what's the deal with global warming?

[rockoon]

If anyone can signt the petition and the petition is supposed to demonstrate a consensus among earth scientists, shouldn't only EARTH SCIENTISTS be allowed to sign it? What would a dentist know about global warming?

This is funny, I love it when you guys post links that invalidate your hypothesis if you actually bother to read them.

You are making an invalid appeal to authority:

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to
support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to
authority is inappropriate if

(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject

I looked up about 20 names from the list and could not find a single earth scientist.

Why don't you read the links you post before quoting them, to save further embarrassment?

Nobody claimed only earth scientists signed it. You made that up in a last desparate attempt to not look foolish.

Ok thanks for your continuing valuable input to this debate in the form of logical fallacies.

 

[EvilYeti]

Nobody claimed only earth scientists signed it. You made that up in a last desparate attempt to not look foolish.

Ok thanks for your continuing valuable input to this debate in the form of logical fallacies.

I said

Among earth scientists, it is accepted that is HAS been proven that global warming is a real phenomenon and we are to blame.

You said

So much for your concensus.

Heres a nice link for info on the Oregon Petition:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

You made the claim the Oregon Petition refutes my statement of a consensus amongst earth scientists. How could the petition refute my claim unless it was signed by earth scientists? I didn't make the claim there was consensus amongst dentists and creationists!

Or maybe you deliberately posted a fraudlent survey and misrepresented it in an effort to bolster your groundless argument?

Do you have any idea what a fool it makes you look like posting references like that?

 

[Brian the Snail]

Interesting. Who are we to believe? Or is it possible that both sites are right? (I have scenario where this might be the case )

Well, might I suggest a couple of issues with the site you linked to, which you may want to investigate:

1) The site quotes 90-95 percent water vapour contribution, but with no citation. It does have a bibliography which you can link to at the end, but it's not entirely clear from which reference, if any, this figure comes from.

2) There is a dislaimer at the bottom of the page, linking the page to the Cooler Heads Coalition. You might want to do a web-search for this group.

Not that Wikipedia is entirely free from problems, either. However, the figure of around 60% water vapour contribution popped up on another (academic) site I've looked at:

http://www.astro.iag.usp.br/~MicroRAT/Intro/Intro.html

(see footnote 1, though unfortunately, again, there's no citation given).

I'm intrigued to learn more about your scenario, though

 

[Diamond]

I'm not going to spend half an hour tediously replacing the tags that EvilYeti takes out in order to answer him. Instead I'm just focus on the mistakes he has made:

1. CO2 comprises 1% of the atmosphere. Actually it composes 0.037% so that's only two magnitudes out. It wasn't a typo - it was wrong. It's not one decimal place out, but two.

2. water vapor is not a gas. Claim repeated twice. Since had to concede that water vapor is indeed a gas. Then we have the silliness of Are clouds made of water vapor? Is water only present in the atmosphere as a gas? No clouds are not made of water vapor, but of liquid (or in extreme cases, solid) water held in dynamical equilibrium with water vapour and in suspension. Do the solid, liquid and gas phases of airbourne H2O have identical greehouse effects? - Nope. They clearly cannot.
I now accept the popular definition of water vapor in this discussion to cover all three states. Do you? No I don't. Water vapor is a gas. The popular definition is that water vapor is a gas.

3. That I could name 5 climatologists who disagreed with his claim of greenhouse warming I did, and after ludicrously claiming that Dr Richard Lindzen is a meteorologist, despite being a Professor of Climatology, it all went suddenly quiet on that claim.

4. That without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the earth would cool by 60 degrees Yeti went from 60 degree celcius to 60 degrees fahrenheit after repeating it twice. Unfortunately no citation from any journal supports either notion. No evidence has been provided to substantiate this claim and plenty of evidence has been provided to show that it is false. Apparently I don't accept this claim for religious reasons rather than because it contradicts every other reference I have found on the subject.

5. The citation of Dave Thompson's paper as proof of greenhouse warming - actually it acknowledges that solar variability, influence of vulcanism, and the entire water cycle including the negative feedback of cloud formation, was ignored. Does this paper prove greenhouse warming - in my opinion it does not. Does it need refutation? Only if people think that that paper is the last word on the subject. Clearly such a claim would have to be seen in the context of other confirming papers. As for peer review, so what? Only recently we have seen a major paper in science which passed peer review withdrawn after subsequent attempts to replicate completely failed.

