Global Warming

[Pigsaw]

Oh, i see, you cannot accept it because you have to do something about it?

you are not refuting my claims, but my motivations, and you are talking about how fixing it impacts human lives, including yours, which means that you dont care so much for the truth as for the "money".

I am sorry if i am wrong about you, and would be glad if i am.

I for one, care for science, and will here discuss science ONLY, and politics on the other thread(that way discussions have much more sense, and direction)

If you are interested on my view on politics, we can talk on the other thread(link meh )

I know that this thread wasnt supposed to be science only, but i cannot create the new one, and this one is kind of old and some arguments have been brought up before so i considered it fine.

But please, if we can, keep this science only

[Trebor]

I recommend this talk by Dr. George Reisman: "

(YouTube).

In the Q&A period at the end of his lecture, at 38:45, he addresses the problem of the negative consequences resulting, not from particular individuals, but from the accumulative results of the relatively minor negative effects from each individual when combined with the same negative effects produced by great numbers of others.

[brian0918]

I for one, care for science, and will here discuss science ONLY

The problem is that much of this is NOT science, but rather statistics and modeling which cannot be tested against reality. At best, the climate models that predict a warming trend can only ever be used to construct a hypothesis, never to produce conclusions on how to act. Only after these predictions have been tested against reality can they lead to theories, and ultimately to conclusions on how to act. That is true science, something incredibly lacking in fields that are highly susceptible to political pressures via government grants (economics, health, and environmental).

Edited September 16, 2011 by brian0918

[brian0918]

Not only has it not been demonstrated that on Earth, increasing CO2 will increase temperature by anything other than a logarithmic "diminishing return" (see Grames post above), but it has yet to be demonstrated whether a) the water vapor feedback (which is crucial to the claim that warming will be significant) is positive OR negative, man can even contribute significantly to warming, c) warming is bad OR good for the world, d) humans could do anything about any warming that occurs.

So basically, nothing has been demonstrated, yet government panels are trying to assert that because some highly-contrived models which assume certain answers to the above, show a certain result, which has yet to be tested against reality, that therefore we should put the world into a state of emergency and act in a way that we are not certain could even have any effect.

Edited September 16, 2011 by brian0918

[Pigsaw]

I dont understand what you are saying. Temperature rising is a fact(and is acting aginst solar activity). Amount of gases in the atmosphere is a fact. Solar activity is a fact. Number of hurricanes is a fact. Predictions of what will happen are not a fact.

It is up to experts to make the predictions. I am laying facts and laymans logical conclusions.

I seriously doubt that any of us here have the qualification to make accurate predictions.

But i can see that temperature is rising when solar activity is falling, assuming graphs i used were correct, i can also see increase in CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. I also experienced local more extreme weather and its effects on agriculture(as i do grow all vegetables and most fruit i eat).

My nonexpert logical conclusion is that something is happening.

i see your next post now

i will edit mine soon

Edited September 16, 2011 by Pigsaw

[brian0918]

I dont understand what you are saying. Temperature rising is a fact(and is acting aginst solar activity).

Did I mention anything about that in my replies? No, because it is irrelevant to the question of the causes, consequences, and proper means of acting in response to rising temperatures.

I would also point out, as softwareNerd did, that this "fact" depends on how the "global temperature" is defined and measured. It is a highly abstract concept, and depends on the veracity of underlying concepts and algorithms.

Amount of gases in the atmosphere is a fact. Solar activity is a fact. Number of hurricanes is a fact.

Agreed. All of which are irrelevant to what I said. It's easy to measure the amount of gases, amount of solar activity, and number of hurricanes. It's next to impossible to determine how any of it relates to the global temperature.

I seriously doubt that any of us here have the qualification to make accurate predictions.

Certainly, yet we are highly capable of evaluating the assumptions underlying the rationale used to produce those predictions.

