EPTTL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
craag
United States4 Posts
| ||
|
Hundisilm
Estonia99 Posts
| ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
1) What is the biggest denialist argument? And how is it refuted? 2) What are the effects of our current emmissions? Will it be something to worry about now? 20 years? 30? 100? 3) What are your solutions? I mean relying on individuals to change their habits is pretty weak; i imagine the changes will have to come from big business which involves money and power. 4) Have you read the book superfreakonomics and do you have a comment on their chapter regarding global warming? (If not i'll find it online somewhere) Thanks! | ||
|
Abraxas514
Canada475 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:08 dabbeljuh wrote: thanks for rephrasing, now I got it. simple answer: no. complex answer: what you describe is a regional effect. water has a very low albedo, i.e. it absorbs lots and lots of sun light. even if in some parts of the Earth that might change due to the angle, this is an second order effect. And even if it would be really a negative local feedback, it is just that, local. Last but not least: (linear) negative feedbacks do not decrease global temperature but would "buffer" or slow an increase. I like the hypothesis, will discuss it tomorrow with a few colleagues if we can quantify the strength of that effect, even if I am quite certaint, it is a secondary effect. Thanks for the consideration. http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm Water vapour is the single most important greenhouse gas, wherefore it is interesting to note that global warming since 1978 apparently terminated in 1998, simultaneously with the step-like decrease in atmospheric water vapour content. Global climate models forecast an increasing amount of atmospheric water vapour along with global temperature increase. This seems to me like the main problem. I get the impression that media likes using CO2 in climate change arguments because they can say something like "60,000 tonnes of CO2" which even without context sounds dire, as if CO2 was some foreign pollutant. If I'm not mistaken, the biggest issue is a runaway atmospheric effect. Loss of land space is really bad, but a runaway atmosphere would destroy Earth like it did Venus. My ENGR 202 environment and sustainability lecture came up with an interesting future idea: A solarsynchronous net of solar panels that will decrease incoming solar light 10%, and store electricity in batteries for interplanetary craft. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:25 etherwar wrote: Obviously the two are interwoven, however, and while a really cold winter doesn't disprove the theory of AGW, neither does a hot summer, or a drought "prove" it. Basically, as a whole, it is much easier to make accurate predictions about what is going to happen to the Earth as a whole than it is to make an accurate prediction about where rainfall is going to take place on a certain day. Agreed. This is why we apply the above explained Detection & Attribution studies to the distribution of extreme events; all a climate scientist can ever say: a warmer Earth can enhance the probability of a certain event. This is not a clear: this flood is due to you drinving a Hummer, but it is not far away from that either: if climate change increases the flood change from 1 / 100 years to 1/10 years, thats bad enough that you can experience it direct. There are many variables that are not being accounted for, and climate science has a long way to go to completely understand how weather works and how our climate works. All this is my perception, my understanding (which of course maybe and usually is wrong). I agree wholeheartedly. So, where did the following quote come from? Has climate science made enough progress to show locally which areas of the world geographically will be affected and in what way? Because this information is invaluable, and if Climate Change is as bad as alarmists have predicted, will be the best information in making informed decisions regarding how drastic our response to combat the change should be... The results of the last assessment report indicate that we are reasonably certain for certain regions of the world that have typical topographic behavior, as the oceans (no topography) and the mediterrenean sea (an evaporative basin). I guess that most politicians in the club med know about this. For other regions, results are still shaky, especially in SEA for the monsoon region and the Sahel region in AFrica. This is a pity, because those regions are very susceptible to small changes in the precipitation pattern. | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:27 dabbeljuh wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 13 2011 09:22 slytown wrote: "by burning carbon that has been accumulated over many millions of years and been stored in fossil fuels. the earth#s carbon cycle is in a fragile equilibrium, by releasing energy in an incredible fast manner, we do impact climate in an unprecedented