Global Cooling

Besides, we need more Co2 for our paint guns, Mountain Dew, drag race shifters and all that other fun stuff.

We just need to build a cloud factory to collect the Co2 from the sky!

Jensenman wrote: wbjones, evidence of past glaciers in the American Southeast does not support the economics of the exchange of carbon credits. Therefore, it is not valid.

but what it does , at least , for me is give me something to throw at the militant anti-anything that I enjoy... i.e. cars....

In reply to ignorant:

On #1 I fairly strongly disagree. We love guilt. We seek out as many ways as possible to try to feel guilty about our successes and tear down those who succeed. Population guilt, wealth guilt, etc....

On #2 I am mixed. We think we want to change our life, we love to talk about how much we should, and we love to talk about some of the things we do to think we are changing.

I'm not having kids, so I don't have to worry about the future much past another 60 years or so. Single-digit fuel economy here I come!!!

And since some people have no sense of humour, in case you missed it, that was an attempt at funny.

Shawn

Tommy Suddard wrote: You're treating the Venus, Earth, and Mars example as if it were an experiment with the variables controlled. But there is a major variable that you didn't think about (or didn't mention). Each of those planets is farther and farther away from the sun, meaning Venus gets the most energy, Mars the least, and Earth just the right amount. The temperature differences can be attributed the vastly different amount of energy each planet receives from the sun, not the slight variations in their atmosphere's carbon content.

That's why I said 'given the similarity in CO2 percentage in the atmospheres of Venus and Mars, there should be some correlation of temperature regardless of distance'.

Venus' clouds are composed of sulfuric acid, that is a climate change variable we don't see here (at least not in very high concentrations). But it's probably the one biggest variable between the three planets. It also is thought to support the greenhouse theory.

It's also NASA's conclusion (mentioned on the page I linked) that if it were not for the composition of Earth's atmosphere that it would probably be too cold to support life. Perfect example of that theory: the moon. On the sun side, temperatures on the surface are hot enough to boil water (if there were any) but on the dark side temperatures plunge toward absolute zero. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.html

Tommy Suddard wrote: Also, there was research done by NASA to determine if it was cost effective to emit more CO2 into Mars's atmosphere, therefore warming the planet and potentially making it habitable.

I knew there was talk of terraforming Mars but I thought it involved O2 and water vapor. IIRC the idea was to melt the polar ice caps and the recently discovered ice under the southern pole region to generate the water vapor and O2. Also, Mars has temperatures ranging from -195F to +70F; much colder than Earth average but the swings are much less than those of the moon. You would think that if CO2 was the super greenhouse gas, given its 93% concentration in the Martian atmosphere the swings would be much less.

Don't follow the science too much, but since no one has mentioned it:

What about them volcanoes that supposedly spew more tons of X in a single eruption than 20 years of industrial pollution?

I'm not so worried about any of it. Mother Nature will take care of it. And by it, it could me us, but it's just going to be an adjustment period over a long period of time.

We're not going to use oil up to the last drop and then have a big headline the next day. It's very gradually going to get more expensive, making other sources more economical (and increasingly cheaper). Switch complete.

-James

Jensenman wrote:

Tommy Suddard wrote: You're treating the Venus, Earth, and Mars example as if it were an experiment with the variables controlled. But there is a major variable that you didn't think about (or didn't mention). Each of those planets is farther and farther away from the sun, meaning Venus gets the most energy, Mars the least, and Earth just the right amount. The temperature differences can be attributed the vastly different amount of energy each planet receives from the sun, not the slight variations in their atmosphere's carbon content.

That's why I said 'given the similarity in CO2 percentage in the atmospheres of Venus and Mars, there should be some correlation of temperature regardless of distance'.

Wait, what are you saying? Could you clarify?

There should be some correlation of temperature with what?

Sorry, sometimes it's hard to argue on the internet, versus in person.

jamscal wrote: Don't follow the science too much, but since no one has mentioned it: What about them volcanoes that supposedly spew more tons of X in a single eruption than 20 years of industrial pollution?

Volcanoes emit 0.3 billion tons of CO2 per year. Humans emit 29 billion tons per year. And part of the volcano CO2 (the part released by underwater volcanoes) is immediately sequestered in the newly formed ocean floor lava rock.

Tommy Suddard wrote: Wait, what are you saying? Could you clarify? There should be some correlation of temperature with what? Sorry, sometimes it's hard to argue on the internet, versus in person.

