Global Warming - Federal Study

[tracer]

Steve-o wrote:

**The only evidence I’ve seen for industrially-caused global warming was what I saw on a Nova/Frontline special on PBS. There were two pieces of strongly-presented evidence:

1. By using old weather reports, short ice cores, and a number of other methods, we have determined that the global average temperature in the last half century has been 1/2 a degree Celsius higher than at any other time in the last 1000 years. We do not have reliable data for average temperatures more than 1000 years ago.**

Actually, I have a textbook right here (Environmental Chemistry by Colin Baird) that has a graph (reprinted from Chemical and Engineering News) of global average air temperature over time, representing the last 1000 years. It shows about a 250 year period from about 1100 AD to about 1350 AD where the global average air temperature was HIGHER than it was when the book was printed (1995 – basically now on this large of a scale).

Darn it, how am I going to have an informed opinion on this topic when the data contradict each other like this?! Sheesh, I can’t even trust the data presented on a NOVA episode as being conclusive anymore.

… Unless, of course, the global average temperature reported in that textbook 5 years ago was based on less-than-conclusive data that has since been improved…

[tracer]

adam yax wrote:

Hmmm, I don’t know if I’d trust records of average air temperature from 1000 years ago. Where are these records kept

In Greenland’s ice sheet, retrieved by drilling ice cores, I believe.

and what units are they measured in?

Um … centimeters.

[Dumbguy]

**
ICe cream sales are increasing this summer. Drowning deaths are increasing at the same rate. They also decrease as sales go down on certain days. There may be no correlation, but just to be safe, we should put a high tax and strict controls on ice cream. After all, there may be a correlation.
**

I’m aware of the shortcomings of correlational data. Scientists prefer not to use it, but if it can’t be avoided they generally endeavor not to make assinine conclusions like you just did. This issue didn’t arise from correlational data. It’s a fairly reasonble inquiry. Carbon in the atmosphere helps retain heat. If there’s more carbon, will there be more heat? Then look at correlational data.

**
Should we create expensive national programs, increased gas taxes, expensive controls on energy, restrictions on where you can build your house, just because Gore has decided to ignore the facts and created a national panic over some threat that could very well not exist?
**

Lord, you’re prone to histrionics:

"Should we create expensive national programs" -Yes if they’re valuable and promote the public good.
"increased gas taxes" - Who mentioned that? Are you arguing with Dr. Schneider? He’s not here.**
"expensive controls on energy" - I was talking about efficient energy use, which would save money, wouldn’t it?
"restrictions on where you can build your house" -We already have these. In spades. I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but if we can save energy through city planning, what’s the problem?
"just because Gore has decided to ignore the facts " - Why do you keep trying to associate this with Gore? He didn’t invent this issue any more than he invented the internet. He’s a hanger-on, and discrediting him doesn’t address the point.
"and created a national panic over some threat that could very well not exist" -I haven’t seen any evidence of a national panic.

**
You sound remarkably like Dr. Schneider, whom I quoted above.
**

I sound like Dr. Schneider to the extent that you choose to ignore what I’m saying and carry on a dialog with the evil, liberal pixies in your head.

[divemaster]

**
[/QUOTE]

Good quote Mr. Zambezi; here’s a corollay, from the July 6, 1992 issue of the New Republic:

Lately, Al Gore and the distinguished biologist Paul Ehrlich have ventured into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because in such reports, in Gore’s words ‘undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take.’

Isn’t the hushing up of opposing evidence one of the first signs a group feels it is about to be discredited?
concerning anthropogenic CO2 and warming trends:

Most of the warming observed in the last century occurred prior to 1938, well before the marked increase in greenhouse gas levels. Human Impacts on Weather and Climate (1992), and others.

This is a very famous graph in climate circles, with a pronounced temperature spike before 1940, and what is probably natural variability since then.

