi,

Post 1 - Blacknad's Original Post

Finally a science thread that starts with science research.

Blacknad, I don't think you would find any scientist that would disagree with the thread's title. So there is nothing to argue about.

Carbon dioxide has increased in the atmosphere directly as a result of human activities. The evidence is pretty clear. The anecdotal evidence agrees with the scientific evidence. Even if ice core data can be completely discredited, there are plenty of other ways of establishing the rise in carbon dioxide levels, including direct measurements going back now for a great many years (even if only for small areas).

I have only one point of issue in your post and one disagreement in the detail presented. Though they were valid and I know where some of the research for it comes from, you actually do not back anything up. Once again it is an opinion piece you are quoting. So the four lines actually do not prove anything let alone "prove conclusively". The research on which the conclusions were based does support the theory but that is a different thing.

Next the disagreement. The research I have read indicates a change in carbon dioxide levels world wide since the Industrial Revolution (and that is not a precise thing either and therefore subject to interpretation or manipulation) from a date which I believe is 1850 but right now am not really well enough to go look up just to get the date right here) of 23% not the 30% quoted.

But no matter.

So what!

This is a bit like saying that polar bear numbers have vastly been reduced because the Inuit people migrated to the polar bears habitat range and started spearing them, shooting them with arrows and finally shooting them. Or that cities create their own climate to a certain degree that is hotter than if they were not there.

It is also very much like saying that pollution is due to man or any more specific statement like man's activities have caused a rise in the mercury levels of fish.

Standing alone the statements are true. But so what?

In the case of most of these statements all they say is man has had an effect on the environment.

In the case of Global Warming it means absolutely nothing. It is the next step that is the one that has any importance at all to Global Warming. That carbon dioxide build up in the atmosphere have caused or substantially contributed to global warming.

It is that step that links the known fact that carbon dioxide increase is due to human activity to man is causing global warming because carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere is causing global warming.

That one is worth a thread and probably a debate for a few months. If you want to go there do not quote IPCC or the United Nations or NASA. Quote a study that attempts to make the link. It can be a physics study on the attributes of carbon dioxide. It could be a climate study on some aspect of climate that is related to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Summary:

  • Carbon dioxide increase is man made.
  • Abundant proof exists.
  • But the post was not proof in any form.
  • So what?
  • It does not prove Global Warming
  • It does not prove that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming



Regards


Richard

PS. Is that format better? wink


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day all,

Personal Aside: Everyone does know I'm Australian, right? And I really do say "G'day" normally just like Steve Irwin

Summary:
  • Carbon Dioxide in ice cores dubious science
  • Ice Cores good for many things eg Volcanic Activity
  • Ice Cores vary wildely even when drilled on top of one another
  • Does not mean ice cores do not show anything about carbon dioxide.
  • Conclusion: No paradox in using ice core estimates of previous carbon dioxide plus stating ice cores not good for just that.
  • Why: Because trends and specific measurements are different



Yet another personal aside: Now what do I write. Maybe the summary is a bit too detailed. Have to fine tune this process.

Introduction
Blacknad finds it paradoxical that dehammer can dispute the validity of ice core samples in establishing carbon dioxide levels while using the very same ice cores to argue about paleo-historic carbon dioxide levels.

I agree with dehammer and do not believe there is any paradox.

Main Argument
Ice cores have many uses that they are well suited to. They were originally dug up because of interest in changes in snowfall and the amount of accumulation despite melts as well as to look at such things as volcanic activity. They contain many isotopes of substances that can be used to calculate something of value to science. The most recent example I came across is in determining the magnetic field strength of the sun.

There are physics studies that have suggested that ice cores do not make a good source for determining carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Sorry no links to back this up).

I, and others that I have read, have grave concerns that ice cores actually trap representative samples of historic atmosphere. For carbon dioxide the ice core itself is not being studied. Little bubbles of trapped gasses are. To those that use ice core studies for temperature or carbon dioxide levels, it is assumed that the bubbles are representative samples of the atmosphere at the time that the ice was laid down; that no contamination occurs during the drilling or any of the other processes before the tiny bubbles are extracted; that the trapped bubbles are completely sealed and that no modification to the contents of the bubble or leaching in or out of the bubble occurs during its time in the ice core.