But i can see that temperature is rising when solar activity is falling, assuming graphs i used were correct, i can also see increase in CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. I also experienced local more extreme weather and its effects on agriculture(as i do grow all vegetables and most fruit i eat). My nonexpert logical conclusion is that something is happening.

You just went from saying that none of us can make predictions, to making a prediction. But what does this prediction even mean - "something is happening". Obviously things are happening, but without understanding how things interact together, you cannot make conclusions or accurate predictions.

Edited September 16, 2011 by brian0918

[Pigsaw]

here is my promised reply

to answer your post

Some of this things have not been tested globally, but we do know that

a)Increased temperature inscreases water evaporation. You can experience this if you live near sea on a hot day

b)man CAN contribute, significantly or not.

c)Extreme weather is not good...

however, if we are going for the MAJOR ice age, water vapor would greatly decrease which means we would have to pump ALOT of CO2 or methane or something third to compensate it

also, when the ice age is over, we would still have those greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

d)cant answer that.

We cant know for sure if we can do something or not, that is true. What we can do, is to eliminate the possibility that we are causing it, and if it persists, either we adapt, or we make the planet to adapt.

Currently, it seems that we do contribute. What we have to do now, is find another sources of energy, and exploitation of that energy(for example fusion, and powerful electric motors). We will have to face that oil will disappear sooner or later(by the way, that bacteria cannot be the global solution). Better we adapt now, and also stop contributing to GW, then to get struck by all these problems in the same time, even if that time is "later"

[brian0918]

a)Increased temperature inscreases water evaporation. You can experience this if you live near sea on a hot day

Yes, but it has not been demonstrated a) what effect increased water evaporation has on other factors, and what effect increased water evaporation has on global temperature. This latter variable is the "water vapor feedback" that is the entire crux of the prediction that major warming will occur.

b)man CAN contribute, significantly or not.

Obviously man interacts with the world, and so necessarily interferes with it. But it has not been determined a) whether his interference is of any consequence, and whether his interference is detrimental or beneficial.

c)Extreme weather is not good...

Yet it hasn't been demonstrated whether weather becomes more extreme due to global temperature increases or decreases (or neither!). There are statistical models which claim to predict extreme weather from high global temperatures, but again that can only lead to a hypothesis, which then needs to be tested against reality.

We cant know for sure if we can do something or not, that is true. What we can do, is to eliminate the possibility that we are causing it

If we don't know the causal mechanism, then we don't know how to act to "eliminate the possibility". And without knowing whether warming is good or bad, we don't have a reason to eliminate our interactions with the environment.

We will have to face that oil will disappear sooner or later

This is off-topic, but in a free market economy, oil would never disappear. It would become prohibitively expensive long before it is used up. However, in a government-manipulated economy, oil could run out, as government can remove the proper incentives that would increase price as the supply diminishes.

Edited September 16, 2011 by brian0918

[softwareNerd]

Oh, i see, you cannot accept it because you have to do something about it?

I note that you did not answer a single question I posed.

[Nigel]

Why is this even a matter of discussion. This is not a case of hard science, but a case of the media distorting science. The truth is this:

The earth may be getting warmer by fractions of degrees. This is not a cataclysmic Armageddon however. Sea levels may rise slightly. Hence, I am intelligent enough not to invest in ocean front property. The bottom line is, humans survived a very rapid climate change 12,000 years ago. Resent evidence that I read last week suggests that this ice age 12,000 years ago came on in a matter of years (not tens of years or hundreds of years like global warming extremists warn about). And guess what happened, MAN SURVIVED. Not only did humans survive, but they adapted to cope with the changes and agriculture started to develop. Its not hard to imagine that humans, at least those willing to use their brains, could survive another rapid climate change. Those who fear climate change doubt man's ability to succeed in the face of adversity. The truth of the matter is that we can survive a change in climate and so can most organisms. Furthermore, there are practical solutions proposed that can intrusively alter earth's atmosphere and control climactic conditions. Thus worrying about climate change is entirely irrational. Just think rationally and there is no problem. However, on the other hand, Rebuilding a city like New Orleans, which is below sea level, surrounded by water, and prone to hurricanes and Mississippi flood waters, is entirely irrational and indicative of why thus discussion is even occurring. In a rational world, global warming is no threat.