He might be saying that the "science" has been so corrputed by the influence of money and politics that a lot of intelligent, reasonable people simply cannot trust the sources.

The question is: "How Does Science Regain Crediblity"?

Tommy Suddard wrote:

Jensenman wrote:

Tommy Suddard wrote: You're treating the Venus, Earth, and Mars example as if it were an experiment with the variables controlled. But there is a major variable that you didn't think about (or didn't mention). Each of those planets is farther and farther away from the sun, meaning Venus gets the most energy, Mars the least, and Earth just the right amount. The temperature differences can be attributed the vastly different amount of energy each planet receives from the sun, not the slight variations in their atmosphere's carbon content.

That's why I said 'given the similarity in CO2 percentage in the atmospheres of Venus and Mars, there should be some correlation of temperature regardless of distance'.

Wait, what are you saying? Could you clarify? There should be some correlation of temperature with what? Sorry, sometimes it's hard to argue on the internet, versus in person.

What I mean is: if you have a variable heat/light source (let's say a floodlight bulb) and then three 'receptors' (let's make them tennis balls) at, say, 5, 10 and 15 foot intervals then all three balls will receive some heat from that source. As the heat output of the source rises and falls (similar to the 22 year solar cycle), the three receptors will see their temperatures rise and fall as well. You are right, the closer one will be warmer than the two further away but all 3 will show temperature variations which can be shown mathematically to be related.

In the small model I mentioned, another variable besides the source's changes can be introduced by leaving 2 of the tennis balls yellow but painting 1 black. Regardless of the distance, since black absorbs heat the black receptor will show a different (higher) temperature than should be correct for its place in line if it were the same as the other 2. But its temperature swings can be still shown mathematically to be related to the other 2. This is vastly simplified, in the real universe there are many more variables at work.

WWCPD?

MrJoshua wrote: In reply to ignorant: On #1 I fairly strongly disagree. We love guilt. We seek out as many ways as possible to try to feel guilty about our successes and tear down those who succeed. Population guilt, wealth guilt, etc.... On #2 I am mixed. We think we want to change our life, we love to talk about how much we should, and we love to talk about some of the things we do to think we are changing.

my points came from my experience leading 30-40 guys in a shop environment.

1. Personal guilt is fine. But we don't ever want to admit what we are doing is wrong in front of others. Remember meaning what we do wrong here means that basically everything we do every day is wrong and damaging to others.

2. OK.. You're a trainer. As a general lot of folks we love to talk about losing weight. We love to "try" to lose weight. In the end how many of us actually keep the weight off long term? We love change, it is exciting, when it pertains to others. My current job is to work as a change agent in a world wide company. Some cultures do better than others with change. None do it well.

I stand by what I said.

Thanks Tommy. I spent about four hours reading up on AGW (anthropogenic global warming). There is a lot of information out there. Lots of information for and against. Those for show graphs and charts and surveys. Those against show the same. They both want everyone to take their word for in on faith. The site you got your charts from is an interesting read. So is the site that picks it apart. They both seem to have an agenda that is buried somewhere under their charts and graphs.

AGW proponents state the temperature is climbing and show a graph to prove it. AGW skeptics show how the research on proponents graphs are "adjusted" to show what they want. The science seems to have gotten lost in the politics. 31000 scientists signed on to state that the scientific method used to prove AGW is flawed or just missing. That's a troubling thought. It's coming down to money again. 50 billion dollars has gone to AGW research to prove it compared to 19 million to disprove it. If you don't sign on to AGW apparently you don't get any money.

John Cooks site, Skeptical Science, is an interesting read. Apparently it isn't the be all end all of AGW science though. Several scientists have taken the time to pick apart his talking points. So I'm back to square one. Prove it, until then I would rather keep my money.

Responses to some of Cooks points.

There is no consensus: This counter-point #3 is clearly obsolete: Cook tries to argue that 97% climate scientists endorse something - it sounds like a TV commercial. Most of his graphs are obsolete, too - the current support for various AGW-related statements is close to 1/2 of the figures he copied in an "optimistic" moment for his favorite political movement. The reality is that most scientists disagree with the basic tenets of the AGW orthodoxy - and even people like Phil Jones now agree that nothing unprecedented is going on with the climate right now (including no statistically significant warming in 15 years, and the existence of a medieval warm period), while Kevin Trenberth has agreed that the climate hasn't warmed and the popular models are inconsistent with this fact - what a travesty. There still exist large bodies of climate scientists who prefer to promote the panic - because they've been hired to do so or because it results from their political biases (which are mostly leftist in the Academia). The funding for climate science has increased 10-fold in the last 10-20 years - purely because of the possible threat - which means that 90% of the people (or 90% of the funding) is working on proofs of this pre-determined conclusion. At any rate, these discussions provide us with no evidence for the actual science - they're just about an attempt of the largely political movements to intimidate the scientists in the very same way in which Nazis wanted to intimidate the "Jewish science" by the consensus of the "Aryan scientists". Einstein would tell them that it's enough to find one scientist to prove Einstein wrong.

