×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2
40

'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
There was some doubt expressed that increased atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures would increase biomass.


Well those whacky kids at NASA have done some work on that.

" Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated landmass -- almost 110 million square kilometres -- enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up -- carbon is the building block of life -- and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: "Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."

Lush as the planet may now be, it is as nothing compared to earlier times, when levels of CO2 and Earth temperatures were far higher."

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586


 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

3
"The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century"

That statement would appear, on its face, pretty easy to refute by species extinction data and by the rate of deforestation we've seen over the last 200 years.  They'd need to cite pretty solid references to have any chance of having such a claim taken seriously.  Unlike climactic change prediction, this one's not that hard to measure.

Humans have increased biomass production in certain ecosystems by use of intensive agriculture and artificial irrigation and fertilization.  But there is no doubt that when the land in question was originally forest, particularly rainforest, the net result is a decrease in BOTH biomass productivity AND the genetic diversity of the resulting ecosystem.  

Most carbon in biomass is ultimately recycled to the atmosphere with only a small fraction being permanently "fixed", so on timescales shorter than the geological it's a moot point anyway.  

There is no doubt that increased CO2 increases plant biomass.  There is also little question that plant biomass increases LESS than the CO2 itself increases.  So if there's a worry about the climactic effects of increased atmospheric [CO2], it won't be eliminated by plants alone.  This is borne out in the trends of atmospheric [CO2] versus time.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

4
"Species extinction data" is almost exactly as uncertain as global climate data.  No one knows within an order of magnitude how many plant and animal species there are in the world.  No one knows what percent of this unknowable number typically becomes extinct in any given century.  We truly don't know if the rate of change of planetary biodiversity is increasing or decreasing.

Objective measurements of the gases in the atmosphere show CO2 to be increasing.  Objective comparison of the biomass on large land areas has been possible for the last 50 years and the NASA study above comes with some good credentials.

Data on global temperature is less objective and every study has a number of "correction factors" to account for urbanization, deforestation, etc. and those "factors" are manipulated to prove any point that an author wants to prove (often to secure his stipend).  Looking at the data, I have no idea if global temperature is increasing or decreasing (I read a report last month that said "global warming can easily cause average temperatures to decrease" for god's sake).  There was a lot of talk this past winter (in the northern hemisphere) about local conditions being as cold and severe as any on record and people wishing that "Global Warming" would hurry up and kick in.

I still don't see a man-made problem here (other than global hysteria and nearly universal irrational behaviour).

David

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Isen't there some decrease in the available carbon by the longer storage of cut forrest products? Preserved or stored carbon would take longer to return to the atmosphere as CO2, and since this is also directly caused by human interraction, it is also a possible carbon reduction possibility.
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

5
(OP)
Actually the article makes the point that one of the biggest growth areas was the Amazon, surprisingly. SO this may explain the predicted increase in biodiversity, given the estimated number of new species per square km is hugenum in forest compared with most habitats.

So 'the science is in' for at least one of the greenhouse gas myths, increased CO2 and/or temperatures tends to increase biomass.

Running et al., Nemani, R. R., Heinsch, F. A., Zhao, M., Reeves, M., Jolly, M. (2004). A continuous Satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary productivity. Bioscience, 54(6): 547-560.

And here's the lite version

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalGarden/



 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
BTW when I wrote 'the science is in' I was being sarcastic. This paper provides additional evidence that the common sense theory, that a warmer, wetter, more CO2 laden Earth is going to produce more plant growth and so feed more people, rather than the opposite which is claimed by various GG alarmists.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

geez greg, ya gotta be carefull calling (quasi-religious) zealouts "alarmists".  i mean, after all, they're only looking out for our best interests; it's just that we're too dumb/happy/compromised to realise the "truth" ... and damnit they're going to make us see the light.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

2
Er, didn't those lush eras also teem with dinosaurs?
OK, so Global Warming will bring back the Dinosaurs....like it.
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

there's a country near where i live teeming with humans trying to do just that (ie morph into dinosaurs)

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Greg:  I don't think anyone is claiming that increasing [CO2] and other fossil fuel emission by-products is entirely without positive consequences.  Nor is anyone claiming that there won't be some people who benefit from anthropogenic climate change.  What's being argued is that the change is essentially irreversible, very likely human-caused, and that the likely results of the change are, in composite, significantly negative for MOST people in the world.

I know you want hard proof and cost accounting before we do anything, but I'm not satisfied that such an approach is sufficiently protective.

A biomass increase in the Amazon or the boreal forest, at least the portion of either that at this moment is still forested, will feed precious few additional people.  And that change can be pretty fragile.  Just look at the pine beetle infestation and the way it has spread across the Rocky Mountains-  beetles literally raining from the skies like some biblical plague.  North America's boreal forest will be in serious trouble in the next few years.  If the winters had been cold enough to keep the little bastards in check, we'd be looking at an entirely different scenario- and that's just the result of one organism responding to climate change.

A "warmer, wetter climate" sounds more appealing that what my commonsense would tell me is likely to happen.  Warm the climate and you're likely to see dry areas getting drier and wet areas getting wetter.  That isn't working in the direction that will feed more people- quite the opposite in fact.

The effect of increased [CO2] on crop plants is known: yes, the yields of seeds and fruits (the portion we eat) increases- but the nutritive content does not increase to the same extent.  So you do get a bit more food, but less nutritious food.   You also increase the growth of the weeds.  The amounts the yields increase is dwarfed by how much humans have increased the yields of crop plants versus their uncultivated predecessors.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

3
All these discussions have a ring of "all change is bad", the World must stay exactly as it is today.  No tectonic movement, no change in climate, no change in number or type of species, no new lakes, no changes in coastlines, no change in ocean currents.

If today's scare mongers had been around when India was about to hit Asia they would have projected forwards, realised the catastrophic consequences and tried to prevent the collision.

We have a lot of high cliffs where I live.  Authorities are shoring them up with metalwork to prevent them from crumbling (probably blaming global warming for it) rather than letting the shape evolve naturally.

The new lake in China caused by the earthquake is seen as a bad thing.  Do people think lakes were always there?

- Steve

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Just look at the pine beetle infestation and I see the cause as a lack of biodiversity as the real cause. Having a greater diversity of trees is the solution. But because of the cold conditions of the past there has been a lack of biodiversity.
So if we have a problem with dead trees, why can't we harvest them, to make into 2X4's or wood lamps, or tables? Woulden't the harvest and manufactur of wood products slow the return of the carbon to the atomsphere?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

cranky:  ummm...because they catch fire before we can get to them?  Dry forests full of dead trees equal forest fires from hell...They're logging vast tracts of the Canadian boreal forest at the moment for just this reason.  The value of the wood doesn't pay for selective harvesting of just the dead pine in the more remote areas, so it all goes.

Yes, wood used in construction is as near you can get to permanently-stored carbon.  But dead trees burn and rot.  The forests need a little of both to stay healthy, but too much of either is a bad thing.

Man's intervention in stopping natural fires, clear-cutting old growth and re-planting monocultures etc., has definitely exascerbated the pine beetle problem.  But the warm winters permitted it to spread, and the genie's definitely out of the bottle now.  We can slow the spread, but can't prevent it.

SomptingGuy:  the exact same fear of change is evident in the naysayers' prediction that addressing greenhouse gas emissions by reducing fossil fuel consumption will destroy our economies rather than stimulate them.  The key difference is that in the case of our economies, we can go back to the old way if we don't like the result or if we discover evidence later that we've done something unnecessary.  But once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, getting it back out ain't so simple!

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

molten -

It's exagerations like this -

"Just look at the pine beetle infestation and the way it has spread across the Rocky Mountains-  beetles literally raining from the skies like some biblical plague."

that turn people off from believing anything related to global warming information.

The beetle infestation is as much a result of decades of forest fire policy as it has been the decade long drought.

I'm guessing you'll respond with information on how the beetle will die if the Rocky Mtns get a serious cold snap where it is -30f for a week or longer and there hasn't been one due to global warming?  That is true also.

There is a heated debate within the forestry community over what has had a greater impact on the beetle outbreak - the weather or the forest fire policies.

Again - it's not clear cut.    

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Tut tut Greg, the proverbial hit the fan when I used the term alarmists in the previous post.  I didnt' get to see some of the posts before they got removed but I'm sure they weren't nice.

I agree with your sentiment garrettk.

Anyway, I'll leave before I upset anyone.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Global warming, blaming it on emissions from anthropogenic causes... with CO2 at roughly 0.033% and CH4 roughly at 0.0002% on the atmosphere, and water vapour (yes, THE greenhouse gas) verging from 1 to 5% and sometimes higher. Is it really the burning of fossil fuels causing the global warming? Nah, I don't think so.

However, I do believe WE are having an impact, and a large one at that. Most GHG advocates focus on the most mobile, abundant and dynamic part of the environment, the atmosphere. Unfortunately they do not look into the soil, where, in my opinion, we are causing the greater impact. Soil contamination, deforestation for growing crops and grazing cattle, city sprawl, etc... is removing not only the absorbers of the dreaded CO2 (trees) but also affecting the water, which is the next less dynamic part of the environment.

I do not think, believe or support the idea of global warming, just yet. I do believe we can, eventually, in the near future, create irreversible effects, but in the ground, not in the air. The current temperature trends (if you can actually call them that, but that is a different discussion involving math at a deeper level) I think have more to do with the solar activity in the last decade than the human activity.

I think that if we are truly going to do a conscious effort to help prevent a global impact of the magnitude the GHGers predict, we should start at the ground level (literally) before we take flight.

I am surprised with the amount$$$$$$$$$ being spent in all this GHGE stuff and very little to none advocated to soil and newer technologies to reduce our footprint or even better, merge it with the environment.

Having said that, land brings in money, lots. It is called development. The air, not so much. It is easier to put pressure on reducing emissions than to put pressure in reducing land deforestation for development. You can own a piece of land, not so much a piece of sky. Well, maybe a condo, but you're still land based.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

2
Moltenmetal, Forest fires are supposed to clean up forests - when we keep putting them out they get too fierce and kill everything.  Also, when we put fires out the trees get too thick and don't have enough water, so become susceptible to disease like pine beetles.

Also, the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 40 years, so it's hardly "irreversible".  

You apparently missed this winter - extremely cold, and that cold arctic air means a larger temperature (therefore density) difference along the jetstream - how cold is evidenced by increased tornadic activity.  

I think your "commonsense" is tainted by a feeling of original sin.

Don't get caught up in this trap -  you're an engineer, supposed to be smarter than that:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YWQTBO1QBHTLLQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

CO2 is easily removed from the air. Plant a tree and then bury the mature timber when finished.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

civilperson,

That is one theory about the length of time of interglacials.  During an ice age, the cold oceans take up a lot of the CO2 that is constantly produced by volcanic action.  Then, after the biosphere becomes saturated with CO2, it jumps to interglacial.  Subsequent increased rainfall and biospheric vibrancy produce vegetable matter which is continually buried by increased erosion, while the excess CO2 in the ocean is expelled by the fact solubility decreases with increased temperature (the warm coke effect).  After the biosphere is exhausted of its life enhancing CO2, it drops back into another ice age.  This has happened time and again for over a million years.

I think that makes a lot of sense.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Why is one beetle migrating north "due to climate change" more of a concern than Kudzu. African bees, rabbits, cats rats, dogs, grey squirrels, coypu, mink, Dutch elm disease etc which were not caused by climate change.
These are far more preventable problems, but all are not a disaster that man cannot survive.

I know, this particular beetle is likely to cause a loss of ash trees... and that means using aluminum bats in baseball. Or was that the bark beetle, the Mountain Bark beetle (native to the northern USA and Mexico) the lodgepole pine beetle (the Guardian says this is a climate change infestation).

Of course, in the UK, due to Dutch Elm disease (maybe they now think this was due to climate change, or maybe they haven't got around to re-classifying it yet) there are now no trees.
Well, actually, there are. Not that many elms, a lot of imported firs, Corsican pine of course, since that was planted by the thousands of acres and supports about one native insect species while an English (not European)oak will support about 1000 insect species.

Of course, local governments are busy chopping down trees all over the place because they drop chessnuts on peoples heads, have located themselves too near roads, are in the way of superstore developments etc. but then lots of people are busy planing trees all over the place including, allegedly, some of the carbon offset people.
Never mind CO2, anthropogenic (carried by man) trans-boundary migration of one species into another ecosystem where there are no checks is a real problem. One species disappearing from an ecosystem is far less problematic because it doesn't upset the whole system.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

There are plenty of people willing to weigh in on both sides of the climate change issue.  My personal view is that climate change has shown to be inevitable on a geologic timescale.  Whether or not mankind's activities has had a significant role in recent changes I am not convinced of either way.

Regardless, as an engineer, (and I think this is a part of our calling regardless of specialty), I want to be efficient in how I do things as it tends to minimalize adverse impact all around.  None of us really have the gift of foresight that will tell us the impact of current choices on future events.  To utilize a phrase from the stock market.  "Past performance is not an indicator of future results".  Try to find the win/win situations and go after them (preserve or improve quality of life while lessening potential environmental impact).

Regards,

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

garrettk:  yes, I strayed into hyperbole there for a moment to make a point.  That's been done amply on the other side of this debate too, so I don't feel so bad.  

People thought that the Rockies would act as an effective barrier against the spread of the pine beetle, but the winds fixed that.  Storms carried swarms of the insects high over the peaks.  Beetles DID literally rain from the skies, to the point that they sounded like rain on the tin roofs of buildings down-wind.

If you read the rest of my post, you'll see that I acknowledge other factors as exascerbating the infestation.  But what permitted the spread was the winters without protracted cold spells.

civilperson: Yep, trees are a solar-powered, self-propagating CO2 removal system if you use and dispose of the wood the right way.  There is some trouble in terms of sustainability from the fact that wood doesn't just consist of CO2 and water, and that stuff will be "permanently fixed" too, hence it will be mined from the soils.  In the natural world, the process of permanently fixing carbon is pretty slow (on the human timescale), since the biosphere recycles most of its carbon.  

lcruiser:  it seems you're confused about equilibrium processes.  The half-life of water vapour in the atmosphere is even shorter, but that doesn't affect the equilibrium concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere.  Once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, removing it again and fixing it for storage means fighting an entropic battle of enormous proportions.  Fixing it at source, where it's concentrated, is expensive enough in energetic terms to make people wonder whether or not it's worthwhile.        

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

moltenmetal,  I'm not confused.  You seem to be ignorant of the fact that over half of all emissions sink to either flora or the ocean, base on the fact that CO2 concentration only goes up half as fast as it would if all emissions stay in the atmosphere.  It's pretty well established that sink is proportional to the distance from equilibrium - look it up.  It's called Henry's Law.  If all excess emissions stopped right now, excess concentration would go to half in about 40 years, one quarter in 80, etc. at teh current rate.  That's worst case - flora is spreading so it continues to take in CO2 at an increasing rate.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Having lived through the "impending catastrophes" predicted throughout the '60's and '70's, I notice one past topic has not been raised during the present controversy.  It is one of the simplest of the solutions, and wholly within our control.  That is population control.  Less people times current GHG per person is a bigger reduction than an incremental improvement in power generation, cars, etc.  Less food is needed, so pressure on farmland is reduced.  Fewer forests cut down, etc etc.  Why has this topic been completely ignorecd this time around??  Politically distasteful?

Not everything needs a technological solution.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Er, unless you mean in the popular press i.e. outside this forum, good question but we've covered it, or at least recognised the inherent dangers in trying to promote population control, here.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2


Here is an interesting study.

Published May 2008, the Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 (SAP 4.3): The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States is the most extensive examination of the impacts of climate change on important U.S. ecosystems undertaken to date.

http://www.sap43.ucar.edu/

Here are some major findings (there are more in the above link, you can also find there the entire study).

- Grain and oilseed crops will mature more rapidly, but increasing temperatures will increase the risk of crop failures, particularly if precipitation decreases or becomes more variable.
- Higher temperatures will negatively affect livestock. Warmer winters will reduce mortality but this will be more than offset by greater mortality in hotter summers. Hotter temperatures will also result in reduced productivity of livestock and dairy animals.
- Weeds grow more rapidly under elevated atmospheric CO2. Under projections reported in the assessment, weeds migrate northward and are less sensitive to herbicide applications.
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

RossABQ, population control has been brought up a number of times and usually ends up getting red-flagged and the relevant posts deleted.

