Global Warming: Signed, Sealed and delivered

Global Warming deniers bother me no more. I've posted and posted and posted yet more about various scientific studies. Yet you continue to deny the findings (like the one how the average temperature in the US increased like 3.4 degrees since the record was started in 1895). In case you are even interested in looking at the research I propose the following two sites:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
(provides an excellent understanding of the Greenhouse Effect)

"Global Warming: What You Need to Know"
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/globa...l?clik=www_wh_1

I have a link to research that discusses what percentage range solar irradiance has been responsible for the global warming we have thus sun (and the globe is warming)... I believe it was in the range of 10%-30%. The rest being contributed by man? I will post that study when I get back to home computer in some days.... didn't sync the link.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jul 26 2006, 08:25 PM) [snapback]292974[/snapback]</div>

If you note over the last ~600K years, CO2 levels have never went above ~300 PPM. Currently (and suddenly by geological time), we're in the ~350 PPM range. Historically unknown territory. Do you like gambling? Measured CO2 levels have been rising steadily, and even if we aren't causing it we seriously still need to do something about it now, not later.

The USA is responsible for about 30% of the known manmade CO2 emissions out there while not being representatively 30% of the population, so we shoulder much more of the responsibility and leadership.

Extrapolating from previously known weather patterns, everytime CO2 were near these levels, temperatures go up respectively. Some of you think this is an unproven correlation, but are you a climatologist or just armchair disagreeing? Come on, let's spend some time and disprove all the published consensus scientific literature out there and then you're on to something. It's not exactly difficult to create a scale model of this. It's not like you couldn't see the impact of the 1970's Clean Air Act in the ice cores nor lead levels in humans.

I'm not a climatologist (IANAC), but the glaciers all over the world aren't melting for no reason. I've read reports that the Earth's equatorial bulge has increased measurably; presumably from the buildup of water melting off the poles. Many things are happening that add up to something..

 

When you take into account everything... the picture isn't a 'fairytale.' I've gone over quite a bit of scientific articles and research... pretty much the last hope that deniers have is solar irradiance... yet that one's already been diminished... and with greater attention being paid to this in past and coming studies, we are only going to see that humans DO have a responsibility in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

-heat waves
-migration of the shrub/tree line up the slope
-alterred migration patterns
-changing seasonal behaviors in animals
-the greenhouse effect of the planets in the solar system (you can't deny this one, because without it we'd all be frozen solid right now)
-greatly reduced carbon absoprtion capacity (rainforest destruction, for example... and to think that some of the deniers said plants would absorb the excess CO2... BULL!!!!!)

I can't believe there are still people who follow fiction author Crichton's revealing opinion that global warming is not occurring (I think he flat out denied there was any change). And I'm not alledging that towards you McShemp... but rather Viking. The only REAL debate that goes on is PRECISELY the human contribution to GW. It is there nonetheless, and is significant.

Once I get back home I will be posting some of the articles I've come across.

 

Here's your convincing

 

Oh, I suppose there are a few who refute current science (the basis of what determines a sceintific fact) and still believe the Sun revolves around the Earth...

No, no need to read into my reply, you really do tire me with your replies; no translation needed. You just do. Your pointless name calling and insinuations... Others such as Godiva, McShemp, and Hyo Silver have contributed nicely to this debate. I enjoy going back and forth with them. We all may not reach an agreement, but at least we argue in a civil manner. With you, it is similar to arguing with a small child. Yawn....

Rick

 

Hello!!??!?!?!? Polar ice is melting. How can anyone refute the fact that GW is reality. It seems pointless discussing this topic with nay sayers. They believe what they believe and NO data will convince them (They've probably even seen pictures of the shrinking ice caps on NASA's website). What will convince them????? When their houses are flooded from abnormal percipitation, when they don't have food on their table due to excessive droughts that prevent harvesting of crops (cows eat this stuff too by the way and this is a problem that is currently existing in our nation.....shortages of food), when there are so many frickin' mosquitoes around and malaria makes a foothold in the states. Does all this sound like science fiction to you? Well it's not. Just look at the drought plagueing the UNITED STATES RIGHT NOW. Aren't aware of it here's a link.... one of the worst we've experienced.

http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

here's something on the liklihood of malaria being welcomed into the US by virtue of warming temps. Source the EPA

