^^so who cares (in this thread), that has zero to do with "global warming".

Things like deforestation and chemical dumping are much more seriously environmental problems for the earth than a trace gas in the atmosphere that we all need in order to sustain life on this planet.

8/24/2009 12:06:37 PM

Quote :

"do you know where the majority of this mercury comes from? emissions from power plants"

the fly ash from a coal plant is why we should be focused on getting rid of coal plants, not the CO2 coming out of the smoke stacks. mercury, arsenic, and all sorts of other nasty heavy metals that remain in the fly ash end up in the water sources that are used to cool the plants. We have some nutcases in this country that believe "clean coal" can be made by trapping the CO2 coming out of the stacks, yet they care nothing about doing anything differently about the fly ash.

8/25/2009 9:00:40 PM

If you guys waste precious time studying global warming and it turns out there wasn't any, you'll have doomed us all!1

8/25/2009 9:25:10 PM

^^They use fly ash in concrete mixes. I believe it is a pozzolan.

8/25/2009 11:21:47 PM

it's also used in drywall construction.

8/25/2009 11:31:37 PM

^^Yeah okay, have fun with the skyrocketing energy prices in the future b/c "CO2 is bad"

Quote :

"12 Facts about Global Climate Change That You Won’t Read in the Popular Press 1 Temperatures have been cooling since 2002, even as carbon dioxide has continued to rise. 2 Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and by itself will produce little warming. Also, as CO2 increases, the incremental warming is less, as the effect is logarithmic so the more CO2, the less warming it produces. 3 CO2 has been totally uncorrelated with temperature over the last decade, and significantly negative since 2002. 4 CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring gas. Together with chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis and is, accordingly, plant food. 5 Reconstruction of paleoclimatological CO2 concentrations demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration today is near its lowest level since the Cambrian Era some 550 million years ago, when there was almost 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today without causing a “runaway greenhouse effect.” 6 Temperature changes lead, not lag, CO2 changes on all time scales. The oceans may play a key role, emitting carbon dioxide when they warm as carbonated beverages lose fizz as they warm and absorbing it as they cool. 7 Most of the warming in the climate models comes from the assumption that water vapor and precipitation increase as temperatures warm, a strong positive feedback. Water vapor is a far more important greenhouse gas than CO2. However, that assumption has been shown in observations and peer reviewed research to be wrong, and in fact water vapor and precipitation act as a negative feedback that reduces any small greenhouse warming from carbon dioxide. 8 Indeed, greenhouse models show the warming should be greatest at mid to high atmosphere levels in the tropics. But balloon and satellite observations show cooling there. The greenhouse signature or DNA does not match reality, and the greenhouse models thus must greatly overstate the warming – and in a court of law would have to be acquitted of any role in global warming. 9 The sun has both direct and indirect effects on our climate. Solar activity changes on cycles of 11 years and longer. When the sun is more active it is brighter and a little hotter. More important though are the indirect effects. Ultraviolet radiation increases much more than the brightness and causes increased ozone production, which generates heat in the high atmosphere that works its way down, affecting the weather. Also, an active sun diffuses cosmic rays, which play an important role in nucleation of low clouds, resulting in fewer clouds. In all these ways the sun warms the planet more when it is active. An active sun in the 1930s and again near the end of the last century helped produce the observed warming periods. The current solar cycle is the longest in over 100 years, an unmistakable sign of a cooling sun that historical patterns suggest will stay so for decades. 10 The multidecadal cycles in the ocean correlate extremely well with the solar cycles and global temperatures. These are 60 to 70 year cycles that relate to natural variations in the largescale circulations. Warm oceans correlate with warm global temperatures. The Pacific started cooling in the late 1990s and it accelerated in the last year, and the Atlantic has cooled from its peak in 2004. This supports the observed global land temperature cooling, which is strongly correlated with ocean heat content. Newly deployed N.O.A.A. buoys confirm global ocean cooling. 11 Warmer ocean cycles are periods with diminished Arctic ice cover. When the oceans were warm in the 1930s to the 1950s, Arctic ice diminished and Greenland warmed. The recent ocean warming, especially in the 1980s to the early 2000s, is similar to what took place 70 years ago and the Arctic ice has reacted much the same way, with diminished summer ice extent. 12 Antarctic ice has been increasing and the extent last year was the greatest in the satellitemonitoring era. We are running ahead of last year’s record pace. What will it take for the media to let go of their biases and begin doing their job, reporting the truth?"