As to why it's not brought up more outside of this forum, I suspect for the same reasons it raises temperatures here.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

And rising temperatures is the very problem we are concerned about.
elephant2 ouch! ouch! ouch!

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

josephv -

I wouldn't put too much credence in that report.  If you read it carefully they make some rash assumptions.  For example, they say the temperature rise in the next 30 years will be 2 deg F, based on IPCC projections.

If you look at Figure TS.32 here:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf

then you can see here:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

that we are already out of the error bars.
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

According to the report "even under the most optimistic CO2 emission scenarios" several problems appear. The exact quote is below.

Note that the report is sponsored by the US Department of Energy and NASA, I would doubt that they would sponsor something that was unrealistic. Further to this, believing that increased CO2 has only positive effects and no negative effects, sounds rather unrealistic.

"Even under the most optimistic CO2 emission scenarios, important changes in sea level, regional and super-regional temperatures, and precipitation patterns will have profound effects. Management of water resources will become more challenging. Increased incidence of disturbances such as forest fires, insect outbreaks, severe storms, and drought will command public attention and place increasing demands on management resources. Ecosystems are likely to be pushed increasingly into alternate states with the possible breakdown of traditional species relationships, such as pollinator/plant and predator/prey interactions, adding additional stresses and potential for system failures. Some agricultural and forest systems may experience near-term productivity increases, but over the long term, many such systems are likely to experience overall decreases in productivity that could result in economic losses, diminished ecosystem services, and the need for new, and in many cases significant, changes to management regimes."
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2


The NASA climate program is led by James Hansen, the Chief Chicken Little who has made a million dollars from "grants" by people who could benefit from brokering energy.  So, don't think they wouldn't sponsor some unrealistic.

Consider, carefully, the first sentence of your quote:
"Even under the most optimistic CO2 emission scenarios, important changes in sea level, regional and super-regional temperatures, and precipitation patterns will have profound effects."

Certainly in any change there will be both winners and losers, but you have to remember the effect of doubling CO2, all other things being constant (which of course they aren't, evidenced by the fact "global warming" has stopped for 10 years now) will warm the planet by from 1 to 2 deg C.

"*will* have profound?"??  There is so much uncertainty with respect to convection that they cannot possibly know that.  It's a religion, it's not science.  A religion complete with "Original Sin".


 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

- "The NASA climate program is led by James Hansen, the Chief Chicken Little who has made a million dollars from "grants" by people who could benefit from brokering energy."

That is quite an accusation, do you have some information to back that up? Not just a smear blog, but real evidence.

- "global warming" has stopped for 10 years now

Do you have some scientific papers to back this up, not just graphs but actual papers that come to this conclusion?

I posted this before, according to the National Academies of Science, "9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred during the past decade."

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf


Best regards,

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

i've seen several posts to the effect that the IPCC "scientists" have said that the warming trend appears to be delayed by "external factors", but they expect it to resume soon.  sorry, i don't have formal references for this.

similarly, i thought that "they" had reviewed (revised) the data and made several years in the 30's the warmest on record.  but then remember, the "record" is only a blink in geological timescales.

and yes, i beleive that even scientists in NASA and the like have their careers to protect, their grants to gather, and so are not adverse to interpreting their results in a particular light.  how else can you explain Mann (of the "hockey stick" fame, or infamity) ?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

josephv -

Hansen received $720k from Soros et al, and $250k from Teresa Heinz.  That's only two groups.

So, you don't like graphs?  That's funny, since this is an engineering board.  Do you not trust them or what?

As far as your NAS link, it uses GISS, which is Hansens's baby, so it has no credibilty.  Not that NAS itself never has any credibility, but it's a bunch of people and the ones who did this are obviously not objective.  You can see that in figure 12, which although it's a 2008 publication, is such that reality is outside the error band.  

Speaking of error bands, what makes them think they have any right to even use them in this application?

 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Thanks, LCruiser

Many research organizations get grants. For example, am pretty sure Soros also donates to cancer research, is this hard proof that doctors doing cancer research lack credibility?

If you look at my post I wrote, "not just graphs". Graphs are great, and send them if you can, but what I am looking for is scientific papers that make the conclusion that you stated:
i.e. that "global warming" has stopped for 10 years now
Can you send us scientific papers that concludes this?

cheers,

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
Peer reviewed article in Nature

Nature 453, 84-88 (1 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06921; Received 25 June 2007; Accepted 14 March 2008; Corrected 8 May 2008

Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector
N. S. Keenlyside1, M. Latif1, J. Jungclaus2, L. Kornblueh2 & E. Roeckner2

Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Düsternbrooker Weg 20, D-24105 Kiel, Germany
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstrae 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany


You may be able to get it here
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5876/595

More generally readable

http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/05/04/5466976-sun.php

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Perfect Greg -

Apocalypsis interruptus...

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Now I remember why I stopped reading this thread before--I can't find a single instance where anyone has changed their opinion regardless of the outstanding arguments on both sides.

I guess when the data is inconsistent and/or ambiguous, well-meaning people are required to resort to "faith" (defined as "acceptance of a concept in the absence of data").  I think I'll stop playing "my imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend"

It's been fun.

David

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

David -

You're right - sort of.  On the one hand are the religious zealots who march, lockstep, with Al Gore.  On the other are the people who will deny it all.  Then, in the middle, are those of us who see that Al Gore et al don't quite have it down in the logic department, but have only faith to lean on.  Such it is with josephv - he "believes" and will not look at the reality of the situation.  

Earth needs to have some serious changes in responses to ghg's in order to follow in line with the alarmists' siren calls.  Right now "it just ain't happenin'".  Not that it won't in the future, and the penalty for failure on both sides is large, but when you drill down into the science it just is not there.  

So do we all start walking around barefoot?  I think not - many more than half would die of starvation, not to mention that "green" really is a product of CO2 anyway - that's the strange thing about all this...

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

i couldn't have said it any better ...
however, climate change is real and i think we, as engineers, need to develop solutions for the anticipated problems.

if the ocean high tide level were to increase 1m what would be the consequences ?  what is the likelihood of this happening ?  what is the cost of the different solutions ? then the politicians (and the people who vote for them) decide what to do.

right now the politicans have decided to act on what i consider to be a red herring, and IMHO very expensive proposals will have negligible effect.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Greg, thanks for the article. It is not exactly what I was looking for (since it says that "hotter times still ahead"), but it is still quite good and informative. Stars for you.

Mother Nature Cools the Greenhouse, but Hotter Times Still Lie Ahead
Richard A. Kerr
A new paper shows that regional and even global temperatures are being temporarily held down by a natural jostling of the climate system, driven in large part by vacillating ocean currents.

 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Zdas04
There is a well known saying that expresses this quite well:  
[quote]He that complies against his will
Is of his own opinion still.]/quote]
          
Samuel Butler. (1612–1680)
Hudibras. Part iii. Canto iii. Line 547.

However many examples of this we see, eventually the truth can emerge (flowerface).

Of course, the jury is still out in parts of the US on Creationism Vs Darwinian evolution, there are still people who believe in a flat earth (how many thousands of years has that been?), I expect there are still many advocates of Lysenkoism in the former USSR.
Some people still believe politicians when their lips move.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is set to be just another example. But on which side of the fence?
At the moment the sceptics are in the flat earth camp but the tide may be turning and it may well be the AGWs who end up in that category.

So why do we debate it?
Why does anyone debate anything?
Because there always remains the potential that minds will be changed. Epiphanies do happen.

The real problem is that to governments, truth doesn't matter, the "will of the people" is an irrelevance as Europeans are discovering afresh with the Irish no vote (following the previous French and Dutch no vote to the 98% unchanged preceding piece of legislation) - the politician's answer? no referenda.

This means that despite the "truth" or otherwise of the AGW argument it is a genie that cannot be stuffed back into its bottle.

Incidentally, there is no worse politician for this than one who knows he cannot lose the next election or who knows he cannot win the next election.. one who is not allowed another term or one who has finagled a life term.
But some who are neither still don't seem to understand... Chancellor  Kohl, for example who pushed ahead with ein mark for ein mark, paid he price for his folly but the folly remained. (Some may think this was the right decision but that is not what a democracy is about, it is about representing the people. If we wanted feudalism we'd still have absolute governments).

The real problem then might be how to fix the political mechanisms, how to put science onto a better basis, to overcome the influences that see poor science dominate our lives.
It isn't just Global Warming, it is each and every new epidemiological study that emerges saying wine is good for us, then that it is bad for us or that white wine is good, red wine is bad, then that red wine is good. Butter is bad, butter is good. Smoking is bad secondary smoking is bad, alcohol is bad, secondary alcohol is bad (oh, yes, that is a genuine argument out there).
Maybe it is the cult of the Health and Safety nazis who would stop us al doing anything if it might be at all bad for us and governments who believe it is their duty to impose rules and regulations on us because "it is good for us".

Maybe we need to have some accountability for all these people who make these decisions or foster bad science or bad reporting, such as for he who has made his lifetimes passion fixing up the temperature data to support AGW.

Perhaps our fundamental problem is rather deeper than arguing over AGW, but while we argue about it we are distracted from the real problem.


  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

i'm sorry joesph but "temperatures are being temporarily held down by a natural jostling of the climate system, driven in large part by vacillating ocean currents" is the sort of IMHO nonsense that is published today.

the ocean currents are a huge factor affecting climate, they have been and will keep on "vacillating" untill they boil off at the end of days.

of course there is "natural jostling" of the climate system, there has been and will always be "jostling" in the climate system untill the atmoshpere boils off at the end of days.

so why, oh why, are these effects producing "temporary" changes in the global temperatures ?

 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Hello rb1957,

I was simply posting the summary of the science magazine article that Greg posted, so that everyone could see it. In other words, I don't know much about this theory (ocean currents). But you could ask Greg, after all he is the one that posted it, or the writers of this article.

cheers,

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

There has always been and will always be climate change, and it has been said a large part was the American indians who deforrested much of the Western US.

Who cares why it is happening, after all it will happen. But a bigger question would be is the cost of conserted human intervention more than the cost of letting it ride?

I'm all for recycling, but when we tax ourselves to the point it isen't worth working, then we stop progressing as a people. So is it worth it?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

" a large part was the American indians who deforrested much of the Western US"

Sounds a lot like blaming them for the demise of the buffalo herds.

Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - Robert Hunter
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

No, the Buffalo herds were virtually wiped out as a result of policy deliberately designed to destroy the plains Indians.

That isn't to say the Indian hunting methods were always considered, they would sometimes stampede whole herds over a cliff even though there were then more carcasses than they could handle. However, such actions had limited or no impact on overall numbers of buffalo since the buffalo numbers were so vast.

If the Indians actually destroyed the much of the forests then let's give proper attribution.

Not saying they did, perhaps Cranky108 will enlighten us.

 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Buffalo Bill Cody et al almost did in the buffalo, but the Indians did do in the mammoth.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

"IndiansNative Americans Aboriginal Americans did do in the mammoth. "

According to one theory, I didn't realize it had been proven yet.

Antropogenic deforestation has been going on since the invention of tools.  The difference is probably just the scale.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Good point Kenat.  Correlation is not causation.  Nobody witnessed it.  We will probably never know for sure, but Aboriginal Americans (quite distant from the Indians of the last millennium) were certainly a contributing factor.   

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
Correlation may not be causation, but in almost every case the arrival of Man on to a previously uninhabited island or continent is shortly followed by a large number of extinctions of tasty or dangerous animal species.



 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Greg - LOL - QED

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

"New genetic analyses confirm that Siberian woolly mammoth lived in two, distinct clans. Scientists are trying to determine why the groups appeared to live in the same region but went extinct at two different times."

"But, if the groups were different subspecies, "we can at least say clade II were not driven extinct by humans. The extinction was way before humans arrived" in this region of Siberia."

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33051/title/A_mammoth_divide

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

I think we can agree that the earlier extinction of the clade II subspecies, that was not in America, was not caused by American aborigines.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Jeez, at this rate, the GHGE advocates are pretty soon going to be requesting for us to live in the moon or Mars!! Oh wait, how are we going to get the without burning fuel?!?!?!

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Man is part of the enviroment, and has and always will be part of the change in the enviromant.

My point is that the cost of trying to change or prevent change needs to be evaluated agenst the cost of doing nothing.

You mean you haden't heard the theory that much of the western US was deforrested (Slash and burn method) by the plains indians, to increase the size of the Buffalo herds?
Maybe it's just local knoledge.   

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

the trouble is that there is no clear answer to the question "how significant are AGHGs to climate change ?"

some answer that it doesn't matter how significant, clearly (?) AGHG are having a negative effect (?) on climate change and the consequences are so significantly negative (?) that we have to do something (anything?) to reduce AGHG.

and as to the american buffalo, it only shows that there are at least two sides to any theory when you can't prove any of them !

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

rb -

You left out parts of the equation.  You are correct that ghg's have an effect on the environment, but the significance does matter as we are killing the biosphere by overgrazing, so to speak.  CO2 increasing helps it recover.  Since our population is booming, we need all the help we can get until we become sentient as a species - meaning nobody is living at the base of Maslow's pyramid.  We have a long way to go to get there - so it's incorrect to say "the consequences are so significantly negative that we have to do something to reduce aghg's".  We don't know if it's even a bad thing, yet.   

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

that's why a prefaced the sentence with "some" ... i'm not one.

and really the more we look into it the less we know and the more opinions (uninformed/illinformed/wrong?) we have on the topic.  as an example, there was a discussion in the last CC thread about whether trees are CO2 sources or sinks and with knowledgable comments about their CO2 flow changes with daylight/nighttime.  i'm sure this is true, i'm not a biologist; but i Know that animals consume O2 and produce CO2 and so i Know there has to be something restoring the balance and I believe that is vegetation.

and i agree with your point that we are probably (certainly?) not the best custodians of our planet (possibly we are behaving more like robber-barons).  however, i object to being told that there is a proven causal linkage between burning petrol (like drunken sailors?) and dire climate changes (leading to the end of the human race, which may not be such a bad thing for the rest of the biosphere, particularly the cockroaches may thank us for their opportunity to rise to the top of the food chain).

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

So how do you deliver a message like cutting down trees is bad for the enviroment to some one who would other wise be using dried cow doung for cooking?

Doing something is fine, so how about teaching people in other countries to better improve there farm land in the place of cutting down more trees to move to better soil. You have to admit it's a better option than everyone lowering there standards.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

The main problem is population growth.

All of the things we humans do are harmless to the earth in moderation of course, but with the population approaching 7 billion and Chinese and Indian consumption habits approaching those of the U.S., we have a problem.

All of the earth's natural systems including the air, land and water are under stress.

Maybe we've exceeded the earth's carrying capacity?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

IceNine, that kind of thinking (or at least the discussion it starts about how to limit the human population) isn't popular/allowed here, you'll probably get red-flagged.

"So how do you deliver a message like cutting down trees is bad for the enviroment to some one who would other wise be using dried cow doung for cooking?"

A. what's wrong with using cow dung?

B. give them a solar cooker if they're from a hot/sunny place, which a lot of people facing this dilema are. (oh and completely re-educate them on how/what to cook)

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2


Ans.: Same thing that makes it all but unused in the US, which arguably has several times the amount of dung available.  

 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

I have heard of mixing chipped wood with coal to reduce emissions, but that was from stoker plants, which aren't that efficent anyway. So in the few remaining stoker plants we could mix the coal with dung. (It might be even less popular that just coal alone).
Still I think the impact would be less than 5% reduction of coal, besides the energy and cost to collect and dry the dung. (Nice desposil idea for places like Dodge city).

The deforrestation problem, as I understand it, is mainly because of lack of local knoledge of maintaining soil quality.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

6
Educated?

Hardly.

I think people are forgetting a fundamental issue. Nobody on this board is qualified to speak about climate change with any level of authority. I certainly would not trust say, an EE, on a question regarding SE.

I've never understood this resistance to believing the experts that is ubiquitous in America. There is almost an animosity towards scientists simply doing their jobs and they are labeled "elitists". This cynical view of scientists who warn us of impending doom is entirely without merit. I'm not naive enough to suggest that no scientist has ulterior motives, but science is beautiful in that it is self-correcting. It is NOT perfect. It takes data and postulates the most likely scenario. It bases its findings on what others have learned for centuries and uses this to extrapolate into the future.

