Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Danoff]

The graph does indeed bar solar radiation for positive warming, but it is in the lowermost column of very low surface warming (Watts/MxM, i presume).

Are you talking about that bar along the bottom of the plot that says "level of scientific understanding" and goes from high to very low? I don't know how to read that. Does it suggest that things are less understood as you go to the right on the chart? If so, I think that leaves the door wide open for solar warming to play a major role. But I thought it could also be some sort of color code - though I can't figure out what it would correspond to on the chart.

I figured I was missing something, but maybe it just means that things are less understood as you move to the right of the graph.

 

[FoolKiller]

I saw an interview on Good Morning America with Larry David's wife, Laurie David. She is getting her own documentary on HBO (big surprise) about global warming and how we can do small everyday things now to stop global warming, as if we could stop it within a year.

One example she gave was buying the compact flourescent bulbs. BOOM world saved.

Anyway, I went to her Web site and on the partners page I saw something funny. The first listed "Featured Partner" was IndyCar. A racing league is helping stop global warming?

 

[Keef]

And how much more money does it cost and how much more resources and energy must be used to construct one flourescent bulb as opposed to one normal, incandescent bulb? A normal bulb is just a glass case, a tungsten filament, and either a vacuum inside or it is filled, but not pressurized, with a noble gas, typically argon. Flourescent bulbs have two stages. The first stage involves a nice little circuit, one electrode at each end, very low pressure argon, and an exceptionally thin, precise, and brittle glass case. This stage makes light from all the elctrons being energized from the electric current and all that chemistry stuff. The second stage has a phosphor powder coating on the inside of the glass. These phosphors make light when they recieve light, though at a dimmer brightness and cooler temperature. This is the light we see, and you can change its color with different phosphors.
So which one sounds more expensive to produce? I know which is more expensive to buy. A flourescent bulb typically makes 4 times as much light per watt as an incandescent, so a 15 watt F-bulb can do the same as a 60 watt I-bulb, while also making half the heat. You can get 2 16 watt small flourescent bulbs for 10 bucks at Lowes and 4 GE Reveal incandescents for $2.34. So not only are Flourescents 6 times more efficient, they're also 8 times more expensive.

Sorry, I was extremely bored. Wat can I say, it's 1 o'clock, my friend is out with his woman, and I'm here doing nothing. Well, I did research how light bulbs work and their prices. Just thought I'd nitpick.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Are you talking about that bar along the bottom of the plot that says "level of scientific understanding" and goes from high to very low? I don't know how to read that. Does it suggest that things are less understood as you go to the right on the chart? If so, I think that leaves the door wide open for solar warming to play a major role. But I thought it could also be some sort of color code - though I can't figure out what it would correspond to on the chart.

I figured I was missing something, but maybe it just means that things are less understood as you move to the right of the graph.

My bad, it is indeed the barheight for forcing. But, is'nt that an awful lot of very low understanding? the aerosol forcing is only a best estimate and the largest negative value, i would have thought droplets to be positive. Seems like with so many little understood variables models are likely to have a degree of malleability for now that is not helpfull.

 

[Zardoz]

Who are you talking to?

Nobody in particular. I was just doing some unsolicited off-the-wall ranting. Sorry, but I threw that in there strictly because the “hockey stick” issue is particularly irritating to me. You can find old denial sites that spout crap claiming the bug in the chart invalidates all the data from all climatologists worldwide that indicates any human-induced warming, and that it was absolute, final, irrefutable proof that the whole thing is a media scam. I’m not exaggerating. Such claims were made about the hockey stick chart. Sorry for the digression.

I've posted them at least twice. Here are the charts.

Thank you. I guess I just didn’t look hard enough.

That is compelling data, for sure. (BTW, note the near-perfect CO2 correlation in the Calder chart.)

They've induced considerable head-scratching on my part, because, as usual, you can find all sorts of contradictory information, such as the following.

Max Planck Society
However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.

