Off topic a bit: Climate Change

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by markio26

time will tell us for sure about this one......i think the earth is always changing for sure... i had someone from fla tell me the other day, that in late feb... every fifiteen minutes the warm air starts heading north and that is how we get our spring and eventually our summer... i don't know if he was serious... just thought i would tell the forum.....

No, the seasons are due to the wobble in Earth's spin - axis of rotation of the earth is about 13 degrees off the perpendicular to Earth's revolving around the sun. when the top of the earth points towards the sun we have summer (and the southern hemisphere has winter. As the earth progresses on its trip around the sun so also do we progress through the seasons (from solstice to equinox to solstice to equinox and we have a year)

[geojen]

As an earth scientist (technically, a geomorphologist, but no one ever knows what that means ) I have to chime in here. Sorry folks, but the link between co2 emissions and the rate of warming is pretty darn indisputible. We are causing more co2 to be released to the atmosphere, which in turn causes the globe to slowly warm up. This results in a positive feedback loop that begins to fuel itself. As glaciers melt, the work they did to reflect solar radiation back into space decreases---leading to warming. This results in more warming at a faster pace. The warming of the oceans is another positive feedback loop that was already brought up. Consequently, warmer oceans means stronger storms like hurricanes. Ultimately, what may happen is that we are either tipped into another extreme warm period like the Triassic, or an extreme cool period like the ice age. Yes, another ice age could be the result of global warming, and here's how:

The earth's ocean's have 2 types of "conveyor belts"--deep, cold belts and warmer surface belts like the gulf stream. Cold water at the northern latitudes is denser and saltier, causing it to sink. As the water sinks, it cycles back to the equator where the water is less salty and warmer, so it rises to the top. This conveyor belt system is what moderates the temperatures of the UK and other northern countries and makes them livable. However, as glaciers melt, fresh water could inundate the cold water belt, making the water less salty and therefore less dense. This would shut down that belt and disrupt the entire system. This would then lead to a cooling in the north.

Besides, I have to ask the naysayers--what the heck is the downside of taking care of the environment, cutting our co2 emissions, and getting off foreign oil? (chirp....chirp...)

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by geojen

As an earth scientist (technically, a geomorphologist, but no one ever knows what that means ) I have to chime in here.
The earth's ocean's have 2 types of "conveyor belts"--deep, cold belts and warmer surface belts like the gulf stream. Cold water at the northern latitudes is denser and saltier, causing it to sink. As the water sinks, it cycles back to the equator where the water is less salty and warmer, so it rises to the top. This conveyor belt system is what moderates the temperatures of the UK and other northern countries and makes them livable. However, as glaciers melt, fresh water could inundate the cold water belt, making the water less salty and therefore less dense. This would shut down that belt and disrupt the entire system. This would then lead to a cooling in the north.

Besides, I have to ask the naysayers--what the heck is the downside of taking care of the environment, cutting our co2 emissions, and getting off foreign oil? (chirp....chirp...)

geojen - thank you for bringing up the 'conveyor belts'! I was trying to work it into the conversation but....

I worked at NOAA (PMEL) in the '80s got to drink with scientists who could explain why the bubbles in our beer behaved the way they do. Drinking with the Ocean Currents group, they told me the story of the 'World River' carrying all the 'marine snow' south to the coast of South America. It has been so long that it gets hazy at the equator, I seem to remember that the 'world river' actually continues down to Antarctica and then back up the Atlantic. Could you enlighten me or point me in the right direction to find out more?

[maat55]

Originally Posted by geojen

As an earth scientist (technically, a geomorphologist, but no one ever knows what that means ) I have to chime in here. Sorry folks, but the link between co2 emissions and the rate of warming is pretty darn indisputible. We are causing more co2 to be released to the atmosphere, which in turn causes the globe to slowly warm up. This results in a positive feedback loop that begins to fuel itself. As glaciers melt, the work they did to reflect solar radiation back into space decreases---leading to warming. This results in more warming at a faster pace. The warming of the oceans is another positive feedback loop that was already brought up. Consequently, warmer oceans means stronger storms like hurricanes. Ultimately, what may happen is that we are either tipped into another extreme warm period like the Triassic, or an extreme cool period like the ice age. Yes, another ice age could be the result of global warming, and here's how:

The earth's ocean's have 2 types of "conveyor belts"--deep, cold belts and warmer surface belts like the gulf stream. Cold water at the northern latitudes is denser and saltier, causing it to sink. As the water sinks, it cycles back to the equator where the water is less salty and warmer, so it rises to the top. This conveyor belt system is what moderates the temperatures of the UK and other northern countries and makes them livable. However, as glaciers melt, fresh water could inundate the cold water belt, making the water less salty and therefore less dense. This would shut down that belt and disrupt the entire system. This would then lead to a cooling in the north.