So there is cause for concern about ice cores and carbon dioxide readings both in the physics used in doing the calculation and also because the assumption that the sample is representative of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the time of being trapped seems to be a very big assumption. Further, laboratory tests on carbon dioxide levels in bubbles when frozen in ice do not support the theory.

However, just because the process is suspect and accuracy is a big issue, does not mean that nothing can be learned about carbon dioxide in the historic atmosphere. However poor, the methodology may be, it is all there is until someone finds something else.

The proof to all this is in any study of carbon dioxide levels where more than one core is drilled. The results really are massivily different. But while the amounts are different, the trend is not. You can tell that carbon dioxide has risen or fallen and even that it has been much higher in the past as well as lower. But what you cannot tell is by how much.

So saying that there was 210.2 ppm or even 210 plus or minus 20 ppm CO2 in 1810 is just not backed up by good physics. However saying, the CO2 levels were a bit lower in 1810 than in 1900 probably is reasonable.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Hi,

Post 3 - Greenhouse Gasses

Reply to:
Blacknad.
Quote:
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap longer-wavelength solar radiation from the sun, thereby raising the temperature
Summary:
  • Water Vapour biggest greenhouse gas by far
  • Carbon dioxide's influence small in comparison
  • Carbon Dioxide may cause more shiny clouds = long term cooling
  • Physics studies suggest Carbon Dioxide has influence only in limited specrta
  • Even if CO2 has exactly the effect claimed without causing any effect, seems to be a limit to what effect it can have. Reach the limit of what it can influence and further CO2 concentrations mean nothing.
  • It has not even been established that CO2 increase actually does increase the temperature of the earth.
  • It has been demonstrated in several studies that despite increasing CO2, the change in world's temperatures correlate very well with sunspot activiy which is a simple way of pointing to the fluctuations of solar magnetic field strength.




Intro:
The science of the interaction in the atmosphere between what is in the atmosphere and what temperature the earth is, is very poorly understood. Of the little that is understood the one statement that can be made is: The influence of particles and gasses in the atmosphere to temperature is incredibly complex


Background - Feel free to skip:
Water vapour and taking it a little further, the presence of liquid water on a planet are essential to controlling the temperature of that planet. While venus has an atmosphere and that does moderate the temperatures a bit, it would appear that unless the moderating influence keeps the overall average temperature of the planet between 0 and 100 degrees celcius, life will not exist.

But to have enough energy to warm a planet to sustain life means the planet must be close enough for the sun that without an atmosphere it would rise greatly above those temperatures and drop well below. Just look at the moon.

So any atmosphere can be considered a greenhouse gas, no matter what it is.

Once you have an atmosphere then what happens? You get clouds and they cool the planet. About 60% of the earth is covered by clouds and this allows us to live. You also get circulation in that atmosphere otherwise the equator would get too hot and the poles or near them too cold. So the energy is transfered, by both movement of the atmosphere or transfer of heat through the atmosphere and by movement of water. This process is messy. You end up with surface currents mainly directed by wind, which are mainly created by the mechanism of heat transfer away from the equator and the spin of the earth. Then you get convection that creates massive movement of water from its depths, along the surface, down again and along the bottom. Some of this is affected by inflow from rivers etc. Some is affected by additives to the ocean such as salt. Some is not.

Movie Trivia:
The science of "The Day After Tommorrow" fell apart a bit when they mixed up the Gulf Stream surface movement with the convection current.

Main Argument
The effect of carbon dioxide on the earth's temperature is not as simple as saying:
  • CO2 is a greenhouse gas
  • More CO2 = More greenhouse effect
  • More CO2 = higher temperatures.


It would seem that there have been periods in the past where CO2 has been a great deal higher than now or even the very worst estimates of what it will be and the planet still managed to either go into an Ice Age or a glaciation within an Ice Age.

So the effects of CO2, even in quite large quantities for the earth does not seem to be as strong as is being claimed.

Carbon dioxide's influence over the refraction or temporary absorption of heat has not been demonstrated in any conclusive experiment (in the long run the earth releases the same amount of heat it absorbs plus what it produces due to internal processes it is only in the shorter term that an imbalance occurs causing a fluctuation in Climate). Indeed, recent experiments have questioned the influence of CO2 beyond a certain point (sorry, cannot provide URL for this) because its ability to influence radiation has been shown to be over a limited spectra. Once saturation of that spectra occurs it is said that further concentrations of CO2 should make no difference. An interesting theory but the laboratory tests do not prove the point, only suggest it may be so.

