Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Danoff]

I'd say that our current CO2 level doesn't prove that we're changing the climate. Forget about how high it is.

 

[Zardoz]

...Forget about how high it is.

Why?

 

[Danoff]

Why?

Because the amount alone doesn't prove anything. 💡

 

[Zardoz]

Because the amount alone doesn't prove anything. 💡

Okay. I'll try to forget about this stuff, too:


Climate change 'irreversible' as Arctic sea ice fails to re-form

Stories in The Independent tend to quickly disappear behind paywalls, so I'll copy and paste:


From "The Independent" online edition, March 14, 2006-


Sea ice in the Arctic has failed to re-form for the second consecutive winter, raising fears that global warming may have tipped the polar regions in to irreversible climate change far sooner than predicted.

Satellite measurements of the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice show that for every month this winter, the ice failed to return even to its long-term average rate of decline. It is the second consecutive winter that the sea ice has not managed to re-form enough to compensate for the unprecedented melting seen during the past few summers.

Scientists are now convinced that Arctic sea ice is showing signs of both a winter and a summer decline that could indicate a major acceleration in its long-term rate of disappearance. The greatest fear is that an environmental "positive feedback" has kicked in, where global warming melts ice which in itself causes the seas to warm still further as more sunlight is absorbed by a dark ocean rather than being reflected by white ice.

Mark Serreze, a sea ice specialist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, said: "In September 2005, the Arctic sea ice cover was at its lowest extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979, and probably the lowest in the past 100 years. While we can't be certain, it looks like 2006 will be more of the same," Dr Serreze said.

"Unless conditions turn colder, we may be headed for another year of big sea ice losses, rivalling or perhaps even exceeding what we saw in September 2005. We are of course monitoring the situation closely ... Coupled with recent findings from NASA that the Greenland ice sheet may be near a tipping point, it's pretty clear that the Arctic is starting to respond to global warming," he added.

Although sea levels are not affected by melting sea ice - which floats on the ocean - the Arctic ice cover is thought to be a key moderator of the northern hemisphere's climate. It helps to stabilise the massive land glaciers and ice sheets of Greenland which have the capacity to raise sea levels dramatically.

Dr Serreze said that some parts of the northern hemisphere experienced very low temperatures this winter, but the Arctic was much warmer than normal. "Even in January, when there were actually record low temperatures in Alaska and parts of Russia, it was still very warm over the Arctic Ocean," he said.

"The sea ice cover waxes and wanes with the seasons. It partly melts in spring and summer, then grows back in autumn and winter. It has not recovered well this past winter - ice extent for every month since September 2005 has been far below average. And it's been so warm in the Arctic that the ice that has grown this winter is probably rather thin," he explained.

Professor Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, who was the first Briton to monitor Arctic sea ice from nuclear submarines, said: "One of the big changes this winter is that a large area of the Barents Sea has remained ice-free for the first time. This is part of Europe's 'back yard'. Climate models did predict a retreat of sea ice in the Barents Sea but not for a few decades yet, so it is a sign that the changes that were predicted are indeed happening, but much faster than predicted."


Another example of things already happening that were supposed to be off in the distant future. A few scientists have suspected for a long time that the models for warming were overly conservative, and that the effects may be far greater than the conventional wisdom made them out to be. They've generally kept pretty quiet mostly out of fear of being written off as extremists.

Unfortunately, they may turn out to be right.

(Personally, the thing that concerns me most is the thawing of the permafrost, or "tundra" of northern Asia and North America. Supposedly, that thaw will release billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2, and works with CO2 to increase water vapor in the atmosphere. The receding polar ice cap will obviously cause the permafrost regions to get warmer. This is one of the "tipping points" that so many people are losing sleep over.)

 

[Kylehnat]

Methane is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2...

That's a ludicrous exaggeration. CO2 has 2 vibrational modes, and 2 rotational modes, for a total of 4 infrared-active modes. CH4 has 9 vibrational modes, and 4 rotational modes, for a total of 13 IR-active modes. 13 divided by 4 is about 3. If you want to throw an extra zero on that, or arbitrarily inflate it some other way, be my guest.

...and works with CO2 to increase water vapor in the atmosphere.

Because they're devious terrorists?

The biggest contributor to water vapor in the atmosphere is......(drumroll).......water vapor.

 

[Zardoz]

That's a ludicrous exaggeration. CO2 has 2 vibrational modes, and 2 rotational modes, for a total of 4 infrared-active modes. CH4 has 9 vibrational modes, and 4 rotational modes, for a total of 13 IR-active modes. 13 divided by 4 is about 3. If you want to throw an extra zero on that, or arbitrarily inflate it some other way, be my guest.