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=970&idli=3

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 8:44 AM. Reason : k]

8/26/2009 8:43:38 AM

before i address each point in this ridiculous list, let me make it clear that when EDUCATED people are talking about global temperatures, they are USUALLY referring to the oceans and not to the air...the oceans are not subject to the same major temperature fluctuations that air is and, as such, make for a much more reliable benchmark than air temperature anywhere

additionally, when most media sources refer to temperatures, they are referring to air and NOT to the ocean (whether in favor of or against the concept of global "warming")...it's pretty stupid, i agree

finally, CO2 has become a media buzzword...CO2 is not evil and while it is A "greenhouse gas", the most significant greenhouse gas is water vapor which, as most of you SHOULD know, increases as temperatures (air/ocean) increases...water vapor is responsible for something like 95% of the greenhouse effect and the additional 5% is a mix of CO2, N2O, and miscellaneous others...CO2 is found in higher concentrations than the others and so it enjoys a place of honor as our current evil gas...because how boring would it be if the news started reporting on how WATER is the culprit? a PERSON is smart, but PEOPLE are too dumb to tie their shoes...gotta come up with some buzzwords to make the ratings

Quote :

"1 Temperatures have been cooling since 2002, even as carbon dioxide has continued to rise."

7 years means nothing, as any intelligent scientist will tell you...the ones with common sense (for or against the idea of global climate change) would not rely on such a small frame of reference, which already makes me think this list is going to be a load of crap...let's not even talk about how CO2 is virtually irrelevant

Quote :

"2 Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and by itself will produce little warming. Also, as CO2 increases, the incremental warming is less, as the effect is logarithmic so the more CO2, the less warming it produces."

first of all, CO2 does not "produce" warming...is this list made for people without a basic grasp on natural science and chemistry? second, yes, the effect is logarithmic, which just further enforces why talking about CO2 is dumb...but it does NOTHING to combat more educated global climate change arguments

Quote :

"3 CO2 has been totally uncorrelated with temperature over the last decade, and significantly negative since 2002."

same response as #1

Quote :

"4 CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring gas. Together with chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis and is, accordingly, plant food."

again, they must be talking to people who never had an earth science class in their lives...yes, CO2 is naturally-occurring, as are many many many things that can kill you in HIGH AMOUNTS...just because it exists in nature doesn't mean that the levels are safe (i'm not really arguing against CO2 here because, as i noted, it's not really the culprit...but it applies to everything else, including water vapor)

anyone with the ability to think for themselves should probably stop reading here

Quote :

"5 Reconstruction of paleoclimatological CO2 concentrations demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration today is near its lowest level since the Cambrian Era some 550 million years ago, when there was almost 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today without causing a “runaway greenhouse effect.”"

same response as #1

Quote :

"6 Temperature changes lead, not lag, CO2 changes on all time scales. The oceans may play a key role, emitting carbon dioxide when they warm as carbonated beverages lose fizz as they warm and absorbing it as they cool."

there IS a thing such as over-simplification...this is only basically true, and what is their point? if temperatures rise, then you could argue that the oceans would become a CO2 reservoir poor in nutrients...if temperatures were to cool, then it would be the opposite...all of this assumes we have even a clue as to how the oceans would react, which is giving us a lot of credit we don't deserve...if you think our ability to ONLY predict weather 3 days in advance is bad, consider that the ocean is a complete unknown...this whole "point" is completely and utterly useless

Quote :

"7 Most of the warming in the climate models comes from the assumption that water vapor and precipitation increase as temperatures warm, a strong positive feedback. Water vapor is a far more important greenhouse gas than CO2. However, that assumption has been shown in observations and peer reviewed research to be wrong, and in fact water vapor and precipitation act as a negative feedback that reduces any small greenhouse warming from carbon dioxide."

finally, an intelligent respon...oh, wait...i call bullshit...show me several valid studies that prove this and i'll review it in earnest (i say "several" because in the days of teh intarweb, you can find a study saying just about anything...finding numerous instances with valid results from authentic sources is the trick)

Quote :

"8 Indeed, greenhouse models show the warming should be greatest at mid to high atmosphere levels in the tropics. But balloon and satellite observations show cooling there. The greenhouse signature or DNA does not match reality, and the greenhouse models thus must greatly overstate the warming – and in a court of law would have to be acquitted of any role in global warming."

jeebus...yes, we all agree that "global warming" is a misnomer...can we agree to start using "global climate destabilization" as a more accurate representation of what might or might not be going on?

