Posted on 11/22/2007 11:32:05 AM PST by melt
LOL!
LOL!
You asked about your home being under a mile of ice. I didn’t know where you lived so I checked your profile. Thank you for your service to the country. While we disagree on a lot, I sincerly appreciate the fact that you have made sacrifices to protect my family and I.
You point out that, while increased carbon and increased temperatures occur concurrently, increase in carbon usually follows a rise in temperature—and not the other way around. You are correct, and Al Gore got called out on this point by the British Judge a few weeks ago. But this is exactly what you would expect to see if the theory of global warming were correct. Small temperature changes result in the release of GHGs which creates a runaway heating effect. This is where positive feedback loops come in. Let’s say solar radiation is greater due to eliptical orbit issues. Ice melts, more methane is released, more heat is trapped, more ice melts...I agree Gore is a political opportunist who can’t be trusted, and I think he hurt the “cause” by using misleading hyperbole, but that doesn’t mean everything he said was wrong.
Ice ages seem to be impacted, at least in part, by Milankovitch cycles. Assuming (as I think you have) that the Wisconsin ended due to higher solar energy, the temperature had stopped rising for centuries. Then, just as GHGs in the atomosphere spiked, so did our temperatures. I am sure you have seen the hockey stick graph demonstrating the rise in temperatures in the second half of the 20th century. Maybe this is an anomoly like the Little Ice Age. But maybe its not. But don’t you think sensible people, without panicking or screwing up our economy, should keep an open mind?
Lastly, water vapor is a GHG. GHGs are not evil. Indeed the greenhouse effect is necesary to the survival of our species (as the earth would be a snowball without it), it’s just if we put too much GHG in the atomosphere we risk overheating our greenhouse.
Lastly as for citations, you have to know I could throw a million citations at you starting with the IPCC reports or a cut and paste from Wikipedia. If you really want a source, the EPA website—which is criticized for its conservative views on this issue—is available at epa.gov
Small temperature changes result in the release of GHGs which creates a runaway heating effect.
— Yes, this is appears to be the standard response to the difficult problem of effect preceding cause. I read it at a large “Global Warming!!!!!!” website. It said (as you say) ‘some other cause’ will start global warming and then Carbon Dioxide will accelerate it in a runaway fashion.
This reminds me of the joke about Economists having to change a light bulb... “First, we assume a ladder”. If you have to assume another cause has started the global warming... What is it?
Using your proposed process, reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions will not prevent global warming because the other cause is “uncontrolled”. That’s like stopping a car by rolling down the windows. You may call it positive feedback loops, but then you are delving into secondary causation, a pretty big leap when, as you know, global warming is a THEORY. ...A theory which should be able to explain anomolies (like the Little Ice Age).
I am sure you have seen the hockey stick graph demonstrating the rise in temperatures in the second half of the 20th century.
— Which has been soundly discredited. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/
Ice melts, more methane is released
— I don’t know where you learned science. In my studies, Ice melts, heat is absorbed. Methane, being a carbon based molecule does not participate in the change of physcial state (H2O ice >> H2O water (including water vapor)) Note that suddenly instead of Carbon Dioxide you are talking about Methane. Violation of another scientific principle Occam’s razor...
Occam’s razor (sometimes spelled Ockham’s razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_Razor
Again, there are 500 foot hills near me called the Kettle Moraine. These were formed when one mile thick glaciers receded. When that happened the Earth’s temperature rose approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels rose a total of 300 feet.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/NYT-Yucatan_sea_levels/NYT-Yucatan_sea_levels.html
What is the projected warming of the alarmist, money and power incentivized advocates of global warming response?
The modeling study quantifies the relative rates of sea level rise and global temperature increase that we are already committed to in the 21st century. Even if no more greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere, globally averaged surface air temperatures would rise about a half degree Celsius (one degree Fahrenheit) and global sea levels would rise another 11 centimeters (4 inches) from thermal expansion alone by 2100.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/change.shtml
One last thing, you say that GHG’s are not evil. This is subtle, but with this you are now adapting the language of religion. I have a Master of Science degree. The phenomona I studied, I never considered good or evil. That really isn’t scientific, you know? In science we seek understanding.
By choosing that language, you reveal that you (not we whom you are arguing with here) are approaching this not as science, but as Al Gore does as some kind of religious-morale crusade. Please examine your thought processes more carefully and keep an open mind.
Sarge,
Here is a link demonstrating that the hockey graph has not been soundly discredited. Like a lot this stuff, you have people on both sides engaged in a lively debate over developing science. More importantly, if you look at the data competing with Mann’s, you see a similar (although not as extreme) rise in temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#_note-19
I think the increase in GHG emissions is the primary cause of global warming. Not sure what you are talking about with regard to the need for a preceding cause.
We have been talking about GHGs which includes carbon and methane. More on methane hydrates is discussed in the link below. The release is not caused by a change of physical state as you suggest, but rather is caused by melting of ice and loss of permafrost. I think that would be simple enough to make Occam happy.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/methane-hydrates-and-global-warming/
This is not a morale crusade for me, except insofaras I would like to leave the planet to my children and their children as God created it, and as I have been fortunate enough to experience it.
