Forums

JOIGNEZ-VOUS À LA COMMUNAUTÉ
INSCRIVEZ-VOUSIdentifiant

Man-made We're screwed

"What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-00...

@Brian

The rock beneath the oceans is loaded with carbonates, and pools of CO2 arise. In and near some deep seeps, blobs of liquid CO2 are rising out of the seafloor (pressure effects). The stupid "mankind makes and controls CO2" meme is a bore.

Source?

"rock beneath the oceans is loaded with carbonates" the question at hand is how the carbon goes from the rocks to the ocean. There is no evidence this is occuring on the scale neccessary.

Altho I hate to do this but on Brains side China's study which has no hockey stick.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/0

ok.... that link was not the one I wanted... lets try this again.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/in-china-there-are-no-hockey-sticks/

If the globe is warming but we're not absolutely sure we're the cause, then so what. Do we tinker with something we don't have all the pieces to? Suppose if we're causing it, and we're prolonging the next cycle into ice age. Isn't that a good thing? If we screw around without knowing for sure what the cause is then we're screwed. What we should do is what every human and animal has done since the start of life ADAPT! Water rises; build damns, etc. Tinkering with the climate without a consistent longtime data set instead of ancient interpretations of ice cores from remote locations is arrogant presumption. Keep studying and collecting data but until we're sure ADAPT!

@rscheirer

If your argument is that we should stop tinkering with the climate I agree 100%... which means we should stop adding Billions of tons of a gas that EVERY paleo-climate study has shown is the DOMINANT temperature regulator on the planet. We've never had an ice age with CO2 >250ppm. With CO2 now at 400ppm and climbing we're in no danger of another ice age.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-sensitive-is-climat...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

"Keep studying and collecting data but until we're sure ADAPT!"
EVERY study commissioned since the 1980s has said about the same thing. Watch "Climate Wars" on Youtube. When do we stop running from reality? Humans can adapt but at a cost. Most species can't; we're losing a lot of biodiversity thru pure ignorace. The sad thing is that it's less costly to use clean energy than to adapt to the consequenses of the fossil fuels we're addicted to.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/calculating_the_true_cost_of_global_climate...

Ok here's my unprovable , unscientific , hypothesis. In a thousand years we will all be midgets. Higher carbon will crowd out oxygen. Plants will get bigger and animals will get smaller because of less oxygen. Just like insects used to be gigantic, eons ago when there was more oxygen, now insects are tiny.

BrianH's great, great, .....great great grandchildren will be 36 " 's tall when adults, as will all other adults. This will require less oxygen per person. Say 10-15 trillion people in 3013. Gigantic SUV cars will be the size of a Cooper. Houses will be tiny, 400 square foot house will big considered big. Less meat per person required. Less strain on farm resources, energy use etc, etc.

Of course if you want to speed up the process, we can start bio-engineering now.

Could it happen ? Maybe 1 chance in a hundred, we should know in about 1000 years.

Want to know what Earth could be like if we don't "wise up"? Go check out Venus.

Tesluthian;
You have no concept of scale. Doubling CO2, which would almost exhaust fossil fuel resources, would cut oxygen by less than 1%. Much less.

Adaptation to climate is about 1000X as cost-effective as this stupid "mitigation" nonsense being pushed.

"TRCS: Without question, one of the most spectacular scientific accomplishments of the 20th century was the Apollo landing of humans on the moon and their return. The mission required exhaustive testing of the concepts, models, and equipment against all appropriate data. If the data did not exist, it had to be compiled. Last year, some retired members of the Apollo team, and others, formed The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team, volunteering to apply their skills to examine the scientific basis of the claim that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing dangerous global warming and/or climate change, which they term as Carbon-based Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
.
Last week,[mid-April] TRCS team issued their findings: “Anthropogenic Global Warming Science Assessment Report.” This clearly-written 21 page assessment states that the empirical evidence of Carbon-based AGW is sorely lacking.
.
The major findings include:
.
· Carbon-based AGW is not settled.
.
· Natural processes dominate climate change (although many are poorly understood).
.
· Non-Carbon-based anthropogenic forcings are significant (land use change, urban heat island effect, black carbon, etc.)
.
· Carbon-based AGW impact appears to be muted.
.
· Empirical evidence for Carbon-based AGW does not support catastrophe.
.
· The threat of net harmful total global warming, if any, is not immediate and thus does not require swift corrective action.
.
· The US Government is over-reacting to concerns about AGW."