Models are unreliable: Cook says that models have made predictions that were successfully compared to observations. Except that this is not enough for the models to be reliable. For them to be reliable, it would have to be the case that the models have produced no predictions that were inconsistent with the observations - because one wrong prediction is enough to falsify a model. Clearly, such falsification has taken place with all of them. In particular, all IPCC-endorsed models predicted a warming since 1998 that didn't occur. They're gone. Again, both sides agree that we can't rely on them. Kevin Trenberth agrees that the disagreement of the models and the data is a travesty. There are hundreds of recent examples showing how deeply flawed the existing IPCC-endorsed models are.

Ice age predicted in the 70s: Cook claims that these predictions were largely media-based. Well, the same is true about the current global warming alarm. It's mostly media-based and good scientists are simply not working on such conspiracy theories. It's still true that less good scientists are working on them, and they were also working in the 1970s. Sometimes it's the very same people. For example, Rasool and Schneider predicted a new ice age in 1971 - in an article in Science. The relative importance of the "scientific community" and the "media" is pretty much the same as it was in the global cooling alarm in the 1970s - the recent global warming hysteria just got far more severe than the global cooling hysteria 35 years ago.

Wonder if the rise of the Somali pirates is a sign that a cooling period is just ahead?

ignorant wrote:

Tommy Suddard wrote: Ugh, I hear that too much. The normal 1500 year cycles (Dansgaard-Oeschger events) happen in the northern hemisphere, and they're always accompanied with cooling in the southern hemisphere. It's obvious this isn't that natural cycle, because currently temperatures in both hemispheres are increasing dramatically.

Tommy.. You need to understand two things about climate change. 1. admitting there is a man made part to climate change equates, in most folks mind, to a feeling of "we've being doing something wrong for a long period of time." People do not like to be told they are wrong. 2. People also don't want to change how they live their lives in any way. Admitting there is a problem with the way we live our lives necessitates a change in the way we live our lives. People don't want to change what they are doing. I'm just waiting for those who don't believe in climate change to die. On average they're older than us.

Attaway, iggy: us vs. them. We aren't all living on the same planet, are we?

Tommy, thanks for bringing Dansgaard-Oeschger events up. I hadn't heard that term before. But there is an explanation for why the southern hemisphere doesn't see the big D-A fluctuations: there's less land mass. Land tends to radiate its heat away quickly once the heat source is removed, that's why the high desert can be 110 degrees at noon and 40 degrees at midnight in the same 24 hour period. (But ask anybody who lives around, say, Phoenix what happens when they get a blanket of humidity from the Gulf of Baja.)The vast expanses of ocean water would be a large heat sink, thus moderating temperature changes. That's easily observed on a much smaller scale, if your house is located next to a sizeable body of liquid water the day/night temperatures in the immediate area tend to not cycle as far as those surrounded only by land.

From http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/blunier98nat.pdf

Implication for north±south connection A connection between the hemispheres can take place over the ocean or over the atmosphere. Charles et al.9 suggested that both high northern and southern temperature could be driven over the atmosphere or the ocean by tropical temperature.Whereas coupling between Antarctic and tropical temperatures would be immediate, northern temperature would lag a tropical temperature change due to the thermal in¯uence of the ice sheets or by the ice sheets' in¯uence on salt balance of the North Atlantic surface layer. An immediate response of the Southern Hemisphere to tropical temperature would tend to synchronize the CH4 (mainly related to tropical moisture changes) and the Antarctic isotope signal, whereas we observe a synchronism of CH4 and Greenland d18O (refs 5, 14). This makes a coupling via atmosphere improbable, and points instead to a dominant role of the ocean controlling the past climate of both polar regions.

and climate is weather averaged out over time.