But the interaction of CO2 to temperature seems much more complex than: CO2 up = temperature up. The thing that is least understood in all of climate, clouds, are likely to be affected.


Conclusion:
A lot of global warming debate simply states that CO2, being a greenhouse gas, causes the earth to warm. There seems to be no research that demonstates this. But there is research that demonstrates that despite a steadily rising CO2, the earth's temperature, at least in trend terms or using the variations of the Continental US and then satellite data, the changes including downward trends correspond to sunspot activity and hence solar magnetic field strength without any change in this response between the lower end of the CO2 level and the higher end.

Bottom line - This is not an argument that has good science to back it up, at least at present.


Regards


Richard


PS. This is much harder to put my thoughts together than just typing away and the total length of the three posts is truly scary. Is it easier to read? Is it worth the effort? Or should I just post the summary bit and leave the rest out entirely?


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
very easy to read. you did a good job of stating that. much better than i could have.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
Just my .02 observation. Where I live we enjoy some of the most pollution-free air of anywhere on the Planet by simple virtue of our isolation. An air sampling facility was built here in the late 60's right at the tip of the main island, Tutuila. Wonder of wonders, it's still working. If it had been left to Samoans to look after... Anyway, every few months a technician comes down from hawaii to check on things and from time to time, I'll catch an interview on the local TV Station with this guy. For the last few years he's been saying that Greenhouse gases (and he loves to rattle off an impressive list of names) that are being detected here are growing exponentially.
We are also starting to see dogs with cataracts, apparently caused by a depleted Ozone Layer.

OK, Der Hammer, feel free to shoot me down yet again.

Have you ever noticed that the guys with their heads shoved farthest up their butts scream the loudest?

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally posted by RicS:
It would seem that there have been periods in the past where CO2 has been a great deal higher than now or even the very worst estimates of what it will be and the planet still managed to either go into an Ice Age or a glaciation within an Ice Age.

So the effects of CO2, even in quite large quantities for the earth does not seem to be as strong as is being claimed.
I thought that if melting polar ice lowers the temperature of the gulf stream then we have the possibility of perma-frost in the uk etc.

When you say ice age, how much of the planet was thrown into an ice age?

Richard,

Much better format, it's now a pleasure to read your posts. The summaries are excellent and really clarify things.

Blacknad.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Hi Wolfman,

Personal Aside: Worked in the same area (feel free to ignore the next para)
We may knew a few of the same people. I was a consultant on Samoa to SPREP and was in Samoa three times. Loved the place. Didn't think much of their driving. Not familiar with the locale you mentioned. Is this an island closer to Tonga or is it a town?
[/LIST]
Summary:
[LIST] [*]Anecdotal evidence such as health of dogs could have many causes
[*]Most likely cause for cataracts is that they are being better cared for than previously - observation of a static problem has increased
[*]Pollution monitoring showing rises in "greenhouse" gases expected
[*]See other post but there is no argument that CO2 levels have risen worldwide.


Main discussion:
Dogs getting cataracts. I have to say the amount of dogs that roam the place is incredible and any disease that could be introduced is going to go through the entire population. There is also the problem of the genetics of the dogs. They may not be equiped for the tropics and have been getting cataracts for years but it has only been in recent times that people have even bothered to look at their dogs, let alone seek treatment for them. If the place is anything like when I was there, the treatment for humans is still at a level ... well let's just say that even my Samoan hosts told me that if I broke my arm to get on an Air New Zealand flight immediately. Didn't matter if I was bleeding all over the plane, DO NOT seek treatment locally. I do hope it has improved because the people are just terrific and they deserve better.

As to the observation of the increase in greenhouse gasses, first the equipment has improved over time. Sniffers can detect trace gasses in very isolated mostly pollution free places much better. However Samoa and Pacific Islands similar to Samoa are not pollution free. Just look at what comes out of the average truck. Samoa also has industry and even McDonalds (Just look at the size of Tongan Royalty - I think they like their KFC but now I really digress).

As is being discussed in another thread, there is no argument that carbon dioxide levels have increased by between 23% and 30% in the last century. Methane has increased (I wonder just how much the enormous pig population of Samoa and other islands contributes to that little chemical). So the fact that the recording station is measuring an increase is re-assuring. At least it is being maintained and works.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day Blacknad,

OK, Climatology 101

Climate and Climate Change Definitions

All definitions are my wording but should not be contentious

Ice Age (Capital I and Capital A)
An extended geological period during which parts of the earth are covered by ice sheets. There have been four of them. Depending on the definition used, the CURRENT Ice Age has been going 40 million years or for less than 3 million years.

Interglacials (Interglacial Periods)
A warmer period where most of the ice sheets retreat. About 10% of the current Ice Age consists of interglacial periods. The current one started 11,323 years ago and will last until at least next week.

ice age (Glaciations)
The norm for an Ice Age. Ice sheets extend to at least the line of 45 degrees North (well into the US) and into Northern Germany (but some parts of the north were too cold for ice sheets) and snow extends throughout most of Europe and down to Florida for considerable parts of the year.

The Questions Asked
Summary:
  • Ice Age = a geological age
  • Glaciations are not global - Ever
  • Well, ever is a long time - at least not since the continents were in this rough position
  • Glaciations never confined to Europe alone
  • This is NOT the warmest period in this Interglacial Period
  • Abundant evidence exists that the Little Ice Age, the Bronze Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were across the Northen Hemisphere


1 Ice Age I was referring to the geological age of extended period that is an Ice Age. I'm rather precise about the use of this term because almost no one else is. I rarely even use "ice age" because I think it is too confusing.

2 Ice Age extent I think this may actually be referring to a glaciation. They do vary a bit. For instance the last glaciation created a sheet of ice that abruptly ended along a line in the US which was up to 2 kms thick. This doesn't mean there was no ice below this point. Far from it, there was. But because of this, when it warmed this took a while to melt and eventually about 8,000 years ago two huge lakes being inside the melting sheet burst flooding into the North Atlantic. This did send Europe back into a cold period. Estimates vary from about eight years to 800. The 800 has nothing to support it. It is very often quoted as sending the world back into a cool period. The evidence does not support this at all.

3. Glaciation - worldwide? Glaciations are never worldwide. Sydney where I live pretty much stays the same. Oh, we might have to walk out 5 kms further at Bondi beach or lose a bit of waterfront real estate but otherwise the main difference to Australia is that in a Glaciation it becomes instead of mostly desert, mostly forest with places like Alice Springs receiving 70 inches of rain. Glaciations are a Northern Hemisphere condition (unless you go back far enough to the second world Ice Age when all the continents were in quite different locations).

Previous Warm Periods in this Glaciation
As to this crap about the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Perod or the Little Ice Age (actually three distinct periods of cooling lumped together) being only European is just that; crap.

It annoys me because the evidence is discarded or distorted because those that want to say this is the warmest period for thousands of years do not like the inconvenience of having a much warmer period 6,000 years ago, 2 and a bit thousand years ago and only several hundred years ago. How do I know? Because people may not have had themometers and had their local scribe or monk write "Today was really hot - it was 39.72 degrees celcius" Celcius was not yet invented. But what they did have is art and taxation records. If there is a painting that shows a lake frozen that never freezes to day, you can either say the artist was fantasising or that the area was colder then than now. Now multiple that by thousands all around the world (except Australia which was not yet discovered) and this is no longer "anecdotal evidence that is only of local value".

As to the warm periods they were further back in history but there is still art showing snowcapped mountains not snowcapped in Asia for instance. The Chinese kept tax records and these confirm the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

As far as I am concerned this is much better evidence than tree rings that can be read like tarot cards, giving the answer wanted. If you can grow tropical fruit in a currently cold area then it stands to reason that it was warmer then. Either that or they used greenhouses and thus the "greenhouse effect" is much more ancient than currently argued.

Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day all,

Missed a point - see next post.
This is an off-topic post

Personal Aside:
This prolific output is only very temporary. Can't actually work because of infection. Make too many mistakes but can do posts here where mistakes are forgiven or not that important.

State of the War Report:
In a scene reminiscent of the German Battle of the Bulge the beleagued Staff' Army probed for and found a week spot. A break out was hastily arranged and they are OUT.

While communications are garbled because of the intensity of the fighting, reports are now filtering in that an enemy column has made it all the way to the neck and a desperate battle involving the suicidal brigades of the Anti-Bs is currently raging (causing rather nasty neck and headaches - all that fighting is keeping me awake).

Back in the main zone of action, I am sorry to report the dead are now so numerous that the White Army has had to open up even more holes in the main battle zone, throwing out as many rotting corpses as they can. It is not a pretty site! As my daughter says: "Urggh. That is horrible. I don't want to see it" Well put.

It now looks certain that the General Commanding the brave White Army and the Ts will be forced to call in the overwhelming numerically superior but indiscriminant IV unit of the Anti-Bs on Monday.


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day Blacknad,

Why is Europe So Warm?

Summary:
  • Europe is much warmer than say Canada at the same latitudes.
  • Caused by circulation of warm water from the tropics
  • Circulation is both surface - Gulf Stream and convection - "The Conveyer"
  • Saline reduction will NOT cool Europe


Detail:
Too much doomsday predictions and THAT film have meant that so many people now think that Global Warming will plunge Europe into a cold period. The mechanism goes like this:
  • Warming world = Arctic Ice melt
  • Salt levels reduce in Atlantic
  • Gulf stream fails
  • Europe gets cold


The trouble with this theory is it is based on a rather unique previous event when billions of tons of water was realised into the Atlantic from two huge lakes in Canada. Whether it was salt water (it wasn't) or not, the point is it was bloody cold. It disrupted everything in the Atlantic to a very deep level. It was an awful lot of water.

Reduce saline and it may have an effect on the Gulf Stream but it is not the gulf stream that keeps the climate of Europe warmer than it ought to be. It is the multi-ocean conveyer system that travels deep down in the ocean down the Atlantic and nearer the surface with nice warm tropical water from the Equator and over off the coast of France and around the UK.

The Gulf Stream is wind related and a surface system. If it suddenly stopped Europe will not be a pleasant place to be weather wise. But the warm water will still continue to moderate the climate and the effect may be quite temporary or quite small.

Personal Opinion - Feel free to ignore
Includes rants on:
  • Climate Modelling
  • Volcanic Activities being ignored
  • Meteor Risks being ignored - to our peril

Actually all of this is theory. This is just my best guess. I have a computer climate model that fits my guess but also a model that plunges the world into a full blown glaciation because of a nudge distrupting the conveyor convection currents. The model does not hold up to real historic events by the way but I have the most contemptuous opinion for global climate computer models. All they are is a graphical way to represent someone's pet theory. They are not based on sound science nor is it possible to feed in even the basic components of what makes up world weather. How do you feed in the mechanisms of cloud formation and just how shiny different clouds are when the reflectivity of clouds is a recently discovered thing, not understood at all by those that have spent their lives just studying clouds. What about volcanic eruptions? You cannot leave these out because they happen all the time and have an effect on climate, sometimes such as Krakatoa, for a couple of years (anything bigger than Krakatoa and you are then back into fairy tale stuff - they do happen but the frequency is such that any model that included them has strayed into cookoo land).

And because of all this global warming hysteria there is one event that WILL happen and will kill huge numbers of people that cannot get enough funding to even set up an early warning system. What's the higer risk to you? Being struck by lightning or killed by a meteor? How about I make it easier. What about being killed in any accident other than a auto accident or being injured or killed by a meteor? If you said any accident you'd be WRONG!!!

Any good actuarial person will tell you the risk of meteor is up there with pretty much any other accident. It does not seem logical to humans because our brains are not wired to think of really huge risks that happen infrequently. Hence you have idiotic contstruction on major fault zones including hospitals built right over the San Andreas fault and gas storage tanks built over the worst liquifaction area of Tokyo. They will be destroyed but maybe not for decades so they are not considered.

Meteors hit this earth with depressing frequency. A big one that would kill a few million hits every few hundred years. One that can wipe most of the human race as it is currently distributed hits as little as the hundreds of thousands of years. So you get say 5 billion and divide it by say 500,000 years and in percentage terms you get a lot of dead people per year. But it is not the really big ones that concern me because they are rather infrequent after all. What of the smaller ones that could tip us back into a glaciation? A few hundred million dollars budget and we could have full monitoring of all of the quadrants of the skies giving enough warning so that we could actually do something about it. What's the point of creating nuclear weapons we cannot use against each other but have finally reached a technological level where we could stop a meteor catastrophy given enough warning if we can't be bothered spending a relatively small sum to give us any reasonable warning. A nuclear missile flown into space will not blow up even a small meteor by the way - mostly they are not solid anyway, but with enough warning it can be detonated a distance away from the meteor changing its tragectory by a small degree, but enough to miss us.

The US Government hands out $9 billion in pure research funds of which $3 bilion now goes to global warming. And meteors? The funding for a detection system for the southern hemisphere was cut. That is the trouble with something like global warming. If you use it to cry wolf, then the bear that is no longer being watched just might eat you.

End of rant


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
on a close front, as long as money and attension is being diverted to global warming, there is less on polution and problems of that nature.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Cheers Richard,

Some good posts.

I have a question regarding your following statement:

"It has not even been established that CO2 increase actually does increase the temperature of the earth."

If CO2 reflects longer wavelength solar radiation (the type that leaves earth) then isn't the relationship relatively simple?

The more CO2 in the atmosphere - the more heat retention.

If we have raised CO2 levels (and we are not including any other greenhouse gas here) by 5%, then why is it not reasonable to think that we have raised temperatures?


I think you said in another post that water vapour has such a potent greenhouse effect that it dwarfs CO2's contribution into insignificance, but I don't think the jury is entirely in on this one because Earth's thermal radiation is greatest in the 8-18?m band where water vapour is a particularly weak absorber. CO2 blocks in the 12.5-18?m band and the rest (8-12.5?m) is picked up by methane and tropospheric ozone etc. Also the presence of CO2 increases absorption by water vapour.

Even the most sympathetic research still gives CO2 a 5 - 10% stake in radiation absorption.

CO2 is clearly very significant as a greenhouse gas.

You can argue around other evidence as much as you want (i.e. paintings showing lakes that used to freeze and don't today) - much of it can be interpreted to suit people's initial beliefs and some of it seems to clutching at straws, but the basic facts seem to me to be incontrovertible.

1. CO2 traps heat (proven).
2. We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere (proven).
3. Therefore more heat is being trapped. (and this corresponds to point 4).
4. We know the global temperature is rising.


Now your bone of contention here seems to be a hypothesis that there is an upper limit to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that can be effective at absorbing radiation . This is not universally accepted.

Unless you can point to something definitive.

Blacknad.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
1) how do you know that global temperature is rising. just because a political organization that gets paid for proving that the temperature it rising, are you going to believe them and their "corrected data" or the raw data.

2)There is a limit to the amount of radiation that a given amount of co2 can absorb in a given amount of time. Once that limit has been exceeded, the rest would pass it by.

3) They are have only learned recently that different cloud types reflect different amounts of sunlight. If the shiner cloud are the ones with co2, then it would be harder for them to absorb that energy that is not reaching them.

4) the connection between co2 and temperature is only logically proven. many time things that seem logical are proven to be wrong. No lab has every been able to prove it.

5) despite the fact that the connection between the co2 and temperature being nothing but theory, political organizations such as IPCC demand everyone accept it as a proven fact.

It is not universally accepted that there is any sign that the co2 is the prime culpret in raising temperature. There is no evidence in the raw data that shows a rise in temperature. The rise in temperature is only evidence in the "corrected" data.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day Blacknad,

Carbon Dioxide As A Greenhouse Gas Must Raise Temperature

Summary:
  • No Lab Experiment Actually Proves This
  • No real world experiment proves it either
  • Thus, it is a "logic exercise" rather than fact.
  • The real world has been proved over and over never to conform to what humans think logical
  • Think quantum mechanics; evolution; plate tectonics - non are logical - all have significant real world or lab experiments to back them up
  • Climate is incredibly complex - this point seems to be forgoten
  • Nothing is linear in climate
  • Water Vapour is such a potent greenhouse gas for many reasons other than its absorption of radiation from the earth just as a real greenhouse works despite the total energy that it blocks out being substantially more than it traps.
  • There is no proof! There is no proof! I'll repeat again: There is no proof!



Main Points:

Quick Aside:
Quote:
much of it can be interpreted to suit people's initial beliefs
Wow! If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I do not know what is. At least with art etc, the evidence is there for all to see, thus using anecdotal evidence to determine trends of climate fits well into scientific methodology that is rarely used in global warming arguments, it is repeatable and verifiable by others.

Quote:
  • 1. CO2 traps heat (proven).
  • 2. We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere (proven).
  • 3. Therefore more heat is being trapped. (and this corresponds to point 4).
  • 4. We know the global temperature is rising.

  • 1. In theory yes. In the real world not proven unless you wish to show me a physics experiment that shows me I am mistaken.
  • 2. Yes. No argument
  • 3. A logic trap. Because 2 follows 1 does not mean W follows Z. No proof.
  • 4. Actually this one we do not know at all. No proof. SAT data so poor it cannot be relied upon for any trends. Satellite data currently 26 years old and does not show a trend. It certainly does show there seems to be no significant warming in those 26 years. Tree ring data shown now several times to be a good indicator of precipitation and lousy at temperatures. Ice Cores shown to be a very poor indicatore of temperature and do not indicate temperatures at all if Tropical or near tropical. Show me a study that actually confirms the climate is warming. Oh and even if it is, the connection between it and Carbon Dioxide just is not there. There is not even any correlation between rising CO2 and alleged increase in temperature in the last century, let alone the past where CO2 has risen and temperature has fallen or where the trends suggest that CO2 rises follow temperature rises.

Show me one study that suggests global climate change that does not have basic problems with the "adjustment" or to be put bluntly "manipulation" of data or with the scientific methodology involved. Please show me! I really want to see just one. I'm sick of looking at them and finding scientific fraud, or outright fraud, or "unintentional" fraud, or just bad science.

Mr Mann et al and his Hockey Curve graph are typical. All that this showed is that "inconvenient" data was deliberately discarded. In any other field this would mean the end of your career. In Global Warming it gets you congratulated. Mr Mann and his colleagues are still getting grants and have numerous supporters who accuse others of, wait for it:

Quote:
much of it can be interpreted to suit people's initial beliefs
Actually the true believers in global warming go much further and if I was not sick and point to dozens upon dozens of studies because these I do have recorded that include comments such as: "the opposition to this study are by those that have been shown to have close links with the Bush Administration or having received payment from ExxonMobil". The favourite villian always seems to be ExxonMobil, probably because it USED TO give out scientific grants for all sorts of science.

Find any newspaper reports, papers (but not scientific peer reviewed papers because they do not exist) critical of any study or part of global warming and I'll show you comments that repeat the above mantra.

All I want is for studies to conform to adequate scientific methodology and involve science that is repeatable and verifiable by others. Is that really too much to ask.

As to the SAT data, I could write a paper on the faults in the GHCN data set, which everyone uses, except that no on would publish it.

Challenge Repeated:
Especially to Mr DA Morgan. I've been doing this for months but Blacknad, if you really want to dispute any of this, reference a published study showing global warming. I'll create a new thread and give a detailed analysis of that study, describing what they did to the data, what scientific methodologies were used and whether it follows good science and, finally, whether the conclusion bears any relationship to the study. Maybe you will actually find a study that I can say: "Wow. This is a scientifically sound study. I congratulate the authors".

Personal Disappointment:

I actually used to believe that the world was warming. I just did not think that anyone had shown this was other than a natural variation within a glaciation very much because there have been three cooling periods. I was confident that modern data was accurate enough that I could say, yes, there has been a warming period since 1980. It hasn't been large but it has accelerated in the last few years.

The more I study SAT data, the less I can be sure of anything. I no longer have any evidence that since 1980 it has been warming, the US data does not show this, the weather balloons do not show it, the satellite data does not show it. I am sure that there is a correlation between sunspots and world temperature. They went berserk before 2005 and we get a really hot year. I do not understand the science of solar effect on the earth but am learning. It is the best current theory because it corresponds with the anecdotal evidence (yes, those blasted paintings, tax records and the like again) perfectly. To me that is similar observational proof to the magnetic stripes on the Atlantic Floor that demonstrate spreading.

While sunspots and solar flares may effect the total heat that arrives at our planet by only minute amounts (the normal excuse for why it is not relevant) what they do indicate is a major fluctuation in the sun's magnetic field that goes right out to the edge of our solar system. Why it has an effect on our earth, I do not understand, but others do have working theories and the observations are too well in synch to ignore.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally posted by RicS:

The US Government hands out $9 billion in pure research funds of which $3 bilion now goes to global warming. And meteors? The funding for a detection system for the southern hemisphere was cut. That is the trouble with something like global warming. If you use it to cry wolf, then the bear that is no longer being watched just might eat you.
Richard,

That 3 Billion has gone to funding some of the research that allows you to be of the opinion that there is no real issue. So it's not all loss.

Blacknad.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5