NationStates Jolt Archive

A lot of argument and effort has been put into this particular forum over this particular issue, and it seems that on occasion there needs to be updates on how the scientific community is dealing with the torrent of facts on the issue of climate change.

A slew of info came out on the subject quite recently. Here is the first installment:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/04/CLIMATE.TMP&type=science
Warming theory picks up speed as winds slow
Slacking trade winds support warming theory

Climate scientists have documented a pronounced slowdown in the Pacific
Ocean atmospheric system that drives the trade winds, a prediction of global
warming theory that appears to be coming true.

A study released today in the journal Nature suggests that the movement of
moisture and heat across the tropical Pacific has tapered off by 3.5 percent
since the mid-1800s, when such records begin, and appears likely to ease by
another 10 percent this century.

That could have wide repercussions for weather and sea life throughout the
Pacific region, although it's hard for anyone to be certain at this early
stage what effect the slowing of the winds would have.

Possibilities include more El Nino-like conditions, stronger hurricanes and
less upwelling of nutrient-rich cold water from the deep Pacific. Weather
generally may become more variable -- and harder to predict.

The new research was lead by Gabriel Vecchi, a scientist affiliated with the
69-institution consortium known as the University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research but working as a visiting scientist at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Laboratory in Princeton, N.J. Co-authors included scientists at the
University of Miami and at the same NOAA facility.

They focused on the giant system known as the "Walker circulation," named in
honor of Sir Gilbert Walker, the late British scientist who was one of the
first to trace connections among widely scattered weather events. The system
is a kind of heat engine that drives half the world's climate. The Walker
circulation works like a seesaw in which warm, moist air rises in the
western Pacific, becomes drier at high elevation and displaces eastward,
where heavy air sinks and returns westward. The phenomenon thus generates
west-to-east air currents high up, and east-to-west trade winds near the
ocean surface -- a great climatic wheel centered on the equator.

Global warming theorists have long expected to see a slowdown in this
system, but until now had been unable to see convincing evidence.

The latest study relied mostly on sea-level barometric pressure, drawing on
data collected by sailors plying the Pacific for more than a century.
Results pointed to a clear slowdown in the intensity of the Pacific heat
pump, particularly during the past 30 years, essentially matching the
results expected from computer climate models.

The scientists said the only explanation that fit all the data was the
temperature increase attributed to the release of heat-trapping greenhouse
gases, chiefly carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.

Rising temperatures are said to cause more water vapor to enter the lower
atmosphere from the ocean -- a 7 percent increase for every 1.8 Fahrenheit
degree (1 degree Celsius) temperature increase. Only some of this added
moisture falls back as rain. The extra moisture serves as a drag in the
bottom of the system, leading to slower wind speeds.[/i]

Because ocean winds drive currents, Vecchi said one clear impact may be a
reduced Pacific upwelling, potentially reducing the biological productivity
of ocean regions affected.

As for the impacts on land, it's anybody's guess. One possibility may be
generally wilder weather -- bigger storms, drier droughts and stronger
hurricanes feeding off the warmer, wetter tropical Pacific.

"You are directly changing a basic engine of weather and climate," said
Daniel Kammen, co-director of the Institute of the Environment at UC
Berkeley. "The range of potential effects is broad, and none of our climate
models tells us what's unpredictable. If you mess the system up too much,
you will get surprises."

A relaxing of the Walker circulation appears to fit into a larger pattern of
rapid climate change that the models actually do predict, further reason to
suspect those models may be working as intended.

The circular flow is what drives ocean currents and sets the background
against which El Ninos are measured.

El Nino, named after the Christ child by Southern Hemisphere fishing
communities because it tends to show up around Christmas every three to
seven years, is marked by the periodic warming of ocean waters in the
eastern Pacific and a slackening of trade winds. The flipside also happens,
a phenomenon known as La Nina.

In effect, the gradual changes now being documented seem to be tipping the
system slightly more toward the El Nino state.

"We don't know how this is going to play out," Kelly Redmond, deputy
director of the Western Regional Climate Center in Reno, said Wednesday.
"What this does is very slightly make the system overall look a little more
El Nino-like, chronically."

El Ninos generally are associated with wetter conditions in the Southwestern
United States and drier conditions to the north. Northern California sits
roughly in the middle -- making the impact here particularly hard to gauge.

Jan Null, consulting meteorologist at Golden Gate Weather Services, said any
change in the Pacific's air-flow pattern may be compensated by a change in
some other part of the system yet to be pinpointed.

"The Earth seems to have a way of balancing things," he said. "We're just
now finding this one piece of the puzzle, and there are other pieces we are
still looking for. Then we can try to put the puzzle together."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article361813.ece
Global warming fastest for 20,000 years - and it is mankind's fault
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 04 May 2006
Global warming is made worse by man-made pollution and the scale of the
problem is unprecedented in at least 20,000 years, according to a draft
report by the world's leading climate scientists.

The leaked assessment by the group of international experts says there is
now overwhelming evidence to show that the Earth's climate is undergoing
dramatic transformation because of human activity.

A draft copy of the report by a working group of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) states that concentrations of carbon dioxide,
methane and other greenhouse gases are at the highest for at least 650,000
years.

It predicts that global average temperatures this century will rise by
between 2C and 4.5C as a result of the doubling of carbon dioxide levels
caused by man-made emissions.

These temperatures could increase by a further 1.5C as a result of "positive
feedbacks" in the climate resulting from the melting of sea ice, thawing
permafrost and the acidification of the oceans.

The draft report will become the fourth assessment by the IPCC since it was
established in 1988 and was meant to be confidential until the final version
is ready for publication next year.

However, a copy of the report has been made available by a US government
committee and can be found on the internet by anyone who makes an e-mail
request for a password to access the area on its website.

The US Climate Change Science Programme, which yesterday released its own
report saying climate change was being affected by man-made pollution, said
it wanted as many experts and stakeholders as possible to comment on the
draft IPCC report.

The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, however, did not learn of the
decision to, in effect, publish the report until it was posted online,
according to the journal Nature. The IPCC assessment is written by scores of
scientists - who can draw on the expertise of hundreds more researchers - to
produce the most definitive and authoritative assessment of climate change
and its impacts.

Global warming sceptics will get little comfort from the confident language
in the draft report, which dismisses suggestions that climate change is an
entirely natural rather than man-made phenomenon.

"There is widespread evidence of anthropogenic warming of the climate system
in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the free atmosphere and
in the oceans," it says.

"It is very likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause
of the observed global warming over the past 50 years.

"And it is likely that greenhouse gases alone would have caused more warming
than has been observed during this period, with some warming offset by
cooling from natural and other anthropogenic factors." Since its last report
in 2001, the IPCC's working group says it has amassed convincing evidence
showing that climate change is already happening.

It also finds that climate change is set to continue for decades and perhaps
centuries to come even if man-made emissions can be curbed.

"2005 and 1998 were the warmest two years on record. Five of the six warmest
years have occurred in the past five years (2001-2005)," the report says.

Satellite data since 1978 shows that the Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about
2.7 per cent each decade, with even larger losses of about 7.4 per cent
during the warmer summer months.

"The smallest extent of summer sea ice was observed in 2005. Average Arctic
temperatures have been rising since the 1960s and 2005 was the warmest
Arctic year," the draft IPCC report says.

"An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on
other aspects of climate, including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes,
circulation, storm tracks and precipitation," it says.

Melting glaciers and polar ice sheets could cause sea levels to rise by up
to 43cm by 2100, and the rise for the next two centuries is predicted to be
nearly double that figure.

Man-made emissions of greenhouse gases have probably already caused the
increase in sea levels observed over the past century, says the report.

"Anthropogenic forcing, resulting from thermal expansion from ocean warming
and glacier and ice sheet melt, is likely the largest contributor to sea
level rise during the latter half of the 20th century," the report says.

"Anthropogenic forcing has likely contributed to recent decreases in Arctic
sea ice extent. There is evidence of a decreasing trend in global snow cover
and widespread retreat of glaciers consistent with warming and evidence that
this melting has also contributed to sea-level rise," it adds.

Evidence of climate change

* Arctic sea ice has shrunk by 2.7 per cent per decade since 1978 and by 7.4
per cent each decade during the summer months.

* Five of the six warmest years have occurred in the past five years, with
2005 and 1998 being the two warmest years on record.

* Global average sea levels rose at a rate of about 2mm a year between
1961-2003, and by an average of more than 3mm a year between 1993-2003.

* Mountain glaciers and polar land ice have in general melted faster than
they have formed over the past 40 years.

* Permafrost temperatures have increased on average and the area covered by
seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7 per cent over the past 50
years.

There is, of course, still a group of people who really don't seem to know much about the subject, who are willing to argue the "ignorance" of people whose business it is to know - some of the wind is out of those sails ...

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/QBp5l4xxQ4SpRt/Scientists-Resolve-Global-Warming-Data-Discrepancies.xhtml
Scientists Resolve Global Warming Data Discrepancies

The White House Council on Environmental Quality issued a statement saying
that the climate change program was established to reduce scientific
uncertainties. There are still some questions about the rate of atmospheric
warming in the tropics, but overall the issue has been settled, said Thomas
R. Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center.
A nagging difference in temperature readings that had raised questions about
global warming has been resolved, a panel of scientists reported Tuesday.

"This significant discrepancy no longer exists, because errors in the
satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected,"
researchers said in the first of 21 assessment reports planned by the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program.

The findings show clear evidence of human influences on climate due to
changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and stratospheric ozone.

Solving the Mystery
There has been increasing concern about global climate change being caused
by human activity, in particular the release of gases such as carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere by automobiles and industrial activity.

While temperature readings at the surface showed this increase, however,
readings in the atmosphere taken by satellites and radiosondes --
instruments carried by weather balloons -- had shown little or no warming.

There are still some questions about the rate of atmospheric warming in the
tropics, but overall the issue has been settled, said Thomas R. Karl,
director of the National Climatic Data Center.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality issued a statement saying
that the climate change program was established to reduce scientific
uncertainties, and "we welcome today's report because it represents success
in doing so with respect to temperature trends."

Warming Clues
Among the report's findings:

Since the 1950s all data show the Earth's surface and the low and middle
atmosphere have warmed, while the upper stratosphere has cooled. Those
changes were expected from computer models of the effects of greenhouse
warming.


Radiosonde readings for the midtroposphere -- the nearest portion of the
atmosphere -- show it warming slightly faster than the surface, also an
expected finding.


The most recent satellite data also show tropospheric warming, though there
is some disagreement among data sets. This may be caused by uncertainties in
the observations, flaws in climate models or a combination. The researchers
think it is a problem with the data collection.


The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained
by natural processes alone.

The report came a day after the government reported that the greenhouse
gases widely blamed for raising the planet's temperature are still building
up in the atmosphere.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday there was a
continuing increase in carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide in the air last
year, though methane leveled off. Overall, NOAA said, its annual greenhouse
gas index "shows a continuing, steady rise in the amount of heat-trapping
gases in the atmosphere."

Too



long....

i have a question mate ok man/women's activitys can be apart of the global warming problem but answer this what if anything can be done about it?

the problems we have to overcome are this
1:we NEED transport for food /medical aid transport meaning big ass ships that run on not so freindly fuel
2:we need cars/busses but being realistic out of a population of so many including the lesser developed countrys who do you realisticaly think will car pool ?
3:the GREEN option requires time and cannot be done in a flash it alsocosts a bomb so who would foot the bill?
4:given that we have impacted the world so greatly ok the conciencious of us would turn to greener options but there is a far greater why give a fragg majority that just wont help out
5:what would the massive rich do they made most of the cash by using fosil fuels(eg: oil sheiks and government) if a free form of energy was found it would lead to a monetery cash crash worse than the deperession worldwide (that is becouse solar panels CAN be made good enough to power a house from being just on the house roof so no nationalgrid!)
6: in the end if we do turn to greener options who would say the effects would lead to a reversal of the problem and do they know for SURE?

i hope you can answer and help out mate becouse these lil bits are things i feel go unnoticed by ecofreindly agendas
(ps its not a flame i am being nice!!! just very inquisitve )

1:we NEED transport for food /medical aid transport meaning big ass ships that run on not so freindly fuel

Ships could be run off biodiesel or plain vegetable oil. Wind and nuclear are also options for ships. But the idea is to cut CO2 emissions where it is easiest first which is probably power plants and cars.

2:we need cars/busses but being realistic out of a population of so many including the lesser developed countrys who do you realisticaly think will car pool ?

We don't need cars. We won't die without them. But they sure are convenient. If we want, we can run them off electricity. We can also produce petrol cars that are much more efficent. For example a German company plans to market a 60 km/litre two seater in 2009.

3:the GREEN option requires time and cannot be done in a flash it alsocosts a bomb so who would foot the bill?

Everybody. But assuming that we will replace cars and power plants as they wear out and not before that time the expense will not be so great. Nuclear power is only slightly more expensive than coal and the extra you pay for a fuel efficent hybrid now is made up for in what you save in petrol costs.

4:given that we have impacted the world so greatly ok the conciencious of us would turn to greener options but there is a far greater why give a fragg majority that just wont help out

The tragedy of the commons. I see no other recourse than to fight against it. Oh well, a good fight makes things interesting.

5:what would the massive rich do they made most of the cash by using fosil fuels(eg: oil sheiks and government) if a free form of energy was found it would lead to a monetery cash crash worse than the deperession worldwide (that is becouse solar panels CAN be made good enough to power a house from being just on the house roof so no nationalgrid!)

There are no free forms of energy lying around. Even if cheap efficent solar cells were invented today that produced electricity at 1 cent a kilowatt-hour it would still take time to install them and there would also be plenty of cars around that need petrol, so there would be time to adapt. And economies crash due to bad things happening. Good things merely require adjustments. For example computing power keeps dropping in price but it's a good thing and nothing we can't handle. And if best comes to best the sheiks take out loans and get real jobs.

6: in the end if we do turn to greener options who would say the effects would lead to a reversal of the problem and do they know for SURE?

What we are aiming for is not exactly a reversal. We are just trying to stop things getting worse. In the future maybe people can attempt a reversal.

I admit to not reading all of the OP, but is it saying that the US administration finally has realised what everyone else has known for some time? That global warming is a reality and that we ALL have to take responsibility for making changes to our own consumption and stop citing developing nations as an excuse for not doing anything ourselves! The USA has to change, or else things like the aftermath of Katrina will happen again and again and again....

I admit to not reading all of the OP, but is it saying that the US administration finally has realised what everyone else has known for some time? That global warming is a reality and that we ALL have to take responsibility for making changes to our own consumption and stop citing developing nations as an excuse for not doing anything ourselves! The USA has to change, or else things like the aftermath of Katrina will happen again and again and again....
Wait until Bush is out of office and we get another chance to make a significant change. Unless we get another president with his fist deep in the pockets of massive oil companies.

5:what would the massive rich do they made most of the cash by using fosil fuels(eg: oil sheiks and government) if a free form of energy was found it would lead to a monetery cash crash worse than the deperession worldwide

Remember that oil has other products than just petrol and other forms of fuel. We will still need oil even if we stop using completely as a fuel, though, of course, the demand will be less. Plastics are very important, and they come from oil, and there are other very important petrochemical products. In fact, in my opinion I think we should stop using oil for fuel, and use it for the production of those products, as it is far the easiest way to get them (if not in some cases the only), and we shouldnt waste a whole load of it burning it in engines and power stations.

