Global Warming 24

[zdas04]

Scientific American Frontiers on the U.S. PBS network aired a program this month about Alaska. One sequence showed a "drunken forest". The ground temperature under the forest increased 3F or so and the permafrost became permaslush. The trees were no longer adequately supported and have started to subside at odd angles.

One of the scary things about the show was the contention that global warming is a positive-feedback loop. The permafrost holds an unimaginable quantity of frozen plant material. The contention of the people interviewed is that when that plant material begins to rot, it will release more CO2 into the air than the sum total of all human emission sources of all time. That CO2 increases the green house effect and further raises temperatures. The higher temperatures thaw the permafrost further and further north and release even more junk.

This loop was in addition to the well-understood loop of the warmer temperatures melting more snow, the water under the snow reflects less light, and the extra energy further raises temperatures.

Evidence in the deep-ice cores show that cycles like this have happened many times in the past. My question is: What is the mechanism of the reversal of the warming cycle? And will the industrialization of the planet make it more or less effective.


David

 

[GregLocock]

2dye4

Those reputable professionals whose advice you are inclined to trust over our skepticism, have admitted IN PRINT, that they sensationalise their results and pick worst case scenarios.

That's not science, it is politics.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[2dye4]

Greg
You have no information to base any scepticism on.
Really do a significant percentage of climate researchers
admit they are fudging their answears.
Who are they and where in print do they say they are
making it up. I don't doubt you I am just curious to
see who it is and what in what context they have commented.

 

[2dye4]

I have to eat some crow.
I spent some time searching the topic and I can
see some of the problem.

I was looking for people who should be able to form
an educated opinion and who had a reputation for accuracy
to maintain.

I found only one person so far.

Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of
Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

And he is of the opinion that there is no evidence to
support an alarmist view. He notes the political pressure
and broad array of people who will comment on the issue
even though it is far from their field of experience.

Also allmost none of the sites give references to the
scientific work their conclusions are drawn from.

Still I want to find what more people like Mr Lindzen have
to say about it.

 

[GregLocock]

"You have no information to base any scepticism on."

How do you know that? You can apologise at your leisure. Here are some quotes from New Scientist, which tends to be pro-Kyoto, pro-climate change in general.


"The latest findings include the first hint of a slowdown in the Atlantic currents that keep Europe warm. They warn that climate change will have previously unimagined effects. Many of the predictions of standard climate models, including those published last week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, could turn out to be wrong, they say.

The problem is that the Earth is prone to sudden and drastic flips in climate and ecology. This means that predictions from climate models, which assume steady warming and gradual responses from the ecosystem, could be well wide of the mark. In reality, the scientists say, the Earth takes up different stable states-and can change suddenly from one to another. That will play havoc with both human life and nature."

Note the second sentence in the first para

"Disputes about how water vapour and clouds will influence global warming are at the heart of many of the disputes between mainstream scientists and the handful of greenhouse sceptics. Overall, the majority view is that positive feedbacks could amplify the warming effect by perhaps 2.5 times. But some sceptics believe the feedback effect could be neutral or even predominantly negative. "

Bearing in mind that water vapour is the #1 greenhouse gas it seems odd that scientists are unsure whether it is having a positive, neutral or negative feedback effect.

"Analysis of fossils leaves have shown that the standard models used for climate prediction have huge errors when taken out of familiar conditions, say an international team of scientists.

The team, involving researchers from the UK, Russia, Sweden and the Czech Republic, used the leaf fossils to calculate the temperature at various sites during the Late Cretaceous period, 95 million years ago. They then used some of the best climate models researchers have on offer, such as the Hadley Centre's climate model, to calculate what temperatures at that time might have been like. To their surprise, they found their results differed greatly.

Most striking were results in regions far away from the coast, where leaf-based results were much warmer. "We're talking about an error on the order of 20 °C, so it's not small - not by any means," says modeller Paul Valdes from the University of Reading.
"


Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[GregLocock]

While I'm at it, I couldn't find the original interview where a climatologist admitted to choosing worst case scenarios.

