Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Further proof that global warming is a myth.

Posted by Richard Toids at August 29, 2006 01:21 PM

What? ! ? You can't prove a negative - this is only proof that Bush is conspiring with God to make everyone disbelieve global warming so that we can call all those crazy Aetheists "Ernest".

So take that, you darn Ernest!

Posted by David Summers at August 29, 2006 02:18 PM

What? You can't prove a negative - this is only proof that Bush is conspiring with God to make everyone disbelieve global warming so that we can call all those crazy Aetheists "Ernest".

So take that, you darn Ernest!

Posted by David Summers at August 29, 2006 02:21 PM

The global warming debate doesn't really belong here, but my take is that global warming does exist and a signficant portion of global warming is probably due to human activity.

There's strong evidence of global warming, carbon dioxide levels have increased at least 25% since the begining of the Industrial Era and are increasing more rapidly now than then. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are probably mostly due to human activity not natural phenomena. Ie, the increase in CO2 levels is of the order of magnitude of estimated human contributions from industrial activity and deforestation. Increasing CO2 concentration does hold in additional heat. Thus, some portion of global warming is probably due to human activity.

Given the slowness of the problem, I think it'd be worth waiting a bit to see if "peak oil" or some other scenarios naturally reduce fossil fuel consumption. At the least, we should gather more evidence so a compelling strategy for dealing with global warming can be put together.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at August 29, 2006 03:00 PM

(A slightly more serious comment) My take on global warming is that the CO2 levels are caused by humans, but that in 50 years we have gone from 300 ppm to 380 ppm and that the ecosystem has survived through much wider variation in the past (without much temperature change). The temperature has been the same plus or minus a few degrees for the last million years, and we are unlikely to be able to change that. Combined with other evidence (Mars and Jupiter warming), I think that global warming is unlikely to be caused by humans, and is also unlikely to adversely effect human cultures.

If we obeyed nature, no one would live in Florida or California!

Posted by David Summers at August 29, 2006 03:35 PM

and that the ecosystem has survived

The issue has never been if the eco-system survives. I'd be very much surprised if anything the human race could do, including all out nuclear war would do much more than a blip on the on the global eco-system.

The issue is whether the human race in its current form can survive the kind of climatic change we've seen historically without trouble. I'm fairly confident myself, but it would be highly hubristic not to acknowledge that no human society of our level of technical sophistication or population has had to deal with this sort of thing. Last few times there's been a dramatic change in global population, the few of us that survived did it by moving large distances.

There are any number of hellish nightmare scenarios, and, living in Northern Europe as I do, at the top of my list is a breakdown in the North Atlantic conveyor. Britain is pretty far north of the equator and we're not geared up to having winters like Labrador.

Posted by Dave at August 29, 2006 03:42 PM

That's reasonable (I also said that I thought human cultures would not be effected, btw) - but think about it, what would you do if the conveyor shut down tommorrow. No, really, what if it did? It would start getting cold, and people would put on more coats. England might get as cold as Siberia - outdoor sports might end, farming might be difficult. There would be two types of people - those that stay and adapt, and those that go. The people that stay would create the world's largest indoor sports arenas, start importing food, and wearing a lot more. Those that left would be very similar to before they moved, except that they would be mixed in with another population.

Moving humans is no longer a challenge for us - and we have people living (by choice!) in both Death Valley and the Antarctic.

Posted by David Summers at August 29, 2006 03:50 PM

Pfft. In two consecutive posts, he says "watch this wave, ignore this one," and then "ignore the one I told you to watch, and pay a little attention to the one I told you to ignore."

This is just voodoo.

Posted by Rick C at August 29, 2006 05:33 PM

There is increasing evidence of yet another positive feedback effect in the climate, one that might not have been obvious.

One of the less obvious effects of increased CO2 is more acid sea water. Unfortunately, it is now just beginning to get to the point where aragonite in contact with sea water starts dissolving.

Why does this matter? Simply put, it's because many planktonic plants have a hard skeleton, made from aragonite. If the sea gets too acid, they will not be able to lay down shells.

Natural organisms rarely consume energy doing something unless it's necessary, so it is likely that the reproduction rate of this plankton will slow drastically - and there goes another carbon sink.

There is no doubt that increasing atmospheric CO2 will sooner or later have catastrophic effects, up to and including turning Earth into a Venus-style hothouse - the only question is when.

And by the way, as far as I know the last time that CO2 was higher than at present was during the Carboniferous Era - long enough ago that the Sun was significantly dimmer then.

