Bush ok's Gulf of Mexico Drilling

[lamont]

Most people I know would say there is global warming, the doubt is the degree of effect of the activities of mankind. We know there have been warming and cooling cycles long before man walked the earth.

CO2 is a fundamentally different molecule from N2 or O2 in that it is not diatomic which means that it has large aborption bands in the infrared spectrum. It is also opaque to visible light. That means that CO2 is transparent to the ~6000K approximately blackbody radiation of the sun which peaks in the visible spectrum, while being substantially opaque to the Earth's ~300K blackbody radiation which is predominantly in the infrared spectrum. That means that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more insulating the Earth's atmosphere is. The basic physics behind this effect has been theorized about since Svante Arrhenius first proposed it in 1896 (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you're 110 years behind in your understand of basic physics).

And this is the plot that clinches it for me:

That shows the historical correlation between CO2 levels and temperature which establishes CO2 levels as the dominant factor in determining the global temperature. And currently we are well above any CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that has been seen for the past 650,000 years. We can also prove that it is human activity which is responsible for the huge spike of CO2 in the atmosphere (although it should be obvious from that graph that something unique is going on that hasn't ever been seen before in the past 650,000 years).

The "natural" global warming and cooling cycles have also been responsible for mass extinctions and other global catastrophes. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean that I particularly want to live through it, or that we should just keep on trying to make it come about through our actions.

This has nothing to do with the natural solar cycles, it has nothing to do even with natural ice age cycles, we are well off the beaten path at this point.

(And no, I have never watched An Inconvenient Truth and I don't rely on Al Gore for my opinions -- knowledge of quantum mechanics and molecular spectra are what is at the core of my opinion on global warming).

 

[H2Andy]

Please humor me to as of how "Junk Science" is credible? It has been used for years by tobacco lobbyists, dirty & sneaky lawyers, etc.

i like and respect Bill51 quite a lot, but about the only flaw in his arguments i see is that he does not know how to tell apart good from junk data and sources

sometimes that compromises the entire argument

just because something says what you want it to say doesn't make it credible (and that goes both ways, btw)

 

[lamont]

There are other threads on this board about greenhouse global warming, but why is a movie called “Inconvenient Truth” when so much of the truth was inconveniently left out.

They're not left out. The rayleigh scattering of sunlight due to water droplets, sulfuric acid and particulates which could cause global cooling has been disproved in the 1970s. And while there is an effect from human activity on the sunlight incident on the Earth surface due to particulates this trend is reversing now that we're cleaning up the air and reducing pollutants. As China and India clean up their smokestacks and address their horrendous air pollution problems, this effect is likely to go away and will indirectly lead to even more global warming.

Our current policy which restricts particulate emissions but does not restrict carbon emissions is optimally the worst policy to create global warming.

 

[Bill51]

That graft covers 140 years out of thousands and I am pretty sure there are more and more accurate measurements made today than 140 years ago. That 140 years is a grain of sand on a beach and really proves nothing except what happened in the last 140 years and is no indicator of what will happen in the next 140 years. The prediction in 1970's by the "experts" was the world would be out of oil by 1990. We still don't really know if or when we will run out. Time after time we see mans work defeated by the natural forces of nature but we as a species egotistically believe we can control nature when in actuality it is nature which is controlling us.

Actually this is a more accurate graph when normalized for local climate effects such as urban development, the moving of weather reporting stations, adjustments for additional reporting stations, and dozens of other factors “inconveniently” left out of the selected raw data graph.

 

[lamont]

Actually this is a more accurate graph when normalized for local climate effects such as urban development, the moving of weather reporting stations, adjustments for additional reporting stations, and dozens of other factors “inconveniently” left out of the selected raw data graph.

Like the glaciers "inconveniently" melting all over the globe? And all the permafrost melting?

 

[Bill51]

Please humor me to as of how "Junk Science" is credible? It has been used for years by tobacco lobbyists, dirty & sneaky lawyers, etc.

I want YOU to indulge me on this... What caused the 3,000 yr old ice shelf to break off in the North Pole? http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ice-shelf-breaks-from-the-arctic/2006/12/29/1166895467428.html

Lastly, please tell me whether you are playing devil's advocate here or you really are right-winged.

One study shows the ice sheets on Greenland getting thicker, and a politically motivated study claims the Greenland ice is “melting at a frighteningly fast rate.”

http://www.theregister.com/2005/11/07/ice_sheets_thickening/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0811-06.htm

One person worries about the southern most part of an artic ice pack breaking lose, while others say it’s to be expected given that the artic ice cap is thickening – which will push the edges out or off.

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s.

http://www.whoi.edu/science/PO/people/pwinsor/pdfs/winsor_2001.pdf

My political opinions have nothing to do with this thread and it is a TOS violation to attempt to turn what has been an interesting thread into a political one to be removed.

 

[micks]

One study shows the ice sheets on Greenland getting thicker, and a politically motivated study claims the Greenland ice is “melting at a frighteningly fast rate.”

http://www.theregister.com/2005/11/07/ice_sheets_thickening/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0811-06.htm

One person worries about the southern most part of an artic ice pack breaking lose, while others say it’s to be expected given that the artic ice cap is thickening – which will push the edges out or off.



http://www.whoi.edu/science/PO/people/pwinsor/pdfs/winsor_2001.pdf

My political opinions have nothing to do with this thread and it is a TOS violation to attempt to turn what has been an interesting thread into a political one to be removed.