It is incredibly self-aggrandizing to believe we, as engineers, have more insight than the scientists who study this issue for a living. And let there be no doubt; ALL reputable scientists who have published papers in peer-reviewed journals (you know- the way science is SUPPOSED to work) agree that climate change is not only anthropomorphic, but the consequences of it may be irreversible.

This is not to say that ALL effects of global warming (climate change) will be negative. There will certainly be some winners. However, the science is in agreement that, overall, the effects will be negative for humanity as a whole.

Lets even throw out a ridiculously low probability of 5% of global warming threatening humanity. I'm going to plagiarize a line from a silly program I watched on the science channel  regarding an asteroid impacting the earth: "If there was a 5% chance there was a rattlesnake in your back yard, would you let your kids go play there?"

 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Please excuse my previous post- I've had a few Sunday beers :)

I meant to say anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic!

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

I think that the question is not if the scientists are wrong, but if politics has entered the scientific community and has made an incorrect push in the direction of the results.
With such a large change in our living standards as a issue we can hardly sit back and be passive on what solutions are being forced upon us.

Having said that, what other solutions have we not consitered? I've brought up a few, but they don't seem to be what the scientific community wants to hear.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

frv,

if you will recall your thermodynamics then you will realize that what the alatmists are saying is pretty much nonsense.  As an SE that may be way in your past, but the typical engineer has more actual science than many "climate scientists".  

While it may be true that there is a chance that AGW will be a problem, there is also a chance of the same order of magnitude that increasing CO2 will be beneficial to mankind.  The science just isn't robust enough to warrant hobbling civilization for some windmill tilting.

For instance, photons in the CO2 band are basically absorbed within 150 meters of the surface.  Doubling CO2 would make that 75 meters.  Hardly what the alarmists would have you believe.
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

4

Quote:

I've never understood this resistance to believing the experts that is ubiquitous in America
Not all Americans thought going into Iraq was a good thing.  Not all Americans think the scientific community (NASA, NAS, IPCC, NOAA, WHOI, LANL, Hadley Center, etc etc etc) is complicit in some wide-ranging conspiracy to create unnecessary alarm.   

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

LCruiser-

I am a recent grad and I recall my thermo just fine. Please enlighten me as to how the laws of thermodynamics prove that "what the alarmists are saying is pretty much nonsense".

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

frv,
The statement

Quote (frv):

It is incredibly self-aggrandizing to believe we, as engineers, have more insight than the scientists who study this issue for a living. And let there be no doubt; ALL reputable scientists who have published papers in peer-reviewed journals (you know- the way science is SUPPOSED to work) agree that climate change is not only anthropomorphic, but the consequences of it may be irreversible.
has to be the single stupidest thing that I've ever seen anyone post on these fora.  For every single peer-reviewed article that claims a climate change caused by man, there is at least one peer-reviewed article claiming that climate change is either not caused by man, not caused by GHG, or that the direction of the change is a decreasing global temperature.  My guess is that at the end of the day 100% of mass media, 100% of tree-hugging "celebrities", 80% of politicians, and something under 50% of climate scientists feel that so called anthropogenic-green-house-gas is a significant factor in global climate change.

As engineers we have an obligation to make up our own minds about the quality of the interpretation of published data and in fact the quality of the data itself.  I for one take this very seriously.  When I see papers that "account" for the urban island effect with a multiplier that varies by an order of magnitude from researcher to researcher I get a very strong feeling that one or both of the "scientists" are cooking their data to satisfy their grant provider.  

If we (as engineers, not scientists) are not allowed to question their numbers who is going to?  The peer review process is amazingly full of reviewers who share the opinion held by the publication's editors/publishers.  This results in little real scrutiny of papers that have conclusions that the publication supports and immediate rejection of papers with data counter to those conclusions.  No process that involves people will be perfect, but the peer-review process is far more a reflection of bias, funding, and politics than quality on this topic.

David

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

zdas04-

I am underwhelmed.

It gives me comfort that you disagree so vehemently with me. Please do me a favor and post a link or a copy of any peer reviewed article published in the last 10 years (when this subject has truly taken off) that questions global warming as anthropogenic.

I am not suggesting we have no right to question, but one must have the proper tools to question. It seems that many of these questioners have what amounts to an inferiority complex, as they are unable to deffer to authority on any subject. Rather, they'd rather use their tenuous understanding of a subject in order to make themselves appear informed. One of the most important aspects of being an engineer is recognizing when you do not know something. And as far as who questions the scientists, everybody does. But the most significant questioning comes from other scientists. You act as though all scientists had one goal and they all walk in unison. What would be more beneficial to a scientists career than to find data that proves GW is not occurring or that it is not anthropogenic? They'd give him a nobel prize. You think they don't do it because there is some vast conspiracy? They don't because the science doesn't support it.

By  the way, I have a very good understanding of the science behind global warming, but I am not going to sit on this forum and claim that I know more than the tens of thousands of scientists who study this. I've only read a few (quite honestly, only between 10 and 15) peer-reviewed scientific articles about this subject, and dozens of articles in non peer-reviewed journals relating to this subject. But regardless of my understanding, I trust science and the scientific method.

  

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Quote:

LCruiser
photons in the CO2 band are basically absorbed within 150 meters of the surface.  Doubling CO2 would make that 75 meters.
Can you provide a link or reference to support this statement?
Thanks.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
I think we agree that the scientific method is the right approach, but would dispute that it is being applied rigorously in this field. The problem is that it is very difficult to perform proper experiments in such a 'noisy' environment, where one has little control, and little desire, to make massive changes to calibrate your models. So the models are pretty shaky in the first place. However they are given undue respect because they support a world view that is currently popular, and was politically convenient.

The recent decade long halt in the rise of global temperatures, despite a continuing rise in CO2 levels, is one example of an inconvenient truth that is causing recalibration of models (aka adjusting fudge factors) around the world.

If there is no direct nexus between CO2 levels and global temperature (that is to say, there are compensating natural mechanisms such as activity of the carbon cycle, and changes in ocean currents, or that the CO2 effect was trivial in the first place) then there can obviously be no direct nexus between /anthropogenic/ CO2 and global temperature.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Here's what the IPCC says:

"Large uncertainties remain about how clouds might respond to global climate change."

and:

"Models differ considerably in their estimates of the strength of different feedbacks in the climate system."

Doesn't sound like they all agree to me, unless they all agree they don't know what's going on.

There are close to a million "pier reviewed" papers on global warming - you can pretty much find whatever you want.

Here is a window to what I view a realistic viewpoint, which has many, many links to non-alarmist climate science:
http://climatesci.org/

Don't peruse it unless you are willing to think for yourself.

...............

Here you go Pete:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2562

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
"Please do me a favor and post a link or a copy of any peer reviewed article published in the last 10 years (when this subject has truly taken off) that questions global warming as anthropogenic."

Veizer, J., Y. Godderis, and L. M. Francois, Evidence for
decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during
the Phanerozoic eon, Nature, 408, 698–701, 2000.

Enjoy.

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

LCruiser-

I'm trying to contain myself from some snide remark.

I really don't mean to come off as condescending but do you know what they mean by feedback systems?

Take, for example the melting of the ice caps. Less snow means less reflected sunlight which, in turn, leads to more absorbed  heat.  What they are talking about is a disagreement of how to quantify this effect. NOT whether or not GW is happening and NOT whether or not it is anthropogenic.

I never claimed that the science is complete in the sense that all aspects are fully understood. It is impossible to do this as it is, in fact, a terribly complex system. The science, however, is in agreement about global warming as a whole.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

LCruiser-

I'm still waiting on the thermodynamic reasons

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

fry -

Of course you are trying to contain yourself from snide remarks, and that's admirable, as snide remarks are usually what people descend to when they don't have anything else to go on.

Engineers are "applied scientists".  Don't underestimate your ability to understand the science - don't just take the dogma for granted.

Look at figure 10 here:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2000/annrev00.pdf

As for thermodynamics - think evaportranspiration and convection.  What would a 5% change in global precipitaton (equal to evaporation) do to the energy budget:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html

?

P.S. Feeback also means increased albedo from increased cloudiness, a result of increased convection.  It works both ways.   

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

GregLocock-

I am unwilling to pay $32 dollars to read this article, so I cannot give you an informed response.

However, from the abstract, two things stand out: 1) temperatures were taken only around the equator and 2) the authors themselves admit that the CO2 reconstruction may be flawed

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
Intro:

 But our data conflict with a temperature reconstruction using an energy balance model that is forced by reconstructed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations18. The results can be reconciled if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were not the principal driver of climate variability on geological timescales for at least one-third of the Phanerozoic eon, or if the reconstructed carbon dioxide concentrations are not reliable.


Conclusions:


Three possible implications of our findings are: (1) the reconstructed past CO2 levels are (partially) incorrect; (2) the role of pCO2 as the main driving force of past global (long-term) climate changes is questionable, at least during two of the four main cool climate modes of the Phanerozoic; and (3) climate models, which include numerous parametrizations, are calibrated to the present (an interstadial in an icehouse climate), and may thus be unable to reproduce correctly the past climate modes. We hope that our results will stimulate further work on these three issues.

Note 2, with qualifier. He is /questioning/ the role of (all) CO2 as a driver for global temperature change, which is actually rather more than what you were asking for.

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

LCruiser-

I am confused as to the purpose of your link. Did you read it fully?

This article in no way refutes the anthropogenic cause of global warming, much less global warming itself.

It is simply addressing the uncertainty of the water vapor feedback system in the climate models.

In their final remarks the authors state that "No empirical or model/data comparisons suggest that water vapor feedback is
negative..."

So where is the smoking gun?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

fry -
You apparently have just joined this thread lately.  NASA is not a reliable source - James Hansen, Alarmist in Chief, runs the place.  Satellite is the only consistent, non subjective way to measure the "global" temperature - which is actually not that relavent as it doesn't consider joules going into the ocean anyway.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

fry -

As an engineer you should be more concerned with facts than conclusions of others.  The fact shown here is that convection is poorly modeled.  That's what the point is.  The verbiage and obvious bias of the authors in their conclusions is irrelevent.
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

LCruiser - one thing I got from the link (quoted IPCC figure 4.1) is that the effects of CO2 are in fact saturated at the very center of the absorption band.  But these effects are not saturated off-center and therefore increases in CO2 do in fact limit the ability of heat to radiatively escape.  So, the bottom line, the center of the band statistic you mentioned, even if true, would not be relevant.  Nevertheless, I would be interested to see exactly where your 75m and 150m numbers come from. Can you provide a more specific roadmap to these numbers.
Thanks

Greg - you talked about the recent decade long halt in global warming.  NASA has a little something to say about that:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Quote:

"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.
And you can certainly see from inspection of the data presented at this link that there that there was indeed an "outlier" high temperature in 1998, as well as minimum of solar forcing in 2007.  And the surface temperature data presented in Figure 1a show no sign of flattening.

Now I know there are 15 bazillion different ways to monitor temperaature.  Is Nasa presenting only selective data as part of their conspiratorial efforts fool us ? (I assume that is how you would reconcile this link).  I assume if global temperautres really had stopped increasing in 1998 it would be quite a stunning turn of events since even those who disputed the causes admit the temperature had been increasing.  Naturally this stunning turn of events is documented in some reputable link somewhere in the world?  Not to mention peer-reviewed journals?  

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
No, I meant the current decade long cessation of global warming, which was reported in papers in my post 17 Jun 08 21:18  


Here's another paper, admittedly one year out of date by frv's reasoning

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 August 5; 94(16): 8335–8342.  PMCID: PMC33750

Copyright © 1997, The National Academy of Sciences of the USA
Colloquium Paper
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climatechange?
Richard S. Lindzen


The brief conclusion of this paper is that current GCMs are inadequate for the purpose of convincingly determining whether the small changes in TOA flux associated with an increase in CO2 are capable of producing significant climate change. However, we may not be dependent on uncertain models to ascertain climate sensitivity. Observations can potentially directly and indirectly be used to evaluate climate sensitivity to forcing of the sort produced by increasing CO2 even without improved GCMs. The observations needed for direct assessment are, indeed, observations that we are currently capable of making, and it is possible that the necessary observations may already be in hand, though the accuracy requirements may be greater than current data provide. Still, the importance of the question suggests that such avenues be adequately explored. Since the feedbacks involved in climate sensitivity are atmospheric, they are associated with short time scales. Oceanic delays are irrelevant, since observed surface temperatures are forcing the flux changes we are concerned with. The needed length of record must be determined empirically. Indirect estimates, based on response to volcanos, suggest sensitivity may be as small as 0.3–0.5°C for a doubling of CO2, which is well within the range of natural variability. This is not to suggest that such change cannot be detected; rather, it is a statement that the anticipated change is well within the range of what the earth regularly deals with. It is further noted that the common assertion that even small changes in mean temperature can lead to major changes in climate distribution is ill-founded and, likely, wrong.


So I think I've adequately demonstrated that there /are/ peer reviewed papers around that /question/ the link between atmospheric (never mind anthropogenic) CO2 and global warming. All you have to do is look for them rather than following links from the popular press and blogs.



 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

LCruiser-

Let me get this straight.

I assert that global warming is unquestionably anthropogenic. You respond with what I assume is some evidence to the contrary. I read your evidence and point out that the author's conclusions agree with my statement. Then you come back and state that I should ignore the author's conclusions.

OK.

The article, at best, simply questions the relative importance of the water vapor feedback system in the models. For the record, I don't dispute that this is a terribly difficult thing to model precisely. But neither the article's science, nor the author's conclusions dispute anthropogenic climate change.

You also state that "as an engineer you should be more concerned with facts than conclusions of others", yet I am to take you at your word that NASA is not reputable because one guy has the audacity to vociferously call for action on what is a scientific consensus.

OK

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

There seems to be two different issues being discussed here.  

One (related to frv's comments I believe) is whether there exist any papers questioning the link between CO2 and global warming.  You say you have one and I take your word for it even though I can't access it.  It doesn't surprise me.  What would surprise me would be 100% consensus.    As a passing comment, it seems to me from the quoted portion that this author is disputing the magnitude of the CO2 influence ("may be as small as 0.3–0.5°C for a doubling of CO2") rather than the existence of a CO2 influence.  

But that was not my question.  What I asked about was the claim that global warming (regardless of cause) stopped 10 years ago.  If true, it would seem pretty relevant to what we are discussing.  If true, I would have thought we'd have heard a lot more details and specifics by now (the number of details I have heard thus far supporting this claim are 0... they may be out there but I'm still waiting to seem them).   Do you believe it?  Do you have anything resembling a proof or reference for this claim?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

frv posted while I was typing. To clarify, my post was intended as reponse to Greg (although anyone is welcome to respond).

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

GregLocock-

You are right.

I forgot about Dr. Lindzen.

I guess I forgot to include "reputable scientists" in my demand. Dr. Lindzen is a highly paid oil industry consultant and has been so for many years.

I know, I know..  "he's an MIT professor..  best engineering school in the world..". Doesn't make him honest.

BTW- he has published more recent papers, so the 10-year arbitrary cut-off would have been met had you chosen any of the others.

Anyway, I cede the point on this.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
electricpete, the non-warming data was published last year, check the leads I mention in my post 17 Jun 08 21:18  

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Dang!
Last week I was watching a Euro 2008 semi final when they lost the pictures (due to a thunderstorm)and when they got the signal back two goals had been scored.
This weekend I lose my internet connection and when I get back here I find I have missed a fist fight.

frv,
you aren't that 26 year old finish engineer Tuuka Somonen, who showed a similar set of mannerisms in this blog:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/pgutis/public_enemies.html or are you? Remarkable behavioural match (and approach to debate)
Just curious.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are suggesting that as engineers, no one here has the right to question the scientist's accuracy, honesty or profficiency. You then also seem to suggest that you are the arbiter of which scientists we should believe.

Great opening. Not afraid to beard a few venerated members eh?
Venerated doesn't, in the internet, necessarily mean old and thus lacking agility or the ability to mount a robust, though usually polite, defence to such tactics.

Looks like a good fight developing but usually the members know when they are wasting their time so unless they meet an antagonist who can give them a good intellectual or technical workout, we ain't going anywhere and so far you haven't lived up to your initial promise. (again, hence the query if you are he).

