Poll Is it happening?-GlobalWarming

[pete.dakota]

Well, there is no strong evidence really, but a lot of guesswork.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

It isn't guess work. There is very strong, backed, and government-endorsed/recognised evidence.


-----Post Added-----


A read-worthy NY Times article on the matter. Note it's from 2003, and scientific opinion on climate change has not altered from the premise laid out in the article.

 

[Bj]

Nobody knows what the 'perfect' temp is ... but everyone knows that the current temp is 'wrong' ... ooooooookay ...

I think your looking at the 'perfect temp' differently. Since there is no such thing as a 'perfect temp' because of so many variables, there is however a prefect range... and that range is where we are right now.

This picture (from NASA) shows the relative temperature from 1951. You can see from the graph, that not only has the temperature been going up but its rate that its going up has also been going up.
Now, if the rate would suddenly start decreasing and slowly have a negative rate or 0 deg C/year then I wouldn't worry at all, because its just part of earths climate.


On the note of Carbon Dioxide emissions;

I found this document from the ESRL GMD at Mauna Lou that shows that the rate of Co2 increase is increasing.

I am wondering at what point does the rate of Co2 output equal or exceed the rate of Co2 absorption from natural 'cleaning' (e.g. photosynthesis?)

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, the dinosaur existed until about 65 million years ago

But anyway, the data we get from relatively young local core records is not rather reliable when talking about a global climate millions of years ago.

And what does that now change?

We talk about 850,000 years of numerically accurate data (which means: Errors and error sources are identified and included into the report).

That time period includes even two full 400,000 year Milankovitch cycles - the longest of all cyclic orbit changes on Earth.

The call for new data gets absurd, when you can't tell, why you need more data. What do you expect from knowing how the climate was, let's say 250 million years ago? Will this data be completely contrary to the 850,000 years and invalidate any climate model created from it? Sure not. It will add new aspects to it, but it won't invalidate the existing knowledge, gained by the scientific method.


-----Post Added-----

I am wondering at what point does the rate of Co2 output equal or exceed the rate of Co2 absorption from natural 'cleaning' (e.g. photosynthesis?)

If the amount of CO2 constantly increases during the course of many decades, it exceeds the CO2 absorption already. You can see in the more accurate plots how the CO2 drops during spring/summer and increases during the autumn/winter. But the drop is never as large as the previous increase.

 

[pete.dakota]

don't volcanoes emit much more carbon than man?

No. From an IPCC .pdf:

...find that the models simulated a positive NAM response to
the volcanoes, albeit one that was smaller than that observed.
Nevertheless, ozone, solar and volcanic forcing changes are
generally not found to have made a large contribution to the
observed NAM trend over recent decades.

Also, read the first, bolded paragraph of this .pdf from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

Despite the direct response of the model to solar forcing, even large solar
irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over
past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming
without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing. Although solar and
volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate
variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse
gases have dominated since the second half of the last
century.

 

[cjp]

I am wondering at what point does the rate of Co2 output equal or exceed the rate of Co2 absorption from natural 'cleaning' (e.g. photosynthesis?)

There is no simple answer to that question. If you think about a simplified model, where nature is a self-stabilizing system with an equilibrium state, then adding an extra emission factor will shift the equilibrium a bit upwards. If the stabilizing factors are strong, then even a large extra emission will shift the equilibrium only a little bit.

But nature itself is constantly changing: there is no clear, stable equilibrium. That's also what makes interpreting these climate graphs so complicated. Maybe one year you have 100 units emitted by nature, 1 unit emitted by people and 90 units absorbed by nature, and another year you may have 90 units emitted by nature, 1 unit emitted by people and 100 units absorbed by nature.

 

[Bj]

If the amount of CO2 constantly increases during the course of many decades, it exceeds the CO2 absorption already. You can see in the more accurate plots how the CO2 drops during spring/summer and increases during the autumn/winter. But the drop is never as large as the previous increase.

I read somewhere on this thread that the increased Co2 emissions are killing plants and trees. If that's true, then that means our rate of Co2 removal is decreasing, so our Co2 rate of increase, increases further. Its one big circle.

I read several articles where scientists have developed air scrubbers (articles here and here). So now they can remove the Co2 from the air, but now what can they do with it? They could bury it in the empty old oil chambers, or could they could launch chunks of Co2 into space and out of Earths SOI?

