Global Warming - A Different Approach

[BIGUN 1,483]

As of late, I'm expanding my knowledge on the debate of "Global Warming." I'm in an industry that listens to Dr. William Gray - Meteorologist. Dr. Gray's position regarding "Global Warming" is,

Quote

And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.

Glassman: We thank you very, very much for this interview. Thank you, Dr. Gray.

Gray: Well thank you for asking me.

I am convinced myself that in 15 or 20 years, we’re going to look back on this and see how grossly exaggerated it all was. The humans are not that powerful. These greenhouse gases, although they are building up, they cannot cause the type of warming these models say – two to five degrees centigrade with a doubling of the greenhouse gases.

Source: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4403

So, I have been reading both sides of this issue, but the thought occured to me early this morning as I watched the sun come up. It was one of those crisp cool very clear sapphire blue mornings in Tulsa and I was intrigued with this one aircraft's contrail. As the morning wore on, there were at least fifty crisscrossing contrails.

I began to think about the average 6,000 flights per day over the U.S. and wondered, "What if we were to capture the contrails on an imagery plat each day and do a day by day overlay to see just how many pollutants are being thrown against our atmosphere on a monthly, quarterly, semi-annual and annual basis.

I then began to think about the same for vehicles - the major arteries of our nation, Now, expand that to being able to overlay that same imagery around the world and we now have quite a visual representation of what fossil fuels are doing to our environment by region (thinking of those countries that don't have an EPA).

My final thoughts on this note is the actual term, "Global Warming" which when researched indicates a variance of a 1-2 degrees over the past twenty years. So, for most people, their frame of reference regarding temperatures of a couple of degrees over twenty years results in a "So what?" kind of mentality. A place I was not long ago.

However, as one educates themselves on the issue, we're really not talking about Global Warming as the issue, but as the by-product of a much larger problem. Not being a scientist, but being able to comprehend some of the severity of the cause, rather than the result; can't help but wonder if we changed the term from "Global Warming" to something that gets peoples attention, perhaps more people would embrace a more educated platform for solutions, rather than dismissal.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Channman 2]

I've desided once again to come out of my self imposed Banning from DZ.com to make the following statement concerning Global Warming and its effects on Houston.

I believe we Houstonians will begin to feel the effects of Global Warming in June of this year.

Skydive Spaceland however promisses cooler temps at 14,000 to ease the pain.

[billvon 3,107]

>The humans are not that powerful. These greenhouse gases, although
> they are building up, they cannot cause the type of warming these models
>say – two to five degrees centigrade with a doubling of the greenhouse
>gases.

That position is getting weaker and weaker as temperatures rise. We've already seen a .6C rise, and temperatures are still increasing.

>What if we were to capture the contrails on an imagery plat each day and
> do a day by day overlay to see just how many pollutants are being thrown
>against our atmosphere on a monthly, quarterly, semi-annual and annual
>basis.

They certainly have an interesting effect on climate:
----------------
CNN) -- The thin wisps of condensation that trail jet airliners have a significant influence on the climate, according to scientists who studied U.S. skies during a rare interruption in national air traffic after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

During the three-day commercial flight hiatus, when the artificial clouds known as contrails all but disappeared, the variations in high and low temperatures increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) each day, said meteorological researchers.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/
--------------------

>we're really not talking about Global Warming as the issue, but as
>the by-product of a much larger problem.

Definitely true, but I think people relate more easily to a change in temperature than to, say, a change in ocean pH levels.

[BIGUN 1,483]

Thanks for the article, Bill. Another to add to my list of favorites as I try to learn more about this.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[miked10270 0]

While you're looking at Global-Warming, you may also want to consider Global-Dimming.

It's now thought that Global-Dimming is responsible for the climate change in the tropics due to the reduction in Evaporation.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

I began to think about the average 6,000 flights per day over the U.S.

that number seems kinda small so i googled it and found;
"On any given day, more than 87,000 flights are in the skies in the United States."
source: http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/bythenumbers.msp

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[BIGUN 1,483]

I should have said planes, rather than flights. According to the FAA, there are 23,000 scheduled takeoffs and landings in the U.S. That's not 23,000 individual planes. In a day the number of planes is probably closer to a quarter of that. And, to your point, I don't know that that number includes corporate jets, recreational pilots flying VFR, DZs etc. Anyway, the point being the amount of exhaust and even if we use your number, even more of a concern.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[BIGUN 1,483]

Quote

But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds. Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun's rays back into space.

Good Info, Mike. Thank you.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>The humans are not that powerful. These greenhouse gases, although
> they are building up, they cannot cause the type of warming these models
>say – two to five degrees centigrade with a doubling of the greenhouse
>gases.