You need to straighten out the EPA on this. They're all confused:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/Emissions.html

Each greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. HFCs and PFCs are the most heat-absorbent. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide absorbs 270 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide.

The biggest contributor to water vapor in the atmosphere is......(drumroll).......water vapor.

You also need to get in touch with these guys:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4419880.stm

The scientists say that rising temperatures caused by greenhouse gases are increasing humidity, which in turn amplifies the temperature rise.

This is potentially a positive feedback mechanism which could increase the impact of greenhouse gases such as CO2.



This is very old news. We've known about it for a long time:

http://dieoff.org/page124.htm

A team of NASA and NOAA scientists now write in Nature: "we use some new satellite- generated water vapour data to investigate this question. From a comparison of summer and winter moisture values in regions of the middle and upper troposphere that have previously been difficult to observe with confidence, we find that, as the hemispheres warm, increased convection leads to increased water vapour above 500 mbar in approximate quantitative agreement with the results from the current climate models. The same conclusion is reached by comparing the tropical western and eastern Pacific regions. Thus, we conclude that the water vapour feedback is not overestimated in models and should amplify the climate response to increased trace-gas concentrations." The instrument used is the SAGE II (Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment) aboard the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment satellite.
(D. Rind, E. W. Chiou, W. Chu, J. Larsen, S. Oltmans, J. Lerner, M. P. McCormick, and L. McMaster, "Positive water vapour feedback in climate models confirmed by satellite data," Nature, v. 349, p. 500 - 503, 7 February 1993).

 

[Kylehnat]

Each greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. HFCs and PFCs are the most heat-absorbent. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide absorbs 270 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide.

Explain to me how.

The scientists say that rising temperatures caused by greenhouse gases are increasing humidity, which in turn amplifies the temperature rise.

That doesn't change the fact that water vapor is BY FAR the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect.

 

[Zardoz]

Explain to me how.

Beats me. Ask them:

http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html

The concept of a global warming potential (GWP) was developed to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The definition of a GWP for a particular greenhouse gas is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the greenhouse gas to that of one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period.

As part of its scientific assessments of climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) has published reference values for GWPs of several greenhouse gases. While the most current estimates for GWPs are listed in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR), EPA analyses use the 100-year GWPs listed in the IPCC's Second Assessment Report (SAR) to be consistent with the international standards under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (IPCC, 1996 ). According to the SAR, methane is 21 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere when compared to CO2 over a 100-year time period.

That doesn't change the fact that water vapor is BY FAR the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect.

You bet it is, just like Famine has always said. That's the "positive feedback" effect that appears to be making things worse much faster than we thought. The warming caused by the human-activity-produced greenhouse gases is very greatly amplified by the increase in water vapor caused by the warming.

It's an extremely nasty "vicious cycle", and is one of the reasons that crazy old coot "Gaia" Lovelock now thinks the human race will eventually be reduced to "a few breeding pairs" desperately clinging to life along the northern shores of Asia and North America. He thinks the rest of the planet will be too hot to support human life.

How's that for pessimism?

 

[Kylehnat]

According to the SAR, methane is 21 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere when compared to CO2 over a 100-year time period.

Ah! That's exactly the kind of thing I wanted to hear! Okay, look at that sentence. What does "trapping heat" mean? Does that mean the total amount of energy that is absorbed, or only the amount which is reflected back to the Earth's surface. One of those numbers is about 3 times bigger than the other. Now, what does "compared over a 100-year period" mean? I have no clue as to how this factors into their calculation, nor does anyone who isn't directly associated with the report. So, I can't disprove their numbers, because I don't know where the numbers came from, and what exactly it is that they are calculating.

This is the problem with each and every article published on global warming. The sad truth is that anyone associated with this topic has an agenda one way or the other. For every hyperbole-laced article saying that we're going to die, there is another hyperbole-laced article that says we have nothing to worry about. And the numbers presented in each will be manipulated to reinforce the viewpoint presented. Not falsified or made up, mind you, but skewed in some way. For example, the statement above; the "100-year" thing. I bet if you carry out their calculation for a 50 year period, the 21-fold difference is less. But that's not scary, so they didn't use it. And the "apathetic" crowd can do the same thing, only skewed the other way.

Of course my favorite is the blantant exploiting of the public's ignorance of science. Dihydrogen monoxide, anyone?