Quote :

"9 The sun has both direct and indirect effects on our climate. Solar activity changes on cycles of 11 years and longer. When the sun is more active it is brighter and a little hotter. More important though are the indirect effects. Ultraviolet radiation increases much more than the brightness and causes increased ozone production, which generates heat in the high atmosphere that works its way down, affecting the weather. Also, an active sun diffuses cosmic rays, which play an important role in nucleation of low clouds, resulting in fewer clouds. In all these ways the sun warms the planet more when it is active. An active sun in the 1930s and again near the end of the last century helped produce the observed warming periods. The current solar cycle is the longest in over 100 years, an unmistakable sign of a cooling sun that historical patterns suggest will stay so for decades."

i admit that i'm not sure what their point is...i had a bit of a "duh" moment when they started talking about how the sun is not 100% constant, but past that it sounds sketch...i agree that even small changes in the sun's output would have significant changes on our climate, but past that i won't pretend to know

Quote :

"10 The multidecadal cycles in the ocean correlate extremely well with the solar cycles and global temperatures. These are 60 to 70 year cycles that relate to natural variations in the largescale circulations. Warm oceans correlate with warm global temperatures. The Pacific started cooling in the late 1990s and it accelerated in the last year, and the Atlantic has cooled from its peak in 2004. This supports the observed global land temperature cooling, which is strongly correlated with ocean heat content. Newly deployed N.O.A.A. buoys confirm global ocean cooling."

same response as #8

Quote :

"11 Warmer ocean cycles are periods with diminished Arctic ice cover. When the oceans were warm in the 1930s to the 1950s, Arctic ice diminished and Greenland warmed. The recent ocean warming, especially in the 1980s to the early 2000s, is similar to what took place 70 years ago and the Arctic ice has reacted much the same way, with diminished summer ice extent."

similar? fuck you...i've done ACTUAL research north of the arctic circle...i've worked with data more than 100 years old and the changes going on up there are significantly more severe than anything in most recent history (i didn't work with the geological data, so i can't speak about that first-hand...i just know that we were told that there's nothing in the geological records indicating a change this severe this quickly)

Quote :

"12 Antarctic ice has been increasing and the extent last year was the greatest in the satellitemonitoring era. We are running ahead of last year’s record pace."

may or may not be true...i won't pretend to know

8/26/2009 10:38:58 AM

Quote :

"7 years means nothing, as any intelligent scientist will tell you...the ones with common sense (for or against the idea of global climate change) would not rely on such a small frame of reference, which already makes me think this list is going to be a load of crap...let's not even talk about how CO2 is virtually irrelevant"

7 years means nothing because it's such a small frame of reference. A few hundred years of data really show a trend, though.....even though the earth is 4.5 billion years old?

I mean with a frame of reference that large, we're looking at 0.000000022 % of the climate over the Earth's history!

8/26/2009 11:31:57 AM

^ who said a few hundred years was an acceptable frame of reference?

8/26/2009 11:35:23 AM

quagmire, what do you do for a living that granted you a trip so far north? Sounds exciting! But cold.

And thanks for the analysis of TKE-Teg's "informative" list.

8/26/2009 12:01:46 PM

7 years isn't a large time reference, but given that the current global warming "scare" started around 1980, and also given that we only have accurate satellite temperature measuring for the last 30 years it is a good argument against the scaremongers.

And yes, the list was a simplification and addresses some things that are well known, but a lot of this well known stuff you dismissed is still broadcasted by the media as fact. Joseph D'Aleo is a pretty reputable scientist.