Instead I did find the fllowing:

"Since his 1988 testimony, Hansen's vision of global warming has come under increasing attack. (Hansen also testified that the observed warming in the past century was 0.6C to 0.7C. This is 20 to 40 percent higher than any objective trend analysis using the global records considered most reliable. See Michaels, op. cit.) Reid Bryson, a respected expert in climate research and Emeritus Professor of Geography, Meteorology, and Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, dismissed the Hansen testimony as a "phenomenal snow job" and the global warming theory as "a triumph of sociology over science." (Laing, "Climate of Fear," op. cit.) In fact, the theory that substantial global warming will occur is bitterly disputed by many highly respected scientists. Global warming is not a fact. It is a theory that is widely challenged. In a recent survey of atmospheric physicists and meteorologists, for instance, almost all of the scientists agreed that catastrophic global warming predictions are unsupported by scientific evidence and that climate models showing warming cannot be relied upon. ("Survey of U.S. Participants in the IPCC Report"

"Many of the delegates at UNCED will demand action to reduce the levels of human-generated greenhouse gases on the grounds that a large rise in the Earth's temperature would be harmful. Among the studies generating these demands is a report to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ("The Scientific Assessment of Climate Change," The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, August 1990.) This summary concluded that global warming had already occurred, would continue to occur, and was causing a rise in the ocean levels. (The executive summary, however, was not representative of the body of the report, according to 40 percent of the scientists who worked on the document, and was termed "misleading" by half of those scientists. "Survey of U.S. Participants in the IPCC Report," The Science and Environmental Policy Project, August 1991.) "

So at least 20% of scientist working in the field who contributed to that report think that misleading documents are used by policy makers.

If you tpye



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[jgull]

Scotty UK,

Your post about global warming potentially causing glaciation is supposedly correct. The Atlantic currents circulate water in the Atlantic, taking warm surface water from the equatorial region and moving it north towards Europe's northern latitudes, where it cools and sinks, and then is circulated south where it resurfaces. It's called the Atlantic conveyor belt, or something like that. Supposedly if global warming (whether it be man-made or natural) melts the ice caps enough, the coveyor belt is stopped. What happens is the fresh water that melts off is denser than salt water, so it sinks and the salt water floats on top of it, which prevents it from sinking and continuing on its normal path. The tipping point is supposed to be very quick, and would cause massive climate changes. The North would get very cold, and the South would get warmer temporarily. It's supposed to cause glaciation in the northern hemisphere until at least about the 30 degree line, but it's almost impossible to predict. Obviously its effects would not be limited to the souther or western hemispheres, as such a massive change would have global consequences, including glaciation in Asia. If you saw the movie The Day After Tomorrow you could get one idea (greatly tainted by hollywood) of what could potentially happen. There is some evidence that this has happened before periodically from fossil records, but I have no idea who or what or what they concluded. It's an interesting theory either way.

 

[moltenmetal]

I strongly suggest that you forget about trying to find absolute facts on this issue and merely deal with probabilities. We won't have any concrete data on global warming until it's either happened or hasn't.

The point is that a needless, stupid, wasteful activity is having actual, measurable harmful consequences on people's lives right now. Fossil fuel extraction and consumption results in needless deaths from smog and fine particulate emissions, plus a myriad of other harmful effects on the world. And regardless how much you may wish it to be otherwise, the majority of people whose area of study is the earth's climate concur that there's a PROBABILITY of serious, potentially irreversible HARMFUL consequences for the WHOLE PLANET from this same activity.

You can either stick your head in the sand (or up some other orifice), deny the reality, listen to the people who tell you what you want to hear, and keep doing what you're already doing and leave this for your kids or grandkids to sort out, or you can get off your duff and do something about it NOW, while there's yet hope of fixing things for the future. As I said before, it's fundamentally a problem of values, not one of technology.

We know which of these IronGoth will be doing. He's hoping for someone to invent a perfect biofuel for his hog that's cheaper than gasoline. Keep riding with your head in the clouds, man! But you can't fault him much- he's not dragging two tonnes of metal and an acre of frontal area around with him everywhere he goes.

Hopefully enough sensible people will prevail and realize that the sky WON'T fall the day we decide to stop wasting fossil fuels and invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation. Some of the Europeans have got it figured out- let's hope it creeps across to stodgy old oil-addicted North America sometime soon. Maybe there's still hope we'll get real about energy consumption and generation by curtailing people's so-called "right" to drive their idiotic SUVs and taxing wasteful consumption.

As to aspearin1's quote from Bob Frost, the last stanza is incorrect- to paraphrase Frost, he says that from what he knows of Hate, ice would work as well as fire at destroying the world. Maybe the analogy isn't too far off- how hateful is it to needlessly squander your children's resources and leave them holding the bag?

 

[jstickley]

Although I don't agree with everything he says, Michael Crichton had an interesting take on environmentalism as a whole, which seems to be quite applicable to this discussion:

http://www.perc.org/publications/articles/Crichtonspeech.php

The point, of course, is that facts don't necessarily matter when forming opinions on this matter (no matter which side you're on).

