Global Warming, Full Quivers, and Social Irresponsibility

[Bravus]

Quote:

Or perhaps it operates like "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline." A paper several decades ago by a Ph.D. in Chemistry.

In an Isaac Asimov science fiction story, if I recall correctly.

[olger]

Global warming is humorous. Newsweek magazine printed a major article in 1975 on the coming Ice Age. Don't you guys see that these misery-merchants are falling all over themselves to see who can sell the most fear?

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

"Men's hearts failing them for fear.."

rejoice always,

olger

[Bravus]

1. If increased temperatures do cause increased CO2, with a 600-800 year lag, then our distant descendants are toast, because the world *is* warming (even Lindzen acknowledges this), from whatever cause, and that 'natural' CO2 increase would be on top of the human-caused increase. That's even assuming we don't end up with other 'positive forcings' like the release of permafrost methane.

2. The most plausible candidates for natural 'sinks' that help the planet re-balance its CO2 proportions are forests and oceanic algaes (probably some of each). As well as releasing CO2 we've been decimating the forests and poisoning the oceans.

3. CO2 levels are much higher already (377 ppm) than they were in the period of the Fischer ice core study (maximum value about 280 ppm), and still rising rapidly.

4. Lindzen's argument, as nearly as I can understand it, is "Yes, warming is occurring, but no, I do not think it is caused by CO2. I do not have any alternative hypothesis about what might be causing it."

[there buster]

Quote:

"Yes, warming is occurring, but no, I do not think it is caused by CO2. I do not have any alternative hypothesis about what might be causing it."

Here are two options:

1) The current warming is not unusual, it is part of natural variability.

2) Global climate change is a complex and poorly understood phenomenon.

The Earth is warming out of the little Ice Age, when Hans Brinker could skate on the canals of Amsterdam, and the Thames froze solid in winter.

The Earth has warmed before. It has cooled before. It will do both again.

I point out once again that the majority of the warming in the last century took place in the first half of the century, while the majority of the man-produced CO2 was put in the atmosphere AFTER then, directly contrary to the models predictions.

The most obvious self-correcting mechanism is simply cloud cover. Higher temps should result in increased evaporation, which will in turn produce more clouds, which will block the sunlight and cool the planet.

Another mechanism would be accelerated plant growth from the increased CO2, coupled with the increased rainfall from the cloud cover. More plant cover, more cooling.

THere's plenty of science to support those positions, it's just not fashionable right now.

As far as our descendants 600-800 years from now, they matter little. If science is correct, all life is in vain anyway. After all, science tells us life on this planet is doomed anyway. The sun will burn out, but before it does, it will become a red giant, and the Earth will be vaporized, along with everything on it. The time scale is longer, but its inevitable.

Many environmentalists consider human population to be the culprit anyway. You yourself spoke of 'excess population.' Even if the direst predictions are correct, this is just an evolutionary process, where a species, by polluting itself out of existence, demonstrates its not adaptable enough to survive.

This grand mechanism of natural selection has done so marvelously so far, why interfere with it now?

[David Koot]

The sun will burn out, but before it does, it will become a red giant, and the Earth will be vaporized, along with everything on it.

Ed, your presentation is interesting indeed. It is interesting to challenge the PC scientific establishment.

However, just one point of correction. In stellar evolution, a red giant is an early stage. That is because the stellar gases are not as dense. The force of gravity gradually compresses them. Our sun is a ways down the road from a red giant. That stage would have happened long, long ago. It could not happen again, due to increasing gravitational force and the density of the gases. Following the theory of stellar evolution, since our sun is below the Chandrasekhar limit, it would end as a white dwarf. Would not become a black hole. Of course, there is the option that it could end its days as a supernova, in which case the solar system would be incinerated.

[bevin]

Quote:

The most obvious self-correcting mechanism is simply cloud cover. Higher temps should result in increased evaporation, which will in turn produce more clouds, which will block the sunlight and cool the planet.

I used to think this too, several years ago, then I did some reading on the topic...

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/060124_earth_albedo.html

On any given day, about half of Earth is covered by clouds, which reflect more sunlight than land and water. Clouds keep Earth cool by reflecting sunlight, but they can also serve as blankets to trap warmth.

High thin clouds are better blankets, while low thick clouds make better coolers.