That position is getting weaker and weaker as temperatures rise. We've already seen a .6C rise, and temperatures are still increasing.

Quote

The temp warning is the ONLY thing that is known. Human causation is highly debated and the argument is not getting weaker. The more I learn the more convince I am and even the early exaulted preachers of GW are now starting to change thier minds as they learn that this claim has no basis in science. Only speculation as all experiments, not graph correlations and computer modles, have yet to support GW as a man made event.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[billvon 3,107]

>The temp warning is the ONLY thing that is known.

And the change in ocean pH, and the increase in sea levels, and the increase in CO2. All known and all provable to anyone with access to a basic chemistry set and some basic tidal data.

>Human causation is highly debated . . .

Not really. (At least, it's about as "debated" as whether the jews pulled off 9/11.) Every sane scientist out there acknowledges that our burning of fossil fuel has increased the concentration of CO2 by around 50% and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The amount of warming we will see as a result _is_ still being debated; fortunately we now have real historical data to serve as a basis for future predictions.

>and the argument is not getting weaker.

I agree, but I don't think you meant to say that!

[speedy 0]

Quote

Every sane scientist out there acknowledges that our burning of fossil fuel has increased the concentration of CO2 by around 50% and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The amount of warming we will see as a result _is_ still being debated

I agree with that statement totally. But is does not contradict rushmc's statement "Human causation is highly debated " at all

The attempt to provide our energy from another source apart from the finite resource of fossil fuels is something we will have to do at some point anyway.

If you tried to tax the people based on "We need the money to develop alternative energy sources", they would complain no end. Asking them to pay extra taxes to save the planet is a sure winner.

It's not about saving the world. It's taxes and political agenda that's driving the AGW issue.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>The temp warning is the ONLY thing that is known.

And the change in ocean pH, and the increase in sea levels, and the increase in CO2. All known and all provable to anyone with access to a basic chemistry set and some basic tidal data.

>Human causation is highly debated . . .

Not really. (At least, it's about as "debated" as whether the jews pulled off 9/11.) Every sane scientist out there acknowledges that our burning of fossil fuel has increased the concentration of CO2 by around 50% and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The amount of warming we will see as a result _is_ still being debated; fortunately we now have real historical data to serve as a basis for future predictions.

>and the argument is not getting weaker.

I agree, but I don't think you meant to say that!

I meant exactly what I said.

You said that the point that humans are NOT causing GW is getting weaker. It is not.

All the points you listed above maybe true but once again, there is no proof that mans activities are causing any of it. To the contrary, all scientific experiments indicate man is not having an effect. The GW alarmists use flawed computer models and tweaked graphic anaylisis to try and convice people they are the causing somthing that is part of a natural cycle. Why?? to enforce a way of living on others and money.

Once again, you asked me what would it take for me to change my mind. and once again (since you did not answer) what would it take for you to change yours?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Human causation is highly debated . . .

Not really. (At least, it's about as "debated" as whether the jews pulled off 9/11.)

Which leading experts claimed "the jews" were behind the 9/11 attacks?

The list of experts who disagree with the "overwhelming consensus" seem to be growing. Claude Allegre is the latest defector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

[billvon 3,107]

>But is does not contradict rushmc's statement "Human causation is highly debated " at all.

Right, it IS highly debated. So is whether vaccines are good or bad, whether the world was created 7000 years ago in 7 days or formed around 5 billion years ago, whether jewish terrorists pulled off 9/11, whether Marilyn Monroe shot JFK, whether the earth is flat or round etc. Those things are just not debated much by serious scientists.

>It's not about saving the world. It's taxes and political agenda that's
>driving the AGW issue.

You just gave an argument that it was for a different purpose altogether!

[billvon 3,107]

>I meant exactly what I said.

So you believe the arguments for human causation are not getting weaker! Again, I think you meant the opposite.

>there is no proof that mans activities are causing any of it. To the
>contrary, all scientific experiments indicate man is not having an effect.

No real scientist, anywhere, disagrees with these two facts:

1) We are raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas

>The GW alarmists use flawed computer models and tweaked graphic
>anaylisis to try and convice people they are the causing somthing that is
> part of a natural cycle.

And that biggest alarmist of all, the planet earth, continues to get warmer as CO2 concentrations increase. That's why the deniers are destined to fail - they're standing on the the deck of the Titanic claiming it's not sinking. They can say whatever they want, but they're going to be swimming soon no matter how many words they produce. Words won't keep a boat afloat and they won't stop the effects additional CO2 has.