On a side note, the stuff on global warming has reached the level of pure absurdity. I think it was the NY Times, but I am not 100% sure on this, published an article last week about highly speculative inconclusive research that stated that global warming was effecting tectonic plate movements. I don't even no where to start with how absurd this is, its just an example of fear mongering liberals. The forces that drive plate movement come from the earth's extreme interior heat (up to 4000 degrees Celsius in the mantle) where plate movement is driven. To say that a temperature increase of 1 degree C on the surface could in any way alter plate movement is a stretch, to say the least.

Anyways, most lemmings who express their concerns over global warming are not scientists. Fortunately, I have a degree in biology and can read the evidence for myself (from the primary sources, not some piecemeal propaganda that was cited earlier in this thread). Go to the library and see what the journals really say. Sorry for my bluntness, but global warming alarmism bugs the hell out of me.

EDIT:

I am willing to bet that a news story within the next few weeks states that global warming is destroying our satellites. NASA's URAS satellite is going to crash sooner than expected due to atmospheric phenomena, though the atmospheric conditions are in no way related to earth's temperature. But you can see the easy extrapolation made possible for big brother Gore.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Nigel

[Pigsaw]

@egophile

Could you google a) and c) please?

@software- i told you that i do not want to discuss politics here, if you want me to discuss politics, link me a thread of your choosing

@nigel- Well, i lol'd.

anyhoe, if you are satisfied with man surviving, i guess your standards are,... low so to say...

Edited September 24, 2011 by Pigsaw

[brian0918]

@egophile

Could you google a) and c) please?

For what reason? Please re-read my replies to your a) and c) and understand that even though I agree with you on a) and c), those two facts alone do not say ANYTHING about whether and how they relate to the Earth's global temperature. That was the entire point of my reply: you cannot just simply pick a couple facts and pretend that those facts are all that is necessary to conclude not only that the Earth is warming, but that the warming will cause more extreme weather. Your two facts a) and c) are correct within certain contexts, but their exact connection to the global climate has not been determined.

[softwareNerd]

@software- i told you that i do not want to discuss politics here,...

Find a library near you that has "Rational Readings on the Environment" and read it before you make any more argument in favor of the "science" of global warming. Divination was probably considered science once.

[Pigsaw]

@brian

then i will repost my link for

c) http://www.pewclimat.../hurricanes.cfm

if you dont want to bother with reading everything, just skip to the "Is the frequency of hurricanes increasing?" part. Hurricanes depend heavily on air, land and sea temperature, there is no doubt about it. Temperature had risen. Coincidence? I think not. The question that remain is- how do greenhouse gases increase temperature, not how does increased temperature increases weather.

About

a)

According to wikipedia, water vapor makes up to 76 % of all greenhouse effects

If you dont know how such things corelate to each other(or anything else really), feel free to google it.

@software

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe, therefore divination could not be considered science.

I will try to read the book you linked soon.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Pigsaw

[brian0918]

According to wikipedia, water vapor makes up to 76 % of all greenhouse effects

If you dont know how such things corelate to each other(or anything else really), feel free to google it.

You are misusing that assertion. Among gasses that cause the greenhouse effect, water vapor is the most effective, and given that it is also the most abundant in the atmosphere, it would certainly contribute the most to the greenhouse effect.

All of that is irrelevant to the question of how much water vapor is increased by global warming, and/or how much global temperature is increased by an increase in water vapor. Please keep re-reading that sentence until you understand why the fact you cite is irrelevant to the actual question at hand. Increasing water vapor doesn't imply increased global warming, if for example it leads to increased cloud cover, which blocks incoming radiation, reducing both direct warming and greenhouse warming.