Separately, satellite data recently showed that while the difference between high and low clouds had long been steady at 7-8 percent, in the past five years, for some unknown reason, the difference has jumped to 13 percent. High, warming clouds have increased while low clouds have decreased.

Quote:

Another mechanism would be accelerated plant growth from the increased CO2, coupled with the increased rainfall from the cloud cover. More plant cover, more cooling.

You are also speeding up the decomposition of plants and also there are other constraints on plant growth - it is not a limitless sink.

Quote:

As far as our descendants 600-800 years from now, they matter little

Which gets us back to the topic of this whole thread. Many christians think that they have no responsibility to take care of the Earth.

It is nice of Ed to demonstrate it so succinctly.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

Quote:

As far as our descendants 600-800 years from now, they matter little

Which gets us back to the topic of this whole thread. Many christians think that they have no responsibility to take care of the Earth.

It is nice of Ed to demonstrate it so succinctly.

Anyone who cares to check what I actually wrote will notice the deception in your statement.

Stooping to such a tactic does not bolster your position.

My point is that there can be no scientific basis for a moral obligation.

[bevin]

Quote:

I point out once again that the majority of the warming in the last century took place in the first half of the century, while the majority of the man-produced CO2 was put in the atmosphere AFTER then, directly contrary to the models predictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

1900 The 5 year mean deviation was -0.3C

1950 The 5 year mean deviation was -0.2C

2000 The 5 year mean deviation was +0.4C

Warming from 1900-1950 0.1C

Warming from 1950-2000 0.6C

ie: There was 6x as much warming in the second half of the century as in the first half

Even taking the low and the high, the first half was only equal to the second at 0.6C

Or perhaps you would prefer this source

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html

which also shows your statement is false

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

My point is that there can be no scientific basis for a moral obligation

I agree. Science tells us what is and what can be, it does not tell us which outcome to choose.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Actually, the ocean data confirms my position. The trend line from 1900 to 1950 is considerably steeper than the trend line for the last half of the century.

And it has been established that the land temperatures are artificially elevated because they exist in "thermal islands," areas like airports which were rural in the early century but which have been built up around in the last half century.

This has been one of the comedies of the global warming hysteria: insisting that the land data is more reliable than satellite and ocean data. Even though the land stations are subject to the thermal island phenomena, their coverage has dramatically increased over the last several decades, so that we have no data for vast land areas in the early twentieth century, and the ones we have had all that time have been engulfed in concrete, asphalt, and other urban artifacts that artificially elevate temperature readings.

[there buster]

You are correct about the red giant. So we either die from the cold of space, or are vaporized by the supernova.

Either way, we're dead.

And if the Bible is wrong about how the world began, then we can't count on it's account of how the world will end.

[bevin]

Quote:

Actually, the ocean data confirms my position

No, it doesn't.

In 1900, the ocean temperature is right on 0

It drops and returns to 0 around 1930 goes up and back to 0 in 1950.

Choosing an interval with the steepest slope is cherry-picking your evidence

/Bevin

[there buster]

The whole debate has been about CO2 emissions in the 20th Century and onwards. I didn't pick--cherry or otherwise-- the dates. The priests of global warming did. And the ocean data contradicts one of their positions.

I simply pointed out the trend lines (not the opening and closing temperatures).

[bevin]

Quote:

I simply pointed out the trend lines (not the opening and closing temperatures).

What you actually said was

Quote:

I point out once again that the majority of the warming in the last century took place in the first half of the century

and I produced data to show this statement was false.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Here's their data set

graph it out and is shows significantly steeper warming trend in the first half of the century.

[Key Guy]

I realize that I'm jumping in way late on this thread, but I offer the following...

"The inventions of human minds are supposed to spring from humanity, but God is behind all. He has caused that the means of rapid traveling shall have been invented, for the great day of His preparation.

The use which men have made of their capabilities, by misusing and abusing their God-given talents, has brought confusion into the world. They have left the guardianship of Christ for the guardianship of the great rebel, the prince of darkness. Man alone is accountable for the strange fire which has been mingled with the sacred. The accumulation of many things which minister to lust and ambition has brought upon the world the judgment of God. When in difficulty, philosophers and the great men of earth desire to satisfy their minds without appealing to God. They ventilate their philosophy in regard to the heavens and the earth, accounting for plagues, pestilences, epidemics, earthquakes, and famines, by their supposed science. Hundreds of questions relating to creation and providence, they will attempt to solve by saying. This is a law of nature." {FE 408, 409}

You can spew scientific jargon about global warming 'til the cows come home, but the REAL reason is man's spiritual rebellion and God's control of the climate. Burning fossil fuels have nothing to do with it. One erupting volcano dwarfs the effects of anything man can do to warm the planet.