Ships could be run off biodiesel or plain vegetable oil. Wind and nuclear are also options for ships. But the idea is to cut CO2 emissions where it is easiest first which is probably power plants and cars. -
The tragedy of the commons. I see no other recourse than to fight against it. Oh well, a good fight makes things interesting.
in that last bit i salute you a good fight IS worth it becouse at least you go down knowing you did all you could

And if best comes to best the sheiks take out loans and get real jobs.

NOW that id like to see lmgdao!!!

but the problems are still the same ok everyone will have to pay to change but the stark reality of the problem is becouse of the way our lives are no one can afford it cars are in some places in england a necesity for work to survive (eg; thurgoland to nottingham try and find an amicable bus time to get to work at 9am without waking up at 5 am remember you need some food an a coffie lol and to sort out any possible children).
Contrary to most peoples ideas england even as it is a rich country has its own problems personaly id love to change my cbr125r to lpg but having just paid 4000 pound for gear AND the bike not counting insurance or road tax ill be dammned forking out any extra cash to upgrade the bike and loose the 1 year warranty!, that and if we could change all cars to lpg or a hybrid do you realy think shell or the big boys would let us? answer is no we are woth too much to them that and they bought out all the patents for the free fuel ideas and continue to do to to this day (eg: hydrogen power research)

Remember that oil has other products than just petrol and other forms of fuel. We will still need oil even if we stop using completely as a fuel, though, of course, the demand will be less. Plastics are very important, and they come from oil, and there are other very important petrochemical products. In fact, in my opinion I think we should stop using oil for fuel, and use it for the production of those products, as it is far the easiest way to get them (if not in some cases the only), and we shouldnt waste a whole load of it burning it in engines and power stations.

true oil has other uses and i do support your idea as long as we also start to look into resin and / or other plastic repacement ideas (carbon could be one i think im not totaly UP on this im guessing)

Explain to me how the burning of vegetable oil or biodiesel reduces greehouse gas emissions. They have lower heating values than diesel and octane, and thus you need to burn more of them to produce the same amount of energy (the same is true of ethanol). That produces more carbon dioxide per mile travelled.

Plus, the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour, not carbon dioxide. The biggest source of water vapour is agricultural irrigation. Why aren't you going after that?

Furthermore, isn't the most effective means of reducing the earth's temperature to reduce the amount of energy being added into the system? Why not filter out some of the sun's energy with a shield at Lagrange point 1?

And, why does anyone still trust the IPCC? Their initial claims were all based on a paper written by Mann et.al. and published in Nature in 1998, but that paper was refuted sufficiently that Mann was forced to publish a corrigendum. I can summarise the refutation like this: The calculations Mann used were such that any random data set would have produced the same hockey stick graph.

For 7 years, the global warming alarmists ignored contrary space-based measurements of atmospheric temperature. They simply refused to discuss this evidence which contradicted all of their climate models. New data show that the contrary data was erroneous, but they didn't know that, and simply dismissed it for 7 years. These people have no interest in global warming. Their only interest is in funnelling wealth from western countries into developing nations.

If carbon dioxide is such a bad thing, why does no one object to the rapidly increasing emissions of third-world countries?

Explain to me how the burning of vegetable oil or biodiesel reduces greehouse gas emissions. They have lower heating values than diesel and octane, and thus you need to burn more of them to produce the same amount of energy (the same is true of ethanol). That produces more carbon dioxide per mile travelled.

Plus, the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour, not carbon dioxide. The biggest source of water vapour is agricultural irrigation. Why aren't you going after that?

Furthermore, isn't the most effective means of reducing the earth's temperature to reduce the amount of energy being added into the system? Why not filter out some of the sun's energy with a shield at Lagrange point 1?

And, why does anyone still trust the IPCC? Their initial claims were all based on a paper written by Mann et.al. and published in Nature in 1998, but that paper was refuted sufficiently that Mann was forced to publish a corrigendum. I can summarise the refutation like this: The calculations Mann used were such that any random data set would have produced the same hockey stick graph.

For 7 years, the global warming alarmists ignored contrary space-based measurements of atmospheric temperature. They simply refused to discuss this evidence which contradicted all of their climate models. New data show that the contrary data was erroneous, but they didn't know that, and simply dismissed it for 7 years. These people have no interest in global warming. Their only interest is in funnelling wealth from western countries into developing nations.

If carbon dioxide is such a bad thing, why does no one object to the rapidly increasing emissions of third-world countries?
Where do you get the information that biodiesel produces more co2 than fossil fuels? I'm having a hard time finding anything that isn't easily negated by a simple search about biodiesel.

And who isn't concerned about developing nations rising pollution?

And:
"Greenhouse skeptics sometimes cling to the importance of water vapor in Earth’s radiative budget in hopes that it somehow lessens the importance of manmade greenhouse gases. But water’s importance offers no real reason to think that manmade emissions won’t warm Earth. The increase in other greenhouse gases will be many times higher than the increase in water vapor. Because different greenhouse gases absorb radiation at different wavelengths, water vapor does not soak up all the infrared energy coming from Earth’s surface, and never can."
http://www.nsc.org/EHC/climate/ccucla6.htm

"Water vapor is not only the dominant greenhouse gas, but its concentration also depends strongly upon temperature. As the climate warms from the burning of fossil fuels, the concentrations of water vapor are expected to increase. This moistening of the atmosphere, in turn, absorbs more heat and further raises the temperature. In this way, water vapor greatly amplifies the global warming projected to occur over the next century."
http://www.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH_Main/1,1770,2593-1;41812-3,00.html

And this lengthy Q and A which you may or may not want to read (I bolded the important part):

Dear Umbra,


Coming from a scientific background, I was under the assumption that water vapor was the worst -- or you could say the best -- at causing global warming. Do you believe this to be false, and if not, why is no one talking about it?


Erik Nash


Dearest Erik,


I've decided to use your letter as a continuation of B's from earlier this week.



Spouting off on global warming.
Photo: iStockphoto.Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. It is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by mass and volume, but scientists don't seem to agree on a quantification. It provides maybe 35 to 70 percent of the natural greenhouse effect, 80 percent of the greenhouse gases by mass. But these numbers can be misleading, because the way gases combine is an important component of the greenhouse effect; if water vapor accounts for, say, 55 percent of the effect, that doesn't mean the rest of the gases make up 45 percent. If you are interested in more exactitude, check out this post on the RealClimate blog.


From my understanding of others' understanding, the reason "no one talks about it" -- i.e., the reason we focus on carbon dioxide -- is that we are not directly creating water vapor. We are loading the atmosphere with carbon, resulting in the many metaphors -- adding an extra blanket to the atmosphere, overheating the well-managed greenhouse -- and the techno-speak, "direct forcing." We release the carbon by burning it, the carbon goes into the atmosphere, the atmosphere retains more of the sun's radiation. That is a direct impact we have and should stop having.


Water vapor does offer us "climate feedback." On the simplest level: as the atmosphere warms, it is able to, and will, hold more moisture. Moisture in the form of water vapor, which will be retained and itself make the atmosphere warmer, leading to higher water retention in the atmosphere, and on and on. Comprehending the properties of water vapor in the atmosphere begins to tire my little climate-obsessed head, because it is quite technical. If you (coming from a scientific background) wish to understand theories of how long this moisture feedback will continue, the scary factors by which it will increase projected global temperatures, and more, try that RealClimate link and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's water vapor feedback page as starting points.


Basically, our "take-home learning" (hee hee, I love these horrible corporate gerunds) is that increased water vapor will amplify anthropogenic carbon emissions. Water vapor is not "the best" at causing global warming, because it has a short life in the atmosphere. Also, we are causing global warming and we have found the easiest, best way to do so is to burn fossil fuels and deforest. No, we don't need to worry about lids on pasta pots. We should, however, feel very sober about the avalanche of climate changes we are bringing upon ourselves.





Really, a quick look through the numerous threads that have been posted in General on Climate Change will offer you probably dozens of rebuttals to that line of reasoning.

Explain to me how the burning of vegetable oil or biodiesel reduces greehouse gas emissions. They have lower heating values than diesel and octane, and thus you need to burn more of them to produce the same amount of energy (the same is true of ethanol). That produces more carbon dioxide per mile travelled.
Source?

Plus, the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour, not carbon dioxide. The biggest source of water vapour is agricultural irrigation. Why aren't you going after that?
Maybe because agricultural irrigation is a lot more necessary than cars?

Furthermore, isn't the most effective means of reducing the earth's temperature to reduce the amount of energy being added into the system? Why not filter out some of the sun's energy with a shield at Lagrange point 1?Shields not responding Captain.

And, why does anyone still trust the IPCC? Their initial claims were all based on a paper written by Mann et.al. and published in Nature in 1998, but that paper was refuted sufficiently that Mann was forced to publish a corrigendum. I can summarise the refutation like this: The calculations Mann used were such that any random data set would have produced the same hockey stick graph.
I don't know.

For 7 years, the global warming alarmists ignored contrary space-based measurements of atmospheric temperature. They simply refused to discuss this evidence which contradicted all of their climate models. New data show that the contrary data was erroneous, but they didn't know that, and simply dismissed it for 7 years. These people have no interest in global warming. Their only interest is in funnelling wealth from western countries into developing nations.What makes you think they want to funnel wealth to third world coutries?

If carbon dioxide is such a bad thing, why does no one object to the rapidly increasing emissions of third-world countries?
It makes more sense for rich countries to try and change to eco-friendly methods before developing ones.

Where do you get the information that biodiesel produces more co2 than fossil fuels? I'm having a hard time finding anything that isn't easily negated by a simple search about biodiesel.

Do the stoichiometry. The advantage of biodiesel is that it doesn't rely on foreign oil imports, and it produces fewer pollutants than fossil fuels.

But pollutants have nothing to do with global warming. Global warming discussions are all about the CO2 (which is not a pollutant), and biodiesel's lower heating value means that you need to burn more of it to produce the same amount of energy.

But even if it were equivalent to diesel, where's the benefit. It would have to be a more efficient fuel to make the change worthwhile (and that includes refining costs).

Plus, to be a viable fuel, biodiesel needs to work better at lower temperatures. I'm Canadian, and my diesel truck still starts when the fuel has been chilled to -40° with just a bit of encouragement from the glowplugs.

Do the stoichiometry. The advantage of biodiesel is that it doesn't rely on foreign oil imports, and it produces fewer pollutants than fossil fuels.

But pollutants have nothing to do with global warming. Global warming discussions are all about the CO2 (which is not a pollutant), and biodiesel's lower heating value means that you need to burn more of it to produce the same amount of energy.

But even if it were equivalent to diesel, where's the benefit. It would have to be a more efficient fuel to make the change worthwhile (and that includes refining costs).

Plus, to be a viable fuel, biodiesel needs to work better at lower temperatures. I'm Canadian, and my diesel truck still starts when the fuel has been chilled to -40° with just a bit of encouragement from the glowplugs.
"Biodiesel reduces emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) by approximately 50 % and carbon dioxide by 78 % on a net lifecycle basis because the carbon in biodiesel emissions is recycled from carbon that was already in the atmosphere, rather than being new carbon from petroleum that was sequestered in the earth's crust. (Sheehan, 1998)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

Biodiesel is easy to make and store, and is safer to transport than diesel fuel. It helps increase engine life. Using it reduces the consumption of fossil fuels. Compared to diesel fuel, biodiesel produces almost no pollutants and significantly reduces carbon dioxide emissions. It’s also more pleasant to use—the exhaust from a biodiesel vehicle often smells like popcorn or French fries! In some regions of the U.S., biodiesel is becoming popular as a fuel for agricultural equipment, such as tractors and trucks, as well as for passenger vehicles.
http://www.ngridenergyworld.com/eew/more/alt.html

combat global climate change?
Plant-based B100 resulted in over 75% less carbon dioxide emissions than conventional diesel in a full lifecycle assessment.2 Although tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are similar for diesel and biodiesel operated engines, biodiesel provides a distinct advantage in a full lifecycle assessment in which emissions from fuel production and fuel use are considered. In the case of plant-based biodiesel, carbon dioxide uptake by plants during respiration offsets the CO2 emissions produced from the combustion of biodiesel.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/biodiesel.html#Does_using_biodiesel_in_place_of_conventional_diesel_help_combat_global_climate_chang e

Can biodiesel help mitigate “global warming”?
A 1998 biodiesel lifecycle study, jointly sponsored by the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Agriculture, concluded biodiesel reduces net CO² emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum diesel. This is due to biodiesel’s closed carbon cycle. The CO² released into the atmosphere when biodiesel is burned is recycled by growing plants, which are later processed into fuel..Is biodiesel safer than petroleum diesel? Scientific research confirms that biodiesel exhaust has a less harmful impact on human health than petroleum diesel fuel. Biodiesel emissions have decreased levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and nitrited PAH compounds that have been identified as potential cancer causing compounds. Test results indicate PAH compounds were reduced by 75 to 85 percent, with the exception of benzo(a)anthracene, which was reduced by roughly 50 percent. Targeted nPAH compounds were also reduced dramatically with biodiesel fuel, with 2-nitrofluorene and 1-nitropyrene reduced by 90 percent, and the rest of the nPAH compounds reduced to only trace levels.


http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/faqs/


And on the cold, this from 2003:

http://www.soypower.net/PRESSRELEASES/1606.PDF

The Third World simply needs to industrialize, and fast. It may contribute to carbon dioxide emissions, but it will help other environmental issues.

I don't deny that there are carbon emission, but when the temperature peaked sometime in the 1700s, it was higher than now before the Industrial Revolution. I don't believe in these cries of catastrophy everyone is shouting.

Furthermore, there is little humans can do to actually stop the warming. Human activity contributes barely 6% of the world's carbon emissions. Meaning we destroy our economies and way of life with only a negligible reduction in total carbon emissions.

Kreynoria']
Furthermore, there is little humans can do to actually stop the warming. Human activity contributes barely 6% of the world's carbon emissions. Meaning we destroy our economies and way of life with only a negligible reduction in total carbon emissions.

While I dont have a clue about the truth of this rather shakey sounding statement, is it not possible that that 6% could make a big difference? Enough to tip it over into "too much CO2"?

Kreynoria']The Third World simply needs to industrialize, and fast. It may contribute to carbon dioxide emissions, but it will help other environmental issues.

I don't deny that there are carbon emission, but when the temperature peaked sometime in the 1700s, it was higher than now before the Industrial Revolution. I don't believe in these cries of catastrophy everyone is shouting.

Furthermore, there is little humans can do to actually stop the warming. Human activity contributes barely 6% of the world's carbon emissions. Meaning we destroy our economies and way of life with only a negligible reduction in total carbon emissions.
This has been refuted too many times for me to even begin the google odyssey.

Explain to me how the burning of vegetable oil or biodiesel reduces greehouse gas emissions. They have lower heating values than diesel and octane, and thus you need to burn more of them to produce the same amount of energy (the same is true of ethanol). That produces more carbon dioxide per mile travelled.There are two errors here. First of all, the reason fossil fuels are such a bad idea, isn't because they result in CO2 emissions. It's because they result in CO2 emissions above & beyond the natural CO2 cycle.
Farmed fuel adds no such problem, as the CO2 emissions are absorbed back during the farming process.