6. That cold air holds less water than warm air shown to be false, and a basic misunderstanding of physics. Increasing temperatures increase the humidity of the air but only over a body of water. Warm air over Tibet (where Yetis are supposed ot come from) does not have increasing amounts of water in it, because there are no large bodies of water to evaporate.

7. That the temperature falls with increasing altitude except in the thermosphere high above where the temperature rises sharply. Mysteriously that one was just ignored. (Yetis are not that good at editing)

8. All the greenhouse gasses, except water vapor, will dissolve into the atmosphere regardless of ambient temperature.
How do greenhouse gases dissolve? What is the solvent?

9. Water vapor is different, its rate of absorbtion increases with ambient temperature. So when the the other greenhouse gasses raise the atmospheric temperature mean the effect is amplified by an increased absorbtion of H2O. Are you claiming that is not the case? is nearly indecypherable. You could write a five page essay trying to deconstruct this into something scientifically meaningful

10. Do you have anyting of substance to offer, other than person attacks? Didn't think so. - all of this from someone who makes repeated basic mistakes in science and reasoning and claims I am a liar and dishonest for pointing them out.

I have made two mistakes:

a. The temperature above which it is impossible for liquid to exist is called the critical temperature, not the Boyle temperature (kudos, JamesM)

b. To attempt to rationally argue with someone who makes so many mistakes in basic science while claiming "expertise" and scientific authority and anyone who disagrees is dishonest, is anything other than a waste of time.

I have not made one mistake:

I have not provided citations for my contrary assertions. Why? Because it would reverse the burden of proof from his claims to mine. It would not increase understanding of the science. It would not, in itself, be convincing especially to someone who has committed so many errors without so much as an apology.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well this is certainly an interesting discussion and in it I will have to side with the GW advocates. Mainly because all things being equal (which they aren't as the GW advocates seem to have more data) it is better to at least take small steps to avoid possible harm then ignore it. This I believe is what the war on terror was about.

Also though I posted this on the Politics forum, I think they are very relevant here.

First off Diamond may be surprised to learn that Jared Diamond, is a big GW advocate. To quote him:

An even commoner reason for a society's failing to perceive a problem is that the problem may take the form of a slow trend concealed by wide up-and-down fluctuations. The prime example in modern times is global warming. We now realize that temperatures around the world have been slowly rising in recent decades, due in large part to changes in the atmosphere caused by humans. However, it is not the case that the climate each year is inexorably 0.17 degrees warmer than in the previous year. Instead, as we all know, climate fluctuates up and down erratically from year to year: three degrees warmer in one summer than the previous summer, then two degrees warmer the next summer, down four degrees the following summer, down another degree the next summer, then up five degrees, etc. With such wide and unpredictable fluctuations, it takes a long time to discern the upwards trend within that noisy signal. That's why it was only a few years ago that the last professional climatologist previously skeptical of the reality of global warming became convinced. Our president is still not convinced of the reality of global warming, and he thinks that we need more research. The medieval Greenlanders had similar difficulties in recognizing that the climate was gradually becoming colder, and the Maya of the Yucatan had difficulties discerning that the climate was gradually becoming drier.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond03/diamond_p4.html


I certainly don't hope anyone would accuse Jared Diamond of being an alarmist or someone that engages in scare tactics.


Secondly the National Academy of sciences has affirmed that yes Global Warming is probably happening, yes we caused it, and yes it could be bad.

Surface temperature measurements recorded daily at hundreds of locations for more than 100 years indicate that the Earth's surface has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century. This warming has been particularly strong during the last 20 years, and has been accompanied by retreating glaciers, thinning arctic ice, rising sea levels, lengthening of growing seasons for some, and earlier arrival of migratory birds. In addition, several other data support that conclusion, the report says.

And:

Are We Changing the Climate?

The Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, and surface temperatures have risen at a substantially greater rate than average in the past two decades. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely because of human activities, for the most part. But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to [Factory Emissions. File Photo.] date is the result of human activities, the report says. Climate models do not adequately represent all the processes that contribute to variability of the climate system.

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/o...f6335bf011038bb185256a84005838c7?OpenDocument



There is also support for the idea of Global Warming from both Nature magazine and Scientific American.


Nature:

ne of the most divisive topics to face the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was that of the biological response to recent global
warming. Two groups this week attempt to take the discussion a stage further by searching for a climate fingerprint in the overall patterns in studies of a wide range of plants and animals. Parmesan and Yohe present a meta-analysis of studies of more than 1,700 species, and find that that there have been significant range shifts averaging 6.1 km per decade towards the poles, and that spring has advanced by 2.3 days per decade. With 'very high confidence' (in the IPCC's terms), this means that climate change is already affecting living systems. Root et al. also detect a temperature-related 'fingerprint' in species from insects to mammals, and grasses to trees. The changes are most marked at high latitudes and high altitudes, where the largest temperature changes are predicted.

http://www.nature.com/nature/links/030102/030102-3.html


Scientific American:

Today few scientists doubt the atmosphere is warming. Most also agree that the rate of heating is accelerating and that the consequences of this temperature change could become increasingly disruptive. Even high school students can reel off some projected outcomes: the oceans will warm, and glaciers will melt, causing sea levels to rise and salt water to inundate settlements along many low-lying coasts. Meanwhile the regions suitable for farming will shift. Weather patterns should also become more erratic and storms more severe.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0008C7B2-E060-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21

Even the Royal Society has gotten into it:

Global warming looks certain to affect most of our planet, but Britain and the rest of north-west Europe may experience a sudden cooling during the next 100 years.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/press/showpresspage.cfm?file=281.txt

And:

That scene, then, sums up several of the questions that drew a record attendance for a Royal Society meeting. There is no doubt that the world's climate is changing. There is a strong consensus that this is connected with the "greenhouse effect" through which gases in the atmosphere - notably carbon dioxide - trap the energy from the sun, and that human emissions of these gases are important.

But to answer important questions like how climate changes will differ from place to place and how severe they will be requires detailed knowledge of what "normal" climate has been. The recent realisation that climate may change abruptly - and that global warming could mean a sharp cooling of North-West Europe - adds urgency.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates...vents/discussion_meetings/reps/feb_clim03.htm


This to me establishes the truth of Global Warming beyond a reasonable doubt. And it also suggests that such a thing should be avoided if that is possible.

 

[Diamond]

This to me establishes the truth of Global Warming beyond a reasonable doubt. And it also suggests that such a thing should be avoided if that is possible. [/B]

Would you prefer cooling instead? We've got a ready made excuse: cooling is caused by man made particulates from chimneys, cars and the burning of rainforests. As the temperture cools, the growing season shortens and deserts expand because of reduced moisture in the atmosphere. This causes a positive feedback cycle of reduced rain, causing more desertification and famine as people are forced to migrate away from their homelands as a result of human-induced global cooling.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Neither. Both I believe are dangerous and both would cost us a lot a money. The scientists above are concerned with warming though, not cooling.

That's kind of like if someone is worried about terrorists and you say "would you prefer Soviets instead?"

 

[Diamond]

Neither. Both I believe are dangerous and both would cost us a lot a money. The scientists above are concerned with warming though, not cooling.

That's kind of like if someone is worried about terrorists and you say "would you prefer Soviets instead?"

Not really. In the 1970s scientists were concerned about global cooling and even claimed that the amount of carbon dioxide rise was too little to prevent slipping into a new Ice Age.

"Concerned" refers to gaining research money. The bigger and scarier to potential catastrophe, the more money. Its a simple equation that most scientists understand

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well science is a self-correcting enterprise. Lets say they were concerned about cooling in the past, the data has changed their minds. The evidence has changed, and when the evidence changes scientists and skeptics must change their point of view. The fact that science changes is not imo, a sign of weakness but strength.

 

[Diamond]

Well science is a self-correcting enterprise. Lets say they were concerned about cooling in the past, the data has changed their minds. The evidence has changed, and when the evidence changes scientists and skeptics must change their point of view. The fact that science changes is not imo, a sign of weakness but strength.

But it is not a sign of near certainty either, though you'd never know it to hear from some people...

 

[Diamond]

Here's the longest continuous directly measured temperature record, we have: the Central England Temperature.

You'd have thought that with carbon dioxide levels starting to rise from 1850, the temperature record should show this, but alas the warming started much earlier, right at the Maunder Minimum of solar activity. Strange that.

 

[a_unique_person]

Here's the longest continuous directly measured temperature record, we have: the Central England Temperature.

You'd have thought that with carbon dioxide levels starting to rise from 1850, the temperature record should show this, but alas the warming started much earlier, right at the Maunder Minimum of solar activity. Strange that.

This model, http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gordon_2002a.pdf takes that into account.

 

[a_unique_person]

More CO2=More photosynthesis=Less CO2.

Can I have my Nobel prize now?

I think you will find land clearing is reducing the absorption of CO2.

 

[EvilYeti]

1. CO2 comprises 1% of the atmosphere. Actually it composes 0.037% so that's only two magnitudes out. It wasn't a typo - it was wrong. It's not one decimal place out, but two.

I already said I mixed up "trace gases" with CO2 and the right answer was <.1%. .037 is < .1% and >.01%,

3. That I could name 5 climatologists who disagreed with his claim of greenhouse warming I did, and after ludicrously claiming that Dr Richard Lindzen is a meteorologist, despite being a Professor of Climatology, it all went suddenly quiet on that claim.

Dr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. Look it up. The woo-woos like to claim he's a climatologist. Are you claiming those five people are a consensus, that there are less than ten climatologists in the world? The consensus amongst climatologists

4. That without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the earth would cool by 60 degrees Yeti went from 60 degree celcius to 60 degrees fahrenheit after repeating it twice. Unfortunately no citation from any journal supports either notion. No evidence has been provided to substantiate this claim and plenty of evidence has been provided to show that it is false. Apparently I don't accept this claim for religious reasons rather than because it contradicts every other reference I have found on the subject.

You didn't read Dave Thompson's paper, why should you read any reference I've provided? Your mind is obviouslly already made up.

5. The citation of Dave Thompson's paper as proof of greenhouse warming - actually it acknowledges that solar variability, influence of vulcanism, and the entire water cycle including the negative feedback of cloud formation, was ignored.

You haven't read the paper. The entire POINT of it was that Dr. Thompson looked at various possible caused of warming, including solar variability and vulcanism and found the the STRONGEST correlation being warming and CO2 emissions. Did you even read the synopsis?

In "The Seasons, Global Temperature, and Precession" (Science , vol 268, pp 59-67, 7 April 1995), Thomson does not argue that solar variability has zero effect on climate, but instead suggests that for the last fifty years the effect of solar variability appears to be swamped by the impacts of mounting concentrations of greenhouse gases.

6. That cold air holds less water than warm air shown to be false, and a basic misunderstanding of physics. Increasing temperatures increase the humidity of the air but only over a body of water. Warm air over Tibet (where Yetis are supposed ot come from) does not have increasing amounts of water in it, because there are no large bodies of water to evaporate.

1. Most of out planet is covered in water.
2. You might want to look up the word "sublimation". Snow and ice can turn directly into water vapor at sub-freezing temperatures

7. That the temperature falls with increasing altitude except in the thermosphere high above where the temperature rises sharply. Mysteriously that one was just ignored. (Yetis are not that good at editing)

???? Why is that a surprise? The greenhouse effect works because GHG absorb infrared radiation from the earths surface.

9.. Are you claiming that is not the case? is nearly indecypherable. You could write a five page essay trying to deconstruct this into something scientifically meaningful

Its not my fault you are unable to understand simple, basic earth science. Lets try again:
"...in response to a temperature perturbation caused by enhanced CO2, water vapour would increase, resulting in a (limited) positive feedback and higher temperatures"
Do you understand yet, or do I have to make a pop-up book?

10. Do you have anyting of substance to offer, other than person attacks? Didn't think so. - all of this from someone who makes repeated basic mistakes in science and reasoning and claims I am a liar and dishonest for pointing them out.

No, you are a liar for claiming their not a consensus amongst earth scientists. There is a very clear consensus, as demonstrated by Jared Diamond's comments and the official NAS position. It is patently dishonest to claim otherwise.


I have made two mistakes:

b. To attempt to rationally argue with someone who makes so many mistakes in basic science while claiming "expertise" and scientific authority and anyone who disagrees is dishonest, is anything other than a waste of time.

You made the mistake of arguing with someone who has taken the time to provide peer-reviewed research to back up his position. You provide nothing but baseless assertions. Where is the data? Where is the evidence?

I have not provided citations for my contrary assertions. Why? Because it would reverse the burden of proof from his claims to mine. It would not increase understanding of the science. It would not, in itself, be convincing especially to someone who has committed so many errors without so much as an apology.

Ok, I formally apologize to the audience for committing the cardinal sin of typing C instead of F and using an incomplete definition. Sue me.

I've never billed myself as an expert, my only claim is that by working in the perifery of the earth sciences I have a better understanding of the consensus of that community.

The burden of proof is on you, my mistakes do not invalidate Dr. Thompson's paper. His work is the best meta-analysis to date, has passed peer review and has not been refuted. It is established Science and is considered a valid reference for new papers.

Do you have anything of substance, at all, to validate your claims?

 

[smalltlalk_2k]

Global warming is occuring. It is a result of those damnable aliens flying into our atmosphere and passing alien gas. You see the reason the aliens are coming to earth is because they destroyed the atmosphere on their homeworld with their flatulence. Which in turn is the reason that they do so much anal probing on our abductees. They are performing experiments on us to try and find out how they can stop destroying planets. Jupiter used to be a hard rock planet much as Mercury is now. But the aliens stopped there for the weekend had a bar-b-que, ate to much baked beans and blammo, you get the gas giant it is today. Alien flatulence must be ended to save the world. Well, there is one good thing about alien flatulence, if you process it and put it in your shoes your chakra's get all lined up nice and neat.

 

[Diamond]

Do you have anything of substance, at all, to validate your claims?

No, because I have not made any. You on the other hand, have made lots, but in discussions I have had with other scientists on this board, its clear that it is you, not I, which needs to retake Remedial Science 101.

 

[EvilYeti]

in discussions I have had with other scientists on this board, its clear that it is you, not I, which needs to retake Remedial Science 101.

Thats funny, because in this thread , which I just got done reading, the "other scientists" on this board ripped you to pieces. Rather easily I might add.

Another example of your ficticious supporters.

Do you have anything of substance, at all, to bring to the debate?

 

[DanishDynamite]

EvilYeti:

Wikipedia has a great explanation of why you can't just add up GHG's like that:

--------------------------------------------------------------
.... Thus, in response to a temperature perturbation caused by enhanced CO2, water vapour would increase, resulting in a (limited) positive feedback and higher temperatures. In response to a perturbation from enhanced water vapour, the atmosphere would re-equilibriate due to clouds causing reflective cooling and water-removing rain. ....
---------------------------------------------------------------

So we see that the atmosphere can shed excess water vapor easily, in the form of rain. In fact, water molecules only have a residence time in the atmosphere of few days. Contrast this with the greenhouse gases.

If I understand this correctly, you are saying that the level of H2O in the atmosphere is essentially self-regulating. More vapor-> warmer-> still more vapor-> more clouds-> cooling-> less vapor. A couple of points:

a) You said earlier that the ratio of warming/cooling caused by water vapor was currently unknown. If so, how do we know the characteristics of the above self-regulation?

b) If this self-regulation is true, your previous alarming comments on how "methane becomes water" and "we can't do anything about it", seem irrelevant.

CO2 duration stay is variable (approx 200 years) and its global warming potential (GWP) is defined as 1.
Methane duration stay is of 12.2 +/- 3 years and a GWP of of 22 (meaning that it has 22 times the warming ability of carbon dioxide),
Nitrous oxide has a duration stay of 120 years and a GWP of 310
CFC-12 has a duration stay of 102 years and a GWP between 6200 and 7100
HCFC-22 has a duration stay of 12.1 years and a GWP between 1300 and 1400
Perfluoromethane has a duration stay of 50,000 years and a GWP of 6500
Sulphur hexafluoride has a duration stay of 3 200 years and a GWP of 23900.

Interesting.

Still, when might your authoritive sources on the 15C be able to make an appearance?

Next time your hippy friend does a whip-it you should point out they are contributing to global warming.

Sorry, I have no idea what a "whip-it" is.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Brian the Snail:

I'm intrigued to learn more about your scenario, though

I'm glad you asked.

My scenario depends on the precise definition of "greenhouse effect". If we assume it means something like "the warming of the surface due to the presence of substance X in the atmosphere, compared to the temperature without substance X", then I think the two sites can both be true. Here's why:

While H2O in the atmosphere absorbs 95% of the IR from the Earth, and thereby helps to warm it, H2O also forms clouds, which cools it. It is therefore possible that the total warming effect resulting from the presence of H2O is only 60%, as it also has a cooling effect.

 

[EvilYeti]

a) You said earlier that the ratio of warming/cooling caused by water vapor was currently unknown. If so, how do we know the characteristics of the above self-regulation?

a) We know that H2O in a gaseous state is a GHG.
b) We know that H2O in a liquid state forms clouds which shade the earth from UV radiation. Clouds can also have a greenhouse effect when close to the ground.
So it gets pretty complex and chaotic. Its accepted that the net total is more heating than cooling, otherwise the earth would be much cooler than it currently is.

b) If this self-regulation is true, your previous alarming comments on how "methane becomes water" and "we can't do anything about it", seem irrelevant.

Not as irrelevant as you would think, the methane turns to water in the stratosphere and takes longer to precipitate out.

Still, when might your authoritive sources on the 15C be able to make an appearance?
Sorry, I have no idea what a "whip-it" is.

I'm working on it, I haven't found any online sources yet.