No Sunspots At All
Mon, 18 Oct 2004 - On October 11, solar astronomers saw something they haven't seen on the Sun in six years... nothing. Not a single sunspot. Within a couple of days, of course, a sunspot popped up, and they're on the Sun right now. This is a clear indication to astronomers that the Sun is on its way to the low point of its 11-year cycle of activity, called the "solar minimum".

And yet, the temperature keeps rising steadily.

Next Solar Max Will Be a Big One
Mon, 13 Mar 2006 - We've now reached the Sun's solar minimum; there's not a sunspot anywhere across the surface of our closest star.

Meanwhile, everybody's stunned at the extent of ice cap recession, glacial recession, arctic temperature increases, and permafrost melting over the last couple of years. This is happening during the "solar minimum".

Lots of activity, but what does it all mean?
"Whether solar activity is a dominant influence in these [climate] changes is a subject of intense debate," says Paula Reimer, a researcher at Queen's University Belfast who wrote an analysis of the new study for Nature. Why? Because "the exact relationship of solar irradiance to sunspot number is still uncertain."

In general, studies indicate changes in solar output affect climate during periods lasting decades or centuries, "but this interpretation is controversial because it is not based on any understanding of the relevant physical processes," study member Schuessler told SPACE.com. Translation: Scientists have a lot to learn about the Sun-Earth connection.


Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming (but...)
Further satellite observations may eventually show the trend to be short-term. But if the change has indeed persisted at the present rate through the 20th Century, "it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Wilson cautioned.


Everybody confused enough now? Add in the "dimming" factor, and it makes you want to just say "screw it" and go watch Jerry Springer.

One interesting thing I've found is that the solar output is also causing global warming on Mars. Satellites at Mars have been starting to see a trend there as well.

Fine, but Mars doesn’t have six-and-a-half billion consumers hurling vast amounts of particulate matter into the air, blocking the sunlight, and we know how Earth satellite temp readings are yielding different data from what we’re reading down here on the surface and in the air.

Even your heroes the IPCC…

Oh, stop it! You know perfectly well that my hero is James “We’re Toast!” Lovelock.

That doesn't change the fact that what you're using is a logical fallacy.

So be it. If you, on the other hand, want to continue to attempt to invalidate the significance of ExxonMobil’s ongoing disinformation campaign by invoking a debating rule, that’s your prerogative.

 

[Famine]

So be it. If you, on the other hand, want to continue to attempt to invalidate the significance of ExxonMobil’s ongoing disinformation campaign by invoking a debating rule, that’s your prerogative.

Actually, what danoff and I do involves critically analysing the figures, papers and stats you post up (and I still find it amusing that you persist in posting graphs of a global phenomenon in local timescales). Then you reject this on the grounds that some bloke who seems to have the same sort of ideas once got some money from a petrol company or cigarette company.

We're discussing the facts, you're discussing the man - when you are discussing, that is, and not simply ignoring it and posting up yet more graphs.

BTW, note the near-perfect CO2 correlation in the Calder chart.

You mean this one:

Which displays a near-perfect correlation between solar output (solid blue line) and global surface temperature (solid red line)? Hell, the first 10 years of increasing CO2 concentrations, as displayed there, corresponded with a drop in global surface temperature - and a drop in solar output.

Which of course proves nothing - it's a simply correlative relationship, with no indications of causality. It's also interesting to note that if you were to hack a few years off the beginning and end of this graph, it would display pretty much perfect correlation, which goes to show you can prove what you want with the right timescale. To track global trends requires a global timescale. Even a thousand years is nothing to the Earth - it's like saying that because you ate a boiled egg 8 minutes ago you are now addicted to boiled eggs (8 minutes is to a human's life as a thousand years is to the Earth's). AND there's occasion where the solar output is relatively low but the global surface temperature has a bit of a high spike.

I wouldn't be jumping on the table saying that this graph showed anthropogenic climate change to be a crock...

Fine, but Mars doesn’t have six-and-a-half billion consumers hurling vast amounts of particulate matter into the air, blocking the sunlight

I'm confused now. Wouldn't blocking sunlight cause global cooling, as the sun's energy was reflected away from Earth?