“It is tempting to attribute the past century’s warming to the increase in greenhouse gases. Because of the natural variation of temperatures, however, such an attribution cannot be made with any degree of confidence.” Science 244, 1041-1043 (1989)

There is more in dissent. Much more. Even 10 or so years more recent than the above references. See anything climatologist Patrick Michaels has written, including an article that was published in newspapers just a couple of weeks ago. Natural variability, folks. Natural variability.

There’s nothing wrong with sensible policy based on good science. There is definitely something wrong with basing extreme economic and production policies on shaky science. That doesn’t mean the earth isn’t warming, necessarily. But I submit that us spending billions upon billions to stop it isn’t going to do much good. In fact, I think it will be economically crippling.

[Steve-o]

I’ve posted this twice before, but since the topic seems to be relevant, I’ll post it again. When I had posted this both times before, I was writing from memory. I’ll quote what I had posted the last time, and then add corrections at the bottom (I got my environmental chemistry textbook down from the attic today).

**

I wouldn’t worry much about CO2 concentration increases (or decreases to “fix” the “problem”). In regards to increases in CO2 concentration causing added warming of our climate, we are at a point where further concentration increases will not cause significant temperature increases. Picture a Cartesian graph of a logarithmic function. Just imagine the shape… numbers are not important. The graph spikes up sharply at first, and then flattens off at the “top”. (It may help to draw this) Now transplant that graph shape onto a coordinate system where the X-axis is labeled “Greenhouse Gas Concentration”, and the Y-axis is labeled “Atmospheric Temperature Due to Greenhouse Gas”, and the near vertical part of the curve intersects the origin. This represents how your typical greenhouse gas affects the Earth’s atmospheric temperature. When there is none of it, it obviously has no effect on the atmospheric temperature. Adding just a little will have a sizable effect on temperature (small increase in X value causes a large increase in Y value). Adding a little more gas will have a smaller temperature effect per unit of concentration than the initial introduction of the gas. Adding more gas will have a smaller temperature effect still. Eventually, near the “top” of the graph (where the plot line is near horizontal), adding huge amounts of the gas will have an insignificant effect on atmospheric temperature increase (huge increase in X value causes almost no increase in Y value). With specific regards to the greenhouse gas CO2, we are currently at the “top” of the graph. Dumping gobs (technical term) more CO2 into the atmosphere will have very little effect on our atmospheric temperature.

Simplified, but the greenhouse effect works like this… The sun warms the Earth during the day. The heat (infrared radiation) is given off by the earth. The heat tries to radiate out into space, which would normally keep the Earth very cold at night. The greenhouse gasses are able to absorb the heat. They then re-emit the heat in a random direction. The heat could be sent packing off into space, or it could be sent back to Earth. It could even be sent toward another greenhouse molecule, which would absorb the heat, and later re-emit it in a random direction. The net result is that some of the heat eventually escapes to space, and some stays in the atmosphere until the Sun warms us up again the next day.

If you are worried about global warming, there are greenhouse gasses that are in the earlier phase of the graph, where small concentration increases will cause noticeable atmospheric warming. Methane (natural gas) is one. If it is burned properly (as is seen at many refineries as stack flares), it is converted into your standard combustion products (CO2 and H2O), and there’s nothing to worry about (although most methane in the atmosphere is the result of rotting organic matter, and is not burned). Water vapor is also in the “early” phase of the graph, but it has a quick acting natural sink (rain). CFC’s are in the “early” part of the graph, but amount to a very small fraction of the gasses responsible for the greenhouse effect. It may sound as if I am trying to discount the effects of some of these “early” phase gasses, so to be fair, the CFC’s and the methane are much more potent than CO2 at creating the greenhouse effect. IIRC, the methane can cause an atmospheric temperature increase (molecule for molecule) 23X greater than CO2. Also, IIRC, depending on the CFC, they can cause over 100X greater atmospheric temperature increases when compared to CO2.

**

Corrections in order.

1. At the end of the first quoted paragraph, where I wrote “With specific regards to the greenhouse gas CO2, we are currently at the “top” of the graph”, I should have written “With specific regards to the greenhouse gas CO2, we are currently very near to the “top” of the graph.” The point remains the same though.

2. At the end of the quote, I wrote “IIRC, depending on the CFC, they can cause over 100X greater atmospheric temperature increases when compared to CO2.” Well, it looks as if my memory was quite faulty. Now that I look it up, depending on the CFC, it can cause over 14,000X greater atmospheric temperature increases when compared to CO2 (molecule for molecule). Even with that much warming capability, my calculation shows that CFC’s are in such low concentrations in the atmosphere that they account for only about 2% of total greenhouse warming (this calculation ignores the effects of H2O since it has a reliable sink (rain)).

3. I failed to mention N2O, which has 270X the warming capacity of CO2 molecule for molecule. The atmospheric concentration of N2O has been rising at about a constant rate for the last 300 years. I could not find a curve for N2O like the one I described for CO2, so I don’t know where we are on it. N2O accounts for 17% of the greenhouse warming (again ignoring H2O when calculating the percentage).

4. CO2 accounts for 72%; and methane accounts for 8% of the greenhouse warming (both calculated ignoring the contribution from H2O).

I think that’s it. Whew…

[Typo_Negative]

**

**
I, for one, am pissed off about this global warming thing bcause it’s suposed to be 110 degrees today in our beautiful valley.
**

Death Valley?

Marc
**

No. no. Southern California’s beautiful San Fernando Valley.
But the temps are right on par with Death Valley.

[Mr.Zambezi]

OK, dumbguy, first you ask

What’s the worst that could happen here? We’ll think about more efficient energy use? Why would that be so distasteful?

Then I give you some bad things that can happen and you say that I am engaging in “histrionics.” next time you ask the worst that can happen, I will ansewer with the best that can happen so as not to be histrionic.

I bring Gore into the debate because he is the one most likeley to bring about new policies should he get elected. He poses the biggest threat.

and as far as a national panis, we are teaching school children that the ice caps are going to melt, we are passing laws on CO2 production, we are calling global conferences on global warming and are including the reduction in global warming in our trade agreements with outher countries. We don’t care this much about human rights. I call it a national panic. You can call it a minor concern if you like.

A Tracer pointed out fuel efficiency came from a market driven need. A desire for clean air, liveable cities and cheaper energy will drive efficiency. We don’t need Chicken Little dommsday prophesies.

Many good sources have been cirted as to why Global warming is most likely not an issue. I wont reiterate their points. but you are free to bring evidence to the contrary.

If you think we should make public policy based on dubious conclusions and contradictory data, Bully for you! You should probably also start chemotherapy for that mole on your arm. It probably isn’t cancer, but it might be and you don’t want to take any chances. You only have one body.

[Dumbguy]

**
If you think we should make public policy based on dubious conclusions and contradictory data, Bully for you!
**

This is why I accused you of histrionics. I haven’t proposed policy of any kind. Your insistence on arguing against points I haven’t made is frustrating.

[sqweels]

This is a long-term, slow burn issue. There aren’t going to be any radical, expensive policies implemented in the next couple of years even if Gore is elected. What we do need to do is press forward with the research to resolve some of the inconclusiveness and continue developing cleaner technologies as well as contingency plans for dealing with the crisis down the road. This will cost some money, but not nearly as much as, say, a missle defense program.

A question that must be asked is, what motivates those who voice skepticism as to the risks of global warming and other environmental threats? Is it scientific prudence? Or is it hatred of liberals/tree huggers/Al Gore and a desire to save money? Some fundies believe these are the “end times” and so all such long-term problems are moot (some even believe that homosexuality is the greatest to the environment). So if you’re a conservative, what credibility do you have while voicing skepticism?

True, some folks embrace environmentalism as an extension of their 60’s-style rebellion against the “establishment”, but Al Gore isn’t one of these, and neither am I, and neither are most climatologists who argue that global warming is real.

fuel efficiency came from a market driven need. A desire for clean air, liveable cities and cheaper energy will drive efficiency. We don’t need Chicken Little dommsday prophesies.

Nonsense. Consumers make descisions based on short-term self-interest. Individuals’ desire to save money on gas jibed with overall efforts to reduce auto emissions and petroleum consumption. But you cannot perceptibly affect the quality of the air you breathe by buying a certain kind of car since everyone else’s car is still there. And as we’ve seen in recent years, as the relative price of gas decreases, people care about it less and buy cars based on other factors, like roominess, performance, and safety, hence the SUV. Cheaper energy is not cleaner energy.

And warm air is not neccessarily unclean air. As the OP suggested, there may be dubious benefits to global warming which would further erode public support for adressing it.

If you think we should make public policy based on dubious conclusions and contradictory data, Bully for you! You should probably also start chemotherapy for that mole on your arm. It probably isn’t cancer, but it might be and you don’t want to take any chances.

But you wouldn’t insist that it wasn’t cancer and that the doctor who told you it might be is a quack. You’d continue to have it tested until you got a definitive answer. You’d also prepare yourself, both psychologically and financially, for the liklihood that you might indeed have to go in for treatment before long.

Nonsense

[Mr.Zambezi]

Sorry Dumb. I made some assumptions about your position here. Generally, when people argue that global warming is real, they want to do something about it. I appologize if I read you wrong.

Sqweels said:

What we do need to do is press forward with the research to resolve some of the inconclusiveness and continue developing cleaner technologies as well as contingency plans for dealing with the crisis down the road.

I agree. More scientific and unbiased studies must be done. Fuel efficiency should be pursued, if for no other resason to loosen the grip that OPEC has on us.

A

question that must be asked is, what motivates those who voice skepticism as to the risks of global warming and other environmental threats? Is it scientific prudence? Or is it hatred of liberals/tree huggers/Al Gore and a desire to save money?

Surely there are some who don’t bother to look into the evidence and have a knee jerk reaction because of their political bent. This happens in both camps.

True, some folks embrace environmentalism as an extension of their 60’s-style rebellion against the “establishment”, but Al Gore isn’t one of these, and neither am I, and neither are most climatologists who argue that global warming is real.

Gore has said that the issue is decided and refuses to acknowledge dissenting evidence. He was told by his own advisors that the evidence was not conclusive on global warming, yet he continues to insist that it is. Therefore, he is a liar and a knave. Furthermore, Gore became interested in this issue at a time when he was anti establishment (was against the vietnam war, uncovered corrupt politicians in Tenessee, smoked pot and went around in long hair – I get thsi from his bio, The Making of Al Gore.)

I will have to get that issue of Scientific American and quote the evidence from the scientists in the article. IT is not a closed issue, teh evidence is very contradictory

[Dumbguy]

**
Sorry Dumb. I made some assumptions about your position here. Generally, when people argue that global warming is real, they want to do something about it. I appologize if I read you wrong.
**

We’re all friends here. Or total strangers. Same thing. For the record, I wasn’t even arguing that it’s real. I just don’t think it should be casually dismissed. All I was trying to say (with an impressive lack of success) was that 1) yes, the research is inconclusive, but we should keep looking into it 2) using energy as efficiently as possible is a good idea regardless of how the global warming hoo-ha falls out. Then you come out with:

**
More scientific and unbiased studies must be done. Fuel efficiency should be pursued, if for no other resason to loosen the grip that OPEC has on us.
**

Lord love a duck. What the hell were we arguing about?

[Mr.Zambezi]

Dumb, it is the downfall of the written word…er, that and my knee jerk reaction finely honed from having a wife, friends and family who argue with me incessantly about this issue.

I could have read differently into your posts, but instead transposed the ideas of others onto them. I have got to stop reading “the Making of Al Gore”. It is poisoning my mind.

“must…ugh…burn…straw…man…”