Secondly, you're wrong about emission levels.Plus, the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour, not carbon dioxide. The biggest source of water vapour is agricultural irrigation. Why aren't you going after that?You should understand that 'biggest' have no bearing on the problem.

The human impact is actually relatively small, and consists of a wide range of gasses. The biggest impact is CO2, which is why we refer to our greenhouse gas emissions as "CO2 equivalent". It's for ease of reference.

Unfortunately, the greenhouse effect is a rather complex mechanism. Though our total emissions are minute in relative terms, the impact is huge. To use an analogy: wheels are a relatively minor detail on a car, but adding a rubber solvent while you drive is a recipe for disaster.Furthermore, isn't the most effective means of reducing the earth's temperature to reduce the amount of energy being added into the system? Why not filter out some of the sun's energy with a shield at Lagrange point 1?Undoubtedly. Unfortuinately some git threw away Star Treks phone number.And, why does anyone still trust the IPCC? It isn't a matter of trust, the IPCC is our tool for compiling & coordinating climate research. "Trust" has about as much to do with anything as "trust" has to do with whether your government is your government. It's the authority we've established to handle Climate Research. It's that simple. No one else is in as good a position to know what's going on.These people have no interest in global warming. Their only interest is in funnelling wealth from western countries into developing nations.Hehe, you've got a nice conspiracy theory going here :p If carbon dioxide is such a bad thing, why does no one object to the rapidly increasing emissions of third-world countries?Eh... Get out from under your rock much? Everyone are concerned about, and object to 3rd world greenhouse gas emissions. Even America routinely rants about it (though they rather thoroughly sabotage all attempts to do something about it).

Plus, the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour, not carbon dioxide. The biggest source of water vapour is agricultural irrigation. Why aren't you going after that?

Umm, I think you'll find that the oceans tend to be the biggest source of water vapour. Considerably more than irrigation. Quite a bit more than irrigation. Particularly when you consider that all water for irrigation comes from rain that evapourated off the oceans. Back of the envelope calculation: If 25% of rain falls on land and 10% of that is captured and used for irrigation and 10% of that wouldn't have evapourated and would have been returned to the oceans instead by rivers and groundwater, and 50% of water used for irrigation returns to groundwater, then irrigation increases water vapour by roughtly 0.125%.

Furthermore, isn't the most effective means of reducing the earth's temperature to reduce the amount of energy being added into the system? Why not filter out some of the sun's energy with a shield at Lagrange point 1?

Because a shield at L1 would only shade the earth for a few minutes a year, similar to a solar eclipse, so build it lower. But since it costs $1,000 a kilogram or so to get stuff into orbit, it should be cheaper to dump sulfur into the upper atmosphere to create a cooling effect similar to a major volcanic eruption. Or it should be cheaper still to seed the Southern ocean with iron to encourage the growth of CO2 absorbing plankton.

If carbon dioxide is such a bad thing, why does no one object to the rapidly increasing emissions of third-world countries?

Perhaps because the world's poorest 2 billion still emit less CO2 than the richest 300 million? But people are concerned about this. However, since the developing world buys most of it's cars and generating equipment from the developed world, if the developed world changes its habits it will have a knock on effect on the developing world.

Too



long....
Part of my lack of charm.

--
Further, thanks to y'all for a good discussion so far.
Again, to Desperate Measures and
Similization for reasons i don't need to belabour.

This is a little more on the consequences of this issue:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=ax8_OcNGo7PI&refer=canada
Global Warming May Deprive Chicks of Food, Study Says (Update2)

May 3 (Bloomberg) -- A tiny black-and-white songbird that flies from West
Africa to the Netherlands to lay its eggs in mid- April is arriving too late
for dinner, in what may be one of the subtler consequences of global
warming, a study showed.

The number of European pied flycatchers has dropped 90 percent in some areas
because the supply of caterpillars is peaking earlier, leaving the birds
with no food for their chicks, according to results in tomorrow's Science
journal.

Climate change may upset the ecological balance that supports commuters like
pied flycatchers, which migrate 2,796 miles (4,500 kilometers), the
scientists said. The birds now lay eggs 10 days earlier than they did two
decades ago, and still miss the caterpillar population's height by six days,
a previous study showed.

``We think that this is the first time that people really have shown that
climate change leads to population decline in such a bird species,'' said
Christiaan Both, lead investigator and a postdoctoral fellow at Groningen
University in the Netherlands. ``The ecosystems are getting mistuned.''

The researchers used annual population counts from 1987 to 2003 at 10 Dutch
nest boxes that had different population trends. The number of birds fell
only 10 percent in areas with a caterpillar population that peaked later,
Both said.

The study, conducted by researchers at an institute of the Royal Netherlands
Academy of Arts and Sciences, was financed by the Netherlands Organization
for Scientific Research.

Bigger Picture

The birds are about 5 inches long and weigh about as much as three Hershey's
Kisses chocolates. They lay five to nine eggs that incubate for a little
less than two weeks. If they had arrived earlier than mid-April, when the
temperature is cooler, they might have died from lack of food, Both said a
telephone interview today from a field in Friesland.

Data from the Dutch Ecological Monitoring Network shows a stable population
of pied flycatchers, said Leo Soldaat of Statistics Netherlands, in an
e-mail yesterday. He said it might be possible for the population to decline
more quickly locally.

Non-migratory great tits in the same areas aren't suffering ill effects from
the change in caterpillar season, as they are present and ready to eat
anytime, the study researchers said.

Earlier studies showed mountain animals will probably be driven to
extinction by warmer summers, polar bears may disappear because of melting
ice floes where they hunt, and animals in the Sierra Nevada have moved to
higher elevations.

Shift to the North

Both said the scientists are looking at climate change effects on other
species and how the flycatchers might adapt to a change in their food
supply. One possibility might be that they will shift their breeding grounds
north to match their arrival to peak caterpillar season, he said.

``If the birds in the Netherlands would arrive too late to profit from the
short period of food availability, they may continue migration to the north,
say to Scandinavia, until they meet a site where their timing of arrival and
breeding is still pretty much tuned to the timing of the caterpillar peak,''
Both said.
---
Also ...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3834033.html
May 2, 2006, 6:45PM
China: Global Warming Is Melting Glaciers

2006 The Associated Press

BEIJING - Glaciers in western China's Qinghai-Tibet plateau, known as the
"roof of the world," are melting at a rate of 7 percent annually due to
global warming, the country's official Xinhua News Agency said.

Xinhua said the figure is drawn from data from China's 681 weather stations
over four decades.

Statistics from the Tibet weather bureau show that average temperatures in
Tibet have risen by 0.9 degree Celsius (2 Fahrenheit) since the 1980s,
Xinhua reported, quoting Han Yongxiang of the National Meteorological
Bureau.

The glaciers in the Qinghai-Tibet plateau account for 47 percent of China's
total glacier coverage, according to Xinhua.

The melting glaciers will eventually lead to drought, more desertification
and an increase in the number of sandstorms, Xinhua quoted researcher Dong
Guangrong at the Chinese Academy of Sciences as saying.

The spread of deserts and sandstorms are already pressing problems in China.

The severity of China's sandstorms was highlighted by the onslaught of
300,000 metric tons (330,000 short tons) of dust in capital Beijing two
weeks ago. Dust was blown as far away as South Korea and Tokyo.

Beijing has approved programs to reclaim land by planting hardy grasses and
shrubs on 30 percent of the country's 700,000 square miles of desert by
2050.

Workers have already planted thousands of acres of vegetation to stop the
spread of deserts in China's north and west.

:p straughn, please, we all know global warming is a myth. glaciers are not disappearing. its only an illusion...

:p straughn, please, we all know global warming is a myth. glaciers are not disappearing. its only an illusion...
Hey now, that kind of attitude is best served on the Global Warming Update?/Why Do People Need Religion? merge thread. ;)

Funny thing is, ALL this news came out on the same day.

Next stop, if necessary, the Hockey-stick issue.
I've already posted about that and so has Desperate Measures, IiRC.

Non-migratory great tits in the same areas aren't suffering ill effects from the change in caterpillar season, as they are present and ready to eat
anytime, the study researchers said.

Increased numbers of great tits is the only good effect of global warming.

Increased numbers of great tits is the only good effect of global warming.
:D
...someone gets a cookie! :fluffle:

I don't deny that there are carbon emission, but when the temperature peaked sometime in the 1700s, it was higher than now before the Industrial Revolution. I don't believe in these cries of catastrophy everyone is shouting.

Um, temperature actually reach a minimum in the 1700's, not a peak. Things were colder in the 1700's than they are today. The Thames froze over. People skated on it. That sort of stuff.

Oh, and you know that famous painting of Washinton crossing the Delaware? Notice all the ice in the river? The Delaware iced up in the 1700's, something it almost never does now.

.. But what if I prefer pale tits?

Anyway Straughn, DM & the rest of you, I hear that a draft of the 2007 IPCC report (the AR4 thingy) has been released on some US government website, and is freely available for everyone with a US IP addy & an email.

Can anyone verify this, and perhaps get me a copy if it's true?

Um, temperature actually reach a minimum in the 1700's, not a peak. Things were colder in the 1700's than they are today. The Thames froze over. People skated on it. That sort of stuff.

Oh, and you know that famous painting of Washinton crossing the Delaware? Notice all the ice in the river? The Delaware iced up in the 1700's, something it almost never does now.
I thought we froze those rivers because it was so hot?

I thought we froze those rivers because it was so hot?

Okay, now I'm confused. I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Tempretures were low from roughly the 14th to mid 19th centuries. 1770 was the start of a low point. We think decreased solar activity and increased volcanism were responsible. Increased volcanic activity throws up dust and sulphur that block the sun. It is also suggested that reforestation after the black death may have lowered temperatures by absorbing CO2.

.. But what if I prefer pale tits?

Anyway Straughn, DM & the rest of you, I hear that a draft of the 2007 IPCC report (the AR4 thingy) has been released on some US government website, and is freely available for everyone with a US IP addy & an email.

Can anyone verify this, and perhaps get me a copy if it's true?
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/ipcc-wg1-review/
That's what i gots so far.

Okay, now I'm confused. I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Tempretures were low from roughly the 14th to mid 19th centuries. 1770 was the start of a low point. We think decreased solar activity and increased volcanism were responsible. Increased volcanic activity throws up dust and sulphur that block the sun. It is also suggested that reforestation after the black death may have lowered temperatures by absorbing CO2.
Right. It got hot so we froze the rivers to cool off. I follow you completely. Volcano's are hot.

Right. It got hot so we froze the rivers to cool off. I follow you completely. Volcano's are hot.
You arguin' drunk again, DM? ;)
Or is this one going political in the "Bushism" respect? ;)

Right. It got hot so we froze the rivers to cool off. I follow you completely. Volcano's are hot.

Yes, volcanoes are hot, but they make the earth cooler. Perhaps the volcanoes are sucking up all the heat to make lava? Those pesky lava pixies could be behind it all.

You arguin' drunk again, DM? ;)
Or is this one going political in the "Bushism" respect? ;)
....
just wanted to see how the other half lived...

You arguin' drunk again, DM?
Or is this one going political in the "Bushism" respect?

Ah well, in that case it's must be those pesky liberals which is stealing all our heat, not lava pixies after all.

....
just wanted to see how the other half lived...
Shouldn't you be richer?
And a smidge more pious?

Ah well, in that case it's must be those pesky liberals which is stealing all our heat, not lava pixies after all.
You know, those darned libruhls behind the "vast cooling conspiracy" that own all the down parka conglomerates.

Shouldn't you be richer?
And a smidge more pious?
Today, God gave me FIVE dollars.

(How's that?)

Today, God gave me FIVE dollars.

(How's that?)
No big surprise. It's an election year and God wants you to tithe early.
Especially since "The Hammer" is the limp noodle now.

EDIT: About "The Hammer" - Matt Taibbi had quite a few funny things to say about that bastard.

I ran into a Democratic staffer friend. “Admit it,” I said. “You’re going to miss Tom DeLay.”
He frowned at me. “Taibbi, you ever have a hemorrhoid?”
I shrugged. “Sure,” I said.
“You miss it?” he asked, then walked away not waiting for my answer.
-
Like our current president, he’s an ex-drunk (he claims he used to suck down twelve martinis a night) given to preposterous rhetorical excesses (he once compared the Audubon Society to the Klan), making him a sort of cartoon version of a shameless, pig-hearted right-wing hypocrite.

He was, moreover, all of these things, always, without ever for a second exhibiting any countermanding positive qualities. Tom DeLay was never handsome, never eloquent, never profound, never engaging and certainly never funny. Chicks did not dig DeLay. There is no secondary career as an adored, turtlenecked, coed-ogling poli-sci professor awaiting him. No bar back home full of tough guys is waiting to serve him up a congratulatory cold one, nobody at NASA will name the next comet after him, and he will not be a candidate for the next commissioner of the NFL. The only people left to honor his name will be a bunch of dingbat Christian dispensationalists with big ears and skyblue suits eager to reward him for his undeniable role in speeding humanity toward the Apocalypse.

No, without his hands on the levers of power, DeLay is a total zero, a loser, 200-odd pounds of the world’s purest p*ssy repellent, and with his resignation, many out there will be tempted to revel in that fact without considering the larger picture.

-
Unlike Clinton, however, DeLay was not blessed with personal gifts - looks, brains, charm. Instead of Oxford and Yale, DeLay dropped out of Baylor after being inveigled in a childish campus-vandalism scandal. His pre-politics career as a rat and bug killer was marked by a continual failure that has to be considered shocking in a state so teeming with vermin: An exterminator failing in southeast Texas is like a pimp failing in Bangkok during tourist season.
-
What kind of man was he? He only went into national politics in the first place because the federal government had banned a potentially carcinogenic pesticide called Mirex that DeLay had used to kill ants. That was his idea of injustice. He invoked God and counseled a business owner in Saipan to “resist evil,” when the “evil” was a set of worker protections designed to prevent atrocities like forced abortions. He nearly overthrew the government over a blow job. And for all that, DeLay now exits politics with surely only one regret: that he was once described as a “moderate” by The Washington Times.
--
:D

On the other hand, apparently the polar ozone is thinning again, which means that the poles are getting colder or something.

I don't think anyone knows what is going on.

In case anyone is interested in these filthy things called "facts" and "figures" the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by 19.4% from 1959 to 2004. That's a huge increase in a 45 year period. Since the industrial revolution CO2 levels have increased by about one third. Some people say humans aren't to blame for this, but I have in my posession, photographs of people burning coal and oil. Hard proof in other words.

If anyone doubts humans have the ability to affect the climate I suggest they get a world map and colour in all the land that is covered by cities or farms. If it's a big map you'll go through quite a few crayons. When you see how much you've coloured in it's kind of obvious we have the capicity to affect the planet big time.

On the other hand, apparently the polar ozone is thinning again, which means that the poles are getting colder or something.

I don't think anyone knows what is going on.
I think the people whose job it is to know what's going actually do have a pretty good idea what's going on, hence the OPx3.

EDIT: a great number of issues as these are put into perspective by the aforementioned "experts" on this subject, in the sense that they go through calculations, thoroughly, and have forecasts and predictions.
That's some of the backdrop for the alarm being so crucial for people to stop hiding from it.