 

[Moonwalker]

Before the usual evidence throwing starts, I would like to mention that the IPCC does not provide strong evidences, only because it is government-endorsed.

To copy and paste a few pdf files, graphics, reports and news articles, does not proof an unsual man-made global warming.

 

[Bj]

the IPCC does not provide strong evidences, only because it is government-endorsed.

So because NASA is government funded means that our data about Earth is wrong, or landing on the Moon was a hoax after all... :lol:


More seriously; Why is being supported by the government a bad thing?

 

[pete.dakota]

To copy and paste a few pdf files, graphics, reports and news articles, does not proof an unsual man-made global warming.

So, according to your conjecture, nothing is evidence, ever? If you're not going to believe the IPCC on climate change, you're never going to believe anyone, and will never be swayed by scientific research undertaken by any government funded body.

Much like Creationists and Evangelicals...

Yes, the IPCC is government-endorsed, but that, in no way, make it's research discreditable. How can you claim that the IPCC does not not provide strong evidence? And who's evidence would you prefer over theirs?

 

[Moonwalker]

More seriously; Why is being supported by the government a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing. But it's often not what people think it is.

I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown.

...

I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

I'm glad that responsible people think that way, like NASA administrator Michael Griffin in this case. It's exactly what I think about.

 

[cjp]

I read several articles where scientists have developed air scrubbers (articles here and here). So now they can remove the Co2 from the air, but now what can they do with it? They could bury it in the empty old oil chambers, or could they could launch chunks of Co2 into space and out of Earths SOI?

Now we get to the interesting part - the solutions. Instead of whining about the trouble we're having - let's solve it!

I think launching into space takes too much energy: there are other solutions that are more energy friendly. Remember: you can't use fossil fuels for generating your energy, or otherwise the net effect will be even worse than doing nothing.

I read about a chemical process that can create (m)ethanol from CO2, water and oxygen(*). The net reaction equation is the inverse of burning (m)ethanol, and about the same as producing the alcohol as bio-fuel. So, when powering the reaction with solar energy, it's about as useful as bio-fuel, but maybe it uses available ground surface more effectively.

Now, (m)ethanol is most useful as a fuel, but when burning it, the CO2 will enter the atmosphere again(**). This isn't necessarily bad, as we need a good alternative for gasoline, but it doesn't reduce the amount of CO2 in the end.

There are projects for storing CO2 underground. The problem is that CO2 is a gas, while the oil where it came from was a liquid. And gases are about 1000 times as voluminous as liquids and solids. The high pressure underground will help a lot, but I doubt whether it will really work.

I found another approach: bind it to minerals. There are large amounts of minerals on earth that spontaneously absorb CO2, without gaining much volume. Only, normally this process is very slow, as it only happens on the surface of the rocks. I read a proposal to pulverize this rock into tiny pieces to increase its surface, and dump it into the oceans. Oceans absorb CO2 effectively, but they become saturated. The rocks will greatly improve the capacity of the oceans.

(*) On Wikipedia, that is. And it gave me more the impression of a 19th century scientific curiosity, not something that is ready to be used on an industrial scale.

(**) Even when drinking ethanol-containing drinks, biological processes will finally break it down to CO2

 

[Biscuit]

I know I said no more from me ... but, just to show that the government and NASA aren't infallible:

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

 

[pete.dakota]

Other extracts from that Griffin interview also state his acknowledgement of global warming, it's apparent growth, and that recent findings have nailed this growth to man-made causes.

Considering your extract, Griffin seems to think that man is trying to stop global warming. This isn't the case. It would be arrogant for humans to assume we can stop global warming, but no climate change scientist, body or researcher claims that's what we're trying to do. It's growth simply needs stemming.

Moreover, the growth that man causes, needs to be nullified. That's the nub of it.

 

[Urwumpe]

To copy and paste a few pdf files, graphics, reports and news articles, does not proof an unsual man-made global warming.

Yes, but others prove it. The IPCC is only gathering data, they rely on others to produce it.

 

[Bj]

I know I said no more from me ... but, just to show that the government and NASA aren't infallible:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

Interesting, it seems as time goes on, the extremes in everything increases( e.g. colder winters, warmer summers)

Now we get to the interesting part - the solutions. Instead of whining about the trouble we're having - let's solve it!

I think launching into space takes too much energy: there are other solutions that are more energy friendly. Remember: you can't use fossil fuels for generating your energy, or otherwise the net effect will be even worse than doing nothing.