Scientists are usually wrong.
Engineers are usually more rational than to be overwhelmed by someone else's belief in their own rightness.
Indeed, the one thing they teach in sales training is that most decisions are based on emotion, the old privative brain stem is the vulnerability of most people.
Except, that is, engineers. Engineers rarely make emotional decisions. This is going to make it tough to generate a fight based on rudeness.

To make a good fight of it you are going to need to be a very resourceful engineer and find some very robust logical and demonstrable verifiable evidence and heh, bring your own bottle. If you have a strong view then you bring on your evidence, don't just get obstreperous and expect everyone else to regurgitate a whole list of references that have already been trotted out about 50 times in these various threads.

Yes, accept it, scientists are usually wrong and they know it. That's how they work. Indeed, it is usually more difficult to find a scientist who will say this is the reality (rather than a currently valid working hypothesis) than it is to find an honest politician.
This is how they work (it is mathematicians like "proofs" but are doomed never to find it since mathematics is also based on assumptions). Scvientists progress from one "working hypothesis" to the next.

AGW long ago passed from being a workable hypothesis to a failed one by any scientific standards. You might aswell be still proclaimg the plum pudding model of the universe (or atom?).
It doesn't mean AGW is right or wrong, just that the Hansens of this world are having a hard time proving it with doctored temperature data and computer models.
Calls for dissenters to be jailed isn't helping their credibility any.

There is no unanimity in science.
Nor is it about consensus; how many scientists in your gang vs those in mine.

Anyway, I haven't seen such good internet fight shaping up since the biggy on the electrical engineers fora a few years back which resulted in some serious blood on the carpet... but I'll mention no names, too many posters were blue on blue victims of the fallout.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

electricpete -

The point of the saturation is that photons in the CO2 band are captured quickly, and as pretty much accepted - that is "consensus" a doubling of CO2 will increase the temp by about one degree.  Due to the response of flora and Henry's law, the question of whether or not we will ever get to a doubling even at "business as usual" is significant.

The real question, however, is about feedbacks.  My point is that we know basically nothing robust about convection and the ensuing cloud reaction.  I will look for a reference on the ~ 100 meter distance of travel of a photon in the CO2 band.  However, even if it's 300 meters, the reaction is the same.  A CO2 molecule accepts the photon, and on the average (at sea level) has 7,000 collisions with adjacent inert molecules before it would re-emit an equivalent photon, which basically just turns the photon energy into heating the lower atmosphere.  Aha! somebody says, "that's what I mean - GLOBAL WARMING!!!  Yes, there is global warming.  There has always been "global warming" due to CO2 in the atmosphere.  What controls it is convection - in other words, hot air rises.  Evaporation loads up the lower atmosphere with water vapor, the air is warmed and rises, adiabatic cooling condenses the air into clouds releasing more heat so clouds rise further, and voila! the heat, as latent heat, is moved upward from the surface.  Always has, always will.  

Convection is the key, and as seen from the basic energy budget I showed before:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
latent heat is responsible for about 78 w/m^2 of cooling - corresponding to the global average of just under a meter of rainfall per year.  A 5% increase, then, in global precipitation, more than offsets the effect of CO2.

Recapping, then: Yes, CO2 warms the atmosphere by capturing photons in a narrow band, and will cause global warming - at about one degree per doubling of CO2 concentration.  Is that one degree going to be catastrophic, or will it be more than offset by the gains in food supply due to increased flora?  Nobody knows, because nobody knows what the feedbacks are going to do - except global rainfall is increasing.
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

jmw-

I wish I were still 26. I've never been to Turkey.

No, I am not suggesting that we have no right to question. As I have mentioned previously, I think we need to possess the proper tools to question intelligently.

I worked in a scientific environment briefly. My best friend is a scientist. To sit here and assert that we/he manipulated data to agree with our/his preconceptions is preposterous. In fact, my friend's research results on his current project (not related to climate change in any way- he's BME) do not agree with his initial postulation. You know what he's doing? Giving lectures on his results. NOT manipulating or hiding data. Pointing out an obvious and very serious conflict of interest by the most recognizable and, admittedly, influential global warming dismisser is hardly postulating myself as the arbiter.

If I come across as loud, it is because it really irks me when people pick and choose a very select few facts to make an argument, as opposed to looking at the evidence as a whole. Then I'm thrown a series of non-sequitur arguments abut the models not being precise the ocean absorbing heat (of course it will!!!  that's one of the problems!!) and an outright fallacy about global temperatures not rising over the last decade.

This whole thread reminds of creationism advocates. Ignoring the fact that there is evidence in nearly every -if not every- branch of science pointing toward evolution, in order to hold on to a belief that must be so dear to their hearts they would feel purposeless if proven wrong.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

frv
and yet that is exactly the attutude that comes across in your posts, that there is some axiomatic "truth" that some people are failing to see.

You think you are the evolutionist rather than a creationist and yet many of the opponents of AGW would suggest that it is the AGW supporters who are the creationists and many argue that AGW is more of a religion than science, Lysenkoism in the extreme.

Data manipulation is exactly what it is being alleged is what Michael Mann is actually indulging in and it is his data that underpins the whole AGW argument.
You have surely visited this website:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2815
and this one:
http://www.surfacestations.org/
These two websites show serious concerns about the quality of the data and the degree to which it is being manipulated.   What is alarming is that some data has now been corrupted by these manipulations and that were it not for the fact that some independent organisations had archived the original data, some of the manipulations would be less capable of investigation.

Even if we had reliable data, we would then have to consider the vulnerabilities in theories that surround it.
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Even with reliable (historical) data, only correlation is possible.  Models based on correlation cannot predict the future.

- Steve

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

"Models based on correlation cannot predict the future."

As a general statement, that is simply not true.  As long as the system dynamics don't change, I should be able to predict an outcome based on historical data (providing that there is a strong correlation between the input and output).

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

"As long as the system dynamics don't change"

Possibly, but what if you don't know what the input is or will be?  Correlation is not causation (to use a well worn phrase).

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

If I'm not mistaken, I think that was SomptingGuy's point. We don't know if the system dynamics will change. If they do, then correlation models are worthless.

Murphy's law may apply here.

V

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Quote (josephv):

17 Jun 08 10:42
what I am looking for is scientific papers that make the conclusion that you stated:
i.e. that "global warming" has stopped for 10 years now
Can you send us scientific papers that concludes this?

Quote (GregLocock):

17 Jun 08 21:18

Peer reviewed article in Nature ....

Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector

Quote (GregLocock):

29 Jun 08 20:55
  The recent decade long halt in the rise of global temperatures, despite a continuing rise in CO2 levels, is one example of an inconvenient truth that is causing recalibration of models (aka adjusting fudge factors) around the world.

Quote (electricpete):

29 Jun 08 23:06
Naturally this stunning turn of events is documented in some reputable link somewhere in the world?  Not to mention peer-reviewed journals?    


Quote (GregLocock):

30 Jun 08 0:02
No, I meant the current decade long cessation of global warming, which was reported in papers in my post 17 Jun 08 21:18  


Quote (electricpete):

30 Jun 08 0:53
What I asked about was the claim that global warming (regardless of cause) stopped 10 years ago...Do you have anything resembling a proof or reference for this claim?

Quote (GregLocock):

30 Jun 08 2:50
electricpete, the non-warming data was published last year, check the leads I mention in my post 17 Jun 08 21:18

What I see in your post  17 Jun 08 21:18 is reference to the paper Nature 453, 84-88 (1 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06921; Received 25 June 2007; Accepted 14 March 2008; Corrected 8 May 2008 "Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector" by N. S. Keenlyside1, M. Latif1, J. Jungclaus2, L. Kornblueh2 & E. Roeckner2

with three links:

You may be able to get it here
1 - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5876/595

More generally readable

2 - http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature

3 - http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/05/04/5466976-sun.php


Link 1 is the actual article.   An abstract here;
http://npg.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/nature06921.pdf

Quote:

The climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on decadal timescales that have large societal consequences. Prominent examples include hurricane activity in the Atlantic1, and surface-temperature and rainfall variations over North America2, Europe3 and northern Africa4. Although these multidecadal variations are potentially predictable if the current state of the ocean is known5, 6, 7, the lack of subsurface ocean observations8 that constrain this state has been a limiting factor for realizing the full skill potential of such predictions9. Here we apply a simple approach—that uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions with a climate model. Skill is improved significantly relative to predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state10, particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.


Did you notice, the punchline in the bolded portion concerns prediction about future behavior.   Nothing whatsoever about a halt in global warming over the previous decade.

Now, let's take a look at your other link (3) from a journalist for the Toronto Sun:
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/05/04/5466976-sun.php

Quote:

German climate scientists have just published a study in the respected science journal Nature suggesting global warming has stopped and will not resume until at least 2015.

In other words (my words, not theirs) contrary to the received wisdom of Al Gore's simplistic and propagandistic An Inconvenient Truth, global temperatures aren't moving in lockstep with rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the science isn't settled and we don't know everything we need to know.

Based on new, computer-generated climate models that factor in natural ocean currents, the researchers conclude: "Our results suggest that global surface temperatures may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic (man-made) warming."

Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences said if their calculations are correct, the 0.3 degree Celsius global temperature rise predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change over the next decade won't happen.

"We believe that ocean currents and systems could, in the short term, change global warming patterns, and even mean temperatures," he told National Geographic News.

TWO DECADES
Since there has actually been no global warming since 1998, that means there would be an almost two-decade span where concentrations of GHG emissions, most notably carbon dioxide, continued to intensify in the atmosphere, without global temperatures following suit.

Did you see what the journalist did?  He started with an article that predicts no global warming from now until 2015  (as a result of shorter term factors which the scientists believes only temporarily offset the effects of AGW by the way!)  and twists it around to make you think that the peer-reviewed article was supporting the urban myth that global warming halted 10 years ago
How did the journalist do it? He didn't lie. He just clevely weaved his words.   He started by attributing to the scientests a comment that "global warming has stopped and will not resume until at least 2015." – OK that part is sort of true  – the scientists are suggesting the warming  is stopping now.... not a big difference between is stopping and has stopped.

Then the journalist makes some comments about "(my words, not theirs) "  on another aspect to provide himself licence to subsequently mix his own commentary into the article.

Then he goes to a direct quote from the authors.  And then in the next full sentence after the direct quote he jumps right into his  own words.  "Since there has actually been no global warming since 1998..."

It certainly leaves the impression that the discussion about the previous decade came from the article.   But review of the abstract clearly shows it did not.

Was there intent to deceive on the part of the journalist?  I would say so.   It makes a much more interesting story to say global warming stopped 10 years ago, and then rant for awhile about how the IPCC is covering it up than it does to talk about what some scientists are predicting in the future.

Was the journalist effective and successful in his attempt to deceive?   I'll leave that to you Greg.  Did he fool you?    Or is there something I missed (entirely possible) which explains how the Nature article link appeared in response to questions about the halt of global warming 10 years ago.  (if I have misunderstood your meaning, I will gladly apologize).

As far as I can tell so far, the only person saying that global warming stopped 10 years ago is a journalist.  And it seems pretty obvious to me this particular journalist is not trustworthy since he tried to present those facts in a distored manner suggesting they came from a peer reviewed journal.   I have no doubt there are 10,000 other equally dubious places on the internet where I can find this rumour repeated.

Does anyone have a credible source supporting the claim that global warming halted 10 years ago in 1998 ?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

2
I also find it interesting that those who post here most vigorously against the possibility of AGW are those associated with the automotive and/or petroleum industries.  Bias?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

"Does anyone have a credible source supporting the claim that global warming halted 10 years ago in 1998 ?"

How about a strictly objective source, with none of the secret sleight of surface observations?  Satellite only.

Check here:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

and do a linear fit of the temps from 1998 until now.  The trend is minus 0.21 deg per century.

Of course you could just do the last 5 years too.  The trend there is minus 2.0 degrees per century.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Ok. Data without interpretation.  I am no expert to interpret this particular raw data (are you?).  I  look to those who publish peer-reviewed literature to help interpret this data.

Your data is labeled simply "Lower Troposphere".  Interpretation of lower troposphere temperature measurements by satellite are addressed here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1114772v1?rbfvrToken=ff16cf7b93d3a28763d423ba3f06b8b56cfe37f7

Quote:

Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to the surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal correction to prevent drifts in the satellites' measurement time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal correction that, in the tropics, is of the opposite sign from that previously applied. When we use this correction in the calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent with to that found in surface temperature and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature.

It may not be the whole picture, but it suggests there is some understanding that must be applied with the data.  When these researchers reviewed and corrected the data based on their understanding, their peer-reviewed paper concluded that it was consistent with surface warming in the tropics.  I didn't see other mention of further north or south.

This particular datapoint suggests we don't quite declare an end to global warming just yet.  Maybe you have some other peer reviewed article or abstract to help us understand this data further?  

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

melone,

My comment about "models" based purely on correlation goes deeper than the explanation given by Lcruiser and vc66.

A correlation could be simply coincidence (unlikely) or (more likely) based on an unknown connecting mechanism (e.g. correlations between criminal activity and church attendance, ice cream production and rape).

- Steve

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Electric Pete -

Whoa pardner.  You done flipped this whole argument over.  I'm not saying global warming has "quit".  I'm saying that maybe natural variability is larger than the signal and will remain larger than the signal.  Basic physics gives a temperature rise, based on a doubling of CO2, of one degree or so (all other things being equal, which of course they're not).  According to the satellite data (whether you chooose to believe it or not), natural variability has caused a decrease of 3/4 of that just in the last 15 months.
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Quote (Lcruiser):


16 Jun 08 15:58
.....all other things being constant (which of course they aren't, evidenced by the fact "global warming" has stopped for 10 years now) will warm the planet by from 1 to 2 deg C.

Quote (electricpete):


30 Jun 08 21:55
Does anyone have a credible source supporting the claim that global warming halted 10 years ago in 1998 ?

Quote (Lcruiser):


30 Jun 08 23:05
"Does anyone have a credible source supporting the claim that global warming halted 10 years ago in 1998 ?"

How about a strictly objective source, with none of the secret sleight of surface observations?  Satellite only.

Check here:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

and do a linear fit of the temps from 1998 until now.  The trend is minus 0.21 deg per century.

Of course you could just do the last 5 years too.  The trend there is minus 2.0 degrees per century

Quote (Lcruiser):


1 Jul 08 4:55
Whoa pardner.  You done flipped this whole argument over.  I'm not saying global warming has "quit".  
I'm the one who flipped?   It may not have been your intent, but it sure looks like you were supporting the suggestion carried in this thread and in the press that global warming  "halted" 10 years ago.  Thanks for clarifying your position.   I agree the history of  the lower tropsphere temperatures recorded by satellite is statistically flat (no change)..    It does not match the trends for higher altitudes and for surface temperatures, which do show statistically significant increases.  Again the article quoted above explains part of this contradiction.   Among all these indications, surface temperatures are widely considered as the most reliable.  

What about you Greg?  Would you care to respond to my post 30 Jun 08 23:05 ?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

I'm sorry. My last comment should have referenced my post 30 Jun 08 21:55

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Electric Pete,

You must have missed jmw's post of 30 June at 1300, since you're still talking about surface stations.  

The claim that the surface stations are the most reliable is ludicrous.

Also, yes, I apparently was not clear.  When you are driving a car and you come on a stop sign, you stop momentarily.  That does not mean you quit going wherever you're going.  Not that you are necessarily going where you think you are going...

If you're convinced about global warming, here's your chance to make a half million dollars!
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

P.S. You will notice that all these claims about future GW being on hiatus didn't come about until this last decade.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Here is an example of why I have trouble believing that man is the reason for global warming (ignoring the argument regarding whether warming is happening or not):

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=8ffa0bd4-2aa3-4c0e-82de-f45972f014cc

Part 1 of the article details how the southern half of Greenland used to be covered by a large forest.  "Extensive spruce forests used to cover the southern half of Greenland, according to a Canadian study that gives a remarkable glimpse of the icy island's green past and possible future.  The work, by a team at the University of Quebec at Montreal, shows the impact of past climate warming on the massive ice sheet was much greater than previously believed."  
They've established that Greenland used to be warm enough to support a large forest, and that there was past climate warming.  Why is it so unbelievable that we are not just experiencing another round of natural warming now?  We're still much cooler than when there vast forests covering half of Greenland.