> Once again, you asked me what would it take for me to change my mind.
> and once again (since you did not answer) what would it take for you to
> change yours?

To disprove the first point above, a simple chemical test to indicate that CO2 concentrations are decreasing while we are still burning the amounts of fossil fuel we are today.

To disprove the second point above, a re-write of atmospheric physics (along with tests) to prove that CO2 does not block re-radiation of long wavelength IR.

To disprove that CO2 and temperatures are related, a long-term cooling trend occurring while CO2 was increasing at the same rates they are today.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

All the points you listed above maybe true but once again, there is no proof that mans activities are causing any of it. To the contrary, all scientific experiments indicate man is not having an effect. ?

The report of the recent climate conference in Paris does not support your statement.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I meant exactly what I said.

So you believe the arguments for human causation are not getting weaker! Again, I think you meant the opposite.

>there is no proof that mans activities are causing any of it. To the
>contrary, all scientific experiments indicate man is not having an effect.

No real scientist, anywhere, disagrees with these two facts:

1) We are raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas

>The GW alarmists use flawed computer models and tweaked graphic
>anaylisis to try and convice people they are the causing somthing that is
> part of a natural cycle.

And that biggest alarmist of all, the planet earth, continues to get warmer as CO2 concentrations increase. That's why the deniers are destined to fail - they're standing on the the deck of the Titanic claiming it's not sinking. They can say whatever they want, but they're going to be swimming soon no matter how many words they produce. Words won't keep a boat afloat and they won't stop the effects additional CO2 has.

> Once again, you asked me what would it take for me to change my mind.
> and once again (since you did not answer) what would it take for you to
> change yours?

To disprove the first point above, a simple chemical test to indicate that CO2 concentrations are decreasing while we are still burning the amounts of fossil fuel we are today.

To disprove the second point above, a re-write of atmospheric physics (along with tests) to prove that CO2 does not block re-radiation of long wavelength IR.

To disprove that CO2 and temperatures are related, a long-term cooling trend occurring while CO2 was increasing at the same rates they are today.

No real scientist, one that performs tests to prove or disprove the theroy believe that man is causing warming. Early proponets of man caused GW warming are starting to change thier minds. Why??

Sorry billvon, I believe you believe that man is the problem but I am more and more convinced as I learm more that this claiming GW is man made is pure bs. You probably remember we were all going to be living underground by now if the 70's ice age perdictions had come true.

In less than 10 years this will be forgetten. The hope I have is that enough sane idividuals can stop the alarmists (or at least slow them done enough) from causing non-reversable polictical damage

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

All the points you listed above maybe true but once again, there is no proof that mans activities are causing any of it. To the contrary, all scientific experiments indicate man is not having an effect. ?

The report of the recent climate conference in Paris does not support your statement.

I await the data from the experiments that support thier claim! (not computer modeling and graph trending info)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,107]

>No real scientist, one that performs tests to prove or disprove the
>theroy believe that man is causing warming.

Sorry, the rest of the world disagrees. You could run the tests yourself and verify the above two points. There are valid discussions going on about mitigation/positive feedback cycles/negative feedback cycles; you may get more traction arguing them.

But no one argues the above two points. It's like a whuffo claiming that people go up when they open their parachutes, then claiming that leading experts in the field agree that some people go up when they open their parachutes. He's never done it, mind you, but he can produce reams of signatures from other extreme sports figures claiming this happens. Some people might indeed believe him, but any competent skydiver will just have a good laugh and return to jumping.

>In less than 10 years this will be forgetten.

I'll bet you $250 (payable to your favorite charity) that in 5 years not only will global warming not be forgotten, but the current trend (increases in CO2 followed by increases in global temperature) will be continuing. Specifically, CO2 will be above 400ppm, and at least one year after 2006 will set another new record.

Do we have a bet?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I await the data from the experiments that support thier claim! (not computer modeling and graph trending info)

Excellent! You'll be thrilled to hear about the experiments that are underway right now.

A small team of respected scientists have requisitioned three duplicate Earths and are commencing with their experiments to supply you with the reassurance you need.

* Planet one will be left to its own devices, as a control.
* Planet two will be encouraged to double its burning of fossil fuels.
* Planet three will be encouraged to halve its burning of fossil fuels.

The team expects its first published observations in 50 years. Stay tuned!

In the meantime, please continue as before.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

It's like a whuffo claiming that people go up when they open their parachutes, then claiming that leading experts in the field agree that some people go up when they open their parachutes. He's never done it, mind you, but he can produce reams of signatures from other extreme sports figures claiming this happens. Some people might indeed believe him, but any competent skydiver will just have a good laugh and return to jumping.

Your ability to make crappy analogies is without limit!