Edited September 26, 2011 by brian0918

[emorris1000]

This conversation, THIS right here, is why I asked the question of whether or not it is unethical to not have a strong understanding of science.

I see sooooooo many posts in here saying "I'm no scientist BUT" or "I'm no climatologist BUT". If you do not understand the science behind this, then you are at the whim of "experts", and the sad fact of the matter is that this is SUCH a complicated issue that even climatologists will come to different conclusions.

And to be clear, I'm not saying I have a better understanding myself or that I am not at the whim of the conclusions of experts. I consider myself pretty strong at chemistry, spectroscopy, and physical chemistry/thermodynamics, which are all key issues at play here, but one of the main things that knowledge gives me is an understanding that this is an insanely complex topic that is going to be very difficult to sort out even by the most knowledgeable of us.

Politicians exploit this confusion and take a stance on whatever side, knowing that they can find evidence to back it up, and then they can shift the argument away from the science and towards the "who has the most reliable experts." Instead of a scientific investigation it becomes a game of appeals to authority, argumentum ad populum, and other logical fallacies.

Rand's own statement, linked on the front page, is a complete logical fallacy (disturbingly so), dismissing the conclusions, not by understanding the argument, but by attacking the arguer.

---------------------

But here's a couple things that I DO know.

The earth exists in a very complex series of chemical equilibria. One of the simplest is CO2/O2. Humans/animals/combustion etc suck up O2 and make CO2, plants suck up CO2 and spit out Oxygen. Based on the generation/conversion rates of each chemical you will reach a chemical equilibrium, which will be seen in the concentrations in different systems in the world.

Right now it is CLEAR that O2->CO2 is happening at a faster rate than CO2 -> O2.

So what does an increased concentration of CO2 mean? This is where the spectroscopy comes in. Light is the ONLY source of energy for the planet earth (geothermal is an energy store, but it doesn't create energy). CO2 absorbs light in a different way than O2 does.

This means that changes in the relative concentrations of CO2 and O2 will change the way that the earth gets energy. How much of what kind of energy gets through the atmosphere?

None of this is conjecture or political or anything like that. Its basic chemistry/physics.

Then you get to the "greenhouse effect", which is the interpretation of the effects a change in chemical equilibrium of certain chemicals will have on the lower atmospheric temperatures. Basically, more CO2 means more absorbed heat. How much heat, exactly, is questionable, but the greenhouse effect is, qualitatively if not quantitatively, certain.

This is also not conjecture, political diatribe, or anything like that. Its basic chemistry/physics.

Then you have the recent temperature changes. Ignore the causal link between CO2/O2 concentrations and just look at the temperature change. In the short term, it is definitely changing.

This is not conjecture, political diatribe etc etc. Its simple data logging.

---------------

But here's where it gets tricky as all get out, and this is where the whole argument happens. \

Is the temperature rise noise or real? We don't really have enough data to know that.

Is the greenhouse effect quantitatively strong enough to cause these kinds of temperature changes this rapidly? We don't have enough data, or even the proper models, to know that for sure.

And even then, if the temperature change is real, will it even have a significant effect on the world? This one goes back and forth and back and forth.

Part of the issue in the last question is the ideal gas law. If temperature increases, so does pressure. Vice versa the opposite way. In a closed system this is true permanently. But there really aren't closed systems at play here. Is it more like a hot air balloon or a pot of boiling water then? Here the pressure will temporarilly increase but the expansion of the system or the transfer of the heat will equilibrate either the pressure or the temperature back down. Maybe the same applies to the earth? I dunno.

But the way that temperature and pressure operate on the global climate is the key to our dangers. Will increased temperature cause more disparate pressure systems, and therefore more hurricanes etc?

I have no freaking clue, and I wouldn't trust more than a handful of people on the planet to really know the answer, or even the real question, there.

---------------

So you have a lot of unknowns.

