Trekkie wrote:But doesn't ethanol (corn or otherwise) take more energy to produce it than it creates itself? I know it's contraversal in the ethanol circles but the energy returned on energy invested for ethanol is close to 1, which means that it takes nearly as much energy (through natural gas based fertilizers, farm equipment, transformation from corn or other materials, and transportation) to create ethanol as the ethanol itself produces when put to work.Now certainly as oil reserves get in harder to find places like the ocean floor the EROEI of oil may go up to make ethanol more appealing, but right now it costs about $1.50 per gallon to make, and is exempt from the $0.52 federal gas tax (in the states).Sure it's not oil, but it is a curious point.Also, if we go whole hog ethanol do we stop paying agribusiness to grow corn?Either way, railroads will still be used. If you're sending mass quantities of corn somewhere, you gotta haul it, and like always rail is going to give you the most bang for the buck. Be interesting to see how you could model a corn silo or two, plus hoppers to carry the stuff. No idea what an ethanol production plant looks like.
Yes, for now it isn't as energy effecient as it should be. But, what many people here forget, is that ALL NEW TECHNOLOGIES have a "spin-up" time. By the time we're producing ethanol in truly significant quantities, the production to extraction energy ratio will drop below one. Other ideas are to use carbon-capture gassified coal plants to get this power, or solar, wind, nuclear, etc.
No one solution to both climate change and energy idependence has a ready-to-go-right-now package. We need to invest up front, as we did with coal and oil in the 19th century and nuclear in the 1950s. Pretending that there are no initial investments in money and energy for any fuel source, fossil or renewable, is just naive.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
millrace wrote: Ok. Scientists can't be trusted, corporations can't be trusted, and the only people you believe are those who say what you already want to hear.Please tell me how the scientific community has "failed miserably" in presenting their opinion? Apparently, When the truth is "inconvenient" it is wrong.My mention of Iraq is not intended as a "politcal bomb". It's an example of how we take drastic and sudden action against a problem with very little evidence to support it, yet continue to ignore even bigger problems with overwhelming amounts of data supporting it.
Ok. Scientists can't be trusted, corporations can't be trusted, and the only people you believe are those who say what you already want to hear.
Please tell me how the scientific community has "failed miserably" in presenting their opinion? Apparently, When the truth is "inconvenient" it is wrong.
My mention of Iraq is not intended as a "politcal bomb". It's an example of how we take drastic and sudden action against a problem with very little evidence to support it, yet continue to ignore even bigger problems with overwhelming amounts of data supporting it.
I don't believe people who say what I want to hear. I believe people whose arguments make sense. So far, the global warming skeptics are winning that battle hands down.
The global warmers are failing because they refuse to address the criticisms of their position by the skeptics. This goes against the scientific process. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical, even of their own findings. Scientists are suppose to be open minded. The global warmers have decided the case is closed, no further debate is necessary. They dismiss valid criticisms as coming from scientists who have been bought off by big energy companies. If that's the best they can do, they most certainly are failing miserably.
Here are a few inconvenient truths for the global warmers:
1. The earth has gone through many periods with significantly higher temperatures than we have now. The most recent being the medieval warming period. Guess what. Life survived.
2. The earth has had periods of CO2 levels many times higher than what we have now. Guess what. Life survived.
3. Al Gore correctly pointed out the correlation between global warming and rising CO2 levels. He left out the part that rising CO2 is a trailing indicator of global warming, not a leading indicator. It comes after global warming, not before it. About 800 years afterward. The rising CO2 levels we see now are likely the result of the medieval warming period. I guess Big Al forgot to tell you that part.
4. Greenhouse gases are good. The earth would be uninhabitable without them. It would be one large chunk of ice.
5. Global warming is good.
Have a nice day!!!
Saw a good one last night. Some "experts" said the earths going to heat up, all the ice IS going to melt and this will cause us to run out of water.
What I don't get is a Volkswagen Rabbit got 40-50 mpg 25 years ago. Now our small cars only get 25-35 mpg. What's up with that. Maybe all the money being spent to scare us should be spent on R&D instead. Oh, wait...Too many "experts" that aren't really producing anything other than hot air would lose their jobs.(scratch that idea) I'm all for an electric car that's recharged by a solar station. Show me one that costs $15K instead of $150K and I'll buy it. Electric cars have been around for 100 years. Somebody out there just doesn't want them to be affordable.