Besides, I have to ask the naysayers--what the heck is the downside of taking care of the environment, cutting our co2 emissions, and getting off foreign oil? (chirp....chirp...)

I have to ask, are you in favor of the Kyoto Protocol? IMO, this is nothing more than an huge scientific funding expedition. Everyone knows that the earth warms and cools naturally. I do believe we should not pollute our environment, but not at the cost of colapsing our economy. From what I've heard, livestock methaine gas has more effect than oil, but that i'm not sure of.

[JimInOK]

I don't know if warming is factual or not. But I do believe many of the proposed solutions are worse than the problem they seek to correct.

Compact flourescents: Due to the mandated elimination of incandescents in the near future, these will soon be used on a massive scale. Problem: They contain mercury and require disposal at hazardous waste sites. I firmly believe that a solid percentage of people will not take the time to seek out such sites and will just dump them in the trash can. I fear any gains will be offset by the contamination of our environment (drinking water, etc).

Ethanol: Check out the April 7, 2008 cover story from Time magazine (not exactly a bastion of conservatism). First, it requires more than 1 gallon of fossil fuels to produce a single gallon of ethanol. Second, the biofuel boom has tremendously accelerated deforestation in the Amazon and, according to the article, is actually "dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it."

Global warming a reality? I have no clue. But I do believe that we are being sold a lie in many of the "solutions," many of which are merely serving to profit those who are lobbying for them. I have no confidence that we as a people have the knowledge or commitment required to correct any problem that may exist. And I fear we will do even greater damage in the process of trying to implement a solution.

I can't yet post links on this site, but the article I referenced is available at Time's website.

[geojen]

Originally Posted by maat55

I have to ask, are you in favor of the Kyoto Protocol? IMO, this is nothing more than an huge scientific funding expedition. Everyone knows that the earth warms and cools naturally. I do believe we should not pollute our environment, but not at the cost of colapsing our economy. From what I've heard, livestock methaine gas has more effect than oil, but that i'm not sure of.

The Kyoto protocol is a good first step, but I agree with several people that China and India have to follow the protocol too. Under the current protocol, they would be left out. However, China is on pace to overtake us in the CO2 department soon. Then again, China is also voraciously buying up all the wind turbines and now supplies more of its energy through wind than we do.

So I guess in IMHO, the protocol is better than nothing, but far from perfect. The reality of the situation is that the U.S. has to step up and be a leader here rather than trying to deny the problem.

[geojen]

Originally Posted by GrimJack

geojen - thank you for bringing up the 'conveyor belts'! I was trying to work it into the conversation but....

I worked at NOAA (PMEL) in the '80s got to drink with scientists who could explain why the bubbles in our beer behaved the way they do. Drinking with the Ocean Currents group, they told me the story of the 'World River' carrying all the 'marine snow' south to the coast of South America. It has been so long that it gets hazy at the equator, I seem to remember that the 'world river' actually continues down to Antarctica and then back up the Atlantic. Could you enlighten me or point me in the right direction to find out more?

The 'world river' is called thermohaline circulation. I've posted a few links for more information on it.

Great ocean conveyor belt - Climate Change
The Environmental Literacy Council - The Great Ocean Conveyer Belt

What did you do at NOAA?

[geojen]

Originally Posted by JimInOK

I don't know if warming is factual or not. But I do believe many of the proposed solutions are worse than the problem they seek to correct.

Compact flourescents: Due to the mandated elimination of incandescents in the near future, these will soon be used on a massive scale. Problem: They contain mercury and require disposal at hazardous waste sites. I firmly believe that a solid percentage of people will not take the time to seek out such sites and will just dump them in the trash can. I fear any gains will be offset by the contamination of our environment (drinking water, etc).