But based PURELY on the knowns, mentioned above, you can understand that CO2/O2 (and methane and other stuff of course) equilibria is incredibly important. And you can tell that we are generating it a LOT faster now.

So why the hell not address that? I mean, yeah, maybe its not an issue right now, but no matter what it will be one day.

And I'm not arguing that you slash industry to the bone, far from it. The only way to solve this problem is through industry. But I am arguing that you have to at least acknowledge the basic science at play here.

Ignore the politics, understand the science you are able to, and act from that. And stop listening to Fox news/Pacifica to get your expert opinion.

[brian0918]

But based PURELY on the knowns, mentioned above, you can understand that CO2/O2 (and methane and other stuff of course) equilibria is incredibly important.

I don't see where this follows from what you stated. O2 gets converted to CO2 at one rate, and CO2 to O2 at a different rate. That much you've said. The rest is unknown. So you cannot go from those two facts to the conclusion that there is an "incredibly important" equilibrium that we must pay attention to.

And you can tell that we are generating it a LOT faster now.

What does "a LOT" mean - a lot relative to what? Given that, as you state, we don't even have good models for how much increasing CO2 increases global temperature, you don't even have a reference point for how much is "a little" or "a lot".

So why the hell not address that?

Address what? You have stated we don't know that there is a causal relationship between the increase in CO2 and global temperature, and you have stated that we don't even know how much CO2 should increase global temperature. If we don't know what (if any) human action causes global temperature increase, and whether or not a temperature increase is even BAD, then we can't possibly claim to know how to respond (if at all) to the problem (if it is a problem).

As for CO2's greenhouse effect on temperature - it levels out roughly logarithmically as CO2 increases, so each doubling of CO2 has less and less effect on temperature. The only way climate models have been able to show dramatic temperature increases is to assume a large positive feedback mechanism from water vapor. But it's not clear whether that feedback mechanism actually *is* positive, let alone how significant it is.

Edited September 30, 2011 by brian0918

[emorris1000]

I don't see where this follows from what you stated. O2 gets converted to CO2 at one rate, and CO2 to O2 at a different rate. That much you've said. The rest is unknown. So you cannot go from those two facts to the conclusion that there is an "incredibly important" equilibrium that we must pay attention to.

Ok, so I glossed over a bit of equilibrium mechanics because I'm not teaching a class on chemistry. But the point is that with two reactions (or the same reaction in different directions) occuring at some set of rates (which are functionally dependant on concentration) you end up with an equilibrium concentration, a stable concentration.

Which we don't have.

Which means that the reaction rates are changing.

The reason the equilibria concentration is important is because of the known qualitative causal link between those concentrations and temperature.

What does "a LOT" mean - a lot relative to what? Given that, as you state, we don't even have good models for how much increasing CO2 increases global temperature, you don't even have a reference point for how much is "a little" or "a lot".

Fair point. I'll retract that.

Address what? You have stated we don't know that there is a causal relationship between the increase in CO2 and global temperature

I'm sorry, I should have been clear on this. There most certainly is a causal relationship between [CO2] and temperature. The question is not whether [CO2] causes temperature changes, it's whether the current temperature changes are primarilly caused by an increase in [CO2]. Or if its mainly noise, or whatever. But [CO2] is undoubtedly a component of it. You may be saying the same thing here.

If we don't know what (if any) human action causes global temperature increase

We DO know that changes in [CO2] are at least partially caused by humans. Mainly through combustion (increased generation of CO2) and deforestation (decreased consumption of CO2), which leads to an increased equilibria concentration of [CO2], which, btw, we haven't reached yet. Its true that other sources are contributing to it as well, like release of methane from clatherates that is oxidized to CO2. But I would need to be shown some evidence that non-human/non-controllable sources are primary sources.

And we DO know that changes in [CO2] cause temperature changes.

But yeah you're right we aren't sure of the magnitude of affect we have actually had.