 

[2dye4]

Greg
I do not mean to offend. I mean we all get this info on
a second and third hand basis.
I read your two above posts and I see that a lot of
sensationalizing is occuring but I find the that to be the
only conclusion I can draw.
Just because some researchers skew their results to show
a result does not mean the result is not a correct one.

I would not expect the climate models to work far into the
past on computer simulations because of the many unknown
factors that are needed for the model and that can only
be inferred from historical data.

To form an opinion we must get the opinion of many other
climate researchers apart from any respective groups who
may use their ideas to further an agenda. I will look for
more references that come directly from the people
qualified to comment and then form my opinion.

 

[moltenmetal]

Thanks jstickley for that interesting link. I've seen the religious aspect of environmentalism first hand, and know the harm it can cause by rendering the "do nothing" option more attractive than it should be. There's a kernel of truth in Crichton's remarks, for sure. But lots of half-truths too- he's not immune from his own concern about misuse of scientific data. He quotes the studies and data that support his point, just like others do, and neglects to mention that there are valid studies and data contrary to his point of view as well. Some of his assertions (like the assertion that second-hand cigarette smoke is harmless) are just plain whacko in my view and tend to discredit him a bit.

The scientific method requires that everyone put their data out there and then have a public discussion about whose hypotheses are supported by the data and whose aren't. Over time, the prevailing understanding is the one that best represents the physical reality as we know it. There's room for dissent in the climatological field just as there is every other scientific endeavour- and no room for "religion" (i.e. the maintenance of a belief which either is unsupported by fact or runs contrary to fact). But the presence of dissention on a topic where a consensus has developed is NO excuse for inaction!

I argue that there's enough wrong with the wasteful consumption of fossil fuels that quite frankly it doesn't matter whether or not global warming is one of them. We should be curtailing their WASTEFUL misuse because of all the other harms they cause, and because the overwhelming scientific opinion is to SUSPECT them of causing global warming on top of all that other bad stuff.

 

[zdas04]

moltenmetal,
You couldn't be more correct. Wasteful misuse of any commodity should always be curtailed. I think the core of the dissention in this thread is means and methods.

If you say to the masses "you must conserve fuel because it will run out" the response will be that those few people who believe you will store a few dozen gallons of gasoline in their garage (and a few of them will die in the resulting fire). The rest will just turn up the "Gilligan's Island" repeats and hope you go away.

If you build bicycle lanes people will use them for turn lanes. If you come up with a tax break for improving your family's fuel economy most people won't understand the hoops required to claim it and others will claim it without qualifying.

As has been said many times above, the only way to reduce consumption is to raise prices to the point where the cost of fuel is a significant portion of an entitiy's budget. This method has been proven to work all over the world, but politician's never look past the next election and lack the fortitude to approve any energy policy - let alone one that raises gasoline prices from $2/gallon to $6/gallon (still less than the UK). The only fix that is economically feasible is not politically feasible, check and mate - we die gasping in our own filth.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

http://www.muleshoe-eng.com

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

The Plural of "anecdote" is not "data"

 

[GregLocock]

Excellent article stickles

Quote "I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigeous science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependant on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief."

And I think on that note I'll bow out of this thread, religous wars are a waste of time.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[jstickley]

At the risk of being off-topic, I just wanted to state and re-emphasize that I don't agree with a large number of things in the Crichton link. My intent in posting the link was not to offend anyone's religious beliefs (he offended mine, to be honest), but merely to offer an article that, as others have stated, has a couple good nuggets of truth regarding the linkage between issues we take on faith and environmental stances.

As I stated in my original post, the article emphasizes the point that facts don't seem to matter much on this issue (it is this point with which I agree). Our "faith-based" viewpoints tend to influence our interpretations of what the facts mean, sometimes to the point that opposing viewpoints even cite the same facts in support of their differing conclusions.

(BTW, for clarity, faith, as used in this post, should be understood in the most general manner possible, certainly not intended to be construed as solely religious faith, but more so along the line of anything we accept based on things other than logic / facts.)

 

[davefitz]

From a distance, it seems very amusing that tens of thousands of scientists and engineers, which the public is supposed to think are espescially qualified to analyse scientific issues, cannot agree on something as simple as whether or not the temperature is increasing.

 

[jmw]

It is not just whether the temperature is increasing but why? and is it something we have caused or can or should influence?

At one moment we were being told we were adding so much pollution we were changing the planets albedo and the ice caps would melt and we will roast. Then we are warned that all this pollution will block the suns rays and we will freeze. For every facet of what we do there seem to be at least two contradictory theories, often more and often with the ranks of scientists on every side of the argument defaming there oponents.

Add in politicians and activists and we have a nice mess.