I'd have some respect for Al Gore if had taken that movie he made and put it on PBS TV for EVERYBODY to see without driving their polluting cars to the theater to pay $8 to see. AND if he did a video conference to accept his Oscar instead of waisting all that energy it takes to fly a vice president across the country. It's not like him and Tipper buy two seats on Southwest air to go to California.
I will say I'm surprised how civil this thread has remained.
Dave Vollmer wrote:Yes, for now it isn't as energy effecient as it should be. But, what many people here forget, is that ALL NEW TECHNOLOGIES have a "spin-up" time. By the time we're producing ethanol in truly significant quantities, the production to extraction energy ratio will drop below one. Other ideas are to use carbon-capture gassified coal plants to get this power, or solar, wind, nuclear, etc.No one solution to both climate change and energy idependence has a ready-to-go-right-now package. We need to invest up front, as we did with coal and oil in the 19th century and nuclear in the 1950s. Pretending that there are no initial investments in money and energy for any fuel source, fossil or renewable, is just naive.
Newsweek April 28, 1975
The Cooling World
This widely read article covered "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article also claimed that "the evidence in support of these predictions of global cooling has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it..."
Yada.... Yada... Yada...
-George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
jecorbett wrote: ...3. Al Gore correctly pointed out the correlation between global warming and rising CO2 levels. He left out the part that rising CO2 is a trailing indicator of global warming, not a leading indicator. It comes after global warming, not before it. About 800 years afterward. The rising CO2 levels we see now are likely the result of the medieval warming period. I guess Big Al forgot to tell you that part. 4. Greenhouse gases are good. The earth would be uninhabitable without them. It would be one large chunk of ice. 5. Global warming is good. Have a nice day!!!
...3. Al Gore correctly pointed out the correlation between global warming and rising CO2 levels. He left out the part that rising CO2 is a trailing indicator of global warming, not a leading indicator. It comes after global warming, not before it. About 800 years afterward. The rising CO2 levels we see now are likely the result of the medieval warming period. I guess Big Al forgot to tell you that part.
Wow, that's a new one to me. As an amateur astronomer, I can appreciate that some phenomena are best measured over millenia, but this one is rather difficult to swallow. I am quite sure the rise is linked much more closely to the onset of the industrial revolution and our coal-fired industries.
We should not discount the convective nature of our star and the fact that it is categorized as a flare star. That means it goes through cycles of increased radiation from its emitting surface followed by periods where its flux is subdued in comparison. That must account for some of the rise in temps, even if a little...although we don't know what this effect has on the production of CO2 due to its impact on flora and fauna.
Selector,
If you read any meteorlogical text book in the first chapters (maybe on the first page) you will read words to the following effect.
"The single most important factor in Earth's weather is the sun."
or perhaps,
"Without the sun there would be no weather".
I don't know why everybody is getting so worked up about this. When the giant meteor hits us in 2012, Global Warming will be the least of our problems
loathar wrote: What I don't get is a Volkswagen Rabbit got 40-50 mpg 25 years ago. Now our small cars only get 25-35 mpg. What's up with that. Maybe all the money being spent to scare us should be
What I don't get is a Volkswagen Rabbit got 40-50 mpg 25 years ago. Now our small cars only get 25-35 mpg. What's up with that. Maybe all the money being spent to scare us should be
This is a serious subject, and like you, loathar, I am grateful that we have managed to keep the lid on it. Big thumbs up for everyone, regardless of your position.
The mileage of a Rabbit - compression ratios have changed to accommodate changes in legislation over pollution control, and that had a deleterious effect on mileage. Also, we should remember that our clever car manufacturers have grossly, and I do mean that word as you understand it, exaggerated their mileage claims over the last 30 years.
selector wrote:Also, we should remember that our clever car manufacturers have grossly, and I do mean that word as you understand it, exaggerated their mileage claims over the last 30 years.
selector wrote: jecorbett wrote: ...3. Al Gore correctly pointed out the correlation between global warming and rising CO2 levels. He left out the part that rising CO2 is a trailing indicator of global warming, not a leading indicator. It comes after global warming, not before it. About 800 years afterward. The rising CO2 levels we see now are likely the result of the medieval warming period. I guess Big Al forgot to tell you that part. 4. Greenhouse gases are good. The earth would be uninhabitable without them. It would be one large chunk of ice. 5. Global warming is good. Have a nice day!!! Wow, that's a new one to me. As an amateur astronomer, I can appreciate that some phenomena are best measured over millenia, but this one is rather difficult to swallow. I am quite sure the rise is linked much more closely to the onset of the industrial revolution and our coal-fired industries. We should not discount the convective nature of our star and the fact that it is categorized as a flare star. That means it goes through cycles of increased radiation from its emitting surface followed by periods where its flux is subdued in comparison. That must account for some of the rise in temps, even if a little...although we don't know what this effect has on the production of CO2 due to its impact on flora and fauna.