I just wanted to point this out: we have immediate, relatively reliable data from the past 100 years. While it is all good, fine, and dandy that scientists have their "methods" for determining historical temperatures, unless they are getting them from a big freakin' book o' temperatures 'round the world, I will remain very distrustful when comparisons are made past a century or two.

HAVING SAID THAT, I don't think anyone disagrees to taking better care of our planet, including myself. Reduce emissions/pollution, yes please!

Jensenman wrote: Tommy, the greenhouse effect most definitely works. We have known about this for a long time. See Venus. The main components of the Venusian atmosphere are carbon dioxide (96%), nitrogen and sulfuric acid. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/venus_worldbook.html At this time, there has been no measured amount of free oxygen. The question is, how did it get that way? There are no Venusians roaming the planet driving SUVs or burning coal. That indicates it was a natural process. Then we can go the other way entirely with Mars. The Martian atmosphere is 93% CO2. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/mars_worldbook.html Yet it is much colder and drier than Earth.

Venus also has mind-bogglingly high atmospheric pressures (density), while Mars's "atmosphere" is so thin that, were you to stand there unprotected on a Martian summer day, your legs would be warm but your top half would freeze.

Me, I feel that climate change is going to happen no matter what. If we're affecting it, well, we've already massively altered the planet, in for a penny is in for a pound.

ignorant wrote: Tommy.. You need to understand two things about climate change. 1. admitting there is a man made part to climate change equates, in most folks mind, to a feeling of "we've being doing something wrong for a long period of time." People do not like to be told they are wrong. 2. People also don't want to change how they live their lives in any way. Admitting there is a problem with the way we live our lives necessitates a change in the way we live our lives. People don't want to change what they are doing. I'm just waiting for those who don't believe in climate change to die. On average they're older than us.

I give up. There is data on the internet to support any opinion, and if you can't find that you say it is all driven by money/power/double rainbow. I'm going to quietly wait for them to die, and go back to proving it to people my own age. I can't wait them out, and they aren't so set in their ways that they are completely numb to different ideas and opinions.

On a side note, if you'd like to keep arguing with me outside of the internet, feel free to talk to me at any of the numerous events I'll be at. The challenge will be your next opportunity.

The great thing about getting older is the wisdom that comes with it... just because people your age now buy into something doesn't mean they will in the future when they are older (and hopefully) wiser and better-informed.

You are assuming that older people disagree with your beliefs because they are not as well-informed... ever consider that maybe they just aren't as well indoctrintated...

Younger people tend to have a lot of enthusiam for socialism as well that changes as they mature... not an unrelated fact. ;-)

97% of all Catholic Priests (who are allowed a bit more flexibility in their beliefs than Climate Scientists) confirm the existence of God. Does that consensus make it factual? ;-)

Hmmm. wcelliot's right. Back in da day, the younger generation (of which I was a part) claimed that LSD was a mind expanding drug which would, if given to everyone, lead to the end of all evil. Turns out it would fry the brain (Syd Barret of Pink Floyd found that out first hand) and if that wasn't bad enough it also was linked to birth defects.

Jensenman wrote: Hmmm. wcelliot's right. Back in da day, the younger generation (of which I was a part) claimed that LSD was a mind expanding drug which would, if given to everyone, lead to the end of all evil. Turns out it would fry the brain (Syd Barret of Pink Floyd found that out first hand) and if that wasn't bad enough it also was linked to birth defects.

It seems that a lot of people embrace what they best understand. Science/numbers-oriented people will look at the graphs and data and gravitate towards the conclusions - yes, it's a bit of a generalization, but, essentially correct.

J-man, wcelliott and other (myself included) have been around long enough to see enough to temper a rush to judgement. It is wise to not only question the data, but also the motives of those who provide said data. BUT, when research funding is provided by an agenda-driven entity and the findings support any financier's agenda, eyebrows should be raised and the BS-meter checked.

"Climate Change" is a naturally occurring phenomenom. Yes, it is both possible and likely that human actions contribute to the rate of change and WE do have a responsiblility to take care of good old planet earth.

Combine some of the acclaimed climat change research with an allegiance to those who preach from the pulpit of global economic equality and you just invite skepticism - lots of it.

Tommy Suddard wrote: I give up. There is data on the internet to support any opinion, and if you can't find that you say it is all driven by money/power/double rainbow. I'm going to quietly wait for them to die, and go back to proving it to people my own age. I can't wait them out, and they aren't so set in their ways that they are completely numb to different ideas and opinions. [/B]