Pardon me for jumping the gun with the political comment.

Still no word about the credibility of junk science..

How about this... Are these glaciers getting any thicker?

 

[lamont]

One study shows the ice sheets on Greenland getting thicker, and a politically motivated study claims the Greenland ice is “melting at a frighteningly fast rate.”

Interesting that you credit the one showing thinner ice as being "politically motivated" and not the latter.

The snows of Kilimanjaro are 80% gone. The Alaskan and Siberian permafrost is melting, glaciers all over the world are retreating, there are calving off ice shelfs in Antarctica and sattelite measurements along with surface measurements of the Earth's temperature show it is warming, but you choose to fall back on a single study claiming to show a thicker ice sheet in Antarctica.

EDIT: Oh actually that is reasonably good science. But all you've done is found the one location in the world with a counter-trend. To take the analogy of financial markets a little further, even a dead cat bounces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_bounce

 

[Bill51]

wow

you'll believe what you want to believe, and pick the quotes you want to pick

there is no global warming, we have nothing to worry about. all the data is wrong.
all the loss of glaciers and icecaps in both poles is just a liberal lie.

there is no mass extinction going on. all the data is wrong. some spider in Malasia goes extinct and the liberals cry wolf.

don't worry, be happy


(if i hear the water vapor canard one more time, i swear i am going to cry)

(and no, I have not watched An Inconvenient Truth ... i know better than to get my science from politicians)

I’m sure there are some OOA incidents every year due to a failed LP hose, but we don’t pressure test our hoses before every dive when it makes more sense to keep track of the air in our tanks. I’m rather concerned with how civilization is going to adapt to global warming, but I see the rise in heavy metals in inland waterways to be a more eminent danger.

We’re spending on the order (depending on who the estimates are coming from) of $300 billion per year attempting to control CO2 emissions, yet the IPCC itself buries a fine print disclaimer in it’s papers that the world could exceed Kyoto objectives and still not make any difference in the rate or severity of climate change – while they’re demanding a doubling of that expenditure. I have no problem compromising with those that feel CO2 emissions are driving climate change and seeing us shell out $50 billion per year to reduce those emissions – but I expect them to go along with my concern that we should also be spending $50 billion per year researching and planning for the infrastructure and societal changes that will be needed if our best efforts fail to reverse mother nature’s course. Given the opposition to that compromise I’ve seen from the more vocal CO2 warming alarmists, I’ve learned to be extra skeptical of those that refuse to see any other possibilities or solutions but the ones they envision and when they refuse to compromise on solutions. I believe it was 1996 when VP Gore floated a proposal to spend $150 billion per year on alternative energy subsidies, yet when it was pointed out that many of his ear marked plans may reduce CO2, they would greatly increase other pollutants, he dismissed it saying technology would find a way to deal with them. Unlike many, I would prefer to take my chances with CO2 rather than deal with the certainties of drastically increasing mercury and lead emissions around the world.

While there is some evidence that increasing CO2 levels may be warming the planet, there’s as much evidence that a warming planet increases CO2 levels, so no one has an exclusive truth in this debate. Despite that lack of an absolute truth there are too many acting as if they’ve been handed the 10 Commandment of planet operation from God. Over the past 15 years I’ve occasionally tracked two specific ways to encourage energy efficiency while also helping business yet both have been vehemently opposed by the same vocal minority that claims we’re doing nothing to help the environment because we won’t do it their way. One counter productive gottcha from the government that I oppose is the current Investment Tax Credit methodologies – which actually encourage waste. The way ITCs are currently structured they encourage businesses to toss out perfectly good equipment in order to buy newer equipment, with no provision requiring the new equipment to be more energy efficient in order to qualify. The most frustrating were regulations making it near impossible for power plants to improve the efficiency or cleanliness of existing plants because the environmental lobby wanted total improvement to new standards or no improvement allowed at all. The costs of that were so astronomical that it was much cheaper to keep running the old inefficient plants just as they were rather than making incremental upgrades to them.

ETA BTW: It’s estimated that it would cost between $270 - $475 billion to protect all the developed areas of the US from a one meter rise in sea level. Not only would that action protect against the possibility of sea level rise in excess of the IPCC worst case, it would protect us every day from storm damage and natural erosion damage, yet those relatively inexpensive (over the long term) real and tangible improvements are being opposed by the same people demanding we spend hundreds of billions to reduce CO2 knowing it may or may not protect us.

 

[Wildcard]

When I was in school I could have come close but since it's not something I deal with, no, not now. You ideas as much as I disagree with most of them are well worth reading. Unlike most liberals that are blind to anything but what they want to hear, I listen to everything then sort through the BS and call it as such. No one is saying the world is not getting warmer, it is. It is always getting either warmer or cooler. Humans dumping millions of tons of various waste products are not helping but they certanly are not the sole cause either.
Now if you would like to talk about the science of the second by second chemical changes the human body goes through, I can keep up with most all day. That is something I deal with.
It's 2am and Im going back to bed.