Ethanol: Check out the April 7, 2008 cover story from Time magazine (not exactly a bastion of conservatism). First, it requires more than 1 gallon of fossil fuels to produce a single gallon of ethanol. Second, the biofuel boom has tremendously accelerated deforestation in the Amazon and, according to the article, is actually "dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it."

Global warming a reality? I have no clue. But I do believe that we are being sold a lie in many of the "solutions," many of which are merely serving to profit those who are lobbying for them. I have no confidence that we as a people have the knowledge or commitment required to correct any problem that may exist. And I fear we will do even greater damage in the process of trying to implement a solution.

I can't yet post links on this site, but the article I referenced is available at Time's website.

As far as your concern with mercury in the CFLs, this link from NPR sheds some more light (pun intended) on the issue.

CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury : NPR

Overall, I'd say that CFLs are more help than harm.

[bjl584]

I don't think that we have enough data to say one way or the other if man is causing global climate change. We have around 200 years of data. The Earth is around 5 billion years old. That is a blip on the radar in the geologic time scale. The Earth's climate has been warming and cooling for eons. The earth was much warmer during the time of the dinosaurs, and there have been several ice ages all before man walked the earth. There are a lot of things at work with the Earth's climate other than CO2. The Earth's axis and wobble that it cycles through, Sun Spot activity, and Ocean currents to name a few.

There is also the argument that the scientific instruments that record this data can not be relied upon due to the fact that many of them are subject to outside forces. (They are placed in direct sunlight, they are near to a heating duct on top of a building, etc.) There is also an argument that since the instruments are much more accurate and sophisticated today, that the older instruments that were used years ago may not have yielded accurate results. (Pre computer, etc.)

Then there is the argument that even if mankind completely stops CO2 emissions, will it matter? A large volcanic eruption can put more CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere than the entire Industrial Revolution.

I'm all for protecting the environment, but I also don't want to jump to conclusions. I do think that the Global Warming argument has become much more political than it is scientific.

[Scanner]

Al Gore just went on record that if you dont beleive in global warming that's akin to being a member of the flat earth society.

[geojen]

Originally Posted by Scanner

Al Gore just went on record that if you dont beleive in global warming that's akin to being a member of the flat earth society.

That's the problem with this whole deal. The media and other's (not the scientists) are the one's doing all the talking. They take things out of context and oversimplify them so that people like Rush Limbaugh can go out and denounce the whole thing when something doesn't fit perfectly.

For example--all the people who point to this cold, long winter as "proof" that global warming is not occurring. This is not proof. We will still have winter if the globe warms. That is the point of this whole thing--more extreme highs and lows. That means hotter summers and colder winters. There will still be outliers and situations that don't fit the model perfectly.

[cptacek]

I am suspicious of any computer model that pretends that it can forecast how things are going to be in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, if it can't be "taken back in time", do the forecasts and get to where we are now. From everything I've heard, there are no computer models for man made climate change that actually work.

I think that people forget about the effect of the sun and el nino and la nina. And people confuse weather with climate.

I'm in Kansas. I know that I can go to some cuts in the road by my house and find shark teeth. We made fences, houses, churches, barns, almost everything back in the day out of limestone posts. Limestone forms under water. So, there was ocean over at least half of this country at some point in the past. It used to be warmer. It used to be cooler. That is the cyclical nature of climate. The great plains used to be called the Great American Desert, but aren't now. The oceans in Kansas may have been millions of years ago, but I don't think that kills my argument. That just means that the earth has been changing for a really long time. There is no reason to believe that it changed for a long time and then all of a sudden at some point in the past it came into equilibrium and will never change again.

I think it very convenient that people who live very conspicuously, with private jets, humongoid houses, etc. assuage their guilt by buying "carbon credits". I actually looked into selling carbon credits. I have access to lots of land and if the carbon credits were worth anything, I was actually thinking about being a "broker" for them. Linking people with land to sequester carbon with people buying credits. But the "carbon credit" market is dropping faster than Mitzi's panties after prom. It just isn't worth anything. So, people can buy carbon credits for nothing and pretend to be concerned about the environment but only so long as someone else sacrifices. Like saying other people should take the bus so we don't have so much congestion on the roads.