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming....actsHealth.html

Here's something on the current drought's devastating effect on our forests (oh, and mention of the hotter temps):

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ght_forest.html

GW is a REALITY. Ice does not melt when the temps are cold enough to keep water frozen. This is a scientific fact. If you want to dispute that humans have something to do with the phenomenon, they I can understand. Even in this case, as I believe Godiva once mentioned, if we curb our GW emissions to try to halt GW and we are wrong, then we'll just end up with a cleaner environment. Are you nay sayers now going to argue that this is not of benefit too? If we implement this correctly, there will be no economic harm, only gain.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Jul 26 2006, 06:26 PM) [snapback]292840[/snapback]</div>

As a proud American (my family has been here 13 generations, FYI), I ride my bike whenever I can. I have a bike rack with bungee cords, and that's enough for me to get miscellaneous items from the hardware store, carry a change of clothes and a towel when I bike to work, sports equipment for my son's baseball practice etc. I could add panniers and carry more. Once upon a time most bikes had a basket in the front big enough for a bag of groceries.

Global warming will never stop and reverse, not in any meaningful time scale for us, but we can alleviate the worst effects, like a 20% increase in cat 5 hurricanes instead of a doubling. Sea levels that rise 1" per decade instead of 4" per decade. Starvation in some 3rd world countries instead of most 3rd world and the U.S. poor. Of course that has a resultingly big effect on global economy.

It doesn't need to be a law, it needs to be common sense & encouraged by management. It's a national mindset that doesn't even look for ways to save energy. You must be a small business owner, because every company I've worked for (eight) it's expected and often encourage for people to leave their computers, printers, copiers etc. on continuously. A/C is generally turned off on the summer weekends however, but not heat in the winter. Only one company powered down their equipment for long breaks, like 4-day weekends, but that was for some heavy-duty racks of servers (for on-site use only).

The advantage of government beyond doing big things cooperatively, is that it (theoretically) can be pro-active, not reactionary like market forces. We need to anticipate the effects of global warming and peak oil. I don't advocate big goverment, and it certainly needs to stay out of our bedrooms, the press, and foreign countries when possible, but this is an area that needs it.
Interestingly, most government growth (and deficit) in recent decades has occurred under the Republican watch - Reagan much more than Clinton, for instance.

I'm not saying we should switch to all Democrat leadership in Congress and the White House, I'd like to see both parties take peak oil and global warming seriously. I grew up Republican, but couldn't vote for most of their candidates because of their environmental views and mixing of church and state. Bush is seriously at odds with much of the Republican base on this, but unfortunately it seems extremists (on both sides) are winning the power struggles and presented for our vote.

 

One thing stands out from your image - which is different from the earlier one posted - it's that word that's lightly shaded on the x axis ... "(approximate)". As I stated, all of these temps were extrapolated from other means than direct measurement. Approximations have built-in error ... that's why they're called approximations. The oldest direct temp measurements are from around 1900 or so. How reliable was the best thermometer made in 1900?

Playing Devil's advocate, your CO2 plot shows a real "take-off" beginning when? Maybe 5-10k years ago? Let's shave it down further ... to 1k years ago ... the CO2 levels were definitely increasing 1k years ago, right? The point is, there was no industrialization then. There weren't power plants, or cars, or much of anything powered then really. There was Mother Nature, the sun, volcanoes, etc. Perhaps the mere presence of a significant number of people breathing caused the CO2 levels to rise. How prevalent was deforestation 1k years ago? Maybe ... just possibly ... it's a lot more complicated than that.

Like I said, let's do better. We know how and what to address. Just don't try to mandate it while the argument blaming mankind alone has so many holes in it.

BTW - Is there any evidence that any changes we could make will reduce the GW that we're seeing?

 

Your quote from the experts didn't answer anything I brought up. I asked why the CO2 levels in your plot "took off" at least 1k years ago when there was no industrialization. There was no meaningful deforestation then either. The only thing man did back then related to the atmosphere was breathe, belch, and fart.

Ya didn't comment on the accuracy of the earliest direct temperature measuring devices. If those were off in the slightest - since we're only talking about a 1 degree swing in temps over the last century - the data might be suspect. Think a thermometer made in 1900 could be off by a degree?

Ya didn't acknowledge that your plots have a dependent axis of "approximate" data. It means it's their best guess based upon everything they know. Admittedly (I would hope), scientists would acknowledge they don't know or understand everything that affects global change. You can't have a complete understanding of this system by "factoring out" anything.

