A really good article on global warming

[Lefty 0]

More specifically, it's about the scientists who study it. Be warned, the article is pretty long. However, it's written by Orson Scott Card so it's a bit more engaging than most writings on this type of subject. Anyway, check it out.

Clicky

P.S. - Yes, I know it's old.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[quade 4]

Quote

P.S. - Yes, I know it's old.

Yes, it is. About 10 years old.

What's significant about that?

Well, Michaels' World Climate Report offered in late 1998 "to wager that the 10-year period beginning in January 1998 and extending through December 2007 will show a statistically significant downward trend in the monthly satellite record of global temperatures."

See; http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol4/v4n8/feature.htm

I wonder how that's going for him?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,120]

Carbon dioxide at record high, stoking warming
Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:13am EST

OSLO, Nov 23 (Reuters) - Levels of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitted by burning fossil fuels, hit a record high in the atmosphere in 2006, accelerating global warming, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Friday.

But concentrations of methane, the number two heat-trapping gas, flattened out in a hint that Siberian permafrost is staying frozen despite some scientists' fears that rising temperatures might trigger a runaway thaw.

"In 2006, globally averaged concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached their highest levels ever recorded," the WMO said. Carbon dioxide is the main gas from human activities blamed by the U.N. climate panel for stoking warming.

The WMO said levels rose 0.53 percent from 2005 to 381.2 parts per million of the atmosphere, 36 percent above levels before the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century.

Levels of nitrous oxide, the number three greenhouse gas produced by burning fuels and by industrial processes, also rose to a record with a 0.25 percent gain in 2006. Levels are 320 parts per billion, 19 percent above pre-industrial times.

"Atmospheric growth rates in 2006 of these gases are consistent with recent years," the WMO said in a report. Rising levels could disrupt the climate, producing more heatwaves, floods, droughts and rising ocean levels.

But levels of methane, which comes from sources such as rotting vegetation in landfills, termites, rice paddies and the digestive process of cows, dipped 0.06 percent to 1,782 parts per billion in 2006.

"Methane levels have been flattening out in recent years," Geir Braathen, WHO's senior scientific officer, told Reuters. Still, methane levels are 155 percent higher than before the Industrial Revolution.

"A widespread melt of Siberian permafrost is a possibility but there is no sign of it in this data," he said, referring to some scientists' fears that frozen methane in the permafrost could be released by rising temperatures and accelerate warming.

"If it was happening it would turn up in these figures," he said.

Braathen also said the relative importance of carbon dioxide was increasing, contributing 91 percent of the total heating effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the past five years from 87 percent in the past decade.

Emissions of some heat-trapping gases blamed for depleting the planet's protective ozone layer also dipped in 2006.

More than 190 nations will meet in Bali, Indonesia, from Dec. 3-14 to try to launch two years of negotiations on a new global treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, the main U.N. plan for fighting global warming.

[mikkey 0]

Ice core research has shown that in the past increased CO2 concentrations did not preceed wraming periods but followed them.

There is now more and more evidence that the current temperature pattern is NOT following the predictions:

Dr David Whitehouse - astronomer, former BBC science correspondent, and author of The Sun: A Biography writes:

The fact that the recent warming period can be divided into two distinct periods is surely instructive and has a direct bearing on the IPCC’s projections for the future and its mitigation strategies. The period 1980 -98 was one of rapid warming - a temperature anomaly of about 0.6 degrees C or 0.3 deg C per decade (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). Since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has risen from 370ppm to 380ppm) meaning that the global temperature is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued…

The 1980 - 98 increase is generally similar to the increase seen between 1910 and 1940 which was 0.6 deg C in 30 years. It may be that the current flatlining of global temperature will be similar to that seen between 1940 and 1980 in that it will be followed by another increase (as the UK’s Met Office believes will commence in 2009) but we don’t know.

Incidentally, all the indications are that the global temperature of 2007 will be the coolest since 2000. This is interesting as there have been no significant volcanic events and no La Nina cooling…

There is a growing school of thought that suggests that the next solar cycle, cycle 24, could be weak and possibly the start of a prolonged period of low activity. There are certainly signs of a decline after a significant increase in solar activity throughout most of the last century. In the past when this has occurred the Earth has cooled though by what mechanism is unknown.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 3,120]

> Ice core research has shown that in the past increased CO2 concentrations
> did not preceed wraming periods but followed them.

True! This may come as a shock, but dinosaurs did not drive SUV's or burn coal. We're the first ones to do that - which is why this is the first time we've managed to get CO2 levels so high _without_ some other climactic event driving the change initially.

>There are certainly signs of a decline after a significant increase in
>solar activity throughout most of the last century.

Incorrect in two ways. First, solar activity has NOT been increasing, especially over the last 30 years or so where most of the warming has taken place.

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

Secondly, on the 11-year cycle, we are now in a valley, and will soon see an INCREASE in solar output, as we do every 11 years.

>Incidentally, all the indications are that the global temperature of 2007
>will be the coolest since 2000.

Hard to say yet, but we've broken a lot of records just here in the US for temperatures. First time in my life we've had trees keep their leaves until Thanksgiving here in NY.

[mikkey 0]

So when high CO2 concentration in the past did not trigger GW why would they now??

All this "the science is settled" is BS. I saw a survey of IPCC panel scientist that showed quite a few of them are not that certain (unfortunately can't find the link now).