I don't like the religious-like quality that global warming protaganists have. If it is right, it is right. Let the science decide. But don't try to squash the other point of view:
British Lord Stings Senators Rockefeller and Snowe: 'Uphold Free Speech or Resign'

I am hesitant to say this, because I am afraid it will be dismissed out of hand because he is a radio talk show host. But I listed to Glenn Beck when he had Lord Monkton on, the guy who convinced the English parliament to not allow Gore's movie in their schools, and I tell you, that guy sounds sharp. The transcript it here:
Glenn Beck - Interviews - Glenn Beck: Lord Monckton on Global Warming

I think it funny, actually, that the U.S. is being chastised for not signing the Kyoto treaty but no other industrialized country that signed it will be able to fulfill the agreement. At least we aren't breaking the treaty! If you know of one, please let me know. Seriously. I want to be fully informed, and if that is wrong, please tell me.

I want to know who is pushing this issue and more importantly, why. I doubt altruism is the main motivator at the highest level of this movement. It has to boil down to money, and we need to know who is making the money because of this and who stands to gain.

Now, that said, the things we, the hoi pelloi, are supposed to do to help this "disaster" are actually in line with what we all say to save money. Don't drive as much. Shut off your lights, turn down your heat, turn down your air conditioner, plant trees, etc. That is all fine. But when our government starts hinting, or just flat out saying, that they are going to increase taxes, put additional regulations on industries, outlaw other things because of this, we need to know the facts.

The Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment denied two coal power plants because of carbon dioxide. Now, the company that is wanting to put them in is fighting it, but they may just skip over the state line to Colorado or Oklahoma. So we are losing out on tax money and jobs the company would provide and giving that to those other states. And the gases that come out of those plants will still be blowing over our state.
Kansas rejection of coal plant fires up backlash | Environment | Reuters

[jc3900]

For those of you who are worried that we are causing global warming, what do you suggest to stop it? If it at all involves having any type of government regulations, then I suggest you look for a new solution. Most of the proposed solutions only work with one world government regulations aka antichrist. Also, I caution anyone on this topic as its propenents most often use fear to gain support. It is never good when fear is a main driver in peoples support.

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by geojen

The 'world river' is called thermohaline circulation. I've posted a few links for more information on it.

Great ocean conveyor belt - Climate Change
The Environmental Literacy Council - The Great Ocean Conveyer Belt

What did you do at NOAA?

Thanks for the links - the last 30 years have dimmed memories already clouded by long nights of drinking beer with OC just back from 6 months in Alaska dropping CTD (conductivity,temp, density) sensors. I was a byte jockey in the Pacific Marine Environmental Labs computer room helping them get data into publishable form. I got to see some early Alvin movies of the vent worms off the coast of Oregon. The movies showed what they called 'marine snow' falling just like snow (duh!) which turns out to be all the biological material that falls from the upper layers -- the ocean conveyor belt redistributes a great deal of organic material as well as heat.

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by cptacek

I am suspicious of any computer model that pretends that it can forecast how things are going to be in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, if it can't be "taken back in time", do the forecasts and get to where we are now. From everything I've heard, there are no computer models for man made climate change that actually work.

The study titled "How Well do Coupled Models Simulate Today’s Climate?" - investigates how well climate models actually do their job in simulating climate. To this end, they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate. The authors apply this method to about 50 different national and international models that were developed over the past two decades at major climate research centers in China, Russia, Australia, Canada, France, Korea, Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. Of course, also included is the very latest model generation that was used for the very recent (2007) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change, and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations,”.

I think that people forget about the effect of the sun and el nino and la nina. And people confuse weather with climate.

Why on earth do you think this? Who could possibly forget the affects of the sun since it produces most the energy under discussion. With all the weatherdroids tossing El Niño/La Niña it becomes more difficult to lose track of them also.

I'm in Kansas. I know that I can go to some cuts in the road by my house and find shark teeth. We made fences, houses, churches, barns, almost everything back in the day out of limestone posts. Limestone forms under water. So, there was ocean over at least half of this country at some point in the past. It used to be warmer. It used to be cooler. That is the cyclical nature of climate. The great plains used to be called the Great American Desert, but aren't now. The oceans in Kansas may have been millions of years ago, but I don't think that kills my argument. That just means that the earth has been changing for a really long time. There is no reason to believe that it changed for a long time and then all of a sudden at some point in the past it came into equilibrium and will never change again.

Are you aware of Pangeaea and Plate Tectonics? If you run the world time backwards all the continents coalesce into a giant land mass called pangeaea. Not many people are surprised by the fact the landscape changes.