speed. hope that helps!" OK, I am skeptic only because I have heard the explanations and anthropological carbon-dioxide from what I understand is not a contributor to the global warming context but could (in theory) have a cooling effect globally. So, according to "skeptics" like Patrick Moore, Richard Lindzen, and Bob Carter, the "hockey stick" theory is bunk becauase it neglects the effect temperature has on CO2 levels, not the other way around. Also, and the more important point, the recent rise in global temperature is a result of two effects: water vapor's reflection of solar rays and the sun's solar activity cycles. Do you agree with these effects or is CO2 still the culprit? It is proven beyond doubt that increasing Co2 concentration will increase temperature. It is also proven beyond doubt that a warmer Earth has a warmer ocean that can carry less (!) CO2. So, thought experiment: Orbital changes induce temperature change -> warmer Earth -> warmer ocean -> emission of CO2 -> even warmer Earth. This has happened in the past and explains that in these plots in some periods, CO2 leads temperature. This does not invalidate the current problem: Human induced CO2 change -> warmer Earth -> warmer ocean -> emission of CO2 -> even warmer Earth. Concerning your " the recent rise in global temperature is a result of two effects: water vapor's reflection of solar rays and the sun's solar activity cycles" What you mean is the argument that solar rays excite cloud formation and that sun activity influences global SAT. Direct measurementas (satellite) show however, that global temperature and sun activity are NOT correlated, they point in different directions even for the last 35 years. I refer you to http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm for more infos. Graphs don't scare me. Where is the evidence that CO2 is the culprit? That's the issue here with the "global warming scare." I'm not saying I'm an idealogue, but i want DIRECT CORRELATION between every rise in temperature of recent with CO2 levels. A bigger question is is that even possible? Sorry, I'm not a climate scientist so I am unfamiliar with all the terminology. Great thread by the way dabbelijuh. EDIT: The issue isn't global warming's existence; it does exist. That's for the conspiracy theorists and oil pundits. The issue is the "scare" and the anthropological assumptions. Pollution is still an issue for humans and we should address it. | ||
|
Mazer21Rackham
United States17 Posts
1. Jatropha plants used for Biodiesel. This plant can be grown in areas where crops cannot. It's becoming a popular solution in India currently. 2. Using water from waste treatment plants to harvest algae to be used for Biodiesel. We have a plant that does this now here in San Diego. I'm sure there are many others. 3. Duckweed grown to filter out the waste in water before it gets pumped into our rivers and oceans. A site that shows where this is done now. duckweed applications Rather then fighting about this we should be using our ingenuity to come up with cost effective creative solutions. If we don't rally together we can't fight the corporate PR machine. Slightly off topic - I'm sure there are many others but these are just a few off the top of my head. We should all be mindful of companies who are trying to protect their turf and will often act like gangsters to do so. I truly believe this is a failure of courage in the journalistic media. We lack investigative journalism to ask the tough questions to those in power. (well at least in America we do) This is a story that was in Bloomberg Businessweek that shows just how corupt America is. Pssst...wanna buy a law? It's two stories in one. One is how business get their pet laws passed and the other is how a mayor tried to get broadband internet into his town and was prevented from doing so by broadband companies. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:30 Abraxas514 wrote: Thanks for the consideration. http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm This seems to me like the main problem. I get the impression that media likes using CO2 in climate change arguments because they can say something like "60,000 tonnes of CO2" which even without context sounds dire, as if CO2 was some foreign pollutant. If I'm not mistaken, the biggest issue is a runaway atmospheric effect. Loss of land space is really bad, but a runaway atmosphere would destroy Earth like it did Venus. My ENGR 202 environment and sustainability lecture came up with an interesting future idea: A solarsynchronous net of solar panels that will decrease incoming solar light 10%, and store electricity in batteries for interplanetary craft. i believe your website gets the facts wrong: "global warming since 1978 apparently terminated in 1998" there is a multitude of published literature that shows that this is not strictly true. there are always variability effects in climate (e.g. el nino / el nina=), but if you substract those effects, the warming signal is unchanged for the last decades. see here for a free blog or the paper itself (its linked in the article but i dont know if its free to download) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/global-temperature-news/#more-10128 | ||