Good point, but isn't there a launcher that just uses LOX and LH2? I notice the Saturn V uses RP-1 for the first stage, but there must be some launchers that use pure LOX/LH2.

As for the energy effective part, if we where launching rockets with minimal guidance and navigation computers, with only the bare necessity s, how much would it cost per launch? The Saturn V can launch 47k kg onto the moons trajectory, then how many launches a year would we need to maintain constant Co2 levels?

I read about a chemical process that can create (m)ethanol from CO2, water and oxygen(*). The net reaction equation is the inverse of burning (m)ethanol, and about the same as producing the alcohol as bio-fuel. So, when powering the reaction with solar energy, it's about as useful as bio-fuel, but maybe it uses available ground surface more effectively.

Now, (m)ethanol is most useful as a fuel, but when burning it, the CO2 will enter the atmosphere again(**). This isn't necessarily bad, as we need a good alternative for gasoline, but it doesn't reduce the amount of CO2 in the end.

True enough it wouldn't reduce Co2 but that still gives another fuel source which could reduce emissions.

There are projects for storing CO2 underground. The problem is that CO2 is a gas, while the oil where it came from was a liquid. And gases are about 1000 times as voluminous as liquids and solids. The high pressure underground will help a lot, but I doubt whether it will really work.

Bummer, I really thought this would work. Well at least it could hold some Co2

 

[Moonwalker]

So, according to your conjecture, nothing is evidence, ever? If you're not going to believe the IPCC on climate change, you're never going to believe anyone, and will never be swayed by scientific research undertaken by any government funded body.

Much like Creationists and Evangelicals...

Firstly, I'm atheist.

Secondly, I basically refer to climate science and its so called evidences. Climate science has become a pseudo-science partly, by turning into soothsaying. The Earths climate history is not very well known. Of course there are numbers, books and a lot of guesswork, but no real knowledge. The future of our climate is anything but certain. We observe the current climate but we don't undertsand it in detail. That's what the concerns really is about, while 0,038% of CO2 has become the evil bogeyman, and politics use it for their elections and programs.

Yes, the IPCC is government-endorsed, but that, in no way, make it's research discreditable. How can you claim that the IPCC does not not provide strong evidence?

Graphics, guesswork and climate models never is strong evidence. Which even IPCC lead authors mention, as well as small footnotes point to.

And who's evidence would you prefer over theirs?

I don't prefer any different evidences, because there is no evidence which shows that we're facing an unusual man-made global warming or not.


-----Post Added-----

Yes, but others prove it.

Well, they also present numbers, graphics and guesswork. But where are the so called strong evidences? I did not see only one strong evidence until today. Melting glaciers, a man-made calculated global mean temperature anomaly (based on a man-made calculated average temperature) as well as a measurable CO2 content of 0,038% is no proof that humans are causing it.

 

[Bj]

Graphics, guesswork and climate models never is strong evidence. Which even IPCC lead authors mention, as well as small footnotes point to.


I don't prefer any different evidences, because there is no evidence which shows that we're facing an unusual man-made global warming or not.

Its kindof funny, you say there is no evidence, yet NASA is showing cold hard data. Data isn't guesswork, it is an observation. They are telling you the temperature just like I could tell you the temperature outside my house right now, and that number is data -a cold hard observation.

 

[Urwumpe]

Firstly, I'm atheist.

Graphics, guesswork and climate models never is strong evidence. Which even IPCC lead authors mention, as well as small footnotes point to.

I don't prefer any different evidences, because there is no evidence which shows that we're facing an unusual man-made global warming or not.

Your faith is strong.

You reject any kind of scientific evidence - yes, that is evidence even if you don't like it's results - on the faithful assumption that your own home-grown model of the world is more sound and all scientists on this planet, who don't agree with you must be wrong and have no idea how to work properly. Or you are the only person on the planet to read scientific texts properly.

What you expect, is the thermometer of God. Or is there something more worldly which you could accept as real evidence?

 

[Bj]

Well, they also present numbers, graphics and guesswork. But where are the so called strong evidences? I did not see only one strong evidence until today. Melting glaciers, a man-made calculated global mean temperature anomaly (based on a man-made calculated average temperature) as well as a measurable CO2 content of 0,038% is no proof.

So are you saying that man-made calculations are not valid?

I don't know about you, but I think 1+1 = 2

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, they also present numbers, graphics and guesswork.

Where is the guess work? Can you please elaborate, what you call guesswork in your humble opinion?