As for CO2's greenhouse effect on temperature - it levels out roughly logarithmically as CO2 increases, so each doubling of CO2 has less and less effect on temperature. The only way climate models have been able to show dramatic temperature increases is to assume a large positive feedback mechanism from water vapor. But it's not clear whether that feedback mechanism actually *is* positive, let alone how significant it is.

That's true, CO2 has a log effect on temperature, so it's not a great example chemical to use for the whole global warming conversation (not all of them have a log effect), but on the other hand it is generally pretty stable, which means its an easier example to use for the chemical rate/chemical equilibria conversation above.

CH4, for instance, has a feedback effect due to oxidation in the troposphere which both removes ozones/hydroxyls and adds CO2 and H20, which can then increase temperature and increase CH4 generation through arctic clatherate release. That adds a lot of levels of complexity to the situation. In fact almost half of CH4s effect on temperature change is based on these indirect feedback effects.

If you feel up to getting into a really crunchy article on the subject read this:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-06.pdf

Methane is really one of the scarier of the atmospheric gases, or at least potentially scary. The thing that concerns me are the issues with the arctic clatherates.

----------------

Anyways all of that was really just showing that the qualitative nature of the argument is sound. No one is going to argue that an increase in [CO2] or [CH4] will decrease global temperature.

The quantitative nature of the argument is trickier. But consider this.

You are in a car. There is a dangerous object in front of you and it is coming closer. You know your car is moving forward, but you don't know how fast it is moving. What do you do?

[Pigsaw]

Here is something i found on that matter

http://www.newscientist.com/special/climate-knowns-unknowns?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=climateknownunknowns

[Craig24]

I found this story through another discussion forum. In brief, physicist and ex-skeptic Richard Muller is saying that after two years of research he is now convinced the earth's temperatures are rising rapidly.

A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

While he did not specifically address the claim that the rapid temperature increase is man caused, he did suggest curtailing the production and use of fossil fuels to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

Get ready for another wave of stories in the mainstream press detailing the effects of man on his environment and new calls for political action to reduce our energy consumption.

[Grames]

The article is propaganda, and Muller is partly responsible. It puts up the strawman that anthropogenic global warming skeptics deny that the Earth's climate and temperatures change.

World is warming. Pope is Catholic.

Guest post by Maurizio Morabito

Quite an effort has been made by many people (including Dr Richard Muller) to portray the BEST pre-pre-pre-papers as some kind of death blow against climate skepticism, as if the whole debate had been a sports match with everybody pigeonholed in two opposite camps: here, the noble scientists finding out the world is warming; there, the ignoble skeptics pretending the world is not warming.

Needless to say, it’s all the usual crass, outdated lie.

[Pigsaw]

quote from World is Warming. Pope is Catholic.

"The globe has warmed quite a bit since the 1600s, and in general this has been of benefit to humans. The sea level rise from the historical warming has not been a significant problem. In addition, a warmer world is predicted to be a wetter world, which overall can only be a good thing. So, will warming be a problem, or a benefit? This is a very open question, and one which will be difficult to answer as some areas will win and some will lose. To date, however, recent warming seems to be occuring outside the tropics, in the night-time, in the winter … this does not seem like a bad thing."

Somehow, after reading this i just cannot take that site for serious.

[softwareNerd]

Somehow, after reading this i just cannot take that site for serious.

Why? Because you think the advantages of warming must necessarily outweigh the disadvantages, or because of some other reason?

[Pigsaw]

Why? Because you think the advantages of warming must necessarily outweigh the disadvantages, or because of some other reason?

Exactly the opposite actually

[softwareNerd]

Exactly the opposite actually

I'm amazed that you think warming cannot be good on balance. In actual fact, one cannot weigh one person's value against another's disvalue, and therefore the quote you provided was exactly spot on when it said "some areas will win and some will lose". This much ought to be obvious with just a little thought.

As for the net effect, there's no good reason to prefer warming over cooling.