"Gaia" Lovelock now thinks the human race will eventually be reduced to "a few breeding pairs" desperately clinging to life along the northern shores of Asia and North America. He thinks the rest of the planet will be too hot to support human life.

How's that for pessimism?

Pretty good, actually. And I thought I was a pessimist .

 

[Zardoz]

...And I thought I was a pessimist .

Nah. You're a regular Pollyanna on the subject compared to some people.

Meanwhile, its good to see our oil guys getting off their butts and working hard to spread the gospel around the world:

Oil industry targets EU climate policy

As usual, ExxonMobil is on point in this effort. We can always depend on them, can't we? It's heartwarming to see our people out there bringing The American Way to those Europeans heathens.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's an extremely nasty "vicious cycle", and is one of the reasons that crazy old coot "Gaia" Lovelock now thinks the human race will eventually be reduced to "a few breeding pairs" desperately clinging to life along the northern shores of Asia and North America. He thinks the rest of the planet will be too hot to support human life.

How's that for pessimism?

Thanks. I needed a good laugh. So I guess he imagines us turning the Earth into some sort of oven causing an irreversible effect? We will make it hot and then nothing else will ever change again? Sounds like a big scare to me.

Meanwhile, its good to see our oil guys getting off their butts and working hard to spread the gospel around the world:

Oil industry targets EU climate policy

As usual, ExxonMobil is on point in this effort. We can always depend on them, can't we? It's heartwarming to see our people out there bringing The American Way to those Europeans heathens.

Odd that the article failed to mention how not one country that signed on to the Kyoto Protocol has managed to be on track and that at the current rate EU emmissions will actually go up by 2012, just not as fast. Compare that with the fact that it has already cost roughly $162 billion and the current potential temperature change would be 0.00167 °C by 2050 it hardly seems worth it. See it actively being calculated here.

Perhaps ExxonMobile is actually going to help the EU. So, if no one meets their legal obligations who holds them accountable?

Oh, I have to agree with Al Gore on the Kyoto Protocol.

“Did we think Kyoto would work when we signed it [in 1997]?... Hell no!” - Al Gore, January 4, 2006.

 

[OGLE B]

YEA! More oil discovered in the Gulf!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060315/ap_on_bi_ge/mexico_oil_find_1
Wish a US company would have been allowed to drill there, then 10 billion barrels would be ours, not Mexico's. Oh well, at least it's close. Hmmm, wonder where else there is oil?
On another note, read where average temp in cities in China dropped by 10 degrees - because of all the pollution blocking the sun's rays.
HEY, this may be the way we could stop global warming! Quick - rip off your mufflers, fire up the BBQ grill, burn some leaves, or we're all going to DIE!!! Die I tell you!!!!
But, you know, all our efforts may be in vain, since the sun flares are supposed to be 50% stronger in the next 10 years (part of a normal cycle), and it's the sun that really causes global warming.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Nah. You're a regular Pollyanna on the subject compared to some people.

Meanwhile, its good to see our oil guys getting off their butts and working hard to spread the gospel around the world:

Oil industry targets EU climate policy

As usual, ExxonMobil is on point in this effort. We can always depend on them, can't we? It's heartwarming to see our people out there bringing The American Way to those Europeans heathens.

From that^;

"[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]During the 1990s US oil companies and other corporations funded a group called the Global Climate Coalition, which emphasised uncertainties in climate science and disputed the need to take action. It was disbanded when President Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto process. Its website now says: "The industry voice on climate change has served its purpose by contributing to a new national approach to global warming.""

It is indeed toxicaly funny that 1/29th America has the only true climate scientists, Europe & it's publications are obviously in such gross error that a single .ppt will steer us right!
[/FONT]

 

[GT4_Rule]

YEA! More oil discovered in the Gulf!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060315/ap_on_bi_ge/mexico_oil_find_1
Wish a US company would have been allowed to drill there, then 10 billion barrels would be ours, not Mexico's. Oh well, at least it's close. Hmmm, wonder where else there is oil?
On another note, read where average temp in cities in China dropped by 10 degrees - because of all the pollution blocking the sun's rays.
HEY, this may be the way we could stop global warming! Quick - rip off your mufflers, fire up the BBQ grill, burn some leaves, or we're all going to DIE!!! Die I tell you!!!!
But, you know, all our efforts may be in vain, since the sun flares are supposed to be 50% stronger in the next 10 years (part of a normal cycle), and it's the sun that really causes global warming.

Sigh...

Our dependence on fossil fuels is appalling....

We continue to use it without putting too much effort into researching alternative energy even though we know its bad for us and it will one day destroy our planet...