 

[Zardoz]

...I'm confused now. Wouldn't blocking sunlight cause global cooling, as the sun's energy was reflected away from Earth?

Well, yeah. That's what I meant. He said the increased solar output is warming Mars. However, we've seen dimming here because of the condition of our atmosphere, right?

So why are we warmer, in spite of the dimming? What's doing it?

 

[Joey D]

Has anyone ever thought of it this way?

There are more people on the planet then ever now, people produce heat, the heat needs to go somewhere so it goes into the atomosphere, thus making the whole planet hotter over time.

Think of a room with a bunch of people in it, over time it gets hotter with just body heat.

 

[Zardoz]

There are more people on the planet then ever now...

...which is the root cause of all our problems.

 

[Joey D]

Ya but it's a problem you can't solve unless you are for mass genocide.

 

[Famine]

Has anyone ever thought of it this way?

There are more people on the planet then ever now, people produce heat, the heat needs to go somewhere so it goes into the atomosphere, thus making the whole planet hotter over time.

Think of a room with a bunch of people in it, over time it gets hotter with just body heat.

There is a reason that this is never mentioned in scientific literature. Take a guess why.

If the Sun were to go out tomorrow, do you think that the body heat from people would keep the planet warm?

 

[HACKr]

There is a reason that this is never mentioned in scientific literature. Take a guess why.

If the Sun were to go out tomorrow, do you think that the body heat from people would keep the planet warm?

Thats a silly question. Thats impossible.
I'm sorta on the fence about this one. The only way anyone could prove their point is starting from scratch, and that is impossible. The next best thing is placing whole craploads of pollutants like CFCs. If the temperature raises enough for plants, than why not plant plants to eat up all the CO2 and make Oxygen. Then further experimentation can be employed.
If this sounds stupid it is. All you need to know is that pollution causes problems and fossil fuels can run out.

 

[Joey D]

Actually the only reason I know about it is because one of my professors (physics 102) mentioned it to us. And yes the Earth wouldn't instanly go cold if the sun were to go out, I'm sure there would be a cooling off period. But does the Earth get extremely cold at night? Not really. Does the Earth freeze when there is a solar eclipse? No. So it wouldn't be instant. Sure it would get cold eventually.

But I still think that body heat contributes to the rising temperature. It kinda makes sense. Everyone is what 98.4 degrees or there abouts. That's a lot of heat being put into the air.

 

[Famine]

why not plant plants to eat up all the CO2 and make Oxygen

Oh no, not again.

I know this thread is, what, 460-odd posts long, but please read it through first.

But I still think that body heat contributes to the rising temperature. It kinda makes sense. Everyone is what 98.4 degrees or there abouts. That's a lot of heat being put into the air.

This is really taking the concept of anthropogenic climate change to an extreme.

Even if it were possible, which it isn't, are you aware of just how many mammals - warm-blooded creatures like us - there are on Earth? We couldn't outnumber them if we tried.

And yes the Earth wouldn't instanly go cold if the sun were to go out, I'm sure there would be a cooling off period. But does the Earth get extremely cold at night? Not really. Does the Earth freeze when there is a solar eclipse? No. So it wouldn't be instant. Sure it would get cold eventually.

Why would the Earth go cold at night or during an eclipse? It's still being heated by the Sun - it's just dark in one area of the planet. The rest of the whole thing is still getting warmed.

Test: Place a marshmallow 10cm from a 100 watt bulb. Put a temperature probe in contact with the marshmallow, but behind it, out of line of sight of the bulb (in the marshmallow's shadow). Plot the temperature over a half hour.

PLUS the Earth is quite warm on the inside too. But that wasn't the question I asked. I asked if the Sun went out tomorrow, do you think that people's body heat would keep the planet warm?

 

[HACKr]

Holy Crap. Thats a whole lotta posts. Sorry I didn't read trough it.
But like I said, I'm sorta on the fence about this one.