Actually the 800 year connection between global warming and CO2 levels is based on the same ice core samples Al Gore used in his presentation. The difference is that CO2 rises come after global warming, therefore do not cause it. This lag time has been pretty consistent throught history which is why Gore's graphs of temperature and CO2 levels showed lines that were nearly parallel. These trend lines predate the industrial revolutionby hundreds of thousands of years.
The leading producer of atmospheric CO2 is the oceans. Because they are so vast and so deep, it takes a very long time for them to respond to increase temperatures with increased CO2 output. 800 years seems like a long time to humans but it is a blink of the eye in the history of this planet.
The inconvenient truth is that change won't happen until people are inconvenienced.
We won't have a true, sustained initiative to find alternate energy until gas is over 3 bucks a gallon, at least. Until then, it's too easy, and there's not a market or a consensus for change. Wish it weren't so, but...
Change doesn't happen because people want it, but because people need it. It's human nature, and human nature as reflected in markets.
I lean towards the "global warming is real" side, though I hope all you others are the ones who are right. If we're going to need energy - obviously we do since clearly we need to power model trains - then I just want us to do it in the wayt that does our earth the least harm, and preserves it as much as possible for unborn generations. That might inconvenience companies a bit, but that's one reason we have a government - or are supposed to.
Regulation is not always a dirty word. eg....No more Chernobyls. No more mountaintop removal.
I had forgotten about the oceans being CO2 and heat sinks, so your response is interesting, to say the least, jecorbett.
Anyone for a swim?
My views on this subject (non-scientific and likely unimportant in the grand scheme of things):
Global warming: I think the jury is still out on this one. There is simply too much debate, and all sorts of undermining conflicts of interest on both sides of the issue.
*HOWEVER*
I do believe we can say that pollution in general is not good for health reasons alone. I also believe we can say (as a US citizen) that dependence on foreign sources for our energy needs is not good either. I'm a conservative type that is 100 percent behind our armed forces, but I'm getting tired of seeing them deployed into oil producing countries in order to bring stability where instability has a very long history. It's becoming an awful (and tragic) waste of military resources. Besides, military intervention aside, handing these countries (some of which sponsor radical terrorism) billions in oil revenues every year makes me very nervous.
So the development of alternative cleaner, renewable, and nationally produced energy sources is in our best interest from a health, economic and national security standpoints. Global warming aside, shifting away from fossil fuels addresses what I feel are the practical and tangible issues we already face today.
So forget global warming, I think we already have enough reasons to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.
selector wrote: I had forgotten about the oceans being CO2 and heat sinks, so your response is interesting, to say the least, jecorbett.Anyone for a swim?
People a lot smarter than me figured this out. For anyone interested in seeing the counter arguments to An Inconvenient Truth, I recommend the British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which can be seen on Google TV at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
It's a good bet PBS will never show it. I don't accept the claims in it as gospel. I am not a scientist and I must rely on people more knowledgeable than myself to stay informed. I am reasonably intelligent and am willing to listen to arguments on both sides of this issue and make up my mind based on what makes more sense to me. Most people are in that same boat. To date, the global warming skeptics have shown me much more compelling arguments than the Al Gore camp. I have yet to hear anyone refute these skeptics. The typical response is that these skeptics are on the payroll of big oil. That kind of argument will never win me over.
jecorbett wrote: It's a good bet PBS will never show it. I don't accept the claims in it as gospel. I am not a scientist and I must rely on people more knowledgeable than myself to stay informed. I am reasonably intelligent and am willing to listen to arguments on both sides of this issue and make up my mind based on what makes more sense to me. Most people are in that same boat. To date, the global warming skeptics have shown me much more compelling arguments than the Al Gore camp. I have yet to hear anyone refute these skeptics. The typical response is that these skeptics are on the payroll of big oil. That kind of argument will never win me over.