The biggest hole in the role of mankind being able to impact GW are all of the approximations that must be used to make the argument. Models have to be used, data has to be extrapolated and generated, guesses must be made ... and those are all holes. Something could be wrong every step of the way. Some guesses may be right and some may be wrong, but they must all be proven. That simply can't be done because the actual, direct data doesn't exist. Your own quote states that the data in the plot was derived from an ice core ... another "best guess."

I can speculate all I want, I'm not the one trying to prove the hypothesis. In fact, it's my duty to challenge it vigorously to see how it holds up. Like I pointed out, there are still some holes that need to be filled.

 

Temperatures are higher than they've ever been, and are rising faster than they ever have before. If you're going to deny this, you may as well say there's no proof the Sun will rise tomorrow, since that's merely an assertion based on empirical evidence.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jul 27 2006, 12:19 PM) [snapback]293265[/snapback]</div>

The changes 1000 years ago are still just normal variations. The changes in the last 100 years go off the chart, and happen too fast to be seen on the long timeline. If CO2 levels were still below 320 ppm, there'd be no problem because that's within normal variations of the last 400,000 years. But in the last 100 years we've broken out of those normal bounds, and in a big way.

Not the ones used for scientific purposes. Accurate thermometer readings go back 150+ years. We can correlate those to "proxies" like ice cores, tree rings, pollen mixtures of warm/cold-loving plants in mud layers etc. Then using those proxies we can continue back in time with a high degree of accuracy, verifying one proxy against another.

You didn't say anything new. All science deals with accuracy readings, and they are given with the data in peer-reviewed journals. If the accuracy was low enough to question the results, the data would've been retracted.

The amazing thing is that these are all parallel efforts that reinforce each other. It's not each step of the way that must be linked sequentially or it all falls apart, it's multiple ways all pointing to the same result. Ice cores show CO2 and temp variations. So do pollen records. So do the models of the effects of green-house gases. They're all independent of each other.

Then challenge it with data.
It's like you're telling me I can't drive my car because it's low on oil and there's no air in the tires. I know it has oil and the tires are fine because I can go look at it. Yet you persist in telling me otherwise without even seeing the car. You're making up excuses with no personal knowledge of the subject. I'm not asking you to be a scientist, but I'm asking you to look at the scientific data and listen to the scientists.

Besides, what's the problem with sending less money to the middle east and cleaning up our air? If we take a lead in the new technologies, we'll gain jobs and protect our economy. The alternative is our country could fall apart like the Holy Roman Empire when our breadbasket fails and peak oil ruins our suburban way of life while hurricanes continue to rip apart the SE. Not tomorrow, but over our children's lifespans. You do care about the next generation, right?

 

Look at your own two plots on CO2 concentrations and temps v. time. The one you just posted looks out of agreement with the previous one. Are you sure they are based upon the same data? It doesn't look like it unless the approximate timeline is off by quite a bit. That's a problem with approximate data, wouldn't you say? Can you post a link to the <strike>actual</strike> extrapolated 600k data for a better comparison of the last 1k years?

The Vostok ice core link didn't have anything to do with the accuracy of the early, directly recorded temps. The whole response was off topic ... again.

The rest of your response is a more of the same ... misdirection with a lot of smugness throw in. I ask for evidence of A and you make references and provide links to B. You want to prove something; you're on the hook to supply the data and defend it.

Where have I advocated doing anything other than buying into conservation? I want us to be better ... to build up alternative energy sources .. to conserve by being smarter. I'm just not sold on the idea mankind is gonna make a difference in GW one way or the other unless we just die off entirely.

BTW - Thanks for not asking me to be a scientist. I'll take engineer any day.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Jul 27 2006, 01:51 PM) [snapback]293328[/snapback]</div>

I have the luxury of not having to prove anything since I'm not trying to sell it. I get to ask questions and you have to provide the answers (backed up with data). The burden is on your argument. Therefore, you google.

Try this story.

It contains views from knowledgeable scientists in the field (academics and industry) and Algore. The only true consensus it that GW is happening. Some think naturally ... others not.

Questioning results is not denying science. This is especially true when the bases of the results can be shown to be questionable.

Still waiting on that 600k extrapolated data ...