Quote

No real scientist, anywhere, disagrees with these two facts:

1) We are raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas

Is that really all that they agree on? That isn't very much.

Agreeing on those things does nothing to prove that warming is happening, how much it is happening, or how much of it is due to the influence of humans.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,107]

>Is that really all that they agree on? That isn't very much.

You may accept those things; many deniers do not.

>Agreeing on those things does nothing to prove that warming is
>happening, how much it is happening, or how much of it is due to the
>influence of humans.

"Prove that warming is happening" - It is. That's a fact borne out by climactic records.

"how much it is happening" - also easy to discover. Attached are a few graphs showing warming over the past few decades. By examining these you will be able to answer your own question.

"how much of it is due to the influence of humans" - _that_ is what most of the discussion centers around. Numbers I've seen range from 80% to 125% (the 125% assumes some negative feedback.) There is a lot of reasearch going on right now in trying to nail that number down.

But despite what deniers claim, the results are not converging on zero.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>No real scientist, one that performs tests to prove or disprove the
>theroy believe that man is causing warming.

Sorry, the rest of the world disagrees. You could run the tests yourself and verify the above two points. There are valid discussions going on about mitigation/positive feedback cycles/negative feedback cycles; you may get more traction arguing them.

But no one argues the above two points. It's like a whuffo claiming that people go up when they open their parachutes, then claiming that leading experts in the field agree that some people go up when they open their parachutes. He's never done it, mind you, but he can produce reams of signatures from other extreme sports figures claiming this happens. Some people might indeed believe him, but any competent skydiver will just have a good laugh and return to jumping.

>In less than 10 years this will be forgetten.

I'll bet you $250 (payable to your favorite charity) that in 5 years not only will global warming not be forgotten, but the current trend (increases in CO2 followed by increases in global temperature) will be continuing. Specifically, CO2 will be above 400ppm, and at least one year after 2006 will set another new record.

Do we have a bet?

I will make "a" bet but not the way you framed it. I will not bet irelavnt stats. In 5 years if science has proved that man is causing GW I will pay $250 to a charity of your choice. If not, you will pay the same to one chosen by me.

Feb is one of the coldest Febs on record. No media outlet is speaking of it. If a month later this year sets a high record the media will wet themselves over the story.
Point? Highs and lows make the "average". In and of themselves they mean nothing.

Now, once agian, and I will rephase it the query, will any data about GW force you to rethink your position? YOU, asked the question of me and I answered it. Will you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Is that really all that they agree on? That isn't very much.

You may accept those things; many deniers do not.

>Agreeing on those things does nothing to prove that warming is
>happening, how much it is happening, or how much of it is due to the
>influence of humans.

"Prove that warming is happening" - It is. That's a fact borne out by climactic records.

"how much it is happening" - also easy to discover. Attached are a few graphs showing warming over the past few decades. By examining these you will be able to answer your own question.

"how much of it is due to the influence of humans" - _that_ is what most of the discussion centers around. Numbers I've seen range from 80% to 125% (the 125% assumes some negative feedback.) There is a lot of reasearch going on right now in trying to nail that number down.

But despite what deniers claim, the results are not converging on zero.

You spout these data points as if that is the final fact. You seem (at least to me) to avoid the basic argument.....Is mans activities the cause of GWing...or...is man causing GWing? These are two seperate issues you want to link to support your position

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,107]

> In 5 years if science has proved that man is causing GW I will pay $250
>to a charity of your choice. I not, you will pay the same to one chosen by me.

Science has proven that man is causing the planet to warm; the debate is now over how much and what effect it will have. You don't accept it now and you won't accept it in five years. It won't matter if every single climatologist in the world agrees - you'll find a right-wing economist who thinks it's not so warm out, thus "proving" that GW is not a given. So I would be tempted to take your bet, but I know you will not pay, and it will be the Rhino thing all over again.

Which is why I suggested hard targets for temperatures and CO2 concentrations. If you truly believe man is not increasing CO2 concentrations and thus warming the planet, it should be easy money. (Or choose your own hard-number metric.)

>Feb is one of the coldest Febs on record. No media outlet is speaking of it.

That's because it's not the coldest on record. It's not even in the top 5. In Ohio it was the 14th coldest february ever. In Illinois it was the 9th coldest. Definitely cold, but in terms of average temps no records being broken.

>If a month later this year sets a high record the media will wet themselves
>over the story.

Right. But if it's the 9th warmest, no one will care.

>Now, once agian, and I will rephase it the query, will any data about GW
>force you to rethink your position? YOU, asked the question of me and
>I answered it. Will you?

I already have - go back 8 posts.