Apparently, Earth is having trouble keeping as cool as it is now. Most systems near breaking point get unstable. We are doing a very large uncontrolled experiment on our only home (for now, hopefully?). Maybe it's time we stopped?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 30, 2006 01:48 AM

We are doing a very large uncontrolled experiment on our only home (for now, hopefully?).

If so, it began the first time one of our ancestors managed to build a fire.

Most systems near breaking point get unstable.

The evidence over the long term does not support the idea that we're anywhere near a breaking point.

Posted by McGehee at August 30, 2006 06:16 AM

This is mostly too funny.

Here is an article about this year's heat in comparison with the recent past.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1156929532222620.xml&coll=1

i.e, Dr. Christy is a real atmospheric scientist.

Does anyone who posts here even know the relative absorption spectra of CO2 vs H2O? You will find that over 90% of all warming is from H20 in the atmosphere of the earth. Do we want to quit allowing clouds to form?

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at August 30, 2006 08:22 AM

as far as I know the last time that CO2 was higher than at present was during the Carboniferous Era

OK, so why don't you go check if you don't really know? CO2 levels have never been lower when you look at mega year timescales. In addition, the temperature fluctuations during that period were not that big.

I don't understand why people trust unproven (and in fact, if anything, disproven) models more than historical data.

Posted by David Summers at August 30, 2006 09:49 AM

The Global Warming Models are a joke and I can prove it.

Where did they say this tropical storm was headed, 5 days ago? ANSWER: into the Gulf of Mexico.

Where is it headed now? ANSWER: up the Eastern Seaboard. (headed toward me in NC BTW)

When they get a little more accurate 5 days out, I'll begin to worry 18,000 to 36,000 days out.

Posted by Steve at August 30, 2006 03:19 PM

When they get a little more accurate 5 days out, I'll begin to worry 18,000 to 36,000 days out.

There may be good arguments against global warming, but this is a nonsensical one. There is no relationship between predicting climate, and predicting short-term weather (we don't do the latter by extending the former). This is like arguing that because we don't know what the Dow will do tomorrow, we can't make long-term market predictions.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 30, 2006 03:47 PM

How is the technology they use to predict weather, significantly different from that used to predict global warming? And I agree with your analogy, but this isn't "my" science I'm disputing.

The Dow is predictable based on prior history, periodic reports from the players, movement of the Prime interest rate etc. All of these variables anyone can find in their local newspaper. The Dow people and all the companies listed make accessible ALL the data available to anyone. They don't throw out "anomalies", and they don't scream down anyone who disagrees with their conclusions about the Dow Index. We know what does happen when the data is a lie. Enron, and dozens of others showed us that.

The Global Warming crowd comes up with ALL their own data, using sensors and weather reporting stations from around the globe. They take samples of air for particulate matter, and look for what they want to find. If they get data that disagrees with their outlook, an "anomaly", it gets thrown out. Figures don't lie, but liars can figure. They run all of their data through computer models that are not very different from the ones used to predict weather.

Now that's what I learned, from the Fed EPA and the NC state version of EPA, when the state was instituting our original Vehicle Emission System.

I'm open to learning, tell me where I'm wrong?

Posted by Steve at August 30, 2006 05:30 PM

Steve,

I'm open to learning, tell me where I'm wrong?

Look here first:

and look for what they want to find.

That is not actually what the vast majority of climatic scientists and modellers do.

I know some of them. I ones I know don't really have a political opinion, they look at what the data shows.

Much of the data is showing a faster increase in temperature than at any period where we can extrapolate data. That might not mean that humans are to cause, but we're almost certainly in the middle/start of a warming period which is like nothing our species has had to deal with in recorded history, or in the history we can determine from analysis of available historical records like ice cores.

Now that's what I learned, from the Fed EPA and the NC state version of EPA, when the state was instituting our original Vehicle Emission System.

Not sure what you mean by this, nor what you are alluding to. There are good reasons for wanting emission controls that, like conservation needs, have nothing to do with global warming.

As a specicies we really ought to be moving asap away from fossil fuels towards sustainable options like nuclear. Hopefully, the current oil prices will force us to do that.

Posted by Dave at August 30, 2006 05:41 PM

Dennis:

Precisely. Water vapour is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Methane is many times more potent still. Both these gases are increased disproportionately by increased CO2, because a small change in average global temperature drives a fairly large increase in the other two gases. This sort of process is usually called positive feedback, and any control engineer will tell you that's bad news.