 

[FoolKiller]

The change in CO2 levels might not be so dramatic

While there’s no dispute concerning the current CO2 level, there is plenty of room to dispute the WMO’s 280 ppm-estimate for pre-industrial atmospheric CO2, according to March 2004 testimony before the U.S. Senate by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, a senior Polish scientist who has spent 40 years studying glaciers in order to reconstruct the history of human impact on the global atmosphere.

Atmospheric CO2 can be measured directly by air sampling or estimated indirectly by, for example, studying air trapped in ice cores drilled from glaciers. Direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 taken by scientists during the 19th century – beginning around 1810 – ranged from about 250 ppm to 550 ppm, with an average value of 335 ppm, according to Dr. Jaworowski.

Global warming alarmists, however, prefer to estimate pre-industrial CO2 indirectly by means of ice cores, from which they derive the much lower pre-industrial revolution estimate of 280 ppm. The lower estimate makes industrial-era greenhouse gas emissions appear to be dramatically higher.

But Dr. Jaworowski says that the ice core-based CO2 estimates are unreliable.

First, ice core-based CO2 estimates vary even more than the 19th century direct measurements, generally ranging from 160 ppm to about 700 ppm with some readings as high as 2,450 ppm. But because the higher estimates are politically incorrect – that is, they don’t support the notion of manmade global warming – Dr. Jaworowski says they haven’t been mentioned in the published scientific literature since the mid-1980s when global warming fever began to spread.

We continue to use it without putting too much effort into researching alternative energy even though we know its bad for us and it will one day destroy our planet...

Destroy our planet? Wow, you give humans more credit than they deserve. If we are doing what people claim we are doing then the planet and nature will destroy us long before we can get close to destroying anything.

Don't worry, the planet will be fine, just as it always has been.

 

[Zardoz]

...If we are doing what people claim we are doing then the planet and nature will destroy us long before we can get close to destroying anything.

Don't worry, the planet will be fine, just as it always has been.

Yep. It got along great without us before, and eventually, after it scrapes us off the bottom of its proverbial shoe, it will carry on beautifully without us.

 

[Danoff]

Yep. It got along great without us before, and eventually, after it scrapes us off the bottom of its proverbial shoe, it will carry on beautifully without us.

...so don't worry about it.

 

[Kylehnat]

Yep. It got along great without us before, and eventually, after it scrapes us off the bottom of its proverbial shoe, it will carry on beautifully without us.

...until the Sun swallows it in about 6 billion years

 

[FoolKiller]

...until the Sun swallows it in about 6 billion years

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!

Oh my God, we have to destroy the sun. Imagine what will be left for our great, great, great,... ~ ....great grandchildren if we allow this to continue.

We didn't listen! We didn't listen!

 

[Keef]

But wouldn't it be crazy if we could keep this planet going and survive here until the day the sun started to die? That would be so scary. You'd look out the window every morning and see the sun; it'd be about half as big as it was when it had enough hydrogen to keep fusion going just yesterday, now it's shrinking because the explosive force of fusion can't fight its own gravity anymore. Only a couple more days until it implodes, restarts fusion at a super powerful rate, rockets outward because of this new found power, swallows the inner 4 planets, then, once agiain, runs out of energy, shrinks, shrivels, maybe lets out one final backfire, the goes to sleep as a tiny white dwarf that's just hot enough to light a parking lot.
Of course, we wouldn't be around through the first expansion, maybe even the first shrink, because temperatures would drop so quickly. But, if we did live through that shrink, it would be so scary watching the sun get bigger and the temp get hotter by the hour. It'd be -40 at night and by 5 in the afternoon, it'd be around 120. The next day you could smell the ashalt on the streets and your shingles melting, maybe spontaneously combusting. Your air conditioner might last through the day, if it does you were one of the lucky ones. It'd be over 200 hundred degrees outside and people and animals would be dieing by the millions. If you live through that day you'll find that, oddly, the tempreature is still increasing throughout the night. You wouldn't wake up the next morning, and, if by some freak of nature you did, you'd wish you didn't.

How'd you like that doomsday scenario! I have quite the imagination. The death of a star happens very quickly, maybe in a week's time.

 

[FoolKiller]

But wouldn't it be crazy if we could keep this planet going and survive here until the day the sun started to die? That would be so scary. You'd look out the window every morningand see the sun; it'd be about half as big as it was when it had enough hydrogen to keep fusion going just yesterday, now it's shrinking because the explosive force of fusion can't fight its own gravity anymore. Only a couple more days until it implodes, restarts fusion at a super powerful rate, rockets outward because of this new found power, swallows the inner 4 planets, then, once agiain, runs out of energy, shrinks, shrivels, maybe lets out one final backfire, the goes to sleep as a tiny white dwarf that's just hot enough to light a parking lot.