 

[Joey D]

PLUS the Earth is quite warm on the inside too. But that wasn't the question I asked. I asked if the Sun went out tomorrow, do you think that people's body heat would keep the planet warm?

For a short time yes, I do think that.

 

[Famine]

Whoo...

Out of interest, this "professor" of yours. An actual professor?

 

[Joey D]

I would hope so since she has a Ph.d so I consider her to know more then I do.

 

[Famine]

I would hope so since she has a Ph.d so I consider her to know more then I do.

A Ph.D. is only a doctorate. A professor must hold a Chair.

For reference, as I posted earlier, there's about 0.85 tonnes of air for every person on the planet. I'm not sure how much of a heating effect she thinks a person has, but that's a LOT of air for us to warm up.

 

[GT4_Rule]

The inside of earth is giving heat out too...

Volcanoes.

 

[Famine]

The inside of earth is giving heat out too...

Volcanoes.

Why would the Earth go cold at night or during an eclipse? It's still being heated by the Sun - it's just dark in one area of the planet. The rest of the whole thing is still getting warmed.

[...]

PLUS the Earth is quite warm on the inside too.

I know.

 

[Kylehnat]

A Ph.D. is only a doctorate. A professor must hold a Chair.

Huh? What do you mean by "chair?"... In the U.S., "professor" generally means someone with a Ph.D who is currently doing academic research.

 

[Danoff]

They've induced considerable head-scratching on my part, because, as usual, you can find all sorts of contradictory information, such as the following.

As you already know, that is the basis of my stand on the issue. Until I can no longer find so much contradictory information and end up scratching my head at the figures - I'm not going to make up my mind on the subject.

 

[Famine]

Huh? What do you mean by "chair?"... In the U.S., "professor" generally means someone with a Ph.D who is currently doing academic research.

That's just (or rather "just") postdoctorate studies.

A Chair is a position bestowed by a University which confers the official title "Professor". For instance, Stephen Hawking is the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge University. This position entitles him to call himself Professor Stephen Hawking.

However, I note that according to Wikipedia:

"Professor" may also be used (primarily by American students) as a polite term of address for any Ph.D.-holding college or university lecturer, regardless of actual rank in the university.

To me that's just an honorific, rather than a title = not a proper Professor.

The question is, is the individual named by BX officially titled "Professor X.Y. McZty" or merely referred to as such - and actually Dr. X.Y. McZty? I suspect the latter, but I was only asking, apropos of nothing.

Still I think it's amusing that a physics lecturer thinks that a person can have a noticeable effect on 0.85 tonnes of air.

 

[Swift]

As you already know, that is the basis of my stand on the issue. Until I can no longer find so much contradictory information and end up scratching my head at the figures - I'm not going to make up my mind on the subject.

Unlike other issues we usually discuss, this one purely scientific with no room for personal feelings, despite what a lot of hollywood people want to think.

So, unless you can get some concrete evidence that it's going more one way then the other, there is no point in arguing.

 

[Danoff]

So, unless you can get some concrete evidence that it's going more one way then the other, there is no point in arguing.

Sortof. Except that I think there is a point in arguing that there isn't sufficient concrete evidence one way or the other.

 

[Swift]

Sortof. Except that I think there is a point in arguing that there isn't sufficient concrete evidence one way or the other.

Yep, we said the same thing in a different way. Basically, I said, prove that it's going more to hot then cold and you said "There isn't enough evidence to prove it's going hot or cold" Same thing, different way of stating.

 

[Danoff]

Yep, we said the same thing in a different way. Basically, I said, prove that it's going more to hot then cold and you said "There isn't enough evidence to prove it's going hot or cold" Same thing, different way of stating.

Agreed that we agree. But I think there is evidence of a local warming trend. The difficulty is the cause.

 

[OGLE B]

Looks like some one agrees with you Famine:

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

The guy is from the UK though, so.....

JK

 

[Swift]

Agreed that we agree. But I think there is evidence of a local warming trend. The difficulty is the cause.

Coupled with the fact that it could be part of the planets natural cycle.