Increased numbers of great tits is the only good effect of global warming.

haha :D

CO2 levels have increase by a third since the industrial revolution. You can try to argue the following:

1. CO2 does not cause global warming - No evidence for this.

2. People had nothing to do with this increase - So it was just a huge coincidence that CO2 levels went up at the same time we started releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the air from burning coal and oil? This idea is crazy too.

3. Things are going to get colder, therefore we need the extra CO2 to keep us warm - No evidence for this. Evidence shows tempretures going up.

4. Global warming is good for us. - No evidence that the overall effects will be beneficial.

If you make these arguments you don't have a leg to stand on. The only argument you can make is a utility one. Perhaps we could save more lives by burning cheap coal and spending the money saved on curing malaria and preventing the spread of HIV, but no one ever makes this arguement and I'm afraid I just wouldn't believe people who did. It sort of comes down to saying, "Let me be bad now and I promise to be good in the future."

CO2 levels have increase by a third since the industrial revolution. You can try to argue the following:

1. CO2 does not cause global warming - No evidence for this.

2. People had nothing to do with this increase - So it was just a huge coincidence that CO2 levels went up at the same time we started releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the air from burning coal and oil? This idea is crazy too.

3. Things are going to get colder, therefore we need the extra CO2 to keep us warm - No evidence for this. Evidence shows tempretures going up.

4. Global warming is good for us. - No evidence that the overall effects will be beneficial.

If you make these arguments you don't have a leg to stand on. The only argument you can make is a utility one. Perhaps we could save more lives by burning cheap coal and spending the money saved on curing malaria and preventing the spread of HIV, but no one ever makes this arguement and I'm afraid I just wouldn't believe people who did. It sort of comes down to saying, "Let me be bad now and I promise to be good in the future."
Current republican mantra? :(

Desperate Measures and Similization, do either/both of you possess gmail? I just found something particularly useful out about it.
!!! :)
:)
:)

Desperate Measures and Similization, do either/both of you possess gmail? I just found something particularly useful out about it.
!!! :)
:)
:)I'll TG you my gmail ASAP, thanks :)

I'll TG you my gmail ASAP, thanks :)*bows*

I, in my incredibly procrastinative fashion, *JUST* discovered a really decent search function on gmail that can bring up everyone i've got on this topic in my bank.
WooT!!

It's possible i've printed this but now it would appear i shouldn't be trusting the forum archives.
On, then ...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=188
28 Sep 2005
Inhofe and Crichton: Together at Last!
Filed under: Climate Science Climate modelling— group @ 10:33 pm
Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann

Today we witnessed a rather curious event in the US Senate. Possibly for the
first time ever, a chair of a Senate committee, one Senator James Inhofe
(R-Oklahoma), invited a science fiction writer to advise the committee
(Environment and Public Works), on science facts--in this case, the facts
behind climate change. The author in question? None other than our old
friend, Michael Crichton whom we've had reason to mention before (see here
and here). The committee's ranking member, Senator James Jeffords (I) of
Vermont, was clearly not impressed. Joining Crichton on climate change
issues was William Gray of hurricane forecasting fame, Richard Benedick (a
negotiator on the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting chemicals), and David
Sandalow (Brookings Institution). As might be expected, we paid a fair bit
of attention to the scientific (and not-so-scientific) points made.

Many of the 'usual suspects' of half-truths and red herrings were put forth
variously by Crichton, Gray, and Inhofe over the course of the hearing:

the claim that scientists were proclaiming an imminent ice age in the 1970s
(no, they weren't),
the claim that the 1940s to 1970s cooling in the northern hemisphere
disproves global warming (no, it doesn't),
the claim that important pieces of the science have not been independently
reproduced (yes, they have),
the claim that global climate models can't reproduce past climate change
(yes, they can)
the claim that climate can't be predicted because weather is chaotic
(wrong...)
and so on.

We won't dwell on the testimony that involved us personally since the
underlying issues have been discussed and dealt with here before, though we
will note that comments from both of us pointing out errors in the testimony
were entered into the Senate record by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California).
Instead, we will focus on the bigger picture.

First, let's be clear where there is agreement. Climate science doesn't deal
in certainties - it deals in probablities and the balance of evidence. We
agree with Crichton's statement that 'Prediction is not fact'. That
certainly doesn't mean, however, that projections of possible future climate
changes are not meaningful or useful, as Crichton claims.

Crichton seemed to imply that "prediction" (such as that provided by weather
or climate models) is useless in the decision making process. (As an aside,
we wonder how Gray, who is largely known for prediction of hurricane
behavior based on (statistical) modeling, felt about this?). We
fundamentally disagree. All science is about observation, understanding and
prediction. When those predictions work, you make new predictions. When they
don't, you revisit the observations, attempt to improve your understanding
of the underlying processes, and make a new prediction. And so on. In the
case of climate models, this is complicated by the fact that the time scales
involved need to be long enough to average out the short-term noise, i.e.
the chaotic sequences of 'weather' events. Luckily, we have past climate
changes to test the models against. Even more to the point, successful
climate predictions have actually been made in past Senate hearings. The
figure at the end of this comment by Jim Hansen demonstrates that
projections of global mean climate presented in a 1988 senate hearing (17
years ago) have actually been right on the money

Others panelists attempted to combat the onslaught of disinformation.
Sandalow sensibly suggested that the National Academy of Sciences be used to
inform the Senate on where the consensus of the science is, and Benedick
made some excellent points about how legislation can be successful in the
face of scientific controversy and uncertain predictions. However, none of
that provided as good theater as the other witnesses.

A highlight of the session was Gray making one particular statement that he
may be asked to defend (at least financially): "I'll take on any scientist
in this field .... I predict that in 5 to 8 years the globe will begin to
cool" (1:10:00 on the video). This would appear to be a direct call to those
"global warmers" (see also here, here and here) who are trying to get
contrarians to put their money where their mouths are (with very limited
success). We eagerly await developments!

Inhofe ended the hearing by declaring his desire to 'sit back and look at
[this] in a non-scientific way'. We think he already has.
---

EDIT: a great number of issues as these are put into perspective by the aforementioned "experts" on this subject, in the sense that they go through calculations, thoroughly, and have forecasts and predictions.
That's some of the backdrop for the alarm being so crucial for people to stop hiding from it.

My questions would be:

a) what type of calculations?

b) what is the co-respondence to calculated outcome and actual events?

I am not being snotty, but I have heard a whole bunch of varying predictions of doom &c. All of which seem to be purely empircally based and without any hard theory underlying them.

If someone can show me a global warming atmospheric gas balance equation which underpins the whole idea, I will take it all back. (Actually I really, really will). But until that happens, I will stand by the position that no-one knows what is going on.

My questions would be:

a) what type of calculations?

b) what is the co-respondence to calculated outcome and actual events?

I am not being snotty, but I have heard a whole bunch of varying predictions of doom &c. All of which seem to be purely empircally based and without any hard theory underlying them.

If someone can show me a global warming atmospheric gas balance equation which underpins the whole idea, I will take it all back. (Actually I really, really will). But until that happens, I will stand by the position that no-one knows what is going on.
I think it's fair to ask where it is you come up with the bolded conclusion. Perhaps you have some links.
Desperate Measures and myself have done quite a bit towards contributing our share (or more) of links and references - would you care to indulge us?

I think it's fair to ask where it is you come up with the bolded conclusion. Perhaps you have some links.
Desperate Measures and myself have done quite a bit towards contributing our share (or more) of links and references - would you care to indulge us?

Everything you posted is predicated upon past measurements. There is not yet an absoulute measure of the effects of any given concentration of gasses.

All I am saying is that the current theory is making predictions based upon trends; which is why it changes from year to year. Is all

Everything you posted is predicated upon past measurements. There is not yet an absoulute measure of the effects of any given concentration of gasses. Any? Are you sure about that?

All I am saying is that the current theory is making predictions based upon trends; which is why it changes from year to year. Is allAs well, though, it reinforces what studies have already been. After a few forecasts and a few consequences, the refinement of the data is stronger and stronger, as evidenced in the third post of mine on this thread specifically.

Any? Are you sure about that?

As well, though, it reinforces what studies have already been. After a few forecasts and a few consequences, the refinement of the data is stronger and stronger, as evidenced in the third post of mine on this thread specifically.

We are actually quibbling about a de minimis issue here. Because I am, if you didn't know, a strong advocate from turning away from so-called fossil fuels right now. Though mostly because I believe that they are finite, and it is not in anyone's interest to get into a resource war.

That said, the little I have read about climate change depends upon climate models that depend upon non-linear differential equations. As such, they are no more, or less, accurate than any other model of that type. *Shrugs* I'm a structural engineer, so I'm not convinced, is all.

Reasonable people can differ, of course, I just can't put it down in the place of certainty. I think people are just 'guessing' with fancy math.

CO2 has no effect on global warming. That's why the tempreture at the poles on Venus is only a pleasent 20 degrees celcius.

No, wait a minute, it's actually hot enough to melt lead. Must be those damn lava pixies again. I'm sure CO2 has nothing to do with it.

All I am saying is that the current theory is making predictions based upon trends; which is why it changes from year to year. Is all

We know many things affect the earth's tempreture. Solar activity, volcanic activity and CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations are three important factors. If the sun gets hotter, the earth get's hotter. If vocanic ash blocks the sun the earth gets cooler. If CO2 levels go up the earth gets warmer. CO2 levels have gone up by about 33% since the start of the industrial revolution. Humans are contrubuting to the warming of the earth even though other factors mean there is not a consistant warming year by year. Unless you want to deny that increased CO2 causes warming or that humans haven't increased CO2 levels you can't really deny that humans are causeing the earth to warm.

CO2 has no effect on global warming. That's why the tempreture at the poles on Venus is only a pleasent 20 degrees celcius.

No, wait a minute, it's actually hot enough to melt lead. Must be those damn lava pixies again. I'm sure CO2 has nothing to do with it.
The obvious solution to Venus' problem would be to ship all the libruhls there! Equilibrium.
;)

CO2 has no effect on global warming. That's why the tempreture at the poles on Venus is only a pleasent 20 degrees celcius.

No, wait a minute, it's actually hot enough to melt lead. Must be those damn lava pixies again. I'm sure CO2 has nothing to do with it.

Well, it's 97% C02, at 90 times the concentration. So that is like 250000 times the concentration.

Surface temp. of Venus is around 850F, average temp earth around 60F.

Of course this comparison is nonsensical. But it gives an indication that it is an asymptotic relationship.

In any case; most models don't explain why venus is so hot. Hence the thin crust, thick crust debate.

Everything you posted is predicated upon past measurements. There is not yet an absoulute measure of the effects of any given concentration of gasses. That's not true. But it isn't terribly relevant.

The various greenhouse gases blocks a certain of of infrared electromagnetic radiation around 20 micrometer. Doing laboratory tests on this is no big deal, but it's not terribly useful either, for several reasons - 3 obvious ones being:
1: It isn't possible to completely shield against any wavelength.
2: Gas concentrations vary greatly, and cannot be predicted in more than very rough estimates. For example, if it's windspeed X, X degrees in X altitude, and atmospheric pressure is X, then X gas levels will be affected by roughly X amount - if gas A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L & M don't drop or rise to X levels... It just isn't an exact science. Everything is inter-related.
3: Feedback varies. The heat radiation responsible for the greenhouse effect isn't 'fixed'. The levels depends on an staggering range of factors.

All in all, knowing the exact radiation dampening effect of atmosphere content X isn't the be all, end all solution to predicting global warming. We already know a lot about this, obviously, and such information is part of the basis of climate models.

All I am saying is that the current theory is making predictions based upon trends; which is why it changes from year to year. Is allThe problem is that many of the climate regulating mechanisms work in one particular way under one particular set of circumstances, but radically differently under another. Permafrost, for example, reflects more heat radiation into the atmosphere than thawed ground does. One would thus assume that less permafrost would mean a colder planet.. And one would be wrong. Because not only does less permafrost translate into more water vapour in the atmosphere (which reflects heat back at the ground), permafrost areas also commonly trap methane - which slowly leaks into the atmosphere when the ground thaws. Methane is one of the most 'efficient' greenhouse gases, which obviously adds trememdously to heating up the atmosphere itself.

There are a lot of highly unpredictable 'vicious circles' in the various climate regulating phenomena on our planet. THAT is what makes the predictions & theories so scetchy. The hard science behind radiation absorbation, reflection & wavelength supression is perfectly well known, and has been for many years.

We are actually quibbling about a de minimis issue here. Because I am, if you didn't know, a strong advocate from turning away from so-called fossil fuels right now. Though mostly because I believe that they are finite, and it is not in anyone's interest to get into a resource war.Well, more de rigour due i usually want people to post links and such to qualify a few things. Dinaverg chased me around for about 9 pages on my last big global warming thread about that - he's pretty good at asking questions that sound like giving answers. :D
As per the resource war - how do you define "interest"?
Of course it's quite clear that it's in certain companies' interests to get into a resource war. Almost all of the wars in history have had resources as the fulcrum.

That said, the little I have read about climate change depends upon climate models that depend upon non-linear differential equations. As such, they are no more, or less, accurate than any other model of that type. *Shrugs* I'm a structural engineer, so I'm not convinced, is all. Perhaps you know which of the five most powerful computers in the world deals with this particular situation? Hint: Orient.

Reasonable people can differ, of course, I just can't put it down in the place of certainty. I think people are just 'guessing' with fancy math.Of course it's a matter of making forecasts and guesses on solid evidence - so if trends follow models pretty well then it could be said it was well founded as an "educated" guess.

That's not true. But it isn't terribly relevant.


I really don't want to get into a pissing match about this but read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier-Stokes_equations


There is a reason that people still use http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/Bernoulli.html For design.

As per the resource war - how do you define "interest"?


Well, it's probably not mine. But people do fight over resources. I believe we have an effort in respect of that going on in the middle east right now.

Well, it's probably not mine. But people do fight over resources. I believe we have an effort in respect of that going on in the middle east right now.
Oh yes, that's what i was alluding to.
This is gonna be painful, honestly - for everyone but Cheney and a few of the other coward "deferrment" neocon excrement.
Cheney's made off quite nicely.

Oh yes, that's what i was alluding to.
This is gonna be painful, honestly - for everyone but Cheney and a few of the other coward "deferrment" neocon excrement.
Cheney's made off quite nicely.

I honestly don't worry about those things. You can't change what has happened, and it is pointless trying to do so.

I just think the time has come where we have to find a better way than oil.

I honestly don't worry about those things. You can't change what has happened, and it is pointless trying to do so.It's actually quite a worrisome issue. This is a global reach issue - as is my OP. Worrying itself is useless, but telling yourself that you can't do anything about it is actually WORSE.

I just think the time has come where we have to find a better way than oil.Actually that time already happened in '73, and there were just a few adjustments, and not very many good ones.

It's actually quite a worrisome issue. This is a global reach issue - as is my OP. Worrying itself is useless, but telling yourself that you can't do anything about it is actually WORSE.

Nah. It's not worth worrying about. If you feel like you should do something, then I have no problem about that; but at the end of the day it's not your job to force people to act in their own best interest. Anyway, there has been worse times, and there has been better times: this too shall pass.

Actually that time already happened in '73, and there were just a few adjustments, and not very many good ones.

Well nobody figured in the collapse of the USSR at that time either, which led to the world boom in the 90s.

All things being equal however, we are living in a golden age right now (which is why we have time to bitch over nonsense). Enjoy it. Don't worry about the rest of the world.