We had better be off this rock and living on other planets to pillage by then.

Imagine a whole other planet's supply of oil. That is of course assuming it had massively large creatures that faced an extinction event millions of years before we arrived.

 

[Keef]

Hey, you have to read the other half now.

 

[Zardoz]

But wouldn't it be crazy if we could keep this planet going and survive here until the day the sun started to die? That would be so scary. You'd look out the window every morning and see the sun; it'd be about half as big as it was when it had enough hydrogen to keep fusion going just yesterday, now it's shrinking because the explosive force of fusion can't fight its own gravity anymore. Only a couple more days until it implodes, restarts fusion at a super powerful rate, rockets outward because of this new found power, swallows the inner 4 planets, then, once agiain, runs out of energy, shrinks, shrivels, maybe lets out one final backfire, the goes to sleep as a tiny white dwarf that's just hot enough to light a parking lot.
Of course, we wouldn't be around through the first expansion, maybe even the first shrink, because temperatures would drop so quickly. But, if we did live through that shrink, it would be so scary watching the sun get bigger and the temp get hotter by the hour. It'd be -40 at night and by 5 in the afternoon, it'd be around 120. The next day you could smell the ashalt on the streets and your shingles melting, maybe spontaneously combusting. Your air conditioner might last through the day, if it does you were one of the lucky ones. It'd be over 200 hundred degrees outside and people and animals would be dieing by the millions. If you live through that day you'll find that, oddly, the tempreature is still increasing throughout the night. You wouldn't wake up the next morning, and, if by some freak of nature you did, you'd wish you didn't.

How'd you like that doomsday scenario! I have quite the imagination. The death of a star happens very quickly, maybe in a week's time.

Sounds like a disaster movie script to me. Get on it!

 

[Danoff]

Actually, apparently we're all in danger of being killed at any second by the x-rays or gamm-rays or whatever they are from a nearby supernova. If one of the stars near us went nova (I think one of them is getting ready), scientists aren't sure how bad the EM radiation will be, but some theorize that it would be bad enough to wipe out all human life on whatever side of the earth faced the supernova.

There's your doomsday scenario right there. You wake up one morning and half of the world died.

 

[Keef]

Did you know that if Jupiter were only 12 times bigger than it is now it would be dense enough and create enough heat to begin fusion and become a star? I think that's pretty crazy. Twelve Jupiters seems like a lot, but our Sun can fit a few thousand Jupiters inside of it. I thought that was a neat little fact.

How big is this star that's going to supernova? The little and medium ones, like ours, just expand and contract until they rin out of energy ad become little white dwarves. But the big ol' ones contract, then, quite literally, explode into giant supernovas, then they may become a black hole. Well, I guess I just answered my question--if it's going to supernova it must be pretty big. I wonder how bright it'll be, cause I'd love to see it.

 

[Zardoz]

Actually, apparently we're all in danger of being killed at any second by the x-rays or gamm-rays or whatever they are from a nearby supernova. If one of the stars near us went nova (I think one of them is getting ready), scientists aren't sure how bad the EM radiation will be, but some theorize that it would be bad enough to wipe out all human life on whatever side of the earth faced the supernova.

There's your doomsday scenario right there. You wake up one morning and half of the world died.

All these damned movie remakes, and there's a great original script right there, begging to be written. Imagine the possibilities: The first searing blast, then more horror as the Earth's rotation exposes more surface to the residual radiation that would have to follow. Then there's the Mad Max post-supernova apocalypse scenario.

Why hasn't this been done yet? It could be great!

 

[Danoff]

All these damned movie remakes, and there's a great original script right there, begging to be written. Imagine the possibilities: The first searing blast, then more horror as the Earth's rotation exposes more surface to the residual radiation that would have to follow. Then there's the Mad Max post-supernova apocalypse scenario.

Why hasn't this been done yet? It could be great!

Hehe, I'm writing a book right now - but that's one of the ideas I didn't use. Consider that one a freebee.

How big is this star that's going to supernova?

I think Betleguise is the one they're watching. I could be wrong though.

 

[Giancarlo]

Hasn't global warming been happening since the Earth was first created?

 

[Danoff]

Hasn't global warming been happening since the Earth was first created?

uh... no.


(and the earth wasn't "created", it "formed")

 

[GT4_Rule]

Yeah...*shiver* that would make a great SF movie, the death of our sun...