[olger]

Amen KG. Those are divine words.

oG

[bevin]

Quote:

One erupting volcano dwarfs the effects of anything man can do to warm the planet.

This statement is simply false. The volume of material put into the atmosphere by all volcanoes is about 110 million tons, other sources 10 billion tons, human part of that 3% = 300 million tons = 3X what volcanoes do

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

[bevin]

Quote:

graph it out and is shows significantly steeper warming trend in the first half of the century

I did. It doesn't. If someone can tell me how to upload a file from my computer, I'll attach it.

What it shows is

1900 a spread from about -0.2 - 0.2, dropping to

1925 a low spread from about -0.35 - -0.45, rising to

1950 a 0 - 0.35, then a sudden drop to

1952 a low spread of -0.2 - 0.0, rising to

2005 a high spread of 0.4 - 0.55

The low around 1925 is very dramatic - and very brief

The high around 1950 is very dramatic - and very brief

Using them as the basis of the "significantly steeper warming trend" is cherry-picking. The actual data for the first half of the century is that it starts at around -0.1 and finished around 0

/Bevin

[Bravus]

Just wanted to add that *of course* climate change caused by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is overlaid on the existing variability in the climate, including things like volcanic eruptions and El Ninos and other phenomena. We would expect to see a broad trend over a long period, not a simple direct correlation. I looked closely at the data Ed posted too, and have looked at other data sets, both terrestrial and marine. The general trend is upward and accelerating. Remember also that humans have been cutting down forests, and burning them, for centuries, and likewise burning large amounts of coal. The sheer scale of the problem accelerated astonishingly in the 20th century and continues to do so, but it certainly didn't begin in 1900.

[Bravus]

Just wanted to add that *of course* climate change caused by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is overlaid on the existing variability in the climate, including things like volcanic eruptions and El Ninos and other phenomena. We would expect to see a broad trend over a long period, not a simple direct correlation. I looked closely at the data Ed posted too, and have looked at other data sets, both terrestrial and marine. The general trend is upward and accelerating. Remember also that humans have been cutting down forests, and burning them, for centuries, and likewise burning large amounts of coal. The sheer scale of the problem accelerated astonishingly in the 20th century and continues to do so, but it certainly didn't begin in 1900.

[Woody]

Richard Branson and Al Gore want to conquer Global Warming with the use of a Vacuum Cleaner. Now ... talking about silly !! But I will guarantee it that they will not be criticized like Bush is for his reflector plan. Branson is on TV and Gore is the champion green man.... so they will be praised as scientists.

But, tell me how you can vacuum carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? I am liking those reflector more and more.

[Bravus]

Apologies for the double post above - thought I'd deleted the second, but apparently not. Having some 'access denied' issues when posting.

[Bravus]

KeyGuy, God absolutely has the power to fix climate change. (Actually, the quote from EGW you posted is about 'natural' disasters and saying that God always *causes* them, as far as I can tell. Is your point that God is *causing* global warming?)

But there is this concept that used to exist within Christianity, and is one of the first commands of God to man: stewardship of the natural world. God can instantly clean up a polluted river or lake. But his current policy appears to be to let us live with the consequences of our poor stewardship. I see little reason to imagine he will choose to miraculously intercede to save us from this particular despoliation of the environment. Except via the Second Coming... and one of the questions I suspect he'll ask us then is 'what have you done to this world I created for you?'

[Bravus]

Redwood: strawman - what Branson is talking about is *obviously* not a vacuum cleaner, but a process for removing carbon dioxide from the altmosphere. And that's incredibly difficult, which is why he's put up a multimillion dollar prize.

If the shade thing is plausible I'd love to see some evidence: at the moment we wouldn't even be able to get back to the moon if we wanted to, at least not quickly. And of course, there's the question of how shade can be precisely callibrated to the degree of warming... what if it's overdone and leads to cooling, and is hard to disperse?