Part 2 of the article: "The journal also features a second report showing how North America's climate suddenly flipped from a cold to a warm state at the end of the last ice age, with dramatic changes in atmospheric circulation in as little as a single year.  The shifts happened so quickly it is "as if someone had pushed a button," says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen of the University of Copenhagen, who led the international team that found the distinct signature of the sudden changes in a Greenland ice core. There were two huge temperature spikes in the Northern Hemisphere at the end of last ice age -- one 14,700 years ago associated with a 10-degree Celsius rise in temperatures over 50 years. Then icy conditions returned before another abrupt warming about 11,700 years ago."

If we've found evidence of large rises in temperature 15,000 years ago when we couldn't have had a large influence on it, why is it so inconceivable that the current rise in temperatures is solely caused by man-made CO2?  Why are we so convinced that the only reason the climate could possibly change is because of something we have done?

Bob
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

With all of the uncertainty  and disagreement regarding this issue, I think it would be much better to spend money determining the best way to compensate for and live with the changes than to throw it into the egocentric attempt at stopping them.  The chances of helping the populace deal with the changes are much better than to gamble on preventing the crisis de jour.  Regardless of what happens, someone is going to be wrong.

Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - Robert Hunter
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Ataloss -

You illustrate a good point.  Over the last few decades as Earth warmed it was blamed on increasing CO2 - and projected that temperatures would rise faster and faster.

Well, now that we have CO2 concentration *way* beyond what it was and the forcing should be extremely large, global warming has taken a hiatus.  Why?  We went from certain Armegeddon in, what, another 3 or 4 years, to "well maybe natural cycles will overcome *Global Warming*" for um, well, after they retire.

How Conveeenieent.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

So how do we explain global warming on Mars? Is that because of CO2 caused by man?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

I think there is an interesting symmetry on both "sides" of the argument.  

There are intelligent people who honestly believe both "sides".

People tend to think their "side" is supported by science.

People tend to think the experts on their "side" are credible and those on the other side are not credible and have some ulterior motive.

I put "side" in quotes, because it's not the right word.  Both sides do in fact have a very wide spectrum of views contained within them.  I think most of us recognize this when we hear a comment "deniers think/say X" or "alarmists think/say Y" uttered by someone on the other "side" in attempt to characterize our "side".   We are probably not as concious of these differences when we make/hear generalizations about what the other "side" believes.  We tend to focus on the most extreme / absurd comments we have heard from the other side and assume it represents the monolithic view of the other side.

While we are generally very polite and respectful to people who disagree on other topics, we degenerate quickly to sarcasm and name-calling and the like when we talk about global warming on this forum.

What does it all mean? Beats me.

I had a sarcastic rant to post, but I decided not to post it. Maybe tomorrow.  Maybe it's time to take a break from global warming and think about the temperature of my pool and my beer.
 

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

I am nervous about predictions of temperature change which are smaller than the "corrections" made to the source data.  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
Hmm

The steps according to the story as I see it are

1) Global temperatures are increasing, as a long term trend

2) Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, as a long term trend

3) Anthropogenic CO2 is a significant contributor to (2)

4) (2) is a dominant contributor to (1)


I have no problem with (2) as a historical trend, if not as a prediction.

I would agree that (1) is correct as a historical trend, if not as a prediction.

But, the AGW story is that 3 and 4 are good 'consensed' science.

My argument is that 3 is duff, anthropogenic CO2 is a small percentage of the natural carbon cycle, which is an enormous feedback cycle (that may or may not include temperature). 4 is duff because they claim that the timescale for CO2 effects on temp are short term, yet recent increases in CO2 are not reflected in increasing temps. We already know that there are far more significant contributors to global warming than CO2.

On top of this is the assumption that increased temp or CO2 is ipso facto a bad thing. IMO they are different, not worse. I agree that rising sea levels are inconvenient or worse, for some people. More food is convenient, or a lifesaver, for many many others. Historically HumBe's numbers are better supported in warm ages than Ice Ages.
 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

There are indeed deniers and alarmists (aka "Believers").  There are not many deniers.  However, in the middle, are the skeptics.  It's similar to a christian lumping agnostics and atheists together.

Just because I don't believe the science is "settled" doesn't mean I believe it's not happening.  I originally started out believing it, but as I got deeper and deeper into the science realized it's simplistic and doesn't hold together.  jmw's point is good - the signal is smaller than the "corrections".
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

On the subject of weather stations:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/sydneys-weather-station-150-meters-makes-all-the-difference/
An interesting example of the whole problem of what has happened to weather stations around the world.
Note that the surface stations looked at and found seriously wanting are in the USA and, in this example, in Australia.
One has to wonder just how good the temperature measurements are from elsewhere.

The sting in the tail of this article is that because of the shift in the weather station with its consequent 0.7degC shift in recorded temperatures:

Quote:

As mentioned in the article, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology wisely chose to exclude this station from "climatic studies".

However that doesn't stop Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS from using it, as it is in fact part of his GISTEMP database, see the plot below from GISS:

The great thing to remember about most temperature measurements is that what you measure is the temperature of the sensor. You just hope that it is at the same temperature as its surroundings, which is what you are interested in.

Of course, here we have an illustration that what the surface stations are measuring is the temperature of the surface station - we have to hope that it has some meaningful relationship with the local environment. As this article clearly shows, the potential is that "local" means less than the distance between the old location and the new   or in this case, less than 150 metres.
This suggests that what is really needed is to saturate the surface of the earth with temperature sensors or, to saturate selected areas in such a manner that we can develop a meaningful understanding of how to interpret fewer more widely spaced sensors.

 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

People here continuously confuse risk mitigation with the prevention of certain disaster.  The AGW argument is about the former, whereas the latter is set up as a straw man for the purpose of discrediting the effort.

There are folks here who want solid proof of AGW before they'll asquiesce to spending a cent of their own money to do something about it.  The climate is unlikely to give us the benefit of such proof until (long) after the fact.  Arguing with folks like this is like wrestling with a pig:  it's merely frustrating until you realize that the pig LIKES it- then it becomes infuriating.

AGW or no, we should and indeed MUST do something about the alarming rate at which we are squandering our finite, non-renewable reserves of fossil carbon.

There is yet another type of alarmism here:  the conclusion that taking measures to stem AGW will ruin our economies and standard of living.  If I were living in the US, I would be lobbying my government hard to do whatever is possible to reduce the export of substantial amounts of the nation's treasure, not to mention the blood of its soldiers, to maintain the flow of oil from those who won the geological lottery.

Increased oil prices have done far more good than all the debate on this issue.  But the market does nothing to price atmospheric emissions, whereas we all pay for their consequences- whether AGW is one of them or not.  Until this "problem of the commons" is solved, this debate will remain worthless hot air.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
"AGW or no, we should and indeed MUST do something about the alarming rate at which we are squandering our finite, non-renewable reserves of fossil carbon."

But that is a totally different argument. Don't confuse the two.

Peak oil (et al) is a self evident absurdity. I can solve that one for you in a minute using known technology. Coal will last until HumBe is a long forgotten experiment. It is only a meaningful threat if AGW exists.

Back to the sensible arguments please.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

I see another divide in that there are two ideas on what must be done, nothing, and go back to living in caves. i don't suscribe to either.

From the facts it appeare to me that global change is not caused by man, it is more likely caused by the sun. (notice that the sun spots have decreased about 10 years ago).

If we undertake any solutions we need to consiter the least cost, and lower economic impact solutions.

Putting black solar panels in a nearly white desert dosen't really sound that good. (However on building may not be so bad).

Oil is another topic I don't want to approch right now, as my thoughts have nothing to do with climate change.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

um, what's the undesireable effect of putting black things in the white desert, even if we assume that solar heating is the primary source of global temperature change?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Putting black things in a white desert - particularly on the required scale, would seriously alter circulation patterns.  Like all "Global Warming" solutions, the cure is likely worse than the disease.

 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

the linked page doesn't seem to have any direct commentary on the placement of solar panels in the desert.  do you have a more precise link?
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Nope.  Ya gotta read between the lines.  It's albedo.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Greg:  I agree with you about "peak oil".  But as the easy, light, sweet reserves dry up, the remaining crap (ultimately leaving us with coal) gets tougher and tougher to use- read more CO2 per watt, and WAY more CO2 per litre of useful chemical feedstock liquid materials.  Yes, we can utilize these poorer reserves with "existing technology", but it still sucks.

I'm torn about carbon sequestration- it too will ensure that we burn through our fossil reserves even faster.  I also agree completely that the market is distorted for many of the fossil fuel alternatives, such that it's tough to determine whether they're a help or a hindrance.  But until we start taxing carbon, the economics of energy will never make sense.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

in that case, I'm inclined to disagree with your suppositions.

 ("Putting black things in a white desert - particularly on the required scale, would seriously alter circulation patterns.  Like all "Global Warming" solutions, the cure is likely worse than the disease").
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Carbon is doled out to the biosphere, and sinks back at the bottom of the ocean.  CO2 is the base of the food chain.  To sequester it means we are wasting it.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

ivymike -
So, are you disagreeing that a darker colored surface reflects less light, or that surface albedo affects atmospheric circulation?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Look at it this way:

Energy use in the US is
100,000,000,000,000,000 btu's per year
That's 3,300,000,000,000 joules per second (watts)
The typical solar cell puts out about 50 watts per square meter, so we need
66,000,000,000 square meters of solar cells to power the US.

That's a square 250 km on a side.

LA alone would need a square 65 km on a side.  Where are you going to put it?

If albedo goes from 0.9 to 0.4, that's 50% of 350 w/m^2, or 175 w'm^2, or 3 and a half times the energy consumption of the US, which you have now released into the atmosphere.

 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

CO2 isn't the base of the food chain:  sunlight is.  CO2 is just a recycled feedstock like water and the various nutrients.  Don't forget that life sequestered the very carbon that we're dumping back into the atmosphere in a geological nanosecond.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Sunlight comes from outside Earth.  CO2 doesn't.  Semantics I suppose.  

The fact that life stored Carbon underground doesn't mean there will be plenty to go around if we start to sequester it.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

LCruiser, from this thread and others I'm keenly aware that you're quite an expert on hot air, so it's not without trepidation that I join you in weenie-waving.  

Some things missing from your "arguments" so far:
* albedo of a "white" desert, versus that of black solar panels (white vs black doesn't tell the whole story, the answer is probably somewhere around 0.4ish for white desert and 0.1ish for solar panels)
* net effect of solar panels on local heating - just because 90% of light is absorbed doesn't mean that 90% of the energy is immediately re-radiated as heat - if the panels were 15% efficient then you'd have an effective albedo more like .23 (vs .4 for the baseline desert)
* waste heat offset by use of the solar panels - if you used a conventional powerplant to generate the same amount of electricity, the waste heat generated would be approximately equal to the amount of electrical power generated, which brings us to a state of roughly equivalent heat release into the atmosphere
* environmental (warming and otherwise) impact of burning fuels to generate the electricity - the solar panels don't contribute to your ozone non-attainment days, they don't emit CO2, and you don't have to scrub sulfur out of their exhaust


 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

But how much do they cost per square meter?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

That was funny :)

 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

You know, if we did stop reflecting a proportion of the received energy back into space then naturally enough the planet will retain more heat.
More heat means higher temperatures.
You know, this will be a difficult balancing act. The assumption is that this energy will replace fossil fuel energy but unless the underlying problem is dealt with, pretty soon those vast acreages of solar panels will be competing with food production and biofuels and all the while energy use will continue to increase.
Pretty soon we'll be back to fossil fuels and solar power and nuclear to power all the aircon units so people can live and work in the "deserts".

The real problem with doing anything about the climate is the same old problem with doing anything about anything. Pretty soon the law of unintended consequences kicks in with a vengeance.

Just about every time man tries to manipulate the environment or an ecosystem or even a national park, everything goes to hell in a big way.
The track record isn't good and when confronted with a task like confronting AGW you better believe this is the biggest c*** up of all times heading our way.

And while we are at it, we have scientists proposing artificial volcanoes to generate lots of extra sulphur into the atmosphere to combat global warming i.e. to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface.....


Gee! where do we sign up for the underground shelters compete with arms caches?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
Some quick sums

2 billion first worlders use say 10 times the energy per capita of 5 billion third worlders

so total energy useage is 25 units.

We want to reduce that by 10% (random target)

That leaves us with 22.5 units.

I can see no moral justification for the following, but let's restrict the third worlders to merely trebling their energy usage. So they've taken 15, leaving 7.5 for us.

That's about 4 units each, ie we need to (a) prevent the third world from increasing their energy usage overmuch, and (b) reduce our own energy useage by 60%. (b) might be containable, but I wouldn't be buying Boeing shares, or expecting to see much concrete or aluminium around, (a) is politically preposterous.

The reward for this Stakhovanite (and unlikely) effort will be a slight reduction in the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2.

Coincidentally I read this this morning. A fairly neat summary of an Australian perpsective on the global warming thing.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23959422-14622,00.html


 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Quote (GregLocock):


3) Anthropogenic CO2 is a significant contributor to (2)
4) (2) is a dominant contributor to (1)
.....
My argument is that 3 is duff, anthropogenic CO2 is a small percentage of the natural carbon cycle, which is an enormous feedback cycle (that may or may not include temperature)

Let's look at #3.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere

Wiki tells  me the total amount of CO2 in the air today is 3,000 gigatonnes.
The increase in the last century or so is 30% or about 1,000 gigatons.

We are spewing about 30 billion tons per year into the air from burning fossil fuel.  Let's not even add in the effect of deforestation and stick with 30 billion tons per year as conservatively low number for man's effect on CO2.

At 30 billion tons per year, how many years would it take to create the amount of the increase (1,000 gigatons) ?

1000 gigatons / 30 billion tons/yr  ~ 30 years
(Double check my math – and forgive me if I have intermixed tons and metric tonnes or whatever– this is just an order of magnitude discussion).

Well, we have certainly been dumping CO2 into the air for more than 30 years, but not at the full 30 gigaton/yr rate.   And some of it has decayed (I think the half-life is 40 years).  So, our contribution gets close but maybe not quite enough to explain the whole thing

But there is also the temperature feedback cycle.  Increased CO2 brings increased temperature brings increased CO2 etc.     Surely that has played a role in the CO2 increase since we have been getting warmer over this last century (that was your item 1 so I don't have to argue that one thank goodness).    So the "feedback" of increased temperature might serve to magnify the added CO2.  Rolling this back into the equation, might cancel out the factors like decay and make the conclusion that man has caused the increase reasonble.

But now you cry foul... how do I know the CO2 caused the temperature to increase and not the other way around?   Well let's think about this.  CO2 and temperature move togehter in the historical record in the same direction.  CO2 historically lagged temperature.   But at the particular point in time (2008),  the CO2 concentration is HIGHER THAN AT ANY TIME IN THE LAST 800,000 YEARS, while the temperature is nowhere near it's high point of that period.   It suggests that the CO2 is not fully driven by temperature this time... on this occasion they are again moving together, but this time the initiator / leading /driving variable is CO2 and the temperature is the lagging / driven feedback variable.  (a break from the historical pattern but one that is expected if CO2 were driven by an influence other than temperature.... i.e. mankind)


Well, I will certainly admit the last paragraph about feedback is a lot of supposition.  And the last paragraph discussion also neglects the fact that there certainly are other factors which can drive temperature change (a fact that NO-ONE DISPUTES).  But even without the feedback discussion of the last paragraph, we can see that we are in the ballpark – 30 years addition at the current rate (neglecting feedback and the variation in addition rate) gives us the 30% increase in CO2 that we have seen in the last century or so.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Maybe a picture is worth a thousand years.  
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Blue = temperature
Red = CO2.

Look at the unprecedented increase in CO2 at the very end of the graph.  You believe the change occurred (that is your item #2).

Something clearly changed dramatically at the end of this graph to have that effect on CO2.  