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 12:23 PM. Reason : k]

8/26/2009 12:09:31 PM

Quote :

"quagmire, what do you do for a living that granted you a trip so far north? Sounds exciting! But cold. "

environmental toxicology, mostly (working on my masters at the moment)...last time i was there was during the summer, and it's really not cold at all...i wore shorts most of the time

Quote :

"7 years isn't a large time reference, but given that the current global warming "scare" started around 1980, and also given that we only have accurate satellite temperature measuring for the last 30 years it is a good argument against the scaremongers."

it's sad that you choose to look at it as a "scare", but that doesn't surprise me...when you don't know what's going on, it's easier to pretend like it's scaremongering rather than the beginning of a realization

Quote :

"And yes, the list was a simplification but it was done by a far more educated meteorologist than quagmire."

haha, now i understand why that list appealed to you...you don't comprehend the VAST differences between meteorology and climatology, do you?

8/26/2009 12:27:42 PM

^I changed my reply for a reason. And yes of course I do realize the difference.

And it is a scare. You'd be joking to suggest anything else.

lol, of course! A trace gas is going to end the world. what a joke.

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2009 12:33:56 PM

Quote :

"And it is a scare. You'd be joking to suggest anything else. lol, of course! A trace gas is going to end the world. what a joke."

you didn't actually read my responses, did you? i have quite specifically indicated that the use of CO2 as a reason for global climate destabilization is retarded

you have to be ignorant or intentionally obtuse to pretend like global climate destabilization isn't a very real possibility only because some morons chose to focus on a rather inconsequential aspect for sensation's sake

8/26/2009 12:40:30 PM

^i apologize for not recalling your comments. Could you explain what you mean about climate destabilization though? B/c the Earth's climate has been in constant flux and is never in equilibrium.

The comments of mine about CO2 are made b/c let's be honest, that's the only reason this thread was created.

Quote :

"only because some morons chose to focus on a rather inconsequential aspect for sensation's sake"

Unfortunately "some morons" are the governments of many large countries that would like to restrict our usage of carbon. So unfortunately this is the main argument point across most scientific forums.

Given that this is a climate prediction thread here's my prediction. "The earth will continue to cool for at least another decade".



[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 12:48 PM. Reason : blah!]

8/26/2009 12:45:45 PM

here's my prediction:

there will be weather

umm the oceans warm from air temperature and direct solar input, so air temp does play a role in ocean temp, oceans also function as massive heat sinks thus they retain more heat for longer as well (the overall temp the water doesn't really change much overnight)

increases in atmospheric temperature eventually affect increases in oceanic temperature

decreases do as well, the ocean temp lags due to it's heat transmission qualities.

i predict that in 50 years or less ocean temps will be on the down turn. if they aren't so already

in terms of severity we have so little data to go on just assuming that 100 years is a adequate time sample to determine what constitutes a natural sharp change or a man influenced one.

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 1:06 PM. Reason : it's all moot if a large (or super) volcano detonates ]

8/26/2009 12:52:07 PM

Quote :

"i apologize for not recalling your comments. Could you explain what you mean about climate destabilization though? B/c the Earth's climate has been in constant flux and is never in equilibrium."

the idea that the climate is never in equilibrium can be correct and incorrect, depending on the details surrounding the supposition...a common misconception is that that equilibrium means consistently the same, and that's not true

i'll try to avoid references to philosophy, since you can ALWAYS argue that all of our actions are inherently "natural" and thereby part of the global climate (though that stance tends to ignore such things as transportation of goods, be they food, power sources, etc.)

in the case of weather without "unnatural" influences (again, you could argue philosophy), a weather system IS at equilibrium, though that equilibrium is dynamic instead of static...the weather pattern of the planet as a whole is the work of various forces in which no one force trumps another...what i mean by this is that when left to its own devices, the earth is a self-correcting system...when something happens to cause the climate to operate outside of its preferred range, the earth takes measures to fix that...glacial, interglacial, and warm periods are all part of this range...a mean temperature change does not indicate that the world is going to end

this system does, however, have limits...it's not that the climate is changing, really, it's that it's changing TOO QUICKLY...the ups and downs that are consistent with a dynamic equilibrium must be gradual in order for the system to cope accordingly (this, of course, takes thousands or millions of years)...when you introduce anthropomorphic activities that alter this range too quickly, the earth doesn't have the mechanisms built into its system to adjust at an equally rapid pace

does that mean the world is going to end? not at all...we are hardly capable of destroying this world, though we are more than capable of destroying ourselves...rather, the earth, over time, will respond violently in an attempt to bring the pattern back under control...for all intents and purposes, we live on a water planet and so these violent reactions CAN be (i'm not saying that they are) things like typhoons/tsunamis/hurricanes, melting glaciers, rising water levels, mean temperatures changes as a result of increased water vapor, etc.