Hey Brian... I noticed that you never did offer anything to back-up your claim that atmospheric CO2 is rising due to outgassing from the oceans AND CO2 is rising in the oceans because it's somehow coming out of the sea-floor. How exactly is that supposed to work? CITE YOUR SOURCE

TRCS -- a bunch of good old boys from oil billionaire Charles Koch's Heartland organization. Chief goal is to teach bad science in schools. Second goal is to attack climate change scientists. "Teach the controversy," they say. Sound familiar? Yes, the war cry of the Intelligent Design frauds. Same approach.
Same BS. You can't trust anything they say. This is the same crowd that said commercial space enterprises like Space-X are a dangerous idea.

The Koch and Heartland boogey-men operate only in leftist imaginations. If you ever find any documentary evidence that amounts to more than gross exaggerations and misrepresentation, by all means show it. The actual amounts either contribute to Sceptical science is miniscule. Heartland's entire budget, mostly directed at health issues, is barely coffee break money for behemoth advocacy funders like the Tides Foundation, etc.

You reveal yourself as a little echo chamber for baseless talking points by repeating such nonsense.

The opposition to commercialization of space was/is led by such NASA loyalists as (the late) Neil Armstrong, btw. They thought/think only government micro-management -- at 10X the cost -- could/can ensure safety, despite the repeated fatal blindspot errors it has committed.

Global Warming and humankind's contribution to it is almost undeniable. A couple more decades of data collection and I think it will be completely undeniable. Anyone who disagrees is in denial, but they will some day have to accept the truth.

What's more pertinent and unknown is how much is too much? Maybe we are still fine for the moment, but at some unknown atmospheric CO2 level, things will go bad. Possibly very very bad. What Elon has said on the matter is dead on with my own viewpoint. Let's not play out that atmospheric experiment. With it's global implications and unknown outcomes, it's just too risky, and therefore irresponsible. We need to make changes immediately to mostly neutralize our unintentional affects on the atmosphere.

A good parallel to this was the banning of CFCs and halons due to ozone layer depletion back in the late 1980's. We never saw any dramatic effects from losing the ozone layer in our atmosphere because we took action to prevent it. Science was able to measure the changes and make a good case for why we needed to reduce or eliminate CFCs and other ozone depleting chemicals. We took action, and the ozone layer stabilized. Maybe completely destroying the ozone layer wouldn't have been that bad. Should we have just let it go to see what would happen? I sincerely hope none of you would answer yes to that.

History will judge you for your actions, or should I say, inactions, on matters like this. If you can be convinced by science that using a rear facing child seat reduces the risks to your children, it shouldn't be that great a leap to be convinced to reduce the risks to all the world's children by reducing our unintentional affects on the atmosphere.

Your example of successful intervention is a joke. The ozone cycle CFC reduction should have taken about 20 yrs to have any effect. But ozone levels rose almost immediately. It has subsequently been determined this was due to utterly unrelated natural drivers.

The data, in fact, strongly discount CO2 effects. It continues to accumulate at higher rates than the most extreme projections, but temperatures have been far below even the drastic emission-reduction projections for almost 2 decades. Total Fail. An unbiased observer could conclude that CO2 actually causes cooling (negative sensitivity). Which (with feedbacks given their proper signs) is quite possible.

The AGW speculation is a dead letter.

"An unbiased observer could conclude that CO2 actually causes cooling"

Seriously Brian... now you're denying physical laws? Scientific studies can be kind of "wordy" perhaps this is more your speed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Still waiting on a source explaining how the increase in atmospheric CO2 is coming from the seafloor... which would raise another question; if the rise is coming from the seafloor then where is the ~27 Trillion lbs that we pump into the atmosphere annually going? Wouldn't that be a much simpler explanation?

The behavior of CO2 in those "basic physics" studies comes with a caveat: excluding all convective and conductive heat transfers. But those are overwhelmingly dominant in a real atmosphere. The science of real-world observations is unanimous: the models' extrapolations using the radiative formulae are wrong on all counts. Feedback is so massively negative that it renders the CO2 effect undetectable at anything less than combustion chamber temperatures.

Local news

Quote

Biologists removed three more dead bottlenose dolphins in the Indian River Lagoon Monday, bringing this year's total lagoon bottlenose body count to at least 30.

The National Oceanic and Atmosphereic Administration already has declared that 100 or so manatee deaths in the lagoon since mid 2012 an Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Event

As many as 300 brown pelicans have also died in the lagoon region

Researchers find levels of mercury. They also find high incidence of tumors, heart problems, cancer, stomach ulcers, skin lesions, genital herpes and other emerging ailments previously thought rare in dolphins.

Researchers have pointed to water tainted by treated sewage and runoff as the possible cause.

On a different note, this is not from the local news, but one small housing area chopped down all 137 beautiful oak trees . They did not like the leaves falling in their swimming pools.

I know so many are worried sick about Global Warming, but could you not join in trying to solve some of our more immediate concerns?

"convective and conductive heat transfers"

How exactly do these help transfer heat into a vacuum? Last I check the earth is surrounded by a vacuum. There is only one way energy leaves a planet and that's through radiation. Your ignorance of basic facts never ceases to amaze.

To save you another spurious post the top layer of the atmosphere is actually cooling... thanks to... you guessed it, our "friend" Carbon Dioxide. Exactly what you would expect as more energy is blocked near the surface. No sources again Brian?... come on

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tango/tango2.php

@Mel
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate...

Climate Change poses the single greatest threat to biodiversity since it's effect is GLOBAL in nature.

Amen to that!

The death of the EV1 and the fabricated bankruptcy of the auto industry, which was issued in order to restructure it, were one of the greatest crimes against humanity since WW2. Even more so as they have been doing everything half assed after people have lost so much.

There is nothing more important than our atmosphere and our water.

EV1 was the William Wallace of the auto industry, it was shredded then spread across a nation and slowly has reverberated around the world. Tesla is the Robert The Bruce in this story and they have tons of warriors behind them now!

We lost the EV1, 10 years of cleaner air, and will most likely absorb another crash as a result of all this,but we will WIN and thankfully we got Tesla because of it! If not I'd be more concerned about the future than I already am.

4humanity

That's classic subject changing. If you want a direct test, all models predict lower IR exiting the Earth as CO2 "traps" it as the surface warms, but satellites measure increased OLR when and where temperature rises (outgoing Longwave Radiation) as per normal non-trapping expectation. The Earth dumps its "excess" heat without breaking a sweat. There is no AGW.

@Brian

Sources?

Judith Curry has a marvelous post, citing Greg Melleuish on the dangerous (to all concerned) seductiveness of academic abstraction-addiction. “‘Model’ academics tend to be driven to abstraction”

Why has climate change proved to be so popular among academia as a group? I think that there are a number of answers.
.
The first is naked self-interest. They have discovered that with climate change they are on a real winner. They can claim that the government needs to fund them so that they can find ways of overcoming the effects of climate change, even reverse it. The more that is done on climate change, the more that needs to be done. As a research topic it appears to be one that can be milked forever.
.
The second is that as a topic it is an expression of the academic desire to reduce the world to a series of models that can be manipulated to predict the future. We live in a world that is both complex and contingent. It is a delusion to believe that we can create a model that depicts reality in such a way that we can control the future. When we attempt to do so we simply remain in the abstract world of the model and become its slave.
.
The third is a form of moral panic that seems to have overcome many academics. A major discovery of the past 100 years is that education and devotion to intellectual matters does not make modern human beings more rational. Academics, like other people, are prone to scares and panics, and hence to using their intellects in defence of irrational projects.
.
Academics, like many other intellectuals, have a very high opinion of themselves and their rightness. Humility is not a virtue in their world. If you are right and you have good intentions, then surely you should not only be heard but should also prevail. In fact, you probably believe that you have a duty to prevail and to drown out the views of those who lack your qualifications and capacity to employ models. They are just inferiors who need to be brought into line.

Why be critical of the government when it is the government that hands out research funding, jobs and other goodies? Academics know on which side their bread is buttered. After all, bureaucrats are also addicted to abstract models of the society they are employed to administer. It is a marriage made in heaven.

1) CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" in that it absorbs infrared light far better than visible light.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/atmos.html

2) CO2 is now >390ppm up from ~280ppm 200 years ago most of that increase in the last 100 years
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

3) Humans now add ~30 Billion tons of CO2 annually; More than enough to cause the increase in CO2 that has been seen.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

Simple observations... How can AGW be false?

Because it's trivial in the real atmosphere. H2O is scores of times more potent and strongly represented in the atmosphere, and has many of states and behaviors that CO2 lacks, from evaporation to heat absorption. It is very unevenly distributed, and reacts both powerfully and subtly to changes in insolation, thermal flux (conduction) and more.

Consider the driest landmass areas. Little water in the air, just CO2 to hold the heat in at night by "infrared absorption and emission". But the "blanket" is missing: the ground and air both cool fast at night, down to the dew point, where water takes over. CO2, at atmospheric temperatures (as opposed to combustion chamber temperatures) has negligible radiative effect.

All the models require a tropical heat buildup (from CO2) to spread to higher latitudes. It has never been found; the opposite is observed: high latitudes warm first. FAIL.

You appear to have the same confusion as the Mexican study you referenced above...

CO2 has negligible radiative effect WHEN WATER VAPOR IS PRESENT. It's not always present, when it's dry CO2 has the radiative effect of ~1.5w/m^2.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/radfor.html
http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende/marty/publications/Philipona2004_In...

The Fact that water vapor has a preference for the same wavelengths as CO2 is part of the AGW theory... you really do think like a creationist... cherry-picking the bits that fit your narrative and ignoring the rest.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

The belief that CO2 can't block infrared light is first rate ignorance... YOU CAN OBSERVE IT DIRECTLY!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

That is a collection of non sequiturs and straw-man arguments. All the IPCC/NASA etc. publications acknowledge that feedbacks are poorly understood, then proceed to "plug" with assumptions and parameters, about 20 in the case of most models. By the time you're up to 4 or 5 you're consigned to speculative "what if" scenarios.

You're trying to argue against positions not taken by sceptics. There is no conservation of either infrared or radiation in general, only thermal energy and entropy in total, as a whole, and the interlocked system of such transfers renders the effects of CO2 trivial, or moot. The baseline on which the speculation rests in the real world reduces to about the 1970-2000 period, and the majority of that change occurred in a single year, 1997 (a Super El Nino year). Correlation with CO2 variance is negligible when venturing outside that time slice.

Follow the money often becomes the argument of both sides. When such arguments have academia on one side, I would argue the argument is in academia's favor on the matter.

My wife has a PhD and I've spent some time around academia. I have yet to ever meet one who's primary motivation is monetary gain. They care far more about their work than the money it generates.

When it comes to climate change, for scientists and academia money is a minor forcing. For the climate change deniers, money is arguably a major forcing. The whole reason there is such a big debate is because, in this particular instance, science found a problem that will cost industry money instead of making it more.

I could draw another parallel to Elon here. I've seen a lot of comments on the net about how Elon is just after money. But anyone who knows him better knows that he cares more about the mission than the money. The great thing about Elon, however, is that, unlike many business visionaries, he still knows he needs to do what has to be done to be profitable and stay in business. Academia has to submit proposals to compete for grants for money, and the good ones stay in business, so to speak, but it's always secondary to the mission.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

The above test is very informative about Global Warming.

It's such a shame that some here feel that they must resort to ad hominem attacks and conspiracy, even if they are on the correct side of the argument.

Regarding question number three on the aforementioned quiz, solar variability cannot be the cause of global warming since 1950. The only applicable cause on this scale of time could be "cycles of solar variability"; the other causes are on scales of time of thousands of years.

Unfortunately for the authors of the quiz, solar variability has not correlated with the trend of global warming since 1950. Solar forcing has fluctuated, but has remained, on a scale of time of a decade, relatively constant, according to NASA. If you look at the graph and find that solar irradiance has not been constant on the specified time scale, then please reread the previous sentence very carefully.


X Deutschland Site Besuchen