|
Rhine
187 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:22 slytown wrote: "by burning carbon that has been accumulated over many millions of years and been stored in fossil fuels. the earth#s carbon cycle is in a fragile equilibrium, by releasing energy in an incredible fast manner, we do impact climate in an unprecedented speed. hope that helps!" OK, I am skeptic only because I have heard the explanations and anthropological carbon-dioxide from what I understand is not a contributor to the global warming context but could (in theory) have a cooling effect globally. So, according to "skeptics" like Patrick Moore, Richard Lindzen, and Bob Carter, the "hockey stick" theory is bunk becauase it neglects the effect temperature has on CO2 levels, not the other way around. Also, and the more important point, the recent rise in global temperature is a result of two effects: water vapor's reflection of solar rays and the sun's solar activity cycles. Do you agree with these effects or is CO2 still the culprit? Of course, the climate is a combination of a few factors, the most important being solar irradiance. Another important factor is greenhouse gases. We've known that these gases have an effect on temperature for a century now, and have since solidified much of the physics around it. The climate is a combination of factors, and the models have accounted very well for solar activity. The effect that cosmic rays have on climate has been of some debate, though it seems to be stabilizing to "cosmic rays don't account for the rise in global temperatures." | ||
|
Wren
United States745 Posts
| ||
|
Mooster
Canada43 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:29 Hundisilm wrote: I've been puzzled a bit why loss of ice caps is considered to be a positive feedback. Sure the albedo of ice is pretty neat, but the poles aren't probably the sunniest places on the earth and snow on ice should be a quite nice insulator (as we can see the rather low number of degrees over there). Along with the Gulf Stream I would expect the loss of polar ice hat to have a nice cooling effect on earth. I would assume that climate peoples have done some calculations on them at some point or another (I'm assuming it is considered to be less than the albedo difference), but I haven't ran into anything on this subject so far (negative feedback of loss of snow/ice cover). Its a positive feedback because the difference in albeido between a snow/ice cover and a deep blue ocean is huge. With ice reflecting >90% of the sunlight vs the ocean absorbing most of the sunlight. Globally, this seems to be insignificant, but locally this contributes significantly to melting of the ice caps. Imagine this, you have ice caps reflecting most of the sunlight and a small piece of it starts melting. Once that piece melts, the sunlight is allow to reach the ocean which has a low albeido. The ocean warms a little, melting more ice. The ice cover shrinks allowing more sunlight to reach the ocean. This is why loss of ice caps is considered a positive feedback. Ice caps on average maintain a cycle of melting + freezing. However with the introduction of global warming, the slight increase in temperature tips the scale and allows for a runaway effect. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:37 slytown wrote: Graphs don't scare me. Where is the evidence that CO2 is the culprit? That's the issue here with the "global warming scare." I'm not saying I'm an idealogue, but i want DIRECT CORRELATION between every rise in temperature of recent with CO2 levels. A bigger question is is that even possible? Sorry, I'm no a climate scientist so I am unfamiliar with all the terminology. Great thread by the way dabbelijuh. it is not possible to show this direct correlation for single anomalies, only for the global trend.. think of a pot of water on a cooker: you will not be able to correlate the bubbles in the water with small fluctuations of the cooker itself. you will be reasonably sure, though, that the warming of the water is due to the cooker. now think of earth as that pot but + many strange effects that shake the pot, put ice in it, activate the cooker irregularly, lift and drop the pot from time to time. the result will be a chaotic evolution wheren you _CANNOT_ directly correlate cooker and pot temperature, but the causal effect is still there. I would much appreciate if things would be easier (and beware of people who it is, it is not. Earth is one of the most complex systems mankind has ever tried to describe. ). And please, ignore the graph, look at my thought experiment  EDIT: and no reason to excuse yourself because your not a climate scientist, sometimes I wish I wouldnt be one | ||
|
ctp
Germany2 Posts