I think sometimes they are arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin.

While it has been correctly pointed out that we are wasteful of resources it does no good to have a panic reaction every time some one propounds a new alarmist theory.

The acid rain debacle in Europe saw pressure groups and politicians respond in a most in-appropriate way to a badly stated and mis-understood problem.

Here we are again, arguing about climate change without learning the lessons of the past and when there are some desperate current situations where it is blatantly obvious all is not right and yet where little is being done.

The annual loss of rain forrest is something we can and should be alarmed at and which it is within our remit to do something, or the fact that in recent years slash and burn in Indonesian forrests caused a smoke pall that closed airports hundreds of miles away and caused a major pollution problem for the populations living there. Again, something unnecessary and about which something can and should be done.

There are many things we should worry about and many that it is pointless worrying about until we an seperate the politics and the over the top activists out of the equation and let the scientists examine the situation for a clear understanding of the situation.

As it is, there is controversy and disenting voices are being supressed on the "faith" issue.

We are being brainwashed into accepting that if it is bad and if the blame can be laid at our own doors, ergo it is true and we should imediately panic and pressure the politicians to do something rash and possibly counter-productive. It may be that there is lttle that can be done short term to produce a dramatic effect and it is drama that many seem to wish for.

Not the best way to run a planet, especially if we allow ourselves to be stampeded into a course of action that may have more downs than ups in the solution.

But this is an argument we have had many times on many issues e.g. the catalytic converter which is covered in other threads and never satisactorily resolved.


JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[PSE]

If you want to consider just how accurate the global warming theory is, just consider how accurate your local meteorologist is despite all the technology and historical pattern data at their finger tips.

Now some of you may live in rather stable climes. I cannot count though how many times I shoveled a few inches of "clear to partly cloudy" skies off my driveway during wintertime.

Regards,

 

[friartuck]

Having read many articles on global warming, I can see both sides of the argument. However, can anyone explain why we (actually the USA) having so many Hurricanes lately.

I'm not suggesting a link to global warming, but at the moment there seems to be only two items on the TV, one is Iraq and the other is Hurricane Frances, Ivan and whatever next.

We in the UK are interested parties as to the weather in the US because believe it or not, we sometimes get the tail end of them after a few weeks of crossing the Atlantic. Thankfully not category 5.

Is there a 'typical activity level' of Hurricanes i.e. 3 a year or do you get 1 every 3 years or what?

Also, do they generally hit land or stay out to sea?

Any meteorologists out there?





Friar Tuck of Sherwood

 

[jmw]

I would be wary of deducing increased hurricane activity or intensity from their appearance on the English weather channels. They have now taken to reporting the weather for wherever tourists are likely to go. Sometimes there is a far more detailed "snow" report from the Alps than on what is happening in your home town. The fascination with Florida is, of course, Orlando.

On the other hand the day to day weather variations are difficult to predict but there is a different perspective on long term weather analysis. While I am sanguine about much of whta i have heard (and think i have understood) about the validity of artic ice core sample dissolved gas analysis or whatever, as an analysis of what has happened, I am rather less convinced about what is "predicted".

I am distinctly concerned when I hear politicians and journalists spouting what appears complete nonsense about global warming.

In debates of this sort, with so many experts lined up on both sides, what hope have we of finding the "truth". In a numbers game the global warming alarmists have it. In quality of data, analysis and deduction, who knows?

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[liberty]

The mechanism for reversing global warming is photosynthesis - plants thriving in a relatively CO2-rich atmosphere and accelerating the absorption of this ubiquitous greenhouse gas into solid form. Growth of plant matter has a sort of momentum associated with it, so that CO2 absorption continues past equilibrium until the atmosphere is starved of CO2, cooling things off and otherwise benefitting us O2 breathers.

Tied to the carbon cycle is the symbiotic relationship between animals and plants: most animals absorb O2 and most plants absorb CO2. Historically, animals go through periods of overpopulation and exhaust their food supply (plants), converting plant matter back into CO2 and resetting the cycle.

Slowing down the carbon cycle seems to be a noble cause. However, I think our species can survive several more ice ages if we focus more on helping each other cope with a changing world, rather than tearing each other down in an attempt to keep it from changing. You can't stop the carbon cycle, it's too big. Plant a tree and call it a day.

 

[ewh]

friartuck,
I'm not a meteorologist, but have lived near the southeast coast of N America for many years. I have read that hurricane seasons go through cycles (10 year cycles if I remember correctly), from a few not so severe storm per season to the more numerous and powerful storm seasons such as we are seeing now. They do go ashore, but tend to lose their energy rapidly after doing so.