I really don't want to get into a pissing match about thisThank Dog for that. but read this. I am. It's not news to me, but you'll have to forgive that my background severely limits my understanding of these bits of the issue.

EDIT: Btw, I dropped you anuver TG Straughn.

Nah. It's not worth worrying about. If you feel like you should do something, then I have no problem about that; but at the end of the day it's not your job to force people to act in their own best interest. Anyway, there has been worse times, and there has been better times: this too shall pass.
I agree about not forcing people to act in their own best interest. However, other peoples' idiocy of policy and political function does affect and cost me, for which, in my response of acting in my own best interest, it must remain foremost in my mind.

All things being equal however, we are living in a golden age right now (which is why we have time to bitch over nonsense). Enjoy it. Don't worry about the rest of the world.
I'm starting to think you're a troll here. You can't possibly be serious about it being a "golden age". Further, global warming/accelerated climate change isn't nonsense, and neither is the PNAC's directive, so i'm not keen on what you appear to be implying is "nonsense". And i do know the difference between a serious problem and an "inconvenience".
And no, i'm not enjoying paying every year another 20% increase in utilities (since i live in AK, it makes up a significant part of the budget), and i'm not enjoying the fact that the permafrost is going - along with the coastline - along with the new species invasions - all of which are occurring HERE, in my state, quite easily seen and thus circumventing the arguments people pose who don't have any actual knowledge about the subject.
Perhaps you should talk to the drummer in my band, whose wife has had to have family members' graves redug elsewhere because of coastal erosion sweeping the caskets out to sea ... only to wash up ashore a little ways later on strong current, much to the appreciation to the creatures looking for a meal.

Explain, pray, what is so "golden" about it ....?

I'm starting to think you're a troll here. You can't possibly be serious about it being a "golden age". Further, global warming/accelerated climate change isn't nonsense, and neither is the PNAC's directive, so i'm not keen on what you appear to be implying is "nonsense". And i do know the difference between a serious problem and an "inconvenience".
And no, i'm not enjoying paying every year another 20% increase in utilities (since i live in AK, it makes up a significant part of the budget), and i'm not enjoying the fact that the permafrost is going - along with the coastline - along with the new species invasions - all of which are occurring HERE, in my state, quite easily seen and thus circumventing the arguments people pose who don't have any actual knowledge about the subject.
Perhaps you should talk to the drummer in my band, whose wife has had to have family members' graves redug elsewhere because of coastal erosion sweeping the caskets out to sea ... only to wash up ashore a little ways later on strong current, much to the appreciation to the creatures looking for a meal.

Explain, pray, what is so "golden" about it ....?

My mother was born in a house without plumbing.

Edit: Don't get me wrong. The world may, or may not, be going to shit, but that's irrelevant. For most of us in the west to get depressed about our lifestyle is ridicululous. We've set things up so we can have almost anything we want, at almost anytime we want it.

Jesus, we live a life that the Napleon would envy. That's all I'm saying.

I like to keep things simple, so is there anyone here who believes either or both of the following:

1. Carbon dioxide levels do not affect global warming.

2. Humans have not increased the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I like to keep things simple, so is there anyone here who believes either or both of the following:

1. Carbon dioxide levels do not affect global warming.

2. Humans have not increased the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Fair question, and right to the sweetmeat. *bows*

My mother was born in a house without plumbing.

Edit: Don't get me wrong. The world may, or may not, be going to shit, but that's irrelevant. For most of us in the west to get depressed about our lifestyle is ridicululous. We've set things up so we can have almost anything we want, at almost anytime we want it.

Jesus, we live a life that the Napleon would envy. That's all I'm saying.
You mean in the "societal progression" sense, i'll take it. M'kay.
Admittedly, the first world countries of the world are quite capable of arranging almost any whimsy to anyone, even if it is at some cost to the third world - part of the problem with that mentality though is the fact of what we're dealing with right now, over this (THESE!) climate issue(s). I say again it's gonna be particularly painful. And i'm pretty sure it'll be in my lifetime.
It's not a matter of being depressed about it - my depression issues, in lesser or greater measure, really don't that often have that much to do with screaming and cursing and raising my fist to an uncaring sky.

Although Lacadaemon is definitely in mind for this particular post, i invite just about anyone (other than Desperate Measures for obvious reasons) to review the following posts for a broader reference of issues on this particular topic:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10531956&postcount=1
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10532457&postcount=34
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10532592&postcount=46
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10532759&postcount=61
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10532914&postcount=74
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10532959&postcount=79
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10556693&postcount=161
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10570109&postcount=179
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10578545&postcount=182
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10578560&postcount=183
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10578634&postcount=184
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10580769&postcount=195
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10581474&postcount=196
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10581530&postcount=197
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10583509&postcount=200
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10583539&postcount=202
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10588332&postcount=203
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10599560&postcount=210
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10605225&postcount=211

Mind you, that's just one thread. I may put up more, but i'm mindful of spam issues.

Just curious why there is no mention (or maybe I missed it) of the global warming trends on both Mars and Pluto? Seems I read a few years back that the on going studies of these planets were reflecting some very similar trends we are seeing.

Interesting bunch of links ya got there. :)

Why don't I just go ahead and add one of my own? :p

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/no_consensus/

"There seems to be little scientific agreement that mankind?s fossil-fuel burning is the major reason for climate change. On the contrary, analyses of scientific papers on climate change by Dr Benny Peiser, of John Moores University, and Dr Dennis Bray, of the German-based GKSS National Research Centre conclude that the dissenters are in a healthy majority."

[Whistles innocently as he exits]. ;)

Interesting bunch of links ya got there. :)

Why don't I just go ahead and add one of my own? :p

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/no_consensus/

"There seems to be little scientific agreement that mankind?s fossil-fuel burning is the major reason for climate change. On the contrary, analyses of scientific papers on climate change by Dr Benny Peiser, of John Moores University, and Dr Dennis Bray, of the German-based GKSS National Research Centre conclude that the dissenters are in a healthy majority."

[Whistles innocently as he exits]. ;)No no, hang around. You'll like it here. I'm sure you have some good comments on ... well, ANY of that list of links.
Oh yeah, i saw that in line at the tabloid section, right next to "Origasmi: The Sensual Art of Folding Paper"
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/sex/61283
But since it's peer review ...

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/batboy/

Just curious why there is no mention (or maybe I missed it) of the global warming trends on both Mars and Pluto? Seems I read a few years back that the on going studies of these planets were reflecting some very similar trends we are seeing.
Pluto?
I covered that about 7 pages back. *nods*
Mars, the info's still comin' in about the H2O.

Of course the wit is a refreshing icing on the cake. :rolleyes:
And, you're about 4 pages too late.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10904536&postcount=23

If you stick around a little though, we can have frosting all over the place. :/

Besides, you SORELY need some peer review, what with your revolutionary viewpoints and all.

[Whistles innocently as he exits]. ;)
Translation:: [Runs away]. ;)

Pluto?
I covered that about 6 pages back. *nods*
Mars, the info's still comin' in about the H2O.

Guess I missed it then, thought I read it all. What a read about Mars seems was that the polar ice caps there are also shrinking at approximately the same rate as ours. Can't remember for sure but it is curious to me how other planets are experiencing changes also. I don't see NASA having the same agenda that environmentalists do, so I tend lend more credence to their studies. Somehow it feels more objective to me. jmo

Guess I missed it then, thought I read it all.That would appear to be the case indeed.
I don't see NASA having the same agenda that environmentalists do, so I tend lend more credence to their studies. Somehow it feels more objective to me. jmoOkay.
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_3602486
For 2nd year, Arctic ice melting, not growing
By Andrew C. Revkin, The New York Times



For the second year in a row, the cloak of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean
failed to grow to its normal winter expanse, scientists said Tuesday. The
finding led some climate experts to predict a record expansion of open water
this coming summer.
"We keep looking for the ice to recover, but it isn't," said Mark C.
Serreze, a senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in
Boulder, Colo., which monitors the region using satellites. "Unless
conditions turn unusually cold this spring and summer, we may be looking at
sea ice losses in 2006 that will rival what we saw in 2005."

The ice retreat last September was the biggest measured since satellites
began routinely monitoring the region in 1979 and probably the biggest in
100 years, according to Serreze's research group and an independent team at
the University of Illinois.

The new data on winter ice were first reported Tuesday in the British
newspaper The Independent.

Next week, when the Arctic begins six months of daylight, the warming trend
is likely to be amplified by the shift from ice to water, since water
absorbs sunlight that ice would otherwise reflect.

Scientists studying the region remain divided over how much of the recent
Arctic shift is from the region's large natural variations and how much is
being driven by the global buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
greenhouse gases emitted mainly by smokestacks and tailpipes.

Some experts on the region, including Jamie Morison at the University of
Washington, say they remain convinced that the biggest force determining the
extent of Arctic sea ice is wind patterns, which cause part of the ice cap
to revolve like a giant turntable, propelling a steady river of floes out
past Greenland into the North Atlantic.

When ice is purged that way, the resulting open water can absorb more heat
from the air, and then expel that heat through the winter, limiting the
thickness and area of new ice.

But Serreze and others disagree, saying it is now hard to explain the
changes in ice area without including the broader warming of the atmosphere
and oceans that has been linked by almost all climate experts to the
intensifying greenhouse effect.

Many experts agree that despite the short-term complexities, if emissions of
greenhouse gases are not curbed, the human influence will dominate and the
region could well be nearly bereft of ice later in the century.

Tuesday, a NASA team reported that one of the greenhouse gases, ozone, which
is also a component of smog, appears to be having an outsize warming effect
in the Arctic.

Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from human activities, can last a
century and tends to mix uniformly around the world, exerting its warming
influence uniformly.
---

So how do you feel now about NASA?
Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly
New Study Warns Of Rising Sea Levels

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 3, 2006; Page A01

The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year in
a trend that scientists link to global warming, according to a new paper
that provides the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking
significantly.

The new findings, which are being published today in the journal Science,
suggest that global sea level could rise substantially over the next several
centuries.

It is one of a slew of scientific papers in recent weeks that have sought to
gauge the impact of climate change on the world's oceans and lakes. Just
last month two researchers reported that Greenland's glaciers are melting
into the sea twice as fast as previously believed, and a separate paper in
Science today predicts that by the end of this century lakes and streams on
one-fourth of the African continent could be drying up because of higher
temperatures.

The new Antarctic measurements, using data from two NASA satellites called
the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), found that the amount
of water pouring annually from the ice sheet into the ocean -- equivalent to
the amount of water the United States uses in three months -- is causing
global sea level to rise by 0.4 millimeters a year. The continent holds 90
percent of the world's ice, and the disappearance of even its smaller West
Antarctic ice sheet could raise worldwide sea levels by an estimated 20
feet.

"The ice sheet is losing mass at a significant rate," said Isabella
Velicogna, the study's lead author and a research scientist at Colorado
University at Boulder's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental
Sciences. "It's a good indicator of how the climate is changing. It tells us
we have to pay attention."

Richard Alley, a Pennsylvania State University glaciologist who has studied
the Antarctic ice sheet but was not involved in the new research, said more
research is needed to determine if the shrinkage is a long-term trend,
because the new report is based on just three years of data. "One person's
trend is another person's fluctuation," he said.

But Alley called the study significant and "a bit surprising" because a
major international scientific panel predicted five years ago that the
Antarctic ice sheet would gain mass this century as higher temperatures led
to increased snowfall.

"It looks like the ice sheets are ahead of schedule" in terms of melting,
Alley said. "That's a wake-up call. We better figure out what's going on."

Velicogna acknowledged that it is hard to predict how fast the ice sheet
will melt in the future but said, "I don't expect it's going to stop in the
next couple of years."

Scientists have been debating whether the Antarctic ice sheet is expanding
or shrinking overall, because the center of the sheet tends to gain mass
through snowfall whereas the coastal regions are more vulnerable to melting.

Velicogna and her co-author, University of Colorado at Boulder physics
professor John Wahr, based their measurements on data from the two GRACE
satellites that circle the world more than a dozen times a day at an
altitude of 310 miles. The satellites measure variations in Earth's mass and
gravitational pull: Increases or decreases in the Antarctic ice sheet's mass
change the distance between the satellites as they fly over the region.

"The strength of GRACE is that we were able to assess the entire Antarctic
region in one fell swoop to determine if it was gaining or losing mass,"
Wahr said.

But some scientists remain unconvinced. Oregon state climatologist George
Taylor noted that sea ice in some areas of Antarctica is expanding and part
of the region is getting colder, despite computer models that would predict
otherwise.

"The Antarctic is really a puzzle," said Taylor, who writes for the Web site
TSCDaily, which is partly financed by fossil fuel companies that oppose
curbs on greenhouse gases linked to climate change. "A lot more research is
needed to understand the degree of climate and ice trends in and around the
Antarctic."

At the other end of the temperature spectrum, two South African researchers
are reporting today in Science that their computer models indicate that by
2100 climate change may rob the south and west of Africa and areas in the
upper Nile region of a significant portion of their current water supply.
Warming may reduce the rainfall needed to replenish up to 25 percent of
Africa's surface water, said Maarten de Wit and Jacek Stankiewicz at the
University of Cape Town in Rondebosch, South Africa.

"Water is essential to human survival," they wrote, "and changes in its
supply can potentially have devastating implications, particularly in
Africa, where much of the population relies on local rivers for water."

Congressional Democrats, including Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Rep. Henry
A. Waxman (Calif.) said yesterday that the two new papers show that the
United States must act quickly to impose mandatory limits on carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases. The Bush administration opposes such curbs on
the grounds that they could hurt the country's economy and has instead
invested money on new technology to limit greenhouse emissions and further
climate science research.

"Climate change is not just someone else's concern but a very real threat to
the lives and livelihood of people across the globe," Kerry said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html
---

I didn't say NASA didn't agree with some of the findings. I am saying that we can't ignore what NASA is finding on other planets in correlation to what is happening here. That is my opinion, and frankly environmentalists generally avoid the issue of other planets weather patterns and warming changing in the last decade much as ours has. I don't feel people should summarily dismiss the findings as irrelevant.

Since we're still on the topic of NASA and credibility, why don't you puff on this just a little while. Keep Mr. Crichton in mind, while you're at it.

This editorial appeared in Thursday's New York Times.

The Bush administration long ago secured a special place in history for the
audacity with which it manipulates science to suit its political ends. But
it set a new standard of cynicism when it allowed NASA's leading authority
on global warming to be mugged by a 24-year-old presidential appointee who,
quite apart from having no training on that issue, had inflated his resume.

In early December, James Hansen, the space agency's top climate specialist,
called for accelerated efforts to reduce industrial emissions of carbon
dioxide and other gases linked to global warming. After his speech, he told
Andrew C. Revkin of The Times, he was threatened with "dire consequences" if
he continued to call for aggressive action.

This was not the first time Hansen had been rebuked by the Bush team, which
has spent the better part of five years avoiding the issue of global
warming. It was merely one piece of a larger pattern of deception and
denial.

The administration has sought to influence the policy debate by muzzling the
people who disagree with it or — as was the case with two major reports from
the Environmental Protection Agency in 2002 and 2003 — editing out
inconvenient truths or censoring them entirely.