It is the script for a presentation by a professor of physics (Prof Dr Gerlach). I am no physicist, but I'd like to think that I have a decent understanding of mathematics and the basic physics involved, and I think I could follow his explanations reasonably well. So, you might want to reply to what Gerlach writes in this script and not my flawed understanding of it, but the most clear point he made was, that a colder body, i.e. the stratosphere, supposedly warms a warmer body, i.e. the surface of the planet, with a balanced "radiation budget" (better translations for "Strahlungsbilanz"?), which would be a perpetuum mobile. On top of that, there are the obvious political arguments and the fact, that warm periods (Roman antiquity, High Middle Ages, Renaissance, 1850 onwards, etc) were more prosperous than cold periods (Dark Ages, Little Ice Age, etc). | ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
I, for one, don't think we need to take extensive action all over the globe. Other places REALLY need to improve. Then again, all the craze for hybrid automobiles might take care of half the problem. (500 "then again"s) | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:29 Hundisilm wrote: I've been puzzled a bit why loss of ice caps is considered to be a positive feedback. Sure the albedo of ice is pretty neat, but the poles aren't probably the sunniest places on the earth and snow on ice should be a quite nice insulator (as we can see the rather low number of degrees over there). Along with the Gulf Stream I would expect the loss of polar ice hat to have a nice cooling effect on earth. I would assume that climate peoples have done some calculations on them at some point or another (I'm assuming it is considered to be less than the albedo difference), but I haven't ran into anything on this subject so far (negative feedback of loss of snow/ice cover). very good point. people thought a long time that the loss of summer ice would be a strong positive effect (warmer earth -> less ice -> more water -> more sunshine absorption -> warmer water -> less ice and so forth). this is true! but once the summer ice is melted and the water is really cosily warm, winter will come. the water will then rapidly cool, lead to a local temperature anomaly and build up ice again, which will very fast again insulate the ocean vs the very cold winter atmosphere. in the end, the summer ice positive feedback is existent, but not as strong as people argued ten years ago because in winter it will very rapidly get back to normal. | ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
| ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:42 dabbeljuh wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 13 2011 09:37 slytown wrote: Graphs don't scare me. Where is the evidence that CO2 is the culprit? That's the issue here with the "global warming scare." I'm not saying I'm an idealogue, but i want DIRECT CORRELATION between every rise in temperature of recent with CO2 levels. A bigger question is is that even possible? Sorry, I'm no a climate scientist so I am unfamiliar with all the terminology. Great thread by the way dabbelijuh. it is not possible to show this direct correlation for single anomalies, only for the global trend.. think of a pot of water on a cooker: you will not be able to correlate the bubbles in the water with small fluctuations of the cooker itself. you will be reasonably sure, though, that the warming of the water is due to the cooker. now think of earth as that pot but + many strange effects that shake the pot, put ice in it, activate the cooker irregularly, lift and drop the pot from time to time. the result will be a chaotic evolution wheren you _CANNOT_ directly correlate cooker and pot temperature, but the causal effect is still there. I would much appreciate if things would be easier (and beware of people who it is, it is not. Earth is one of the most complex systems mankind has ever tried to describe. ). And please, ignore the graph, look at my thought experiment EDIT: and no reason to excuse yourself because your not a climate scientist, sometimes I wish I wouldnt be one Lulz. Don't wish that. At least you have work in your field. It's hard to get work in my field of history. Anyway, my issue is you say there can't be a direct correlation, only something like a 95% effect from CO2, but that's not the question. 100% or 95%, where is the evidence that the CO2 is what's causing the temperature rise? The IPCC has suppossedly misrepresented the scientists that submitted their findings on the subject and falsely claims the number of academics who support the anthropological theory. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
I will come back to this thread tomorrow, thanks for the constructive atmosphere! W | ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
Difference between creationists and cc deniers is that you can't attack their ideology because they just think nothing happens. If you argue a creationist what you do is attack their view of creationism where it is most silly. Best thing you can do is call them idiots and leave them. Even if they are members of US congress. | ||
|
Gelenn
United States87 Posts
Thanks for taking the time to make this topic! | ||
| ||