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

"Maybe a picture is worth a thousand years."
Musta been a Freudian slip.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

How about that sea weed bloom in China?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

The Chinese attribute it to rising water temperatures.  
But that's them, not me.  And they didn't say it was global.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

The quote I was referring to:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23935021-2,00.html

Quote:

Australian sailing team director Michael Jones said with the climate on the Yellow Sea coastline warming up, the rise in sea temperatures was causing the massive algae build-up.
An Australian, not a Chinese person.
Other reports of course mention pollution, natural causes etc.
Not a very relevant subject, just wanted to head off any accusation that I was making stuff up.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Increasing industrialisation means: power generation: means cooling water use from rivers: means local increases in water temperature.

By the way, as I understand it, the "greenhouse gas effect" is not linear. As CO2 concentration increases, the effect plateaus. And CO2 still lags temperature.
Potent stuff though (not when compared to water vapour, methane etc.), its there at 0.03%. Of course, NOX is there at 0.01% but is said to be 3 times more powerful as a green house gas than CO2.

Of course, not much we can do about NOX.
While fossil fuel burning accounts for a significant proportion of anthrogoenic CO2 release, it is less than 1% of athropogenic NOX; most is from agriculture. Anthropogenic NOX is around 2 terratons per annum and natural NOX is around 15 terratons per annumn; mostly from bacterial action and electrical storms.
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

I didn't think that "NOx" (NO and NO2) was a significant greenhouse gas, but Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is.  (NOx contributes to ground-level ozone / smog and is a pollutant emitted by combustion engines)


 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

So do I understand correctly that we need more smoke to reduce solar radiation?
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

If someone suggested that, I didn't see it.  NOx and smoke are different things, if that's what you were referring to.

 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

He may have been referring to the NOx/particulate tradeoff, having confused NOx with N2O?

- Steve

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

N2O is a different issue which should showup as acid rain, which to an extent is good for plants.

Smog, or smoke reduces radiation from sun light by reflecting it. It also should reflect infra red light back to the earth. So what is the net result hotter or cooler?


 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Actually, I'm quoting the environmentalists at Oceana.com.
http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/Climate_Change/Marine_GHG_Petition_FINAL.pdf
The more provocative statements are harder to find as they have edited many of them out now.
Note that they want to see distillate fuels used because of the impact on global warming yet distillates will produce more CO2 due to the added refining.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

hmm... so they say that NOx reacts to form O3, and that O3 is a greenhouse gas, and that N2O itself is a greenhouse gas.  As far as I know, NOx is not considered in any GHG trading schemes currently, whereas N2O is (with a multiplier to give a tons CO2 equivalent).  Anyone have further info on that?
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

See also the Friends of the Earth proposition supporting Senator Boxter.
These guys are not, of course, authorities on anything but that doesn't stop them making it up as they go.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Our TV advertising is telling us we can save the world by following the Supreme Master Ching Hai.
http://askmorenow.com.au/our-inspiration.html
Life is simpler in Australia.
(NB I would not recommend that anyone actually follows Ms Hai, you won't save the world.)

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
sulphur-something crystals from burning dirty coal form albedo-increasing emissions. As we clean up the smokestacks on dirty coal power-stations we will reduce the Earth's albedo and so increase the solar laod on the Earth.

Apparently.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Interesting thought.
According to ARIC (DEFRA's information website): "In the early 1960s, winter smoke concentrations in Manchester averaged at more than 250mgm-3. Today the typical urban annual mean for smoke is 10-40mgm-3.
The amount has decreased dramatically due to technical industrial air pollution control, the decline in the use of coal for domestic purposes and the general shift of power stations and industries from town and city centres to more rural locations.

Er, does that mean that the environment has been significantly improved? Yes. Not by 10% or 12% but significantly. In my lifetime. So why do the environmentalists insist we are making things worse than ever before in our history?

One of the contributors to this was the clean aor act and the change to smokeless fuels. Subsequently we have the "rush to gas" and the introduction of gas fired central heating.
I remember well those days when the first one up, shivering in the cold, would have to clean grates, make fire starters from rolled up newspaper, fetch coal and start the fires. Another sheet of newspaper to close off the front of the fire place would help with the draft and with care you could get the fire going without filling the room with smoke or setting the draft enhancing newspaper alight.
One of the things I miss is the smell of chimney smoke on a cold winters day.

Of course, all that smoke pollution was killing millions and every day they'd drag the bodies out of the houses and bury them in huge mass graves. No, wait a minute, maybe that was MAFFI (DEFRA) during the foot and mouth outbreak? So why do the Greens make me think that is the case today? They're messing with my mind. And yes, the changed albedo has resulted in this ten year low that is "temporary" and nothing at all to do with the sun which is so absolutely stable that it has no influence on warming or cooling of the climate.  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Allow me to bastardize Mr. Newton's third law to show my view of the Global Warming debate:
"For every argument, there is an equal and opposite argument".

Petit et al (in ElectricPete's "picture is worth a thousand years" post above) say that CO2 is going up dramatically and have the ice core data to prove it.

Jaworowski says that using ice cores for CO2 data is flawed because of the behavior of various gasses under the extreme pressures that exist under thousands of meters of ice.  http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Bob
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

One thing the ice core aficionados continue to ignore is the averaging of gas concentrations from the time the snow falls until the ice bubbles close.  For example, Vostok core bubbles take an average of about 4,000 years to close, based on the age of the ice and the age of the air inside the bubbles.  People that don't get out of the lab much will say that they all close at the same age, but a little common sense disagrees with that.  Therefore, even if we double CO2 in the next 100 years and it takes another 200 to get back to 5% of normal (about right with a concentration half life of 40 years) future ice core drillers won't even see the blip of this Century.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

So... I guess the mainstream support for ice core records as an indicator of past CO2 is part of the grand conspiracy?

The link given by Ataloss above (8 Jul 08 16:22) cites 3  publications by one single author (Jaworowski).

The first publication linked is a 2007 article "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time" published in "EIR" magazine
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
And what prestigious publication is  EIR?  Executive Intelligence Review?  The editor is politician Lyndon Larouche, former presidential candidate.  Read more here: http://www.larouchepub.com/
Safe to say this is a political magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal (read their home-page link)

The second publication linked above is a "Forward" of an article ("Ancient Atmosphere") dated 1994,  in publication "Environmental Science and Pollution Research" (ESPR)
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/frank.pdf
ESPR is in fact a respected peer-reviewed journal ( for example see http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/espr/startseite )
We don't have the text of the article itself.  The abstract ( http://www.fao.org/agris/search/display.do?f=./1995/v2124/DE95K0220.xml;DE95K0220 ) suggests that the article is a little more guarded in it's conclusions than the 2007 article – primarily focusing on questions (rather than conclusions) and the need for further research.  Review of the editors comments which are available in the link above (frank.pdf) indicates also  that the editors consider it an important area worthy of discussion, but not that they agree with any conclusions.  Furthermore, the end of the "forward" introduces the article as an item for comment by the readers.  But where are the supportive followup comments?  I notice none of them are linked.   If in fact Jaworowski's ESPR paper was not discredited, then it would be a very hot topic for today's discussion.  If in fact that were the case,  (not discredited), then  why is it that this subject has  not been revisted by Jaworowski in peer-reviewed literature since 1994 ?   (Think about it - we know he was still pushing his viewpoint in rags like EIR up until at least 2007 as linked above!)


The third publication linked is a publication in 1997 "ANOTHER GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD EXPOSED - Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide
Increase" in 21st Century Magazine
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/IceCoreSprg97.pdf
What do we know about 21st Century Magazine?
Their home-page has the look of a magazine that peddles sensational science:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/about.html
Don't believe me?  They don't don't even make the journal citation index. Try finding them here: (hint – you won't find them – they are not a peer review journal).
http://www.isinet.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlsearch.cgi?PC=D

Finally, we have on Ataloss' linked web page Jaworowski testimony before congress.  Needless to say, not a peer-reviewed environment.  In the event that anyone attaches undue significance to testimony before congress – let's remember that the folks who invite him are politicians.

So, in the spirit of so-called skeptics, call me skeptical of Jaworowski's claims.   Is there any reasonably-current peer-reviewed support for his claims?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Star for your diligence, electricpete.

I lost interest in this thread long ago, but it's good to see someone keeps the sanity.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

The most interesting thing I have gathered about this GHGE thing is that so called scientists are forecating global warming or cooling or a mix. They can't even forecast the weather for the week correctly. how am I to believe 10-15-100 yrs down the road?

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

That is a troll post I assume?

- Steve

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

unotec,

Apologies for the jibe.  Here's an analogy to your question:

How can scientists predict long term changes in the mean temperature of water in a beaker over a flame if they can't even predict the turbulence inside it (i.e. the local "weather").
 

- Steve

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Apology not necessary, made me look-up "troll post" and find out what it means. You caught me writing the reply: Not really, I did state my opinion, giving it a little more thought, but I do not agree with the global warming theories at all. I do believe, instead, on looking after the environment. I have a hard time seeing all the money wasted on carbon sink projects and not reforestation (one of mother nature's carbon sinks) and many more projects that are costing us (tax payers) money and impacting our pockets. I'd like to get away from fossil fuels, if possible, to prevent scenarios like Mexico City, London, Calcutta, etc... pockets of pollution. But I have been unable to understand why the focus is on the air and not the soil, forests, etc... Where, if this was a true problem, the solution would lie, in my opinion.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

SomptingGuy -

Irrational analogy.  Convection moderates the atmosphere - CO2 effects are gone within a hundred meters or so of the surface.  A more appropriate analogy is to ask what the temperature of the water does when it's boiling if the heat is turned up a fraction.  Convection increases, that's all.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Irrational?  I don't think so.

unotec reckons that if meteorologists can't predict whether it'll rain or not in London at the weekend, how can anyone predict long term changes in global climate.

My point is that local weather prediction is impossible beyond a few days (based on turbulence), global averages (based on conservation priciples) aren't.

(Personal view: I disagree with the global warming guys in general, but I think that using the falibility of weather prediction as an argument are misguided)

- Steve

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

The classic argument on that is that weather is an initial value problem whereas climate is a boundary condition problem.  However, that's a shortsighted view because I don't think anyone really thinks regional climates were the same as now during the onset of the Holocene at the time the average global temperature was the same as now.

I think it's more like predicting rainfall patterns for one minute vs. predicting rainfall patterns for a whole day.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

For those with an hour or two to kill, check out this Telegraph article and the (mostly articulate) readers' comments piling up (it was one a minute just now).  There's not a lot of science in it (a few links here and there) but the politics is spot on.

GW believers may need to take blood pressure pills before reading.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/10/do1004.xml

- Steve

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

ElectricPete,
To answer your question "why is it that this subject has  not been revisted by Jaworowski in peer-reviewed literature since 1994", in an article about Jaworowski and his research:


"Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."


The article is here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6&p=1
(yes, it's just a newspaper article, from an ongoing series called "The Deniers" so it is going to be slanted towards the "GW is a farse" side of things).  The article also discusses discrepancies he found in comparing the concentrations of cesium in ice core samples versus surrounding non-ice measurements after the chernobyl accident.

I have not looked for any other research into this, I was just trying to present another side to the argument, although, I admit, it would be much more effective to present several people's research rather than just one guys.

I also admit, this guy could be just an attention-whore, talking out of his butt about "this is not the way to get funding", and that his funding was refused because it could upset the GW applecart.  It does come across like a huge conspiracy theory.

Bob
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2


The point that was made several times now is that several authors in the National Post, The Daily Telegraph, and the Toronto Sun (which is considered by many to be a slightly better version of the National Inquirer) misquote, and misinterpret the scientific data that they refer to. And sometimes they make statements without referring to any research at all.

To be fair, all newspapers have their bias, that is why when we are having scientific discussions it is best to see the original source/research (i.e. the original scientific paper or journal that published the data).

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Unotec,
Your argument doesn't hold much water because making an accurate prediction of the day to day weather for a week requires incredible amounts of precise and accurate data for a huge geographical area (local temperature, wind, humidity, cloud cover, solar inensity, and more data for the entire planet).  This data is simply not available, nor is the computing power to make these predictions for every city or town on earth.  The only data that meteorologists have to make their predictions is from the relatively few weather centers scattered around the country/world and from a few weather satellites.  There is simply a lack of data.  The long term predictions don't need to take into account all the local variables and can rely on broader, average measurements.  

An analogy would be a patient with cancer.  Left untreated, the doctors know the cancer is going to grow, spread throughout the body and eventually kill the patient, and can predict the death with a range of a couple of years.  Can they predict that in three days the cancer will have grown by 0.3472 percent, or that in 22 days it may shrink by 0.122 percent before rebounding and growing again?  No, but they can predict the long term trend.

Bob

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Well, I was trying to be a little sarcastic with my posting. However, it was forecasted a dry hot summer here. So far my biking has been down due to the mud in the mountains and what used to be a trail is now a river.
What has started nagging me is the fact that there has been a $2billion allocation of funds to start creating carbon sinks and scrubbers. Just last year a mayor logging project was approved for the area. I see that as an oxymoron. Trees are Mother Nature's carbon sinks and scrubbers. Deforestation will cause erosion, which will pollute rivers and affect water quality etc... Now, once the soil is eroded, hardly any trees will grow there again. We are far from eliminating all forests this way. However I see this as a more realistic anthropogenic negative impact than the GHGE. Also remember that the principal greenhouse gas is water vapour. The way I see it, once we start irreversibly affecting the soil, water quality will be impacted and earth's capability of generating flora reduced. Now we will have less means to reduce CO2, but most importantly, the evaporation rate will be increased. This is where I see a real global warming problem. Down the road, a long ways, so long that GHGE activist would never get the $$$ the way they are now. I am just concerned on how much attention and resources are spent on the emmissions and not on the soil. Why has this resource been abandoned? It used to be a hot topic for a while
 

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

I don't think it's a "huge" conspiracy theory.  I think most alarmists truly believe they are correct.  The problem is that they have a very narrow view of the science which doesn't include things like e.g. convection (hot air rises).  There is certainly some faction conspiring to make money off the scam, but who knows how big it is?  

As Ataloss says, no one has refuted Jaworowski's science - it's the typical ad hominem attacks people revert to when they have nothing substantial to go on.

Just goes to show that it's more a religion than a science for some.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Ataloss - we don't even know if it's a cancer let alone if it's benign or malignent, or how big the benefit is (food growth) to it.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

following on unotec's post ... who wants to bet that if the current plans for carbon sinks and such actually have -ve results [and this means significant effects 'cause i believe that pretty much anything we do has a negligible effect compared with the main climate driver, the sun] and the "GW" continues, then it won't be because of the actions taken (ie, "sorry, we skrewed up and now we're skrewed") but "i told you we started too late; ah well, we had a good shot at trying to fix it, but now we're skrewed"

i think the only thing that saves us from ourselves (in this regard) is that humans have IMHO a negligible effect on the climate (regardless of what our ego's would like to think).  but i accept the other points being made ...
we should be more responsible in our use of fuels,
we should be more respectfull of our environment.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

RB1957 would you run for office? I'll vote you. I agree, the sun is the main driver and so are the oceans, to a lesser extent. We only have very localized effects on the weather (which in the great scheme of earth's time are nothing but blips)

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Does anyone read the book by Booker and North (Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming)?

- Steve

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

I'm currently on it

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

whoa, what's going on here?  Starting to seem a little reasonable...

Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - Robert Hunter
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

You're right ewh.

I think bio-fuels are the answer.
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Ataloss - thanks for the very reasonable reply.  No jumping to conclusions.  A presentation of what information is linked at various places with discussion (not accusations) about the source of the information.   It is an intelligent and reasonable  approach for all  information presented on this controversial subject imo.

Quote (LCruiser):

As Ataloss says, no one has refuted Jaworowski's science - it's the typical ad hominem attacks people revert to when they have nothing substantial to go on.

Just goes to show that it's more a religion than a science for some.
Well, that's an interesting comment..

I'm not sure what are the ad hominem (personal) attacks LCruiser is referring to.  In the event that he is referring to my own post 8 Jul 08 23:13, I will respond.

I think the claim from Dr. J that CO2 has not increased in recent times is far out of the mainstream (any disagreement?).   Therefore I think it deserves careful scrutiny.  I noted the very long time which has elapsed since his last peer reviewed paper on this subject and found that unusual considering more recent articles by him on the same subject in less reputable publications  (by the way, I found out that 21st Century Technology is also a publication of Lyndon Larouche).   I asked if there were any more current peer reviewed literature on this subject...to which I have seen no reply (hmmm).