How does methane go up if the temperature goes up a bit? Well, some areas get warmer, so the rate of decay in swamps and peat bogs goes up. Also, there is a small but non-zero risk that semi-stable deposits of methane in various sea-floor areas could be released very quickly indeed. The amount involved is quite large; the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico has an entire ecology powered entirely by seepage from methane hydrate deposits.

Yes, of course there are compensating pressures; the higher level of H2O in the atmosphere will cause greater cloud cover.

Which effect will win? We don't know. WE DON'T KNOW. And I for one would rather not find out the hard way. I imagine the citizens of Tuvalu (that's the right island?) would like it even less.

I live in the UK; I would rather not see my country turned into an Arctic hellhole because Americans are in love with their gas-guzzling cars. And some people around the world would rather not see their country disappear entirely for the same reason.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 31, 2006 07:11 AM

Dave said

That is not actually what the vast majority of climatic scientists and modellers do.

I heard the term "anomaly" a dozen times when we were in those open meetings with the public. There were several well trained people in those meetings who were against the emission standard we eventually went to. When they challenged the findings of the feds and state air quality people using numbers from the states own testing, numbers that did not get included in the decision making process, it was always a factor or number thrown out as an "anomaly". That's the states term not mine. That is picking and choosing numbers to support the end result that you want, where I come from at least.

I said: Now that's what I learned, from the Fed EPA and the NC state version of EPA, when the state was instituting our original Vehicle Emission System.

You said: Not sure what you mean by this, nor what you are alluding to. There are good reasons for wanting emission controls that, like conservation needs, have nothing to do with global warming.

In rereading this I did not really make my self clear, my bad. I had NO axe to grind when I started into those meetings. As a matter of fact I stood to make money if sales of vehicle emission testing machines was high enough.

What I was alluding to is this. It looks like they indeed seemingly pick and choose data that supports their end hypothesis. I'm no scholar and I'm certainly no scientist. But I'm a good troubleshooter, I can fix damn near anything, it is my one and only base skill in life. (I can still throw a mean fastball) My troublshooting and repair skills fed me and mine for many years. I learned and trained up from the bottom how to diagnose problems and come to good conclusions. I've worked up from being a VW mechanic to working on gas turbine power plants and propulsion equipment to computer controlled industrial equipment to ultimately being an industrial trainer. I learned NEVER throw out data when searching for an answer to a problem. If data is thrown out, data is then NOT considered, and it may be the linch pin of the issue at hand.

I learned a great deal about the global warming issue and auto emissions and industrial emissions from those two groups of scientists. The group of Global Warming believers were rude, loud, undisciplined, nasty and refused to listen, or talk to, anyone who did not believe as they did. When I tried to question them about the differences in their findings and their opponents, I was told I just wasn't "smart enough" to get it yet. Now that's how to endear yourself to someone who wants to learn.

The group of non-believers were deliberate, well spoken, friendly, and would discuss with anyone who asked the differences.

Dave I went into this with no preconceived notions on the issue. I stood to make money if the machines were mandated, they were I made squat in the end, not enough sold. And I agree with you on moving away from oil and I think petrochemicals period for conservation as well as political reasons. But the people I came in contact with then and the ones I've encountered since then and the ones I see on TV or read on line or elsewhere, all look the same to me. They are to a person rude, loud, undisciplined, and down right nasty.

My life's experience tells me they doth protest too much, for air quality to be their ONLY issue with cars, industry etc.

Since then, I've seen several of those same folks protesting new gas turbine power plants, new highways, new housing and industrial development and lately the decision of our local utility to CONSIDER building another nuclear power plant next to the existing one. It's a sight that already has all the infrastructure in place for 4 units.

Dave these people don't seem concerned with air quality or the environment to me, they seem anti-progress. They complain about lack of schools, then protest the cutting of trees for building new schools.

In short, I don't believe their science because they don't make it, or themselves, believable by their actions regarding the way they collect, collate and use to conclusion the data at hand on any number of subjects.

Posted by Steve at August 31, 2006 07:18 AM

Steve, I can't comment on your specific case because I don't know who you saw or what the context was.

I do, however, know several climate scientists and climatic modellers who work for various weather organisations and I hear what they say and how they say it. I've also been on panels at events with people with no real environmental "axe to grind" who actually think things are much worse than the public data currently suggests.

I place weight on those opinions.

I certainly agree that environmentalists are their own worst enemies, especially over things like nuclear power. But they are also using data badly for their own ends. The scientists I know make a very compelling set of cases and I cannot ignore that.

Posted by Dave at September 1, 2006 04:32 AM

Post a comment