I think it very convenient that people who live very conspicuously, with private jets, humongoid houses, etc. assuage their guilt by buying "carbon credits". I actually looked into selling carbon credits. I have access to lots of land and if the carbon credits were worth anything, I was actually thinking about being a "broker" for them. Linking people with land to sequester carbon with people buying credits. But the "carbon credit" market is dropping faster than Mitzi's panties after prom. It just isn't worth anything. So, people can buy carbon credits for nothing and pretend to be concerned about the environment but only so long as someone else sacrifices. Like saying other people should take the bus so we don't have so much congestion on the roads.

This seems like you are setting up a straw man to knock down.

I don't like the religious-like quality that global warming protaganists have. If it is right, it is right. Let the science decide. But don't try to squash the other point of view:
British Lord Stings Senators Rockefeller and Snowe: 'Uphold Free Speech or Resign'

I am hesitant to say this, because I am afraid it will be dismissed out of hand because he is a radio talk show host. But I listed to Glenn Beck when he had Lord Monkton on, the guy who convinced the English parliament to not allow Gore's movie in their schools, and I tell you, that guy sounds sharp. The transcript it here:
Glenn Beck - Interviews - Glenn Beck: Lord Monckton on Global Warming

I think it funny, actually, that the U.S. is being chastised for not signing the Kyoto treaty but no other industrialized country that signed it will be able to fulfill the agreement. At least we aren't breaking the treaty! If you know of one, please let me know. Seriously. I want to be fully informed, and if that is wrong, please tell me.

Lord Monckton was a crank unable to use actualy statistics, he fell back on 'black body' radiation to come of with his figures but got it pretty much all wrong. He is so proud of his intellectual prowess that he bet a million pounds no one could solve one of his puzzles, - it was solved within a couple weeks and he lost his home over the bet.

I want to know who is pushing this issue and more importantly, why. I doubt altruism is the main motivator at the highest level of this movement. It has to boil down to money, and we need to know who is making the money because of this and who stands to gain.

I think following the money behind what few scientists are trying to debunk global warming would be a better direction to follow the money-- Seems it oil, mining, and power cartels who are following the tobacco cartels' tricks of just producing enoiugh junk scienc to convince the hoi peloi that there is an actuall debate going on.

Now, that said, the things we, the hoi pelloi, are supposed to do to help this "disaster" are actually in line with what we all say to save money. Don't drive as much. Shut off your lights, turn down your heat, turn down your air conditioner, plant trees, etc. That is all fine. But when our government starts hinting, or just flat out saying, that they are going to increase taxes, put additional regulations on industries, outlaw other things because of this, we need to know the facts.

Google on it

The Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment denied two coal power plants because of carbon dioxide. Now, the company that is wanting to put them in is fighting it, but they may just skip over the state line to Colorado or Oklahoma. So we are losing out on tax money and jobs the company would provide and giving that to those other states. And the gases that come out of those plants will still be blowing over our state.

I would guess that the plant did not want to put any scrubbers on the outgassing - I suppose that that eventually they will find a state that will let them deficate into the atmosphere.][/quote]

[geojen]

Originally Posted by jc3900

For those of you who are worried that we are causing global warming, what do you suggest to stop it? If it at all involves having any type of government regulations, then I suggest you look for a new solution. Most of the proposed solutions only work with one world government regulations aka antichrist. Also, I caution anyone on this topic as its propenents most often use fear to gain support. It is never good when fear is a main driver in peoples support.

If anyone is using fear to garner support, it is because the climatologists, geomorphologists, geologists, and climatologists have been raising the warming flag for nigh 30 years now. Seems no one wanted to listen. Kinda like Hubbard's curve and peak oil. Apparently, the American public can only be roused to do something if it is in danger of causing them some kind of personal inconvenience.

Again, I forward the question--what is the downside of getting off foreign oil? I've seen estimates of what a gallon of gas actually costs the American public when all of its costs are factored in. These costs include the cost of recovering the oil, shipping it, and refining of course, but also the costs of the military bases established in the middle east to ensure that the oil keeps flowing and the subsidies given to the oil companies. If we actually paid at the pump what it cost, we would be paying over 15.00 a gallon for gas.

[JimInOK]

Originally Posted by geojen