The only thing resembling a reply comes from LCruiser who seems to think Dr. J is somehow above or beyond scrutiny.  I'm not sure why he would react this way unless he thought Dr J's claims are so sound that anyone questioning them must be engaging in personal attacks.

There are in fact many people who do question Dr J's claims.   Look here for some very detailed discussion or links regarding Dr. J ( although I will freely announce that I cannot vouch for the credibility of this particular site / blog) :
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

Let's go more directly to the CO2 increase question.  Take a look here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm

Quote:

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is an independent statistical agency, within the U.S. Department of Energy. whose purpose is to provide reliable and unbiased energy information....

Figure 1.Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations (1751-2004)   [shows CO2 concentration increasing from ~300 to 375ppm  in the last 250 years]
I guess the US Department of Energy is part of the conspiracy to manipulate the facts too?    They must be tied in with NASA,  NOAA, and EPA etc.     But wait a second!  I was just thinking - if the CIA can team up with the Mafia and Fidel Castro  to cover up the second gunman in that grassy knoll.......  Hmmm.   (A little humor – very little).
 
I would like to suggest that those who continually and predictably thump their chests about "religion" and  personal attacks take a deep breath, count to 10, turn around, and look directly into the mirror.

It is IMO irrational, if not evangelical, to expect anyone to accept Dr J's claims as gospel truth without asking questions.

I can remember some accusations earlier in this thread about James Hansen (director of the NASA Goddard Space Center) of deliberately manipulating data.   I followed the links and I never detected  anything resembling proof.  All I saw was links to sites containing description of relatively minor errors, with no indication of deliberate manipulation.   If I have missed the proof (or anything close to it) to support the accusations that the data was deliberately manipulated, please let me know.
 

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

And you trust the goverment? I'm not sure what I'm saying I work for a goverment.

It's not that I don't believe in warming or cooling, I just don't believe it's being caused by CO2, or CH4, or NOX. Just look up in the sky at mid day and see the big ball of fire.

 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

You work for the government ? no wonder you're cranky winky smile  (I can say that because I used to work for Uncle Sam also).

Yes there is a sun.  Yes, it can affect the climate.  Many things can affect the climate.

If we did happen to agree that the earth were warming, that in itself wouldn't prove anything about AGW.

Our models attempt to include all those factors, and predict that the change in CO2 would likely be the biggest driver of climate change.  In fact one of the biggest criticisms against the role of CO2 is that the temperature many people claim we have seen (the 0.6C) is not as large as would be predicted by our models.  If you read between the lines, the inherent assumption of that criticism is that change in CO2 plays the biggest role in temperature change, according to these models.  (and according to the models, it does).

And, as a quick reminder, the theory of CO2 as a greenhouse gas did not originate from correlation of CO2 and temperature, it originated from studying the absorption characteristics of CO2 at various wavelengths.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Just to set Electricpete straight - I know nothing about Jaworowski, and didn't claim I did.  Whether or nto his arguments are in the mainstream or not, I noticed there was no argument against his position - only against him.  Same with Larouche.

Here's the latest on Hansen:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885

I will, once again, point out that the supporters of ice core temperature proxy reconstructions ignore the averaging effect of what amounts, in some cases, to thousands of years, and that this CO2 concentration blip will not even be seen in the long term ice core record of the future.
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

OK, so now you don't give a hoot about Dr J.  Fair enough.   In that case, I'm not sure what there was in my post 8 Jul 08 23:13 to elicit your response 11 Jul 08 0:33.   As far as I can tell, you thought it was inappropriate for me to discuss whether an article is presented in peer-reviewed venue or not?

I did think it was relevant to ask why this apparently significant finding had not been revisited in peer reviewed journals since 1994.  (by the way, the Larouche publications are NOT peer review journals – I will take up that argument any time any place).  

I do have one data point which might shed some light on the question why the subject was not revisited.   At least one peer response to Dr. J published in the same peer-reviewed journal (EPSR) was distinctily unfavorable:
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=12

I don't say that one response proves anything (people are bound to disagree on anything related to this subject).  But it does suggest a possible motive for Dr. J's hasty and permanent retreat from the peer-reviewed venues.  (what other possible motive?... can't think of any myself).

Now, you're link about Hansen.  It is purely a discussion about the significance of the "Hansen error".  There is nothing about the motivation for the error or anything suggesting intent to decieve.  Certainly there is nothing to support the accusations that he cooked the books as suggested by others in this thread.  (For example "just that the Hansens of this world are having a hard time proving it with doctored temperature data" - 30 Jun 08 6:27 ).  

And while we are talking about significance, let's see what Steve McIntyre himself has to say about significance, from your link:

Quote (McIntyre):

So while the Hansen error did not have a material impact on world temperatures, it did have a very substantial impact on U.S. station data and a "significant" impact on the U.S. average. Both of these surely "matter" and both deserved formal notice from Hansen and GISS
Notice the bold part.  This is not from NASA, this is from Steve McIntyre!  The guy who found the error and who is an unabashed critic of Hansen.    He says it has no material impact on world temperatures.  I had assumed with all the chatter that there must have been something significant at the bottom of all this.  Guess not.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Well, I find myself sinking to the tone that I find most offensive on the other side.  I would suggest that if you don't want to hear the word "conspiracy" as a summary of the denier viewpoint, then don't use the word "religion" and similar characterizations for those concerned that what the scientists are saying might me true.

There is scientific method on both sides.  There is propaganda on both sides.  I think (hope) we are skeptical on both sides.

I had a chance to see "Inconvenient Truth" for the first time a few months ago.  There was certainly some intent to mislead.  I paid very close attention to the plot of CO2 and temperature.   The plots were presented against a background which contained no vertical gridmarks.   Only if you looked very closely could you see that temperature leads CO2 (a fact we all now know).  The writers of this presentation obviously knew this relationship and chose to conceal it.  And Al Gore's words sounded as if it was a very straightforward cause/effect relationship:  the CO2 goes up, the temperature goes up... the CO2 goes down, the temeprature goes down.    Propaganda at it's finest.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Quote:

and similar characterizations for those concerned that what the scientists are saying might be true.
Lol.  I guess I should have used the word "alarmist".  I was looking for another one/two words to describe that position but couldn't find one.  Pro-AGW doesn't quite sit (just like no-one is pro-abortion).  Guess I should apologize to Kenat since I can't come up with any other easily accessible word to describe that position.
 

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Good article jmw.  Here's another:

http://climatesci.org/2008/07/14/my-position-on-climate-change-by-hendrik-tennekes/

The summary at the bottom is comprehensive:

"Fortunately, the time rate of climate change is slow compared to the rapid evolution of our institutions and societies. There is sufficient time for adaptation. We should monitor the situation both globally and locally, but up to now global climate change does not cause severe problems requiring immediate emission reductions. Successive IPCC reports have presented no scientific basis for dire warnings concerning climate collapse. Local and regional problems with shorter time scales deserve priority. They can be managed professionally, just as the Dutch seem to do."

 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Thanks LCruiser. I agree with most of this article, specially where it mentions that climates can be effected locally more than globally. I have always sided in protecting the soil and preventing deforestation, not concerning so much about emissions in a global scale. I saw what emissions can do in a localized environment (Mexico City) and have seen micro-climates effected negatively and positively by human activity. But what I always noted is that the impact started, literally, at ground level and it got exacerbated by emissions.
My view is to have en environmental approach starting with the land, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, land you can buy and make money out of, air you cannot. Therefore, land is more suceptible to unsustainable development given the fact that parties in power can profit out of it (economically and politically).

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

unotec:
 
"..land you can buy and make money out of, air you cannot."

Ah, there's the rub!

Right now, there's no price on air, or on dumping sh*t into the air- yet we all need it to live.  THERE'S your problem.  Whether or not you consider CO2 of fossil origin to be sh*t or Shineola is a matter of some debate here, but the economics of energy are FUBAR until such time as we deal with this fundamental problem.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Land in the US is protected because someone owns or controls it. In parts of the world there is vast amounts of land that is not owned or controlled where the land is used and abused, with no worries. That's why there is deforrestation.
In simple terms the people don't know how to care for the land, and don't want to learn because there is more they aquire.
The cycle needs to be broken by education and understanding of the outcome of the existing practicaces.
Again like Mexico no one is concerned about the particulates in the air. And the cost and corruption prevents goverment action. It's the same way in most of the third world. That's the concern over China and India.
A goverment solution can't be achieved because of the corruption. So an education solution needs to be put in place to acheve a better practiace solution.

More polution controls here won't work as well as a solution in the third world.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Not only corruption causes this, but also monetary and political gain (legal) by control of the land, lease, sale or "development strategies" by the government. If the government happens to veto what is seen as development they will be unpopular. If they do not support the money influx, they are unpopular and so forth. Pretending to be environmentalists by adhering to the media inflated GHGE advocacy and leasing land for industry or subsidizing bio-fuels wins them votes.  

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

http://climatesci.org/2007/01/

Quote:

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

http://climatesci.org/2008/07/07/guest-weblog-by-gerbrand-komen/

Quote:

Please, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Gerbrand Komen. I retired as Director of Climate Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Will the real retired director of Research of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute please stand up?
(Where's Soupy Sales when you need him winky smile )

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

They both "were", niether "are".

Directorships come and go.
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

The worst part: I wonder how many will buy it?!!!
And how can any newspaper print such a thing? Don't they have a minimal QA/QC on the stuff they put in writing?

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Dr Brikowski is apparently a climate scientist, we usually equate these health scares with ambitious but statistically challenged Doctors.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

I guess in part, it all has to do with how research $$ are doled out, and right now anything that is associated with climate change/greenhouse gases/global warming is front and center for money.  If a student wants $$ to put them through school, they just have to tie their these to one of the above mentioned topics.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Thanks jmw. For future reference, a smiley face indicates a joke.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Sorry, my bad.  I guess it wasn't that funny.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

More Kidney stones in the Southern US?  Maybe it has less to do with temperature and more to do with grits?
 

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
I can think of a big brown hot country you could use as a control.

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

LCruiser,
The info in that link seems eerily similar to the way any issue is handled by the PTB.

Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - Robert Hunter
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Errh what's ptb?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

I was guessing "powers that be"... but that was only because it was the only thing on the wiki disambiguation page that seemed to relate.
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

"Permission To Bull$#!t"?

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Powers That Be - Big Brother

Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - Robert Hunter
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Sorry Electricpete, you included the smiley face and I forgot to. (It has been getting too serious round here lately)

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

... and I thought that PTB was for The Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) i.e. the national metrology institute in Germany....  :(

http://www.ptb.de/index_en.html


;)

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

when all is said and done (which is reality is probably never) it looks like weather has joined the list of subjects we can't discuss in polite conversation ...

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

You are right rb1957. I am not sure who said it, but this is like a religion (or political affiliation), have you ever had a civilized conversation on those subjects? Tends to get pretty nasty.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Mess rules... from way back.. taboo topics: Politics and women.  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Politics may not be a topic for discussion, but all the side dressings are so much fun to watch.
Even better is to see what solutions to the world problems are being suggested.
What is often found is that our leaders don't know much about economics, or the impacts there suggested solutions would have.
After all most of what's said is to make us feel good, and in the end not much will be accomplished.

This may seem to have little to do with climate change, but it really has much to do as the end result is not that much (Which to some people is just fine).
Yes we all want a better world, but there are very few universal solutions we can all agree on. The best we can do is openly discuss, and not take offence to what is said when we disagree. And just maybe the politics will actually work correctly next time.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

More GW Physics:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Conclusion:
Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century's warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic "greenhouse-gas" warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, "just in case", can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.

In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC's estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC's estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no "climate crisis" at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

jmw  - I agree.  It has been heated at times.  Maybe I should cool it.   I'm warming up to the idea, anyway.

LCruiser - Interesting article

Quote:

Conclusion:...the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming
Are you inclined to trust the objectivity of someone who in his conclusion highlights the volume fraction of CO2 in air, when we all know that the vast majority of air is N2 and O2 (not greenhouse gases) ?

More importantly, the web-page that you linked to  has an "abstract", references, and the "American Physical Society" Logo on it.  Gives one the impression we have something like a peer-reviewed article or article endorsed by APS, doesn't it ?!?   As usual, the impression given by the links is false:

Quote:


APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS.  The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum."   This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed

So, LCruiser - who are you inclined to give more weight to... the American Physical Society, or some guy named Christopher Monckton who tells us nothing about himself  ?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

The quote I provided directly above comes from the APS homepage:
http://www.aps.org/

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

And the more detailed statement of the position of APS (not some person posting on a newletter forum) is given here:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

Quote:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Not everyone knows how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere.  As for who to believe, why don't you read the article and let us know what's wrong with it?

Moncton has received so many ad hominem attacks from Realclimate that I am inclined to believe him.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Yes,
he was an advisor to Mrs Thatcher and has written a number of very interesting articles in the Telegraph newspaper.
It is worth reading his articles and looking at the responses, anc contrasting the language of some of the AGW supporters.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
Australia is about to launch a CO2 emissions trading scheme, a largely symbolic act, since we emit less in total  than China's annual increase in emissions each year. At the same time this will cripple some industries and is unlikely help the economy.

One of the architects of the government's case for CO2 emissions trading has rather changed his mind...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12403
This article includes a comment on Christopher Monktons papers, but is a comment on the APS apparent reversal of its stance on climate change.

I liked the caveat at the end:

Quote:

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a  statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.
  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Another APS link:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/

Quote:

The executive committee of the Forum on Physics and Society, however, believes that the statement in the July 2008 edition of our newsletter, Physics and Society, that "There is considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution," exaggerates the number of scientists who disagree with the IPCC conclusion on anthropogenic CO2 and global warming. That statement does not represent the views of APS or the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society. The FPS Executive Committee strongly endorses the position of the APS Council that "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.
Apparently the statement they are backing away from was made by one of their editors here:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm
Also, at the above link, we find out the Monckton letter was in response to an invitation to post on this topic.  I am pretty sure we will be hearing some response from both sides in the coming months in the APS newletter.  

I would say  Monckton strings together some persuasive sounding arguments, although I'm no climate expert (who here is?) and it's beyond my ability to critique them.  I will look forward to hearing how the experts on both sides respond.

Hopefully, there is some discussion on the AGW fingerprint - expected distribution of AGW change vs latitude and vs altitude.  There was some discussion that some of the errors have been corrected in the abstract that I linked 30 Jun 08 23:53, but it doesn't address all the questions and I haven't heard much about it from the side of those who are concerned that AGW may be real.  

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Interesting - the monckton link now includes a red disclaimer at the front announcing this is not peer reviewed and not endorsed by the APS
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

But google cache shows the way it was originally published, no such disclaimer:
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Q18xiU3vGmcJ:www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm+Climate+Sensitivity+Reconsidered&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

It is not a very important aspect.  But I just wanted to defend my earlier statement that (at the time I first viewed the link), the article had the "look" of a peer reviewed or endorsed article, when in fact it was not.  

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

How is the APS "official" declaration to be considered?
Prof John Brignell comments on it in his "Number of the month" for July under the heading:

Quote:

The shaming of American Physics
at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2008%20July.htm.
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Electricpete says:

"I would say  Monckton strings together some persuasive sounding arguments, although I'm no climate expert (who here is?) and it's beyond my ability to critique them."

Which, of course, is not true.  One does not have to be able to string together *all* of "global warming" theory, indeed *nobody* can do that.  The sciences vary from astrophysics to botany, with a good understanding of very basic thermodynamics the elephant in the middle of the room.

What engineers can do is see failures of the dogma, like e.g. the lapse rate fraud.  The adiabatic lapse rate has nothing to do with CO2, and indeed is the same on all planets of the solar system.  Hot air rises.  Here on Earth, humid air takes latent heat away from the surface at a rate proportional to the distance from the equilibrium of said lapse rate.  More surface heat, more evaporation, faster water vapor rise, more latent heat removed, more clouds and rainfall.  Controlling negative feedback.  The lapse rate remains the same.  Venus has a hot surface because of the thickness of the atmosphere, that's all.  The lapse rate is the same there as on Earth.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Here is an interesting link on nuclear power

http://nuclearinfo.net/

 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

My opinion would be nuclear energy for power generation (stationary things) and fossil fuels for transport(mobile).

By the way, how long will it take the GHGE advocates to say that 'working out causes global warming'? I sure go through a lot of CO2 every time I climb a mountain!