In this case, the censor was George Deutsch, a functionary in NASA's public
affairs office whose chief credential appears to have been his service with
President Bush's re-election campaign and inaugural committee. On his
resume, Deutsch claimed a 2003 bachelor's degree in journalism from Texas
A&M, but the university, alerted by a blogger, said that was not true.
Deutsch has now resigned.

The shocker was not NASA's failure to vet Deutsch's credentials, but that
this young politico with no qualifications was able to impose his ideology
on other agency employees. At one point, he told a Web designer to add the
word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang.

As Hansen observed, Deutsch was only a "bit player" in the administration's
dishonest game of politicizing science on issues like warming, birth
control, forest policy and clean air. This from a president who promised in
his State of the Union address to improve American competitiveness by
spending more on science.



--

And ....

A 24-year-old former Texas A&M student becomes a public affairs staffer at
NASA and starts deciding which scientists can talk to the media and in what
ways the agency should be sensitive to theories of intelligent design.

George Deutsch had three credentials for a job in public affairs at NASA:

•He had studied journalism at A&M.
•He had written a good many pro-Bush administration columns in the student
newspaper, the Battalion.
•He had worked, according to his résumé, in "the war room" of President
Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.
That's it. No serious science background. No serious public affairs
background.

And no serious background check, at least not serious enough to learn that
he did not graduate from A&M in 2003 with a B.A. in journalism as his résumé
said.

OK, so we're not shocked that in Washington, loyalty and connections can get
you a heckuva job. (Not incidentally, Deutsch's job was in Washington at
NASA headquarters, not at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Clear Lake.)


Making the Prez look good
But in what kind of culture does a kid who is not the boss' son come in and
pull these kinds of stunts on his elders and betters, as detailed in recent
articles in the New York Times:

•Blocked National Public Radio from interviewing James Hansen, a 29-year
veteran of NASA and its top scientist on issues of global warming. Hansen
has been calling for aggressive policies to fight global warming, and has
been critical of administration policies.
A career public affairs staffer, Leslie McCarthy, said Deutsch told her his
job was "to make the president look good." Deutsch denied to a superior that
the incident took place.

•Last October, Deutsch sent an e-mail to a NASA contractor who was
developing a Web site on Einstein for middle-school students. Deutsch wrote
that the word "theory" must accompany each and every mention of Big Bang.


As famous as Darwin
"It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this
about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a
creator," Deutsch lectured the contractor. "This is more than a science
issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people
would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA."

Scientists do refer to the Big Bang theory, but not necessarily with every
reference.

But had Deutsch majored in science, he might have understood that the
scientific definition of "theory" is a bit more rigorous than the meaning
found in common usage.

A scientific theory is formulated from disciplined observations of natural
phenomena. Scientists are constantly testing new information against current
theory, and have considerable motivation to do so.

If a scientist were to discover something that he could show to other
scientists that would disprove the Big Bang theory, he or she would likely
become as famous as Darwin or Einstein. And, given the evolution of modern
marketing, considerably richer.

By contrast, a politician who disproved the "theory" of intelligent design
would risk defeat in the next election.

It's not likely to happen, because this sort of theory can't be disproved.
It's not based on rigorous observation, but on the untestable supposition
that the universe is simply too complicated to have evolved by accident.

I guess it's also based on the supposition that God, who is presumably
powerful and intelligent enough to set up an evolutionary system, does not
have the sort of sense of humor that would make such a noble invention as
mankind share ancestors with apes.

But we go far afield. I'm still trying to develop a theory that explains how
young, degreeless Deutsch had the unmitigated nerve to behave the way he did
at NASA.

The most likely answer comes from the scientist Hansen. Deutsch, he told the
Times, was only a "bit player" in a much larger effort by the Bush
administration to make NASA dance to its sheet music.

Deutsch was, if obnoxiously, only following orders.

I found myself feeling bad for Deutsch, who resigned Tuesday after a
blogger, a 2005 alumnus of A&M named Nick Anthis, checked with the
university and reported at scientificactivist.blogspot.com that Deutsch was
exaggerating about his actual degree.

So young and already chewed up by the Washington mill.

Then I realized that Deutsch will recover. Washington may muzzle scientists,
but it will always have a place for people like him.

That's my theory.


---

Tell me more about NASA, Darwinianmonkeys.

I didn't say NASA didn't agree with some of the findings. I am saying that we can't ignore what NASA is finding on other planets in correlation to what is happening here. That is my opinion, and frankly environmentalists generally avoid the issue of other planets weather patterns and warming changing in the last decade much as ours has. I don't feel people should summarily dismiss the findings as irrelevant.
The findings you aren't providing? Those findings?

Perhaps you don't know enough about other planets (Pluto?) to argue well about this. But go ahead and post what you have about Mars, since it's a significant step up from using Pluto as an argument in "accelerated global climate change" :rolleyes:

My questions would be:

a) what type of calculations?

b) what is the co-respondence to calculated outcome and actual events?

I am not being snotty, but I have heard a whole bunch of varying predictions of doom &c. All of which seem to be purely empircally based and without any hard theory underlying them.

If someone can show me a global warming atmospheric gas balance equation which underpins the whole idea, I will take it all back. (Actually I really, really will). But until that happens, I will stand by the position that no-one knows what is going on.
I don't know what you're talking about but maybe this guy does:

Re: What are the chemical equations associated with global warming?
Date: Thu Jul 8 21:09:38 1999
Posted By: John Christie, Faculty, School of Chemistry, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
Area of science: Chemistry
ID: 930627557.Ch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:


G'day Kylie.

The difficulty with your question is that there is no direct association
between global warming and any chemical equations, because global warming
is not a chemical process. We'll have a look shortly at some of the
equations that are indirectly relevant.

Let's first review global warming. Here is what I hope your researches will
have told you:

- The evidence that there has been some overall warming in the Earth's
climate over the last 100 years or so is by now statistically significant
and fairly convincing. It is not totally compelling.

- The temperature on the Earth's surface is governed by the balance
between incoming energy from absorbed sunlight and outgoing infra-red
radiation emitted from the Earth.

- Infra-red absorbing molecules in the Earth's atmosphere block some of
that outgoing radiation and make the Earth's surface warmer than otherwise
it would be. Natural amounts of carbon dioxide, water vapour, and ozone
make the Earth about 30 to 40 deg C warmer than a similar planet would be
without these gases in its atmosphere.

- Since about 1850, carbon dioxide levels have started to increase by
about 0.3% each year. At present the level is about 370 parts per million
(by volume), Between 8000 BC and 1850 AD it was a fairly steady 280 ppm.
During the ice age that preceded that it was as low as about 210 ppm.

- Methane is a very minor gas in the atmosphere, but it has been
increasing in recent years even faster than CO2 (about 0.7% per year),
building up to 1.7 ppm at present from around 1.0 ppm in 1850.

- All other industrial gases that are released to the atmosphere can make
a contribution by absorbing infra-red. Those that dissolve in water or
react readily with other atmospheric components do not matter as much as
those that can persist for some time. The contribution from these gases is
minor, but not insignificant.

- Increases in any or all of these infra-red absorbing gases will affect
the Earth's energy balance, and could lead to warming.

I suppose then, that if we want to produce some chemical equations, we can
do it by looking at the processes that release the important gases to the
atmosphere, and that remove them again. Carbon dioxide and methane are the
two gases to focus on.

This brings us to the second difficulty: biological systems are immensely
complicated in chemical terms, and a lot of the chemistry is associated
with living creatures. That means huge molecules with complicated formulas.

The molecules in living things contain mostly C,H, and O atoms, but also
some N, S, and P, and several metals. I am going to make a huge
simplification and describe "organic matter" in general terms with the
empirical formula (CH2O). This is more or less correct for sugars and
starches, the molecules normally associated with energy production. It is a
much poorer approximation for proteins and fats.

Carbon dioxide is naturally released to the atmosphere in the respiration
(energy production) of animals, plants, and micro-organisms:

(CH2O) + O2 --> CO2 + H2O + energy

It is removed by the photosynthesis of green plants:

CO2 + H2O + sunlight(energy) --> (CH2O) + O2

These two processes have normally maintained a fairly steady amount of CO2
in the atmosphere. The recent imbalance is usually attributed to burning of
fossil fuel, which has been the main energy source to drive the industrial
expansion of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Coal: C + O2 --> CO2 + energy
Natural gas: CH4 + 2 O2 --> CO2 + 2 H2O + energy
Oil: C7H16 + 11 O2 --> 7 CO2 + 8 H2O + energy

(Oil is really a very complicated mixture of hydrocarbons. Heptane, C7H16,
is just one example).

Methane is produced by the action of anaerobic micro-organisms. Methane
production is not nearly such a good source of energy as using oxygen, and
is a sort of last resort when oxygen is not available. Methane production
occurs in swamps and marshes, in animal gut, and in termite mounds.

2 (CH2O) --> CO2 + CH4 + a little energy

The increase in methane is a bit more difficult to track down than carbon
dioxide, but is thought to be the result of

- A population explosion among termites as the result of forest clearing.
Dead stumps and newly cleared grassland provide excellent habitat for them

- An increase in the population of farm animals like cows and sheep which
are particularly efficient methane producers.

- An increase in the area of rice paddy.

I hope that's enough chemical equations for you, but as you can see,
chemical equations are really only a very small part of the story.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jul99/931496232.Ch.r.html

I don't know what you're talking about but maybe this guy does:

Re: What are the chemical equations associated with global warming?
Date: Thu Jul 8 21:09:38 1999
Posted By: John Christie, Faculty, School of Chemistry, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
Area of science: Chemistry
ID: 930627557.Ch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:


G'day Kylie.

The difficulty with your question is that there is no direct association
between global warming and any chemical equations, because global warming
is not a chemical process. We'll have a look shortly at some of the
equations that are indirectly relevant.

Let's first review global warming. Here is what I hope your researches will
have told you:

- The evidence that there has been some overall warming in the Earth's
climate over the last 100 years or so is by now statistically significant
and fairly convincing. It is not totally compelling.

- The temperature on the Earth's surface is governed by the balance
between incoming energy from absorbed sunlight and outgoing infra-red
radiation emitted from the Earth.

- Infra-red absorbing molecules in the Earth's atmosphere block some of
that outgoing radiation and make the Earth's surface warmer than otherwise
it would be. Natural amounts of carbon dioxide, water vapour, and ozone
make the Earth about 30 to 40 deg C warmer than a similar planet would be
without these gases in its atmosphere.

- Since about 1850, carbon dioxide levels have started to increase by
about 0.3% each year. At present the level is about 370 parts per million
(by volume), Between 8000 BC and 1850 AD it was a fairly steady 280 ppm.
During the ice age that preceded that it was as low as about 210 ppm.

- Methane is a very minor gas in the atmosphere, but it has been
increasing in recent years even faster than CO2 (about 0.7% per year),
building up to 1.7 ppm at present from around 1.0 ppm in 1850.

- All other industrial gases that are released to the atmosphere can make
a contribution by absorbing infra-red. Those that dissolve in water or
react readily with other atmospheric components do not matter as much as
those that can persist for some time. The contribution from these gases is
minor, but not insignificant.

- Increases in any or all of these infra-red absorbing gases will affect
the Earth's energy balance, and could lead to warming.

I suppose then, that if we want to produce some chemical equations, we can
do it by looking at the processes that release the important gases to the
atmosphere, and that remove them again. Carbon dioxide and methane are the
two gases to focus on.

This brings us to the second difficulty: biological systems are immensely
complicated in chemical terms, and a lot of the chemistry is associated
with living creatures. That means huge molecules with complicated formulas.

The molecules in living things contain mostly C,H, and O atoms, but also
some N, S, and P, and several metals. I am going to make a huge
simplification and describe "organic matter" in general terms with the
empirical formula (CH2O). This is more or less correct for sugars and
starches, the molecules normally associated with energy production. It is a
much poorer approximation for proteins and fats.

Carbon dioxide is naturally released to the atmosphere in the respiration
(energy production) of animals, plants, and micro-organisms:

(CH2O) + O2 --> CO2 + H2O + energy

It is removed by the photosynthesis of green plants:

CO2 + H2O + sunlight(energy) --> (CH2O) + O2

These two processes have normally maintained a fairly steady amount of CO2
in the atmosphere. The recent imbalance is usually attributed to burning of
fossil fuel, which has been the main energy source to drive the industrial
expansion of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Coal: C + O2 --> CO2 + energy
Natural gas: CH4 + 2 O2 --> CO2 + 2 H2O + energy
Oil: C7H16 + 11 O2 --> 7 CO2 + 8 H2O + energy

(Oil is really a very complicated mixture of hydrocarbons. Heptane, C7H16,
is just one example).

Methane is produced by the action of anaerobic micro-organisms. Methane
production is not nearly such a good source of energy as using oxygen, and
is a sort of last resort when oxygen is not available. Methane production
occurs in swamps and marshes, in animal gut, and in termite mounds.

2 (CH2O) --> CO2 + CH4 + a little energy

The increase in methane is a bit more difficult to track down than carbon
dioxide, but is thought to be the result of

- A population explosion among termites as the result of forest clearing.
Dead stumps and newly cleared grassland provide excellent habitat for them

- An increase in the population of farm animals like cows and sheep which
are particularly efficient methane producers.

- An increase in the area of rice paddy.

I hope that's enough chemical equations for you, but as you can see,
chemical equations are really only a very small part of the story.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jul99/931496232.Ch.r.html
Thanks again, DM. *bows*

Well you obviously have a hate on for anything someone doesn't agree with you about, which negates any possibility of intelligent debate with you. I personally don't have a problem with NASA, I don't give a flying flip about politics where science in concerned, and though I am sure you feel NASA is political I can assure you in the higher echelons it is but the true scientists who work there aren't. I know I have family there and I know their character and integrity.

I was genuinely interested in your opinion regarding the possibility that global warming is a universal phenomenon. But I no longer care what your opinion is, you have a nice day.

Interesting bunch of links ya got there. :)

Why don't I just go ahead and add one of my own? :p

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/no_consensus/

"There seems to be little scientific agreement that mankind?s fossil-fuel burning is the major reason for climate change. On the contrary, analyses of scientific papers on climate change by Dr Benny Peiser, of John Moores University, and Dr Dennis Bray, of the German-based GKSS National Research Centre conclude that the dissenters are in a healthy majority."

[Whistles innocently as he exits]. ;)


Last Sunday, about a hundred zombies lurched through downtown Sydney. In an interesting coincidence some zombie facts have lurched through a column by Ruth Lea:

"And, interestingly, global average air temperatures, which are regarded as more reliable by climate scientists, have not changed over the past 20 to 30 years."

Oh look, it's the satellites don't show warming zombie. Dead for quite a while now, still staggering around in global warming skeptic writings.

"And indeed it is, as there seems to be little scientific agreement that mankind's fossil-fuel burning is the major reason for climate change. On the contrary, analyses of scientific papers on climate change by Dr Benny Peiser, of John Moores University, and Dr Dennis Bray, of the German-based GKSS National Research Centre conclude that the dissenters are in a healthy majority."

Hey, it's Peiser's 34 abstracts zombie. Even he has admitted that it's dead. And Bray's useless on-line poll zombie. Lea says she's a trained statistician, so she should know that on-line surveys don't give representative samples.

Well I guess they're not very dangerous, because it's obvious that they're dead. Except to Tim Blair. Look out Tim!, they'll eat your ... Oh. Never mind.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jul99/931496232.Ch.r.html

IT'S GOOGLE WAR!

Well you obviously have a hate on for anything someone doesn't agree with you about, which negates any possibility of intelligent debate with you. I personally don't have a problem with NASA, I don't give a flying flip about politics where science in concerned, and though I am sure you feel NASA is political I can assure you in the higher echelons it is but the true scientists who work there aren't. I know I have family there and I know their character and integrity.

I was genuinely interested in your opinion regarding the possibility that global warming is a universal phenomenon. But I no longer care what your opinion is, you have a nice day.
You haven't given any information about what you're talking about. I'm definitely interested but you're just saying things without any sort of back up for it. Is there an article published recently about it?

Well you obviously have a hate on for anything someone doesn't agree with you about, which negates any possibility of intelligent debate with you (1). I personally don't have a problem with NASA, I don't give a flying flip about politics where science in concerned (2), and though I am sure you feel NASA is political (3) I can assure you in the higher echelons it is but the true scientists who work there aren't. I know I have family there and I know their character and integrity.

I was genuinely interested in your opinion regarding the possibility that global warming is a universal phenomenon. (4) But I no longer care what your opinion is, you have a nice day.
Translation: Run away.
So you don't lose another argument on these types of things ...
[list]Try these tips:
Don't admit that you're arguing about your own opinion of intelligence, especially when you can't defend it. (1)
Don't make assessments about who has more credibility about things when it's already been established that there is a political issue involved - moreover, don't argue about it when you don't actually know it, because the other person might just point that out to you. (2)
Don't make assumptions on the poster's personal feelings about things when many get on here for roleplay and for sake of argument alone (even adversarial arguments). (3)
And if you have a specific point to make, in line with the topic, go ahead and ask what a person thinks about it - ASKING, of course, instead of going on the attack of people who have more of a philosophy of conservation and rational resource management than you may personally find palatable. (4)

As per the last lines of both paragraphs, here's a heads-up.
I have a friend in JPL whose first name is Ian, and his last name begins in R.
So if i need to know certain things along those lines, and i need to namedrop, i'll point out that you can look these people up, instead of it being some nebulous entity that supposedly lends creedence to my statements.
That furthers the most important point to all of this:
Don't expect to have an argument with a person who presents their evidence and links clearly and expect things to go well if you don't post so much as a thread of qualification for your own POV.
Especially if you are being particularly antagonistic.
Perhaps you could review your posts to show where you were actually asking in earnest what my opinion of climate change was like on other planets?

Last Sunday, about a hundred zombies lurched through downtown Sydney. In an interesting coincidence some zombie facts have lurched through a column by Ruth Lea:

"And, interestingly, global average air temperatures, which are regarded as more reliable by climate scientists, have not changed over the past 20 to 30 years."

Oh look, it's the satellites don't show warming zombie. Dead for quite a while now, still staggering around in global warming skeptic writings.

"And indeed it is, as there seems to be little scientific agreement that mankind's fossil-fuel burning is the major reason for climate change. On the contrary, analyses of scientific papers on climate change by Dr Benny Peiser, of John Moores University, and Dr Dennis Bray, of the German-based GKSS National Research Centre conclude that the dissenters are in a healthy majority."

Hey, it's Peiser's 34 abstracts zombie. Even he has admitted that it's dead. And Bray's useless on-line poll zombie. Lea says she's a trained statistician, so she should know that on-line surveys don't give representative samples.

Well I guess they're not very dangerous, because it's obvious that they're dead. Except to Tim Blair. Look out Tim!, they'll eat your ... Oh. Never mind.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jul99/931496232.Ch.r.html

IT'S GOOGLE WAR!
*FLORT*
HAhahahahHAHAHAHA!
:D

You haven't given any information about what you're talking about. I'm definitely interested but you're just saying things without any sort of back up for it. Is there an article published recently about it?

I haven't found anything recently, like I said I remember reading quite a bit a few years back. Here are a few sites that might interest you:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Pluto_Is_Undergoing_Global_Warming.html

As I said the info is a few years old, just seems this isn't being acknowledged for some reason (which I may have missed).

Well you obviously have a hate on for anything someone doesn't agree with you about, which negates any possibility of intelligent debate with you.Perhaps you should simply reconsider your approach to the debate.I personally don't have a problem with NASA, I don't give a flying flip about politics where science in concerned, and though I am sure you feel NASA is political I can assure you in the higher echelons it is but the true scientists who work there aren't. I know I have family there and I know their character and integrity. Eh.. Alrighty then..I was genuinely interested in your opinion regarding the possibility that global warming is a universal phenomenon. But I no longer care what your opinion is, you have a nice day.Problem is, what universal phenomenon are we talking about here? If you want to debate something, go right ahead. If it's just idle speculation born out of global warming denial propaganda, then don't be surprised when all you get is a criticism of the incompetent, semi-corrupt liers & their phantasmagoria.

Perhaps you should simply reconsider your approach to the debate.Eh.. Alrighty then..Problem is, what universal phenomenon are we talking about here? If you want to debate something, go right ahead. If it's just idle speculation born out of global warming denial propaganda, then don't be surprised when all you get is a criticism of the incompetent, semi-corrupt liers & their phantasmagoria.
Good post!

I do come across as more brusque than i should at times, for which i apologize.
Truly, the intent is known by the poster and the responder.

I haven't found anything recently, like I said I remember reading quite a bit a few years back. Here are a few sites that might interest you:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Pluto_Is_Undergoing_Global_Warming.html

As I said the info is a few years old, just seems this isn't being acknowledged for some reason (which I may have missed).
I did find this. Which at least shows it is being paid attention to by Climate Change scientists: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Unfortunately, I'm too tired to have any original thoughts but I'll check back tomorrow.

I did find this. Which at least shows it is being paid attention to by Climate Change scientists: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Unfortunately, I'm too tired to have any original thoughts but I'll check back tomorrow.

Thank you for the link. That is exactly what I was wondering, if new information was available regarding this and any thoughts about it. Much appreciated.

I haven't found anything recently, like I said I remember reading quite a bit a few years back. Here are a few sites that might interest you:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Pluto_Is_Undergoing_Global_Warming.html

As I said the info is a few years old, just seems this isn't being acknowledged for some reason (which I may have missed).
As i can understand you not caring to my opinion, i respond here to the links.
It's fair to say that until you get landers and instruments for measure of specific climatic issues on other planets, you are quite restricted to your measurements. Basically spectral analysis of a sort.
I did mention earlier that Mars was fine as a mention, since we've actually had devices land on it fairly recently and send data back that may be useful in determining observable trends.

So, just to repeat myself, is there anyone here who believes one or both of the following:

1. Carbon dioxide levels don't affect the earth's climate.

2. Humans have not increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

So, just to repeat myself, is there anyone here who believes one or both of the following:

1. Carbon dioxide levels don't affect the earth's climate.

2. Humans have not increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
It might be that the people who did/do believe that made like bananas.

It might be that the people who did/do believe that made like bananas.

Technically, I'm wondering how they know it's the CO2...You know, dioxide honor and all that jazz.

Technically, I'm wondering how they know it's the CO2...You know, dioxide honor and all that jazz.
It's so cute you remember that! :)
Wasn't that on that thread?
If not, DM might have that handy. I might just glance at my archives ...

*my apologies to fellow posters who may think i'm posting these not in spirit of their original posts*


"Q. What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?

A. Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.

In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2."
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
--
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...archived=False
Global warming gases at highest levels ever: UN
Tue Mar 14, 2006
--
http://planetsave.com/ps_mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6802&Itemid=72
This is the most severe threat facing the US (including a flu pandemic or a
mega terrorist attack).
Fact 1:

There is an estimated 400 billion tons of methane trapped in frozen
permafrost clathrate (also known as hydrate).


Bacteria digest carbon in the soil, and a by-product is methane. As the gas
rises to the surface, some got trapped by permafrost rather than entering
the atmosphere slowly over tens of millions of years.

Fact 2:

An estimated 50% of permafrost is predicted to melt by 2050, and 90% by
2100.

As a little permafrost clathrate melts, methane disperses slowly in the
atmosphere, speeding the melting of more clathrate and the emission of more
methane. Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2.

Fact 3:

A large peat bog in western Siberia is proving this positive feedback loop.

The peat bog is the size of France and Germany together, and is estimated to
contain 70 billion tons of carbon. It has warmed 3C, and the methane level
is 25 times higher.

Conclusion:

40 times as much greenhouse gas is expected to be emitted by the earth in
the next 50 years than mankind has emitted during the entire Industrial
Revolution.

Soon the earth will be emitting more greenhouse gas than mankind's 7 billion
tons of CO2 per year. It isn't unreasonable to expect 200 billion tons of
methane to flood the atmosphere in the next 50 years. Mankind has emitted an
estimated 800 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the beginning of
the Industrial Revolution, but 200 billion tons of methane is equivalent to
4000 billions of CO2, so 40 times as much greenhouse gas is expected to be
emitted from the earth than mankind has emitted during the entire Industrial
Revolution.

Even if this estimate is off by an incredible 75%, it would still mean the
earth would be expected to emit 10 times as much greenhouse gas than mankind
has emitted during the entire Industrial Revolution.
-
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/03/14/ap2594515.html
-
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-03-14T152536Z_01_L14557931_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-GREENHOUSE.xml&archived=False
-
Earth's average surface temperature have increased by approx. 0.6C since
1850, and about 0.4C in the last 50 years. [source: CRU]

How much of this increase can be attributed to human activities, is still
debatable, but there is currently consensus that human activities will have
a staggering impact in the future, if something isn't done immediately to
limit greenhouse gas emisions.

The most important greenhouse gas is carbondioxide (CO2). This gas occours
naturally in the atmosphere, but has been increased by approximately 30%
since 1850, coinciding with the industrial revolution & our increasing
output of the gas. [source: IPCC]

The following is a graphical representation of equivalent-CO2 (meaning all
greenhouse gasses, converted into the equivalent amount of CO2)
concentration, as projected by currently accepted climate models (SRES)
[source: IPCC]
http://upload2share.com/out.php/i128...entration2.png
--
"What about the 19,000 scientists who claim we should not worry about global
warming?

Fiction: There is no scientific consensus on climate change. Just look at
the 19,000 scientists who signed on to the Global Warming Petition Project.


Fact: In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet
from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall
Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy
of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric
carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short
letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick
Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol
on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the
environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the
health and welfare of mankind."

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to
beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had
originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing
Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look
as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was
not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a
statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert
reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to
rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The
petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change,
nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the
only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science.
The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine
international climate treaty negotiations."
http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environm...cfm?pageID=498

(Speaks for itself.)
--

Again with the CO2 and some links worth review:


There is this from the UN:
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm

But there is also this:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Temperatures.htm
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2005/09/825076.shtml
http://policypete.com/

Hmmm...I see. Odd this bit though:

but 200 billion tons of methane is equivalent to
4000 billions of CO2,
The most important greenhouse gas is carbondioxide (CO2).

Did I miss something?

And what is this?:
http://upload2share.com/out.php/i128...entration2.png

And...how do they judge how much a paticular gas warms air?

P.S. Now I see this:
Even though methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas, it is CO2 that makes up over 80% of the greenhouse gas mix.

But the first quote says that methane is still about 5 times stronger, so it'd still be more responsible.

Only a dolt would argue that the earth is not warming. It is still premature to blame it on humans since mother nature still produces far more greenhouse hass than all of mankind combined.

I typically avoid this topic because it so often ends with international and partisan bullshit, but for those of you who are interested, here is a site you may find interesting which I've not seen posted here before;

http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/articles2.cfm?TID=306

Too bad that Europe is seperated by nation, but it is still very informative.

Hmmm...I see. Odd this bit though:




Did I miss something?

And what is this?:
http://upload2share.com/out.php/i128...entration2.png

And...how do they judge how much a paticular gas warms air?

P.S. Now I see this:


But the first quote says that methane is still about 5 times stronger, so it'd still be more responsible.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
...
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

To read more about CO2 and ice cores, see Caillon et al., 2003, Science magazine:
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/CaillonTermIII.pdf
-

Also, this may be helpful upon review. It has some pretty graphs.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/co2problem.htm

Also, this may be helpful upon review. It has some pretty graphs.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/co2problem.htm

Okay...the first one told me about CO2...sorta...But looking here:
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must influence earth's radiation balance.
Is taken as a given right in the beginning of the article, and it doesn't seem to mention anything else.

Wait, I'm confused now:
Notice that present carbon dioxide concentrations exceed all values for the past 400,000 years, and that the concentration is high when temperature is high. This does not imply cause or effect. Both variables change over periods of around 100,000 years due to slow variations in earth's orbit and spin axis

Are you with me or against me? and looking at the graph, 300,000 years ago was higher.

Now it's asking some of my questions...

And now I'm following a link...http://education.arm.gov/studyhall/globalwarming/expertgas.stm

Of the direct radiative forcing of the long-lived greenhouse gases, which combined is 2.45Wm-2 (watts per square meter), carbon dioxide accounts for 1.56 Wm-2, or about 64 percent. In other words, carbon dioxide accounts for 64 percent of the global warming due to the long-lived greenhouse gases. As a matter of fact, historical records in ice core samples have shown lockstep increases in global temperature with carbon dioxide increases. So it seems that carbon dioxide has been a very important greenhouse gas. If you couple this with the fact that human activities cause the increases in carbon dioxide levels then we see a need to control anthropogenic output of dioxide to the atmosphere.

Funny, according to other things I've read, CO2 should account for 44% or less, and that CO2 increases shortly after the temperature goes up, and amplifies it, as opposed to causing it. How do they figure the 1.56 Wm^2 anyways?

Molecule per molecule methane traps heat 20 times more effectively than carbon dioxide. However, because its atmospheric concentration is much smaller, its direct radiative forcing is just 0.47Wm-2, or 19 percent of the total for long-lived greenhouse gases.

Intresting...but again, how do they get the numbers?

Is taken as a given right in the beginning of the article, and it doesn't seem to mention anything else.

Perhaps it's such a given that they don't feel the need to keep pointing it out?



Are you with me or against me?How am i posing as being with or against you? Are you providing opposition on your opinion alone?


Now it's asking some of my questions...It is just one link. There's quite a few. Perhaps it's the kind of thing that should take up more of your time than mine. Like before.


Funny, according to other things I've read, CO2 should account for 44% or lessWhat would that be? Link it. If nothing else, it'll provide an arguable contrast.
and that CO2 increases shortly after the temperature goes up, and amplifies it, as opposed to causing it.Obviously NOT "opposed" to it, it AMPLIFIES it. How many arguments say otherwise?

Intresting...but again, how do they get the numbers?That can be followed by punching up the names of the involved scientists instead of just the bulk public articles. Publish or perish.
Perhaps you'd bother this time to post that. I chased you enough on the last one.

An example of a good idea in motion ...

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-04-03T223417Z_01_N03187291_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-UTILITIES-CALIFORNIA-EMISSIONS-DC.XML
California aims to limit emissions of gases
Mon Apr 3, 2006 11:33 PM BST
SACRAMENTO, Calif (Reuters) - California on Monday stepped up efforts to
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

State assembly members introduced a bill that would make California the
first state to set a limit on emissions of heat-trapping gases.