The idea that people are trying to make money and acquire power by exaggerating global warming is unfortunately too real. But, hopefully you are not so naive as to think people aren’t also trying to protect their power and wealth by dismissing legitimate concerns.
Climate change is not linear. We really don’t know what it would do. Read the IPCC report on what is likely and what is possible. From massive flooding, to population exodus, to increased armed conflict. To dismiss the unknown, is just as bad as those who you criticize for exaggerating the dangers.
Like a lot this stuff, you have people on both sides engaged in a lively debate over developing science.
Interestingly, the Kyoto accords did not address the developing countries (India, China) with populations 5 to 6 times larger than ours, with significantly larger gas-emissions (what kind of greenhouse gases do you suppose are produced by heating your house with water buffalo chips?), just us evil Western developed nations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Not sure what you are talking about with regard to the need for a preceding cause.
The measurement of increases in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere over the epochal warming-cooling cycles (that occurred before man could be a part of the equation) clearly show Carbond Dioxide increasing after global warming has already occurred.
Thus Carbon Dioxide increases in the atmosphere cannot be a cause of global warming. Cause precedes effect, does it not?
Even your global warming advocates don’t deny this. Thus they are forced to say ‘some other mysterious cause is involved but we have to control Carbon Dioxide because its in a feedback loop’. Rather than chase a phony feedback loop, why not control the actual cause? Because the causes are natural and greater than our puny abilities to influence them.
So, like a magician misdirecting for the next magical trick now we start talking about Methane.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
The release is not caused by a change of physical state as you suggest, but rather is caused by melting of ice and loss of permafrost.
It was you who said that “Ice melts, more methane is released”. I was hinting that you should be more complete in your description of complex processes.
Occam still wants to know, in your complex process where does the permafrost come from? Why was the methane that the permafrost contains or produces not sufficient to stop the Ice Age from beginning? What caused the first frozen water molecule to warm up sufficiently to become water? Is Methane production a natural process? http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0111-mpg.html. Can man control it?
Again, the ice age recedes and some other cause is at work and you fail to explain it. Assume a ladder!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..people aren’t also trying to protect their power and wealth by dismissing legitimate concerns.
But that’s the nut, are they legitimate concerns?
And when you really examine the equation, which side will increase the freedom and prosperity of the world’s population? Those who believe that the technology and science that has brought us our current standard of living is a good that needs to be spread to all men or those who think that those who disagree with them are traitors and that living standards need to be diminished?
I look at 100 years of recent history and see millions of deaths caused by leftist governments that considered human life a liability and their economic MODELS to be sufficient to remake society. Lots of those marxists are now green. Human life will remain cheap especially when the ‘future of the planet’ is at stake.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
We really don’t know what it would do. Read the IPCC report on what is likely and what is possible. From massive flooding, to population exodus, to increased armed conflict.
My reading tells me that the summary of the IPCC was written by politicians (not scientists) and varies signficantly from some of the findings of the body of the work.
Now
Listen to yourself.
‘We don’t know what it would do, ‘but it will of biblical proportions.’’
‘Water vapor is not evil’
‘Climate change is not linear’
Very religious!
I too will bequeath to my grandchildren a world that is cleaner than it was when I was a child (It already is where science and technology has been allowed to bring this about). It will be... as God made it... a world of constant change, influenced by solar cycles, lunar cycles, dust from volcanic cycles, ocean currents, ice ages, and periods of warming.
And man will use his God-given reason to adapt to changes that are out of his control.
And continue to better use the resources that God gave him for those within his control.
melstew,
If the UN released a document stating that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west I would go outside to verify it for myself. The UN has ZERO credibility.
Read the UN reports concerning human rights violations. They state the U.S. and Israel commit the highest number and most severe human rights violations in the world. Of course the UN Panel for Human Rights includes (IIRC) Syria, China and Cuba. They’ve also been highly critical of the U.S. prison system.
And concerning your IPCC report; the claims of mass evacuation have been debunked. They never happened.
Although I disagree with your point of view I am not mocking you for it. I respect your right to believe as you wish. However; I recommend you carefully consider the sources of your data.
I don’t know what to tell these people. They may know football but jack about trees. Guess what those trees are going to need to grow? Well, carbon dioxide of course!
So by their reasoning if they stopped emitting CO2 they would have to cut down all the trees because we would have a carbon deficit.
Nice scam for someone though.
I have never supported Kyoto so don’t bring up that straw man so you can knock it down. I never said anything about biblical proportions so stop it with the false quotes. I am glad you concede the hydrates issue. Sorry you think we should wait for positive proof before taking the issue seriously. Your notion that carbon can’t start the cycle despite admitting it can be a causative agent is devoid of any logic upon which to form a response. This has always been about GHGs, not just carbon, read my earlier posts. Linear is a religious term. Uhm...If you say so. I do not adopt the IPCC report or reject it out of hand. You ask a lot of questions, but never answer any. Is there a greenhouse gas effect? Are atomospheric carbon levels increasing? Is man a likely cause of increased GHGs? Is it possible that 450 ppm of carbon could increase temperature on earth by 3-5 farenheit? Is it possible that that would not be a good thing? Should we be doing anything at this point?