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2


Actually, by doing outdoor exercise like mountain climbing you are saving CO2. Compared to going to an indoor gym that has electronic equipment and bright lights. Unless you go to an indoor gym that hooks up the bicycle spinners to generators and has other energy efficient systems set up.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

So, if oceans absorb 1/4 of CO2, wouldn't ice melting offset CO2 generation?
Mirrors in space? Are they going to be hand-manufactured to offset CO2 emissions? well, Star-Trek doesn't seem such a far fetched TV show no more.
SO2 into the atmosphere? Doesn't SO2 + H2O ==> H2SO3? Talk about acid rain.
Increasing phytoplankton in the ocean? What about oxigenation of the water for life (fish) support then.
Changing the ocean's pH?

Am I alone here or these guys are not for real, just tripping for a bit.

I know the article suggests caution, I say just slam the door on these unreal ideas. Anthropogenic global warming is being dis-proved more and more. However policies that are starting to affect our way of living and hitting our pockets are being created. Give science back to scientists and take it away from politicians. There should be a by-law on that regards.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

A recent BBC radio show featured a bunch of them.
The main justification for all eco-engineering would appear to be that extreme as it is, CO2 reduction isn't going to work (especially, I'd have thought, if the AGW people have it wrong) and will be far more expensive than these schemes.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Quote:

A very interesting read but please, keep the data away from Hansen or who knows how it will be edited and "adjusted".
When I asked for proof of claims like this, I got a link to a page describing an error.  The error was deemed by the guy who discovered it to have "no material effect" or something like that.  There was nothing ever presented to indicate it was anything other than an error.

Why there are persistent comments such as this in the absence of anything resembling proof is beyond me.   

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Of the various temperature sets, the GISS set which is NASA and Hansen's, is the only one out of sync.

We have been around the many questions about Hansen's temperature data set before. His reluctance to publish his calculations or program and the justification for the changes to the temperature remain unanswered, or at least, to the satisfaction of those better able than I to understand what he has been doing.

But, who did you ask for "proof of claims like this"?
The various links posted in this thread should surely lead to some concern that the GISS data is increasingly suspect.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Quote (electricpete):


10 Jul 08 21:54
I can remember some accusations earlier in this thread about James Hansen (director of the NASA Goddard Space Center) of deliberately manipulating data.   I followed the links and I never detected  anything resembling proof.  All I saw was links to sites containing description of relatively minor errors, with no indication of deliberate manipulation.   If I have missed the proof (or anything close to it) to support the accusations that the data was deliberately manipulated, please let me know.

Quote (LCruiser):


11 Jul 08 0:33
Here's the latest on Hansen:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885

Quote (electricpete):


11 Jul 08 2:24
Now, you're link about Hansen.  It is purely a discussion about the significance of the "Hansen error".  There is nothing about the motivation for the error or anything suggesting intent to decieve.  Certainly there is nothing to support the accusations that he cooked the books as suggested by others in this thread.  (For example "just that the Hansens of this world are having a hard time proving it with doctored temperature data" - 30 Jun 08 6:27 ).  

And while we are talking about significance, let's see what Steve McIntyre himself has to say about significance, from your link:

Quote (McIntyre):
So while the Hansen error did not have a material impact on world temperatures
, it did have a very substantial impact on U.S. station data and a "significant" impact on the U.S. average. Both of these surely "matter" and both deserved formal notice from Hansen and GISS


Notice the bold part.  This is not from NASA, this is from Steve McIntyre!  The guy who found the error and who is an unabashed critic of Hansen.    He says it has no material impact on world temperatures.  I had assumed with all the chatter that there must have been something significant at the bottom of all this.  Guess not.

Quote (jmw):


5 Aug 08 17:39
A very interesting read but please, keep the data away from Hansen or who knows how it will be edited and "adjusted".
Note - no proof provided, but the ridiculous comments just keep coming.  

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

There are interesting facts referenced here (in discussions below), if you allow yourself:

http://motls.blogspot.com/  

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

2
Lubos Motl is a bona fide nutcase.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Tomfh,

Motl was a physics professor at Harvard.  Despite his opinionated nature, he *was* that and nut cases don't generally become professors at Ivy League schools.  

Why do you say he was a "nutcase" or is it just because you can't find anything really wrong with his position so an ad hominem attack is all you have left?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

when you say he's opinionated, does that imply that he defends his positions on things by saying "i'm a physics professor at Havard, i know more than you, my opinion is worth more than yours" ? ... that could be someone else's "nutcase" ...

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

No, Motl prefers to defend his positions by calling his opponents "terrorists", "hyper communists", "nazis" etc etc. He also calls for their deaths, whether it be "by the gun" or "euthanasia".

Hence why Harvard let him go...

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Facts are hard to find. Positions are your beliefs. Thoughts are based on your evaluations of facts and other peoples positions.

But calling people names is a sure sign you can't defend your positions.

People can lead by example, stating facts, or by giving the illusion of athorty.

I still believe global tempeture is controlled by activies of the sun, and little if any by man.

If man has done anything to change the climant it isen't CO2, it is concrete and asphult.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Tomfh said:
"Motl prefers to defend his positions by calling his opponents "terrorists", "hyper communists", "nazis" etc etc. He also calls for their deaths, whether it be "by the gun" or "euthanasia"."

Got anything concrete to back that up?

 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Just finished "Scared to Death" and I had quite an experience.
Needless to say that I will not see all the alarms and warnings in TV, radio, etc... under the same light I used to any more.
Short from verifying all the quotes, links and references, I think what is explained and detailed makes sense; to me at least.
The authors show a very sensible approach on how genuine health/environmental concerns are escalated and taken out of proportion to become a scare.
It has to be taken with a grain of salt though; otherwise your liver will explode.
It presents how we, the public and most affected by these scares, are nothing more than spectators. How policy has been made based on flawed science and how things taken out of context and proportion lead to these policies.
In my personal case, I know I am a little biased and see things in a different light than most people around me where I am at.
Even before I immigrated to a "1st world country" in North America I had some perceptions that are the same that the book presents (might be the 'I lie they verify' case).
I might be chewed on for this, but here they are:
•    People need to find something to complain about since most of them (us now for me) have the basic needs already met and secured (and a little more if you get picky). When the daily struggle is to make ends meet and your worry is you own welfare and that of your loved ones, it is pretty hard to start worrying about something you do not really understand. If you have lived all your life in a 1st world country, you might have no clue what really is opening your front door (assuming you are upper middle class and have a roof over your head), seeing your children and having no clue whether you will be able to provide what they need next month (careful, these are the BASIC NEEDS, not the wii that all their friends have and not them). Needless to say that people less fortunate than you will not even have exposure to these scares.
•    Bad news sell, period. If it is the press, they will see their numbers soar. If it is a political group, they can gain adepts. If it is an environmental group, well... they also need to eat, cannot afford to loose their source of income.
•    Just as with a sex video of Britney with Pamela Anderson making headlines and grasping everybody's attention span (in spite of the fact that this will not affect their lives in the least bit), morbidity will grab people's attention. Bad news, scares, etc... give a legal and socially acceptable morbidity for small talk and more.
•    There is some unconscious need (I guess) to feel threatened, especially when the concept is so vague or complex that the normal Joe (or Jane... no chauvinism here) cannot fully grasp. The threat has to seem remote but with a sense of closeness. Something along the lines that it is happening all around you but cannot conceive it happening to you (yeah, hard to grasp what I am trying to explain here, but it is the best I could do).
•    People's minds are very relaxed, and as a group, can be easily manipulated.
•    There is no conceivable way, in our democratic worlds, to overrule what politicians and power groups do. No matter what the theory of democracy says.

The one I have not seen but, I think, is another factor here (and could also explain the stock market reactions)
•    The speed in which news can reach us and information can travel leads to overreaction. The INTERNET is like a double edged sword, but the point is stabbing.
I think technology has advanced much faster than people's education has. There is too much information and not every person with access to it can understand causes and consequences. It is unreal how an event in one side of the world can have such strong consequences on the opposite side (assuming both happened in developed countries).

There are more far more personal and I am pretty sure easily debatable.
•    People have short, very short, memories. At least when applied to the collective memories.
•    Most scientists are shy. They are not the media type and will not jump up and fight. And the few that have, well, have been labeled. The typical scientist will avoid confrontation with the publicity if he can help it. He can fight data; she can fight the cosmos, but will NOT fight public exposure.
•    People are very willing to hear/learn about everything except what is really worth learning.
 

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

unotec, new thread perhaps?

- Steve

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

OK,  

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Thanks for the suggestion Steve I did. The reason I replied here initially is that you had actually asked about it.
The thread is here:
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=226965&amp;page=1

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Yeah, and I feel really guilty now for not having read it (yet) myself.  I did consume Lomborg's book really rapidly though - same sort of thing perhaps (?).

Less mindless TV, more reading.  I promise.

- Steve

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

here's a thought ... who's sticking the "ads by google" on the bottom of the threads, advertising "CO2 removal" ... probably something most of the responders think is a crock ?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Actually, unotec's post is *extremely* relevent here.  This one statement clarifies a point:

"There is some unconscious need (I guess) to feel threatened, especially when the concept is so vague or complex that the normal Joe (or Jane... no chauvinism here) cannot fully grasp."

When people don't get the basic thermodynamics (which includes modelers since convection is not in the GCM's) they become afraid of the unknown.  Hot air rises, CO2 greens plants, etc. are basic truths that pigeonholed people don't (or can't, sometimes) grasp.  

Face it - some people go on to get advanced degrees because their ability to function with only a bachelor's degree is, well, "limited" so they become climate modelers.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

rb1957,

Google is searching the thread and selecting ads from its subscribers.  Over in the Engine & Fuel Engineering forum, the "run your engine on water" posts always attract the snake oil guys.

I find it quite amusing (ironic almost) that the ads that appear are generally from those that the thread is lambasting.

- Steve

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

That people tend to blow risks out of proportion in order to satisfy a need to be threatened may well be true.

To conclude that this applies to each and every threat is a non sequitur.

Anthropogenic global warming might be real or might not be.  If it's real, the consequences could be disastrous and essentially irreversible.  The people who are best qualified to offer an opinion on the subject, NOT merely the media and politicians, offer the opinion that this is probable rather than merely being possible.  If it isn't a real threat, and we take action to combat it, we still get the benefits of p*ssing through our finite, limited supply of fossil fuels at a slower rate, generating the known toxic emissions at a more manageable rate, leaving the resources for future generations to benefit from.  It's a no-brainer from a risk management perspective.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

The science behind "global warming" is a huge Tower of Babel.  There is no consideration of the ravaging of Earth's surface by its burgeoning population, and how that changes transpiration etc.  Neither is there consideration by the "experts" of the increased food supply from increased CO2.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0530earthgreen.html


The average annual global precipitation is about a meter.  Each percent of change corresponds to a change in insolation of about 1 w/m^2.  

According to solar influence theory, we should be at the cusp of a cooling period:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080924193222.3r9aw25a&show_article=1
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf


It looks like we are, so the alarmists (and those jockeying for position based on that alarmism) are becoming more desperate:

http://www.newser.com/story/38331/gore-calls-for-civil-disobedience-vs-coal.html

 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
I recently read an interesting analysis of the Australian equivalent of the Stern report.

The argument we are being presented with is:

"If we act now then it is going to be much less expensive/difficult than doing nothing and then dealing with the consequences.

Introducing a carbon emissions scheme will cost about 1 % of GDP.

1% is not very much so OBVIOUSLY it is the right way to go."

Now, the proponents of this line of reasoning carefully ignore one rather important fact. That level of expenditure will have absolutely no practical effect on Global Warming (even if global warming is actually a problem), even by their own models.

However, I think that reducing oil usage in particular, and perhaps fossil fuels in general, is not a bad idea in itself, although at a global level of course it is not going to happen. 2 billion Indian and Chinese people are very keen to get both wheels and air conditioning.



 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

"2 billion Indian and Chinese people are very keen to get both wheels and air conditioning"
No, they want what we have. If the western world manage to live life with a lesser impact on the environment alot will be gained when the asians start to spend some real cash.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Sorry, i meant to say alot would be gained. We all know we won´t stop spending good money on cr*p.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

yes, they want what we have ... the 1st world life style (including guns and gangs and ...)  isn't china supposed to be building a coal power station a day (starting to build, that is) ?

greg, i heard on the radio that your chief climate "scientist/witch doctor" saying that we had to reduce the CO2 level to 450ppm ... 500ppm is not enough !  sorry, it sounds like your politos have jumped on the band wagon.  interestingly enough, the same program said that a survey of the public showed that 50% were prepared to spend <$10/month on this, and that job/financial security was more important ... maybe the public are smarter than their leaders ?

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
The party currently in power was elected partly on their allegiance to the climate change litany. Of course, last year an electorate that was enjoying a booming economy (largely based on digging coal out of the ground) could afford to wring their hands symbolically and vote on a feel-good ticket.

What a difference 12 months makes.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

particularly for the climate !

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

(OP)
Yeah, that bloody global cooling...

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

With all due respect to Electricpete I long ago stopped trusting Hansen at al. I have no reason to since the work fails the scientific test.

Now the idea of science, it seemed to me, was that once you made your observations and produced your theory that theory should be able to make testable predictions.

The requirements are that:
(a) someone else can duplicate the experiments...

(c) that the predictions can be verified

Peer reviewing is not a substitute.
It is simply a sanity check (and it seems to fail even at that).

It seems to me that we have just one man processing temperature data that disagrees with the other main temperature data sets, introducing corrections that are hard to validate and which are of similar value to the projected changes and it has taken the sustained efforts of some dedicated people to weasle out of the guy the original data and his algorithms.

As for the predictions?

Now I'd have to say that if you or I or anyone has produced a set of hokum that has the entire population of the planet committed to a particular course of action and it comes into quesion, then the temptation is, whatever the real facts, to try and justify the original hokum.
In this case, the chances of some of these guys sticking there hands up and saying "Oops, sorry, we got it wrong." are about nil.

The problem is that "these guys" is an ever expanding group which includes some of the stupidest people on the planet, politicians.

Our future? Our chances of doing something about it are diminishing daily since no important advocate of AGW seems to have recanted nor any anti. SO we have an unresolved problem but that doesn't stop the policy makers taking our money and spending it.

To quote Paul Valery: "the future isn't what it used to be."

 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

"Now, the proponents of this line of reasoning carefully ignore one rather important fact. That level of expenditure will have absolutely no practical effect on Global Warming (even if global warming is actually a problem), even by their own models."

Oh, Greg.  You KNOW you are wrong in that statement.

Oh, wait, you were not talking about the GW warming groups' financial models...
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

to jmw,
 i agree with everything except your description of politicans as the "stupidest" people on the planet.  the "most powerful" possibly (because of their effect on our lives and their control of our money), "the greediest" possibly (but maybe that goes to financial leaders), possibly the "most ignorant".

i reckon the stupidest people are "john and mary doe", the general public who are buying this crock, and allowing them to impose this on ourselves.  because of this we've now got both sides of the political spectrum proposing some kind of "climate policy".  i though the last leader to try this was king canute, and he failed (commanding the tides); some stroies have it that he failed deliberately to show his subjects that he was fallable; i reckon the latest crop of politicans aren't that smart.

you could have referred to steve macintyre who exposed the "hockey stick" for the lie that it is.  unfortunately, the cat is well and truly out of the bag, the horse has well and truly bolted, ... and the tide is coming in on a certain creek.

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

Ah, but that is what Mann is apparently doing, trying to patch up his data and get the Hockey Stick accepted again.

OK, to avoid any arguments I'll allow that politicians don't have an exclusive on stupidity.

I found these two Will Rogers quotes appropriate:

"Anything important is never left to the vote of the people. We only get to vote on some man; we never get to vote on what he is to do."

(Don't the Brits know this! Except they didn't even get to vote for Gordon Brown and he reciprocated but not letting them vote on a European constitution.)

"A fool and his money are soon elected."  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: 'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2

I may have missed this link in this long thread. If so - sorry. The link shown below appears to present solid data, do some analysis, and provide an opinion that we should know by 2015 whether the current hiatus in global warming is a blip or a real trend. (I am not sure if a hiatus can be a trend but you know what I mean.)

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/

Any comments?

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources