Off topic a bit: Climate Change

[gackle]

Temperature Monitors Report Worldwide Global Cooling

[JBinKC]

I think the global warming charade and the current strong move to alternative energies is a convenient way to not alarm the public of the dire economic impact of peak oil (which is likely to be upon us anytime between now and the next 10 years).

[GrimJack]

I believe it is a giant hoax and straw man. However, I also believe that people really buy into it. So, you either need to cash in and buy into the "green hysteria" and realize that you are going to be taxed and forced into a "green" lifestyle whether you want to be or not.

I also think we are on the verge of destroying our entire economy and way of life over pure nonsense. Too bad.

Belief is all well and good but you might try and look at the science. The science is there that says the pollutants we are putting into the atmosphere are modifying the climate. Core samples from glaciers (although glaciers are rapidly retreating) capture the atmosphere as it was when the snow fell; this can be compared to core samples from trees. The 2 together produces both a climate and atmospheric record that can be tied together. There is more but I don't want to make this post too long.

As to the 'destroying our entire economy' whinge - nah, all that will happen is that the greening of the economy will just be another tech adjustment like the switch from whale oil, candles, etc to petrol. The old story of buggy whip manufacturors whining about being put out of business by the auto will play out in new ways.

The economy is stronger and more adaptable than you might think.

[GrimJack]

That's another question I had about global warming, Scanner. Just what is so bad about CO2? The last time I heard, plants use CO2 in photosynthesis and produce oxygen which is beneficial to us all. It doesn't add up to me. I'm not pretending to be an expert in global warming, but am just using my common sense.

er, this line is neither common nor sense - photosynthesis and plant life is a little more complex than that - in the first place, plants do reverse the process, using oxy and producing co2; in the 2nd place just because necessary does not mean that more of it is better (ie glass of water vs 2 gallons of water - if you drink enough water you will die). The problem with excess co2 (without going into the quantum mechanics of the interactions between molecules and radiation) is that co2 (along with water vapor and ozone) absorbs infra-red (heat) energy that normally would radiate out into space. Oops, back step - we receive energy from the sun in the form of radiation, which is absorbed and re-radiated back out into space in a balance. The less energy re-radiated back out into space, the warmer the system becomes.

Change is part of society and economics. If people can't adopt to change then they'll be left in the dust. But just because some national leader (Al Gore) spouts drabble long enough and the media takes the bait doesn't mean that we need to follow as well. As rational people, we need to examine with reason what is being shoveled to us and ask if it makes sense. With all the inconsistencies I've heard about global warming and the money trail I talked about above, global warming just doesn't pass my smell test.

Al Gore did not spout drabble - his movie contained some minor errors but then Al Gore is not a scientist - he is a concerned citizen reporting a problem. Show us some the your 'examine with reason' and tell us what does not make sense. What are the particular inconsistancies you have heard about global warming? What is the science that you have looked at? What is the money trail you are talking about? The money trail from the global warming deniers is far more interesting - what few scientists that are on that side of the discussion are usually in the pay of the petroleum, mining, interests -- doesn't that fail your sniff test?

I could go on but will wait to see if you are interested in discussing this in more detail.

[GrimJack]

Temperature Monitors Report Worldwide Global Cooling

So a one year change in temp is what you consider disproof of global warming. Hmmm, take a look here 140 year temp graph. One of the important things to keep in mind is that gases dissolve in cold water -- the colder the water, the more gas that can be dissolved into it - your carbonated beverages are the perfect example of this. So as the percentage of co2 in the atmosphere increases, due to the nature of co2 less infra-red ratiation (heat) is re-radiated back into space. as the atmosphere warms up and, through convection, the oceans warm up - the oceans will begins to stop absorbing co2 and begin releasing it which will add to amount of co2 into the atmosphere which captures more heat which warms the oceans etc.

The down-side of global warming is manifold and includes the Greenland glaciers melting which could raise the ocean level by aboutr 11 feet. There is way more glaciation on Antarctica. Parasites from the equatorial regions could make thier way to us - tsetse flies, malaria, there are about 8 really nasty parasites you don't want in your neighborhood.

Enough - if you are interested further conversation on this topic let me know.

[GrimJack]

time will tell us for sure about this one......i think the earth is always changing for sure... i had someone from fla tell me the other day, that in late feb... every fifiteen minutes the warm air starts heading north and that is how we get our spring and eventually our summer... i don't know if he was serious... just thought i would tell the forum.....

No, the seasons are due to the wobble in Earth's spin - axis of rotation of the earth is about 13 degrees off the perpendicular to Earth's revolving around the sun. when the top of the earth points towards the sun we have summer (and the southern hemisphere has winter. As the earth progresses on its trip around the sun so also do we progress through the seasons (from solstice to equinox to solstice to equinox and we have a year)

[geojen]

As an earth scientist (technically, a geomorphologist, but no one ever knows what that means ) I have to chime in here. Sorry folks, but the link between co2 emissions and the rate of warming is pretty darn indisputible. We are causing more co2 to be released to the atmosphere, which in turn causes the globe to slowly warm up. This results in a positive feedback loop that begins to fuel itself. As glaciers melt, the work they did to reflect solar radiation back into space decreases---leading to warming. This results in more warming at a faster pace. The warming of the oceans is another positive feedback loop that was already brought up. Consequently, warmer oceans means stronger storms like hurricanes. Ultimately, what may happen is that we are either tipped into another extreme warm period like the Triassic, or an extreme cool period like the ice age. Yes, another ice age could be the result of global warming, and here's how:

The earth's ocean's have 2 types of "conveyor belts"--deep, cold belts and warmer surface belts like the gulf stream. Cold water at the northern latitudes is denser and saltier, causing it to sink. As the water sinks, it cycles back to the equator where the water is less salty and warmer, so it rises to the top. This conveyor belt system is what moderates the temperatures of the UK and other northern countries and makes them livable. However, as glaciers melt, fresh water could inundate the cold water belt, making the water less salty and therefore less dense. This would shut down that belt and disrupt the entire system. This would then lead to a cooling in the north.

Besides, I have to ask the naysayers--what the heck is the downside of taking care of the environment, cutting our co2 emissions, and getting off foreign oil? (chirp....chirp...)

[GrimJack]

As an earth scientist (technically, a geomorphologist, but no one ever knows what that means ) I have to chime in here.
The earth's ocean's have 2 types of "conveyor belts"--deep, cold belts and warmer surface belts like the gulf stream. Cold water at the northern latitudes is denser and saltier, causing it to sink. As the water sinks, it cycles back to the equator where the water is less salty and warmer, so it rises to the top. This conveyor belt system is what moderates the temperatures of the UK and other northern countries and makes them livable. However, as glaciers melt, fresh water could inundate the cold water belt, making the water less salty and therefore less dense. This would shut down that belt and disrupt the entire system. This would then lead to a cooling in the north.

Besides, I have to ask the naysayers--what the heck is the downside of taking care of the environment, cutting our co2 emissions, and getting off foreign oil? (chirp....chirp...)

geojen - thank you for bringing up the 'conveyor belts'! I was trying to work it into the conversation but....

I worked at NOAA (PMEL) in the '80s got to drink with scientists who could explain why the bubbles in our beer behaved the way they do. Drinking with the Ocean Currents group, they told me the story of the 'World River' carrying all the 'marine snow' south to the coast of South America. It has been so long that it gets hazy at the equator, I seem to remember that the 'world river' actually continues down to Antarctica and then back up the Atlantic. Could you enlighten me or point me in the right direction to find out more?

[maat55]

As an earth scientist (technically, a geomorphologist, but no one ever knows what that means ) I have to chime in here. Sorry folks, but the link between co2 emissions and the rate of warming is pretty darn indisputible. We are causing more co2 to be released to the atmosphere, which in turn causes the globe to slowly warm up. This results in a positive feedback loop that begins to fuel itself. As glaciers melt, the work they did to reflect solar radiation back into space decreases---leading to warming. This results in more warming at a faster pace. The warming of the oceans is another positive feedback loop that was already brought up. Consequently, warmer oceans means stronger storms like hurricanes. Ultimately, what may happen is that we are either tipped into another extreme warm period like the Triassic, or an extreme cool period like the ice age. Yes, another ice age could be the result of global warming, and here's how:

The earth's ocean's have 2 types of "conveyor belts"--deep, cold belts and warmer surface belts like the gulf stream. Cold water at the northern latitudes is denser and saltier, causing it to sink. As the water sinks, it cycles back to the equator where the water is less salty and warmer, so it rises to the top. This conveyor belt system is what moderates the temperatures of the UK and other northern countries and makes them livable. However, as glaciers melt, fresh water could inundate the cold water belt, making the water less salty and therefore less dense. This would shut down that belt and disrupt the entire system. This would then lead to a cooling in the north.

Besides, I have to ask the naysayers--what the heck is the downside of taking care of the environment, cutting our co2 emissions, and getting off foreign oil? (chirp....chirp...)

I have to ask, are you in favor of the Kyoto Protocol? IMO, this is nothing more than an huge scientific funding expedition. Everyone knows that the earth warms and cools naturally. I do believe we should not pollute our environment, but not at the cost of colapsing our economy. From what I've heard, livestock methaine gas has more effect than oil, but that i'm not sure of.

[JimInOK]

I don't know if warming is factual or not. But I do believe many of the proposed solutions are worse than the problem they seek to correct.

Compact flourescents: Due to the mandated elimination of incandescents in the near future, these will soon be used on a massive scale. Problem: They contain mercury and require disposal at hazardous waste sites. I firmly believe that a solid percentage of people will not take the time to seek out such sites and will just dump them in the trash can. I fear any gains will be offset by the contamination of our environment (drinking water, etc).

Ethanol: Check out the April 7, 2008 cover story from Time magazine (not exactly a bastion of conservatism). First, it requires more than 1 gallon of fossil fuels to produce a single gallon of ethanol. Second, the biofuel boom has tremendously accelerated deforestation in the Amazon and, according to the article, is actually "dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it."

Global warming a reality? I have no clue. But I do believe that we are being sold a lie in many of the "solutions," many of which are merely serving to profit those who are lobbying for them. I have no confidence that we as a people have the knowledge or commitment required to correct any problem that may exist. And I fear we will do even greater damage in the process of trying to implement a solution.

I can't yet post links on this site, but the article I referenced is available at Time's website.

[geojen]

I have to ask, are you in favor of the Kyoto Protocol? IMO, this is nothing more than an huge scientific funding expedition. Everyone knows that the earth warms and cools naturally. I do believe we should not pollute our environment, but not at the cost of colapsing our economy. From what I've heard, livestock methaine gas has more effect than oil, but that i'm not sure of.

The Kyoto protocol is a good first step, but I agree with several people that China and India have to follow the protocol too. Under the current protocol, they would be left out. However, China is on pace to overtake us in the CO2 department soon. Then again, China is also voraciously buying up all the wind turbines and now supplies more of its energy through wind than we do.

So I guess in IMHO, the protocol is better than nothing, but far from perfect. The reality of the situation is that the U.S. has to step up and be a leader here rather than trying to deny the problem.

[geojen]

geojen - thank you for bringing up the 'conveyor belts'! I was trying to work it into the conversation but....

I worked at NOAA (PMEL) in the '80s got to drink with scientists who could explain why the bubbles in our beer behaved the way they do. Drinking with the Ocean Currents group, they told me the story of the 'World River' carrying all the 'marine snow' south to the coast of South America. It has been so long that it gets hazy at the equator, I seem to remember that the 'world river' actually continues down to Antarctica and then back up the Atlantic. Could you enlighten me or point me in the right direction to find out more?

The 'world river' is called thermohaline circulation. I've posted a few links for more information on it.

Great ocean conveyor belt - Climate Change
The Environmental Literacy Council - The Great Ocean Conveyer Belt

What did you do at NOAA?

[geojen]

I don't know if warming is factual or not. But I do believe many of the proposed solutions are worse than the problem they seek to correct.

Compact flourescents: Due to the mandated elimination of incandescents in the near future, these will soon be used on a massive scale. Problem: They contain mercury and require disposal at hazardous waste sites. I firmly believe that a solid percentage of people will not take the time to seek out such sites and will just dump them in the trash can. I fear any gains will be offset by the contamination of our environment (drinking water, etc).

Ethanol: Check out the April 7, 2008 cover story from Time magazine (not exactly a bastion of conservatism). First, it requires more than 1 gallon of fossil fuels to produce a single gallon of ethanol. Second, the biofuel boom has tremendously accelerated deforestation in the Amazon and, according to the article, is actually "dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it."

Global warming a reality? I have no clue. But I do believe that we are being sold a lie in many of the "solutions," many of which are merely serving to profit those who are lobbying for them. I have no confidence that we as a people have the knowledge or commitment required to correct any problem that may exist. And I fear we will do even greater damage in the process of trying to implement a solution.

I can't yet post links on this site, but the article I referenced is available at Time's website.

As far as your concern with mercury in the CFLs, this link from NPR sheds some more light (pun intended) on the issue.

CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury : NPR

Overall, I'd say that CFLs are more help than harm.

[bjl584]

I don't think that we have enough data to say one way or the other if man is causing global climate change. We have around 200 years of data. The Earth is around 5 billion years old. That is a blip on the radar in the geologic time scale. The Earth's climate has been warming and cooling for eons. The earth was much warmer during the time of the dinosaurs, and there have been several ice ages all before man walked the earth. There are a lot of things at work with the Earth's climate other than CO2. The Earth's axis and wobble that it cycles through, Sun Spot activity, and Ocean currents to name a few.

There is also the argument that the scientific instruments that record this data can not be relied upon due to the fact that many of them are subject to outside forces. (They are placed in direct sunlight, they are near to a heating duct on top of a building, etc.) There is also an argument that since the instruments are much more accurate and sophisticated today, that the older instruments that were used years ago may not have yielded accurate results. (Pre computer, etc.)

Then there is the argument that even if mankind completely stops CO2 emissions, will it matter? A large volcanic eruption can put more CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere than the entire Industrial Revolution.

I'm all for protecting the environment, but I also don't want to jump to conclusions. I do think that the Global Warming argument has become much more political than it is scientific.

[Scanner]

Al Gore just went on record that if you dont beleive in global warming that's akin to being a member of the flat earth society.