-——I never said anything about biblical proportions so stop it with the false quotes.
You said: “From massive flooding, to population exodus, to increased armed conflict.”
Massive Floods - ever heard of Noah?
Exodus - How pathetically uninsightful of you using a Biblical term and yet denying its source.
Armed Conflict - All chapters of the bible. (And by the way, when was there a lack of conflict 100-500 years ago before man started this terrible global warming? )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
——Your notion that carbon can’t start the cycle despite admitting it can be a causative agent is devoid of any logic upon which to form a response.
This is clearly your defect in understanding. Lets try one more time....
I pointed to studies saying that increases in Carbon Dioxide FOLLOW global warming. Increases in Carbon Dioxide are measurable, yes. However, clearly from the scientific record, this increase is an EFFECT not a CAUSE. ———An Effect not a cause - Can I help you to understand this? Lots of liberals have trouble with cause and effect logic you know——
Of course, all my arguement here is for naught, because you admit that global warming is not being caused by Carbon Dioxide. This year its Methane. So why does Al Gore hate SUV’s? are they producing Methane? You just can’t tell your GHG bad guy without a program (or the guidance of a high environmental priest).
I then attacked your fellow global warming apostolates who said there is some other mysterious cause that comes into play to make the Carbon Dioxide increase a cause after the mysterious first cause.
If you can’t understand that, I don’t either. Don’t blame me, blame the junk global warming apologists that I was quoting (and having fun doing so).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Yes, coming from you “linear” is a religious term because you do not know what it means and are repeating what an environmental priest told you. If there are positive feedback loops as you say, then a system is not linear it is homeostatic — kind of like our environment. On the other hand, negative feedback loops would be geometric, not linear. Either way, you demonstrate only your belief in the power of scientific terms to support your global warming faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
Is there a greenhouse gas effect? Are atomospheric carbon levels increasing? Is man a likely cause of increased GHGs? Is it possible that 450 ppm of carbon could increase temperature on earth by 3-5 farenheit? Is it possible that that would not be a good thing? Should we be doing anything at this point?
You didn’t answer most of my earlier points such as Mars warming at the same time as the Earth, though you gave a manful but disconnected try to explain why the last ice age ended. Methane, yeah that’s the ticket. It was the Methane.
I feel little obligation to answer all of yours. Since you agree that Carbon Dioxide is not the problem, I have heard little from the global warming believers that is feasible. Ok we have methane, which is produced by both plants and animals (kill all the animals??) and is found in coal deposits, and then we have water vapor, hmmm 75 percent of our globe is covered in water that evaporates into clouds - that will be tough) Wow!! what ARE our options? Personally, I fear that if we try to seed the oceans
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/10/01/seeds_of_a_solution/
or divert an ocean current
http://www.global-warming-geo-engineering.org/
we will screw things up beyond belief, perhaps even to a Biblical level. What a religious arrogance that our “thought leaders” have considering this.
I believe that we should continue what we have been doing, reducing our emissions through greater technological efficiency. But only to the extent that this makes economic sense. The success and productivity of our economy has a postive spillover on under-developed countries that will enable them to convert to more efficient and cleaner technologies more rapidly and adapt to the naturally occuring global warming that we have observed since the glaciers receded 12000 years ago enabling the Green Bay Packers to live in Wisconsin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
The US has also reduced emissions more that the Kyoto countries, http://www.zimbio.com/President+Bharrat+Jagdeo/articles/2/Guyana+Slams+Kyoto+Carbon+Credit+Scheme
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U.S. Carbon Emissions Fell 1.3% in 2006
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 24, 2007; Page A14
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions dropped slightly last year even as the economy grew, according to an initial estimate released yesterday by the Energy Information Administration.
The 1.3 percent drop in CO{-2} emissions marks the first time that U.S. pollution linked to global warming has declined in absolute terms since 2001 and the first time it has gone down since 1990 while the economy was thriving.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301510.html
(Wait a minute, now the Washington Post is saying its all about Carbon again!)
Idiots. Stupid, football idiots.
LOL! You’ve got the right spirit. And your science is correct. Bravo!
You are formidable!
However; he seems to have found his manners. We can all afford to extend some courtesy even if we do not share ideologies.
After all, melstew has been a member of FR far longer than the rest of us. He’s obviously got more going for him then you might believe. Let's all try to show a little more respect to our fellow FReeprs!
God bless you and enjoy the rest of your Thanksgiving weekend!
GB
Thanks for the kind words. It looks like we are at loggergheads here. It has been helpful for me to have my views challenged. All the best to you and sarge. I am sure we will cross paths again.
I’ve pinged you to other threads that I thought might be along your line of interest.
God bless you,
GB
It has been helpful for me to have my views challenged.
And for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.