Sigh
This film is just more of the same debunked garbage global warming skeptics continually talk about. It is a dishonest manipulation of data. In fact, one of the scientists used in the film, Carl Wunsch (a highly respected scientist in this field), was himself swindled into appearing in the film. I suggest you read his statement about the film. It is available at his website here:
http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
Unfortunately, as the ocean absorbs CO2, it becomes carbonic acid (like what's in soda). This changes the PH of the oceans and does bad stuff to fish.
millrace wrote: jecorbett wrote: It's a good bet PBS will never show it. I don't accept the claims in it as gospel. I am not a scientist and I must rely on people more knowledgeable than myself to stay informed. I am reasonably intelligent and am willing to listen to arguments on both sides of this issue and make up my mind based on what makes more sense to me. Most people are in that same boat. To date, the global warming skeptics have shown me much more compelling arguments than the Al Gore camp. I have yet to hear anyone refute these skeptics. The typical response is that these skeptics are on the payroll of big oil. That kind of argument will never win me over. SighThis film is just more of the same debunked garbage global warming skeptics continually talk about. It is a dishonest manipulation of data. In fact, one of the scientists used in the film, Carl Wunsch (a highly respected scientist in this field), was himself swindled into appearing in the film. I suggest you read his statement about the film. It is available at his website here:http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
Once again, we get the non-denial denial. You make a blanket denunciation of the work without ever addressing any of the specific points made. Is this really the best you can do? If this work is garbage, why is it you cannot point out why it is garbage. This is the tactic I see time and time again from the global warming crowd. Are we just supposed to take your word for it that the skeptics are wrong and you are right. If you have a strong case, please present it. At least a few specific points would be nice. A few posts back, I list five specific points made by the documentary. Challenge any or all of them if you like or pick some others that I didn't mention. If you are unable to do so, that will speak volumes about the strength of your position.
I went to the website you referenced, and I am very impressed by the what Carl Wunsch wrote, particularly the last paragraph which I quote below:
"In general, good scientists (unlike lawyers) are meant to keep in mind at all times that conceivably they are wrong. There is a very wide spectrum of scientific knowledge ranging from the almost certain, e.g. that the sun will indeed rise tomorrow, or that no physical object can move faster than the speed of light; to inferences that seem very plausible but for which one can more readily imagine ways in which they might prove incorrect (e.g., that melting of the Greenland ice cap means that sea level will rise); to fiercely disputed ideas (e.g., that variations in the North Atlantic circulation directly control the climate of the northern hemisphere). Most of us draw conclusions that seem to us the most compelling, but try hard to maintain an open mind about counter arguments or new observations that could prove us wrong. Reducing the extremely complicated discussion of future climate change to the cartoon level we see on both extremes is somewhat like making public policy on the basis of a Batman movie."
This echos some of the statements I have made in previous posts when I said that a true scientist should be skeptical, even of his own findings, and that it is important to keep an open mind about things that are not known with certainty. His views are very much middle ground. He leans toward the belief that global warming is a problem and that it is caused in part by man but he stops well short of saying either of those points are a certainty. This is in sharp contrast to public statements made mostly by non-scientists who claim that there is no doubt in scientific circles about the dangers of global warming or man's contribution to it. The fact is there is great dissent and uncertainty among scientists both about the causes and scope of global warming. This is not the message we get through most of the mainstream media.
shawnee wrote: The inconvenient truth is that change won't happen until people are inconvenienced.We won't have a true, sustained initiative to find alternate energy until gas is over 3 bucks a gallon, at least. Until then, it's too easy, and there's not a market or a consensus for change. Wish it weren't so, but...
$3 a gallon!?
Our petrol is £0.95.9 a litre! (Ablout 80% is taxes... much added on the pretext of the government being green... that's why the leader of the opposition FLEW 50 or so miles instead of going by thrain the other week).
I work on the railway... if I don't burn fuel in my van to get to work the trains do not run...
jecorbett wrote: The fact is there is great dissent and uncertainty among scientists both about the causes and scope of global warming. This is not the message we get through most of the mainstream media.
Sorry. The fact is that there is NOT great dissent and uncertainty among scientists about the reality of global warming. But what's the point of telling you facts when you already stated that you do not trust scientists because they are "getting rich of of research grants.
But here you go (although I'm getting really tired of this because talking to you is a waste of our time).
The medieval warming period: There is ancedotal evidence that there were areas of warmth during this period but there are no records showing a global trend. From NOAA:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
The Earth has had many periods where CO2 levels were higher than now: Yes, levels of CO2 have fluctuated in the past. But we are emitting billions of tons of CO2 every year by releasing CO2 sequestered in fossil fuels. It only stands to reason that CO2 levels are rising due to our activities. This graph shows the dramatic rise on CO2 at the beginning of the industrial revolution: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.htm
The idea that rising CO2 levels come after global warming is a real stretch of common sense and truth. CO2 is both a cause and an effect. That 800 year lag only shows that initial warming occured first due to forcing from various climatic factors, but when CO2 rises, it intensifies the warming. A very detailed explanation is available here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
Global warming is good: Yes, it is. To a point. greenhouse gases make the earth inhabitable. The problem is enhanced warming from releasing large amounts of greenhouse gas over a very short time frame.
You get your information from a very limited range of nonscientific sources which clearly misquote and misrepresent real scientific findings (as Carl Wunsch points out), cherry pick whatever you feel makes your position appear true, and ignore the rest. There really is no debate about this. You're not presenting any "facts" that haven't already been blown around and disproved over and over again.
But whatever. Believe whatever you want. I really don't care anymore.
millrace wrote: jecorbett wrote: The fact is there is great dissent and uncertainty among scientists both about the causes and scope of global warming. This is not the message we get through most of the mainstream media. Sorry. The fact is that there is NOT great dissent and uncertainty among scientists about the reality of global warming. But what's the point of telling you facts when you already stated that you do not trust scientists because they are "getting rich of of research grants. You get your information from a very limited range of nonscientific sources which clearly misquote and misrepresent real scientific findings (as Carl Wunsch points out), cherry pick whatever you feel makes your position appear true, and ignore the rest. There really is no debate about this. You're not presenting any "facts" that haven't already been blown around and disproved over and over again.But whatever. Believe whatever you want. I really don't care anymore.
First, I want to say I recognize that this forum is not the best place for this discussion, but somebody brought the issue up and I felt compelled to respond.
I invite anyone to read from YOUR source, Carl Wunsch, and let them decide if he is claiming any certainty of the cause and effects of global warming or any unanimity among scientists regarding this. As Wunsch points out, no true scientist would ever be so adamant about something that is so uncertain. Scientists do form hypothesis based on available data but also recognize that they can be wrong and that others could form a different hypothesis from the same data. It is generally people with a political agenda, such as yourself or Al Gore, who claim there is such certitude on this subject. As for my quoting non-scientific sources, I believe the numerous scientists who were interviewed for the documentary have credentials to speak with some authority on this subject. Or are you saying that anyone who doesn't accept the global warming dogma can't be considered a true scientist. We are making some progress here however. You do recognize that CO2 levels have been higher in the past. So I guess this raises some reasonable questions. Why didn't these higher CO2 levels cause catastrophic global warming in the past and what happened to bring those levels back down? You are free to answer these questions or decline. Personally, I hope we see a very lively debate on this issue in the coming years because it is an important issue. What I find infuriating is that so many in the global warming camp don't want to engage in any debate of this controversial issue. They have decided that they are right, the debate is over, and the rest of us should just accept their position without question. There are a lot of people in this world who are on the fence on this issue. I am skeptical about those who are predicting impending doom but also open minded enough that I can be persuaded that I am wrong if the other side presents compelling arguments. If the global warmers think they are going to win anyone over to their side by simply declaring the debate is over, they are sadly mistaken.
The only debate among the scientific community involves specific mechanisms of warming and other details that are really quite complicated (such as Dr. Wunsch's concern over potential gulf stream changes). There is really no debate about the existence of global warming itself and that humans are causing it.
Much of the evidence cited in the "swindle" film was either misrepresented as Dr. Wunsch points out, or uses data from older scientific papers that have been shown in subsequent studies to be in error.
Political agenda? What would that be? I am merely concerned about a very serious problem. What about the politcal agenda of the "other side?" Oh yeah, I'm not allowed to mention that because you don't want to hear about how all their funding comes from the greenhouse gas industry (a group with quite an interest in maintaining business as usual)
As far as CO2 levels. Yeah, they fluctuate. But they are rising faster to higher levels as compared to historical amounts...a change that is happening much to quick for the earth to naturally "readjust." The earth will survive no matter what happens. But life as we know it will be pretty miserable for a while. Here's an example of just one of the things that could happen. I think it was 1816 that is called the "year without a summer" or something like that. A volcanic eruption spewed enough ash in the air to drop global temperatures by less than one degree. The result was massive crop failures including a frost in New England in July!
Thank you for returning to civility. I'll be getting back to work now.
millrace wrote: There is really no debate about the existence of global warming itself and that humans are causing it.
There is really no debate about the existence of global warming itself and that humans are causing it.
I, like jcorbett, am a skeptical fence sitter. So when you make blanket conclusions that are not necessarily supported by data, you weaken your entire position. You want to convince me that we have a crisis and that some action is needed on my part. Then convince me with valid reasoning. I concur that global temperatures have been rising since the mini-ice age of the 1400s (? - could be off on my dates by 100 years). There is plenty of evidence that there was a lot more winter freezing of lakes and water ways several hundred years ago, and even 150 years ago. But that doesn't prove that global warming is caused by man's greenhouse gas emissions (the second part of your non-debateable statement). How much of the warming is a natural cycle, and how much is caused by man's activity is still an open question in this skeptic's mind.
Interesting that you reject all the recorded anecdotal evidence (plant species growth locations, Viking explorations, records and histories of native civilizations in North and South America, etc) that the earth was warmer in the medieval period than it is now. Is that because the rapid change from warmer than now to mini-ice age in less than a thousand years without a significant contribution from man doesn't fit the models? Or is there another reason I don't understand?
As far as CO2 levels. Yeah, they fluctuate. But they are rising faster to higher levels as compared to historical amounts...a change that is happening much to quick for the earth to naturally "readjust."
What are these "readjustment" mechanisms, and how do you know that they are inadequate? If we cap the level of greenhouse emissions at the present level world-wide (about the best I see we can hope for in the next 20 years without culturally and economically destabilizing changes), how much difference will that make?
Let's take a realistic look at change. Are we (the US) prepared to turn the outer suburbs into slums (typical of the rest of the world) by jacking gas prices to $6 a gallon? Do you want to further empty the hinterlands (and crowd the cities) except for farming and resource extraction because of the cost of transportation? How many closer suburbs are prepared to have light rail transit routed through their NIMBY estates? How do we handle the politically destablizing and economically depressing reality that outdoor recreation outside of one's neighborhood will no longer be affordable for the masses? How many air conditioners (while outside temperatures are getting warmer!) have to be turned off before we have done enough?
In light of the above questions, what happens if we do nothing about global warming?
just my thoughts
Fred W
I only have one question about the whole "Global warming is going to melt all the ice and drown us all" theory. If Vikings were building farming settlements 600 years ago that today look like this:
That means that the ice in Greenland has INCREASED over the past 600 years or so, right? That means that the level of the ocean has DEcreased in that time.
So how come in areas that are only a few feet above seal level, right ON the ocean, we're finding American Indian artifacts that are being carbon dated to between 1000 and 3000 years old?
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/jame1/moretti-langholtz/appendixe.htm
No one in the scientific community has even attempted to answer this question: how can the ice melt and the sea levels DECREASE?
From what I'm discovering, the scientific community is largely ignoring the anthropological and archaeological evidence in favor of MANY recent, long-term temperatire fluctuations over the past 160,000 years (roughly the existence of Homo Sapiens). Ice and tree core samples are fine, but you have to look at old settlements too, and that data's not being used at ALL.
(oh: I'm an enviromentalist that DOESN'T buy into "man's killing us all". We've got to reduce the world population and polution levels, but because of overall sustainability reasons, not because of the hubris that leads people to believe that we have much of an effect on the overall environment. Anyone else wondering why there are more trees in the Amazon today than there were 1000 years ago?)
Ray Breyer
Modeling the NKP's Peoria Division, circa 1943
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
millrace wrote: As far as CO2 levels. Yeah, they fluctuate. But they are rising faster to higher levels as compared to historical amounts...a change that is happening much to quick for the earth to naturally "readjust." The earth will survive no matter what happens. But life as we know it will be pretty miserable for a while. Here's an example of just one of the things that could happen. I think it was 1816 that is called the "year without a summer" or something like that. A volcanic eruption spewed enough ash in the air to drop global temperatures by less than one degree. The result was massive crop failures including a frost in New England in July! Thank you for returning to civility. I'll be getting back to work now.
Yes, CO2 levels and temperatures fluxuate both for short term and long term periods. We are now in a period of above average levels, levels the earth has experienced long before the industrial revolution. Why that is cause for concern still has not been explained to me. The Holocene Maximum and the Medieval Warm Period had levels as high or higher than what we have today and what is projected for the next century. Both were periods that experienced agricultural abundance. But for some reason, this time the added warmth is going to bring about drought and famine. What am I missing here? CO2 comprises a very small percentage of the atmosphere and very little of what is there is due to manmade emmisions. A single major volcanic eruption will put far more CO2 into the atmosphere in a few hours than all the cars and factories emit in a year. Humans are such a small contributor of CO2 and even if the Kyoto protocols were adopted worldwide, that small CO2 contribution would only be reduced fractionally. How is that supposed to save the planet from impending doom?
If historical patterns are any indication, we are near the end of the current interglacial period. These periods are typically 10 to 12 thousand years in length and the current one is about 10,700 years old. The scientists predicting a coming ice age back in the 1970s were probably correct but when that ice age is actually going to begin is anybody's guess. That is why any long range predictions on climate are nothing but a crapshoot and despite your protests, why few scientists will speak with any certainty on the subject. There is a wide range of opinions among the scientific community regarding the scope of global warming and its consequences. Dr. Wunsch certainly doesn't speak with any certainty on the subject. Perhaps you could point me to some scientists who do. And by the way, Al Gore is not a scientist.
One last question, if a warmer climate is such a bad thing, why do so many retirees move to Florida or Arizona and how are they able to cope with climate change much more drastic than what is predicted for the planet.
millrace wrote:The idea that rising CO2 levels come after global warming is a real stretch of common sense and truth. CO2 is both a cause and an effect. That 800 year lag only shows that initial warming occured first due to forcing from various climatic factors, but when CO2 rises, it intensifies the warming. A very detailed explanation is available here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
Realclimate's explanation isn't all that detailed, but the issue of lag time is a red herring. The lag-time argument confuses initiation of events (glaciation/deglaciation) with amplification of conditions. It also ignores that fact that CO2 is only one of several greenhouse gases, including methane and water vapor, that work in combination to increase temperature; that CO2 residence time in the atmosphere is longer than most or all of the others (the primary reason for urgency in dealing with CO2 loadings); and that CO2 residence time in the deep ocean is about the same duration as the lag time. The latter indicates that the amplification effects from CO2 won't become dominant until the atmosphere-ocean system reaches equilibration -- that's fine for helping the earth to come out of an ice age, but not so fine in our interglacial period, in which life has adapted to the current atmosphere-ocean equilibrium with respect to CO2 and other components. The oft-heard cry that "CO2 has been higher in the past so we're OK" is an attempt at misdirection. Indeed, atmospheric CO2 reached 7000 ppm in the Cambrian, about 540 my ago, prior to life on land. The most recent CO2 peak occurred in the Jurassic (about 160 my ago) and reached about 2300 ppm, a value from which it has more or less steadily declined. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last 11,000 years (i.e., beginning prior to emergence of what we call 'civilization') have varied between about 260 and 280 ppm; over the last 800,000 years or so (i.e., during emergence of our last hominid ancestors), that range was between about 180 to 280 ppm, the low values obtaining during glacial maxima. The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 380 ppm, and is projected to rise to between 450 to 550 ppm by 2050 at the current rate of increase. At no time in the past 600 million years, including emergence from the last glacial maximum, has the earth recorded as dramatic a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration as at present.
You get your information from a very limited range of nonscientific sources which clearly misquote and misrepresent real scientific findings (as Carl Wunsch points out), cherry pick whatever you feel makes your position appear true, and ignore the rest. There really is no debate about this. You're not presenting any "facts" that haven't already been blown around and disproved over and over again.But whatever. Believe whatever you want. I really don't care anymore.
AGW deniers are clearly in the minority (AGW scientists even more so), although they do tend to be the loudest with the weakest, mostly diversionary, arguments. There is another group of AGW investigators -- not deniers -- who aren't supported by Exxon or other special interest groups and who acknowledge that some anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for some of the recent climate change; their primary concern is that other possible mechanisms for climate change haven't been fully investigated, and the results of their research are published and debated in reputable journals, as opposed to being presented unqualified in slick PR 'documentaries' that appeal to the credulous. Their concern regarding other mechanisms is shared by the overwhelming majority of scientists involved in AGW research (for example, as a means of refining their models and recommending appropriate mitigation strategies). It's significant that the federal and several state governments are funding investigation of new methods for capturing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from electric power generating stations and locating potential sites for CO2 sequestration. They acknowledge one of the sources of the AGW problem, if not the urgency in dealing with it. As a result, BNSF and UP can be assured of transporting low-sulfur coal for as long as it lasts.
orsonroy wrote:I only have one question about the whole "Global warming is going to melt all the ice and drown us all" theory. If Vikings were building farming settlements 600 years ago that today look like this: [snip]
I only have one question about the whole "Global warming is going to melt all the ice and drown us all" theory. If Vikings were building farming settlements 600 years ago that today look like this: [snip]
Um, that's the interior of Greenland. The settlements then, as now, were along the coast. A very good book on the subject is Collapse by Jared Diamond. In fact, all of his books are excellent.
That means that the ice in Greenland has INCREASED over the past 600 years or so, right? That means that the level of the ocean has DEcreased in that time. So how come in areas that are only a few feet above seal level, right ON the ocean, we're finding American Indian artifacts that are being carbon dated to between 1000 and 3000 years old?
Because they lived near the coast? Lotta people do that today, too.
Apparently, you haven't really looked very hard for an answer. The land surface isn't static. Some formally glaciated areas (Fennoscandia, Greenland, Canada, even parts of New England and the upper Midwest, for example) are still 'rebounding' upward since glaciers melted, and their mass was removed, from those areas 12-15000 years ago. Areas along some coasts are rising (Alaska, western South America, for example) in response to material being subducted beneath them. With both mechanisms, local sea level decreases with respect to the land. Other coastal areass (parts of the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts, eastern India, Bangladesh, for example) are 'sinking' in response to compaction associated with sediment loading and groundwater withdrawal, and local sea level rises with respect to the land even if global sea level remains constant. The general term you're looking for is 'isostatic adjustment'. The scientific community 'discovered' this principle about, oh, 100 years or so ago.
Once again, that's not a reflection of what's really available. Perhaps a visit to a library (big building, lotsa books) containing archeology and anthropology journals will dispel that notion.
Full bibliograhic reference to the peer-reviewed literature, please.
The real hubris is viewing a continent-wide layer of smog from a transcontinental flight, or discovering PCBs in fish and sediments in the Great Lakes, and claiming we have no effect on the overall environment.
Shilshole wrote:Realclimate's explanation isn't all that detailed, but the issue of lag time is a red herring.
Realclimate's explanation isn't all that detailed, but the issue of lag time is a red herring.
I offer the following quote from Realclimate:
"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming."
The operative word here is COULD. Not definitely. Not probably. COULD. This hardly is indicative of any scientific certainty on this particular aspect of the issue which has been my point all along. There is so much about this issue the scientists don't know and the responsible ones will admit as much. There is so much about the global warming issue that is up for debate and speculation despite protests to the contrary.
The lag-time argument confuses initiation of events (glaciation/deglaciation) with amplification of conditions. It also ignores that fact that CO2 is only one of several greenhouse gases, including methane and water vapor, that work in combination to increase temperature; that CO2 residence time in the atmosphere is longer than most or all of the others (the primary reason for urgency in dealing with CO2 loadings); and that CO2 residence time in the deep ocean is about the same duration as the lag time. The latter indicates that the amplification effects from CO2 won't become dominant until the atmosphere-ocean system reaches equilibration -- that's fine for helping the earth to come out of an ice age, but not so fine in our interglacial period, in which life has adapted to the current atmosphere-ocean equilibrium with respect to CO2 and other components.
Another point that is often ignored in this debate. Life adapts to changing conditions. It is all part of the natural selection process. Conditions on earth are constantly changing. Life forms that adapt to the changes survive and those that can't become extinct. That is the natural order of things. 97% of all species of animals that have inhabited the earth are now extinct. Most of them became extinct long before man began walking upright. As species become extinct they are replaced by others that were more adaptable to the changes. That will continue to happen no matter what actions we take.
The oft-heard cry that "CO2 has been higher in the past so we're OK" is an attempt at misdirection. Indeed, atmospheric CO2 reached 7000 ppm in the Cambrian, about 540 my ago, prior to life on land. The most recent CO2 peak occurred in the Jurassic (about 160 my ago) and reached about 2300 ppm, a value from which it has more or less steadily declined. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last 11,000 years (i.e., beginning prior to emergence of what we call 'civilization') have varied between about 260 and 280 ppm; over the last 800,000 years or so (i.e., during emergence of our last hominid ancestors), that range was between about 180 to 280 ppm, the low values obtaining during glacial maxima. The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 380 ppm, and is projected to rise to between 450 to 550 ppm by 2050 at the current rate of increase. At no time in the past 600 million years, including emergence from the last glacial maximum, has the earth recorded as dramatic a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration as at present
For the sake of argument, let's accept the projections for the continued rise of CO2 levels. Let's also assume that this will contribute to global warming. This still does not make the case that either of these is going to be catastrophic for the earth. Is the problem higher CO2 levels or is the problem warmer temperatures. Even at the highest end of the projection, CO2 will only comprise 550 parts per million of the atmosphere. Is that going to make the air unbreathable? If the effect of higher CO2 is a warmer earth, why is that going to be a bad thing. Humans have not only existed through periods of warmth equal or greater than current predictions, they have thrived. Why will things be different this time around.
"There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"