The bill, which aims to cut emissions by 25 percent, or 145 million tons to
1990 levels by 2020, was drafted by Democrat Speaker Fabian Nunez and
Democrat Assemblywoman Fran Pavley.

Pavley also wrote a state law ordering the reduction of emissions from cars
and light-duty trucks.

A "Climate Action Team" of environmental advisors also recommended a series
of new clean-air programs to Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"We cannot continue to ignore the threat of global warming to our
environment because it isn't just about the future, it's about the impact
that it's already having on our public health. It's about the impact that
it's already having on our planet, our natural resources," Nunez said at a
news conference.

The climate report to Schwarzenegger said the emissions reduction target for
2020 "should be the basis for an emissions cap in the development of the
program." The report urged a program beyond California's borders to include
other states in the West "to minimize emissions leakage."

It also called for mandatory reporting of emissions levels by the largest
polluting industries -- oil and gas exploration and production, oil
refining, electric power, cement manufacturing and solid waste landfills.

"Mandatory reporting will ensure an accurate inventory of emissions, which
is critical to ensure that decision-making is based on emissions and
emission reductions," the report to the governor said.

The climate advisors also said California should develop a "market-based
program which considers trading, emissions credits, auction and offsets" and
recommend the program to the governor by January 1, 2008.

A cap-and-trade market system would establish financial incentives to reduce
emissions. Such programs are used extensively by electricity producers in
the European Union.

Another key recommendation would require new electricity in California to
come from sources with emissions equivalent to or less than new
combined-cycle natural gas-fired plants. All utilities, whether publicly or
privately owned, would have to meet state energy efficiency goals.

A spokesman for PG&E Corp.'s Pacific Gas & Electric unit, the state's
biggest utility, said the company had not reviewed the Assembly bill and
could not comment specifically on an emissions limit.

PG&E spokesman John Nelson said "we are not talking just about greenhouse
gases emitted by utilities. This is something that all significant emitters
of greenhouse gases need to address and on a regional basis."

The company has been reporting its emissions levels to a state climate
registry.
---
Also, for perspective of intervention, it's worth adding this:

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-04-04T144208Z_01_N04391248_RTRUKOC_0_US-WEATHER-HURRICANES.xml
Forecasters see busy hurricane season
Tue Apr 4, 2006 10:42 AM ET
MIAMI (Reuters) - The 2006 hurricane season will not be as ferocious as last
year when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, but will still be
unusually busy, a noted forecasting team said on Tuesday.

The Colorado State University team led by Dr. William Gray, a pioneer in
forecasting storm probabilities, said it expected 17 named storms to form in
the Atlantic basin during the six-month season starting in June.

Nine of the storms will likely strengthen into hurricanes, with winds of at
least 74 mph, the team said, reaffirming their early prediction in December.

The forecasters said five of the hurricanes were likely to be major storms,
reaching at least Category 3 on the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale of
hurricane intensity, and boasting winds of at least 111 mph.

But they also said there was less chance of major storms making landfall in
the United States compared to 2005's record-breaking hurricane season.

"Even though we expect to see the current active period of Atlantic major
hurricane activity to continue for another 15-20 years, it is statistically
unlikely that the coming 2006-2007 hurricane season, or the seasons that
follow, will have the number of major hurricane U.S. landfall events as we
have seen in 2004-2005," Gray said in a statement.

Last season -- at $80 billion the costliest on record in terms of damage --
saw 27 named storms, of which 15 developed into hurricanes.

In addition to Katrina, Hurricane Rita hammered Texas and Hurricane Wilma
briefly became the most intense Atlantic hurricane ever observed before
slamming into the Mexican resort of Cancun and then curving back over South
Florida, where it wreaked $10 billion worth of damage.

The long-term statistical average is for around 10 named storms per season,
of which six become hurricanes.

Only a dolt would argue that the earth is not warming. It is still premature to blame it on humans since mother nature still produces far more greenhouse hass than all of mankind combined.

I typically avoid this topic because it so often ends with international and partisan bullshit, but for those of you who are interested, here is a site you may find interesting which I've not seen posted here before;

http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/articles2.cfm?TID=306

Too bad that Europe is seperated by nation, but it is still very informative.
Three quarters, (I believe, I'm going to double check that) of the gases humans have put into the air since the beginning of industrialization are still in the atmosphere. There is no reason to add more in the future.

And besides, from what I've seen on that website (I need to read more) they're very eco friendly, anyway. So, they can say whatever they want if they're going in the right direction, in my opinion.

I can't speak for everyone but I'm not trying to scare anyone. I don't think that this will be the end of humanity. I think its a problem that humans contribute to and that humans can find solutions so that they will contribute far less and perhaps help the earth regain balance. That's all. We're not all doomsayers with no hope in humanity. That's not addressed specifically to you but to everyone in general who thinks the opposite.

There's occasion where a celebrity of sorts risks a bit of public esteem by declaring a side publicly on the issue. The following could be construed as such ...

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=1922432

By LYNN ELBER AP Television Writer

LOS ANGELES May 4, 2006 (AP)— Larry David of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and "Seinfeld" fame put his Prius where his mouth is giving away the hybrid car in a contest aimed at increasing awareness of global warming.

David and his wife, Laurie, an environmental activist, surprised a class Wednesday at the University of California, Los Angeles, to award the car to medical student Erick Tarula.

Tarula, 24, of Azusa, registered for the yearlong Virtual March to Stop Global Warming, an online petition organized by Stop Global Warming. The group was co-founded by Laurie David to spur politicians to act on the issue.

Tarula "jumped up, he was all excited" when Larry David announced his name, Laurie David said Wednesday. The student told the class he drives a "gas-guzzling" truck and was eager to switch to the Prius, she said.

Larry David's Toyota Prius was used in his HBO comedy series, "Curb Your Enthusiasm." David co-created the NBC comedy "Seinfeld."

The actor-writer remained true to his cantankerous "Curb Your Enthusiasm" character in reacting to the giveaway, an idea his wife said she came up with spontaneously and without consulting him.

"I'm still waiting for the moment when I'm supposed to feel good about this," Laurie David quoted her husband as saying.

MTV's college cable TV network, mtvU, a partner in the virtual march, filmed the couple's visit to UCLA's "Effective Methods of Social Change" class for the series "Stand In." The episode will air May 9 on both mtvU and the broadband channel mtvU Uber.

More than 300,000 people and counting have signed up for the virtual march, said Laurie David.
--

apparently entries weren't taken from alaska cause I never had a chance to sign the petition.

apparently entries weren't taken from alaska cause I never had a chance to sign the petition.
Who ya know and who ya blow *shrugs*

Who ya know and who ya blow *shrugs*
you didn't win either guess the fellatio didn't pay off this time...next time you will get them next time:D

you didn't win either guess the fellatio didn't pay off this time...next time you will get them next time:D
No, i actually didn't try. I was too busy ripping songs off my Singers/Songwriters '74-'75 discs and making references to The UN abassadorship's fondness for Cheney's nipples.
And watching The Greatest American Hero. And listening to Studio 360.
If there was any fellatio (think Brittany's little sister *drool*) going on, i apparently was insensitive to the whole transaction.

<snip> i apparently was insensitive to the whole transaction.
Yeah I hate to tell you but you really aren't that good at it...but I wasn't going to tell you...us being friends and all.

Yeah I hate to tell you but you really aren't that good at it...but I wasn't going to tell you...us being friends and all.
Of course not. Only "perfect practice makes perfect."
Now, if i need an expert on sauerkraut enemas up the side of a Schwinn, i'm "turning" to you. I'll "respect" your "input" and "expertise".

Of course not. Only "perfect practice makes perfect."
Now, if i need an expert on sauerkraut enemas up the side of a Schwinn, i'm "turning" to you. I'll "respect" your "input" and "expertise".

not sauerkraut it is tequila enemas. It is the only way to stop the dreaded itch once you get visited by the Herbalista

not sauerkraut it is tequila enemas. It is the only way to stop the dreaded itch once you get visited by the Herbalista
And now we wade into "Dred Dave" country .... so his mom called me about something the Peace Corps mailed them. He's got two free clinic exams in a series, i guess.

I was too lazy to see if this posted in the thread but, hey what the hell?
From US.INFO.STATE.GOV

04 May 2006

U.S. Climate Change Program Confirms Human Effects on Warming
Report improves understanding of climate change on temperatures



By Cheryl Pellerin
Washington File Staff Writer



Washington – The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) issued the first of 21 reports May 2, with findings that improve technical knowledge about climate change and human influences on temperature trends.

The report, Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences, also says that data show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and stratospheric ozone.

According to a statement by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the report tackles some long-standing issues that have hampered understanding of changes in atmospheric temperatures and their causes. (See related articles.)

The major issue was an apparent discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for Earth’s surface compared with higher levels of temperature increase in the atmosphere.

“In the 1990s,” said chief report editor Thomas Karl, director of the NOAA National Climatic Data Center, “satellite measurements indicated that temperatures in the atmosphere showed little or no warming but those at the surface showed substantial warming.”

This called into question how much scientists really understood about climate warming, Karl added, because the expectation was that rising temperatures would warm the planet’s surface and its atmosphere at the same time – or would warm the atmosphere in the tropics even more.

Some people had used the discrepancy to challenge the validity of climate models used to detect and attribute the causes of observed climate change.

But now, thanks to work done by 21 experts from the United States and the United Kingdom since 2004, the report says discrepancies between the data sets from satellites and air balloons and the computer models mostly have been resolved.

The new information, Karl said, “increases our confidence and our understanding of the human role in terms of climate change. We have more confidence than we had before that humans are having a substantial impact on the climate that we see today compared to the climate 30 to 40 years ago.”

The report is an important revision to and update of the conclusions of earlier reports from the U.S. National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Karl said.

The discrepancies were resolved through a combination of gathering new data, correcting errors found in the handling of earlier satellite and weather balloon data and using new analysis methods for interpreting previously collected data.

“Now, when you look at the data from the satellites and weather balloons going back to 1979, and the weather balloons going back to 1958,” Karl said, “the rates of warming in the middle parts of the atmosphere, on a global basis, are comparable to what we would have expected based on greenhouse theory.”

Not every problem is resolved, he added.

A remaining issue involves the rates of warming in the tropics. Models and theory predict an amplification of surface warming higher in the atmosphere, but such greater warming aloft is not evident in three of the five observational data sets used in the report.

Whether this is a result of uncertainties in the observed data, flaws in climate models, or a combination of these is not yet known. Recommendations in the report suggest ways for the problem to be resolved.

The report’s publication, said James Mahoney, recently retired CCSP director, “signals a tremendous accomplishment, not simply because of its scientific content, but also because of the breadth in scope of contributing authors' backgrounds and the meticulous research they undertook."

The report also says that research to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed temperature change in space and time shows clear evidence of human influences on the climate system due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and stratospheric ozone.

The new information, Karl said, “increases our confidence and our understanding of the human role in terms of climate change. We have more confidence than we had before that humans are having a substantial impact on the climate that we see today compared to the climate 30 to 40 years ago.”

Information about the report and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program is available on the program’s Web site. NOAA’s Climate Page is available on the NOAA Web site.


(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=May&x=20060504161453lcnirellep0.0756647&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html

Furthermore, isn't the most effective means of reducing the earth's temperature to reduce the amount of energy being added into the system? Why not filter out some of the sun's energy with a shield at Lagrange point 1?

Unfortuinately some git threw away Star Treks phone number.

We have the technology to do this. SOHO (the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) is at L1 now, and had been there for years.

This is easily the most cost-effective solution.

We have the technology to do this. SOHO (the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) is at L1 now, and had been there for years.

This is easily the most cost-effective solution.
Trying to find information about this in relation to climate change hurts my brain. Know of any articles about it?

I don't have anything handy, but Googling global warming solar shield provides all sorts of mentions.

Be careful not to trust their math regarding the size of the shield, though. The geometry's pretty simple, but people still screw it up.

I don't have anything handy, but Googling global warming solar shield provides all sorts of mentions.

Be careful not to trust their math regarding the size of the shield, though. The geometry's pretty simple, but people still screw it up.
Math is over my head. I'll try looking into it later tonight or tomorrow.

I found this.

But I don't actually have time to read it, today, so I don't actually know what it says.

http://www.llnl.gov/global-warm/231636.pdf

I was too lazy to see if this posted in the thread but, hey what the hell?
From US.INFO.STATE.GOV

04 May 2006

U.S. Climate Change Program Confirms Human Effects on Warming
Report improves understanding of climate change on temperatures



By Cheryl Pellerin
Washington File Staff Writer



Washington – The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) issued the first of 21 reports May 2, with findings that improve technical knowledge about climate change and human influences on temperature trends.

The report, Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences, also says that data show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and stratospheric ozone.

According to a statement by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the report tackles some long-standing issues that have hampered understanding of changes in atmospheric temperatures and their causes. (See related articles.)

The major issue was an apparent discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for Earth’s surface compared with higher levels of temperature increase in the atmosphere.

“In the 1990s,” said chief report editor Thomas Karl, director of the NOAA National Climatic Data Center, “satellite measurements indicated that temperatures in the atmosphere showed little or no warming but those at the surface showed substantial warming.”

This called into question how much scientists really understood about climate warming, Karl added, because the expectation was that rising temperatures would warm the planet’s surface and its atmosphere at the same time – or would warm the atmosphere in the tropics even more.

Some people had used the discrepancy to challenge the validity of climate models used to detect and attribute the causes of observed climate change.

But now, thanks to work done by 21 experts from the United States and the United Kingdom since 2004, the report says discrepancies between the data sets from satellites and air balloons and the computer models mostly have been resolved.

The new information, Karl said, “increases our confidence and our understanding of the human role in terms of climate change. We have more confidence than we had before that humans are having a substantial impact on the climate that we see today compared to the climate 30 to 40 years ago.”

The report is an important revision to and update of the conclusions of earlier reports from the U.S. National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Karl said.

The discrepancies were resolved through a combination of gathering new data, correcting errors found in the handling of earlier satellite and weather balloon data and using new analysis methods for interpreting previously collected data.

“Now, when you look at the data from the satellites and weather balloons going back to 1979, and the weather balloons going back to 1958,” Karl said, “the rates of warming in the middle parts of the atmosphere, on a global basis, are comparable to what we would have expected based on greenhouse theory.”

Not every problem is resolved, he added.

A remaining issue involves the rates of warming in the tropics. Models and theory predict an amplification of surface warming higher in the atmosphere, but such greater warming aloft is not evident in three of the five observational data sets used in the report.

Whether this is a result of uncertainties in the observed data, flaws in climate models, or a combination of these is not yet known. Recommendations in the report suggest ways for the problem to be resolved.

The report’s publication, said James Mahoney, recently retired CCSP director, “signals a tremendous accomplishment, not simply because of its scientific content, but also because of the breadth in scope of contributing authors' backgrounds and the meticulous research they undertook."

The report also says that research to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed temperature change in space and time shows clear evidence of human influences on the climate system due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and stratospheric ozone.

The new information, Karl said, “increases our confidence and our understanding of the human role in terms of climate change. We have more confidence than we had before that humans are having a substantial impact on the climate that we see today compared to the climate 30 to 40 years ago.”

Information about the report and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program is available on the program’s Web site. NOAA’s Climate Page is available on the NOAA Web site.


(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=May&x=20060504161453lcnirellep0.0756647&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.htmlThey might just be on here in one fashion or another.