envision a graph depicting oscillation...the peaks and valleys are the warm periods and cool periods, respectively...the distance between these peaks and valleys are roughly the same, geologically (we're currently in an interglacial period, between the two extremes)...now picture that same oscillation with a spike...in a true oscillating environment, that spike will be answered with an opposing spike in the other direction and they'll bounce back and forth until they achieve "equilibrium" again

we are that spike...we are causing the earth to change more quickly that its natural rhythms allow for and in order to maintain equilibrium in the long run, the earth will respond strongly (sorry if it sounds like i make the earth out to be some sort of creature...it isn't, but it's not far from it)...THAT is destabilization

Quote :

"The comments of mine about CO2 are made b/c let's be honest, that's the only reason this thread was created."

that might be true, but it may not...the term "climate prediction" sounds halfway between meteorology and climatology, so i'm not sure what, specifically, they're looking at...i know what the OP has said, but i'm not sure what they'll do with the information, specifically

*shrug*

Quote :

"Unfortunately "some morons" are the governments of many large countries that would like to restrict our usage of carbon. So unfortunately this is the main argument point across most scientific forums."

for good or bad, i agree with them...we are disgustingly wasteful for no GOOD reason (laziness and the idea that we think we're above everyone else are not good reasons in my book)...i can't think of anything realistically "bad" that comes from increased efficiency and reduced waste in small communities, let alone on a global scale

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 1:35 PM. Reason : my grammar is teh sucky today ]

8/26/2009 1:31:15 PM

Quote :

"for good or bad, i agree with them...we are disgustingly wasteful for no GOOD reason (laziness and the idea that we think we're above everyone else are not good reasons in my book)...i can't think of anything realistically "bad" that comes from increased efficiency and reduced waste"

Letting the government's power grow through the regulation and allowance of energy usage is not the answer.

8/26/2009 1:35:07 PM

^ that's not what this thread is about, though...the debate thus far has been about global climate change and the argument of whether it's "real" or not

government actions and intervention is a completely separate issue

8/26/2009 1:36:32 PM

TKE-Teg, why would you post an opinion piece from a denialist website without a single citation as proof of anything?

EDIT: Our team is the now the 80th top University team on climateprediction.net. With a few more members we can easily break the top 40.

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/26/2009 2:04:42 PM

^^whoa whoa whoa. the debate is not about global warming. Its about anthropogenic global warming. The earth's been heating up and cooling off since the dawn of time. I don't think anyone disputes that.

lol, "denialist". ya know, before you deny something you have to prove it exists. that's how science works.

nice.

sorry, all the linked sources are in 2 threads in TSB. I'm not reposting them in the lounge.

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 2:22 PM. Reason : k]

8/26/2009 2:20:10 PM

Quote :

"whoa whoa whoa. the debate is not about global warming. Its about anthropogenic global warming. The earth's been heating up and cooling off since the dawn of time. I don't think anyone disputes that."

okay, then i should have said:

Quote :

"that's not what this thread is about, though...the debate thus far has been about global climate change as a result of anthropomorphic anthropogenic activities and the argument of whether it's "real" or not"

in any case, this thread isn't really about government policy (or, it wasn't)

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 2:31 PM. Reason : haha]

8/26/2009 2:25:43 PM

Thanks for changing it. But I think you misspelled it

8/26/2009 2:29:47 PM

haha, durr...i'll keep the correction there for lawls

8/26/2009 2:31:45 PM

I double checked my post to make sure I spelled it right myself.

So much easier to type AGW

8/26/2009 2:33:16 PM

i admit that my brain is fried...apparently i was thinking about talking rabbits or something

it IS easier to type out AGW, but i hate the use of "warming" as much as anyone, so i try to avoid the misnomer whenever possible

8/26/2009 2:35:57 PM