Quote

>Incidentally, all the indications are that the global temperature of 2007
>will be the coolest since 2000.

Hard to say yet, but we've broken a lot of records just here in the US for temperatures. First time in my life we've had trees keep their leaves until Thanksgiving here in NY.

Ah, now the temperature in NY is an indicatopr for global temperatures. Well then let ne raise you that the temperature in large part of Antartica is actually falling... But the "hard to say" is BS - the global temperature measured show that 1998 was the warmest year and since the n it has flattened out - which is NOT what the IPCC predicted and is not following the CO2 trend.

It will be interesting to see what people will say in 10 years when the current GW theories have been shot down by what actually happened, and we will count the cost. All reminds me abouty the Y2K hysteria....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

So when high CO2 concentration in the past did not trigger GW why would they now??

Let me try and spell it out for you: high CO2 concentrations in the past did not trigger GW events because there were no high CO2 concentrations in the past. Hence billvon's semi-serious crack: dinosaurs did not drive SUVs.
What you're saying amounts basically to: since past GW events were not driven by high concentrations of CO2 but by other causes, why should high concentrations of CO2 cause GW today? Re-wording it cleverly to make it sound like there actually were high CO2 concentrations and they did not cause GW is a cheap trick IMHO and one easily seen through.
Your argument really makes no sense if you think about it carefully enough.
Cheers,

Vale

[Butters 0]

Quote

Levels of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitted by burning fossil fuels, hit a record high in the atmosphere in 2006, accelerating global warming, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Friday.

But concentrations of methane, the number two heat-trapping gas, flattened out in a hint that Siberian permafrost is staying frozen despite some scientists' fears that rising temperatures might trigger a runaway thaw.

If carbon dioxide levels are rising wouldn't it be considered a positive thing for permafrost to thaw to allow for more vegetation to remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by photosynthesis?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So when high CO2 concentration in the past did not trigger GW why would they now??

Let me try and spell it out for you: high CO2 concentrations in the past did not trigger GW events because there were no high CO2 concentrations in the past. Hence billvon's semi-serious crack: dinosaurs did not drive SUVs.
What you're saying amounts basically to: since past GW events were not driven by high concentrations of CO2 but by other causes, why should high concentrations of CO2 cause GW today? Re-wording it cleverly to make it sound like there actually were high CO2 concentrations and they did not cause GW is a cheap trick IMHO and one easily seen through.
Your argument really makes no sense if you think about it carefully enough.
Cheers,

Vale

Ah, you had better revisit what you say here. You have made many errors in the short statment you make here. Specifically about CO2 concentrations in the past.

"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 3,120]

> So when high CO2 concentration in the past did not trigger GW why
> would they now??

They DID cause warming. They were not the INITIAL CAUSE of warming.

>Ah, now the temperature in NY is an indicatopr for global temperatures.

Nope! But so far 2007 looks like an especially warm year on average - and that IS an indicator.

------------

2007 to be 'warmest on record'

Last year was the warmest on record in the UK, Met Office figures show
The world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007, the UK's Met Office says.

An extended warming period, resulting from an El Nino weather event in the Pacific Ocean, will probably push up global temperatures, experts forecast.
-----------


>But the "hard to say" is BS - the global temperature measured show that
>1998 was the warmest year and since the n it has flattened out . . .

2005 - warmest year on record (per NASA)

>It will be interesting to see what people will say in 10 years when the
>current GW theories have been shot down by what actually happened . . .

Looks like you're following in the footsteps of Michaels!

"If we were of a betting sort (and there are some nasty rumors going around that we are), we would be willing to wager that the 10-year period beginning in January 1998 and extending through December 2007 will show a statistically significant downward trend in the monthly satellite record of global temperatures.

Surely such a wager should sound interesting to those who think the planetary temperature will increase several tenths of a degree during that period.

No reasonable offers refused."

Think he paid out?

He was wrong, but of course won't admit it. In 2017 I imagine the deniers will say "well, 2016 was a fluke - but NOW it's going to start cooling."

[billvon 3,120]

>wouldn't it be considered a positive thing for permafrost to thaw to
>allow for more vegetation to remove more carbon dioxide from the
>atmosphere by photosynthesis?

That's one of those second-order effects that many deniers sneer at. But yes - that's definitely a possibility. Thawing permafrost may release methane in the short term and help remove CO2 in the long term, through an indirect mechanism like creating additional land area for CO2 reabsorption.

[Butters 0]

Quote

>wouldn't it be considered a positive thing for permafrost to thaw to
>allow for more vegetation to remove more carbon dioxide from the
>atmosphere by photosynthesis?

That's one of those second-order effects that many deniers sneer at. But yes - that's definitely a possibility. Thawing permafrost may release methane in the short term and help remove CO2 in the long term, through an indirect mechanism like creating additional land area for CO2 reabsorption.

Wouldn't it also be considered a positive thing because more vegetation would remove more water from the atmosphere?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 3,120]

>Wouldn't it also be considered a positive thing because more vegetation
>would remove more water from the atmosphere?

Not really. The skies over forests are generally _more_ humid because of the transpiration of the trees, and the ability of the (better) soil in forests to trap and retain water.

[Butters 0]

Quote

>Wouldn't it also be considered a positive thing because more vegetation
>would remove more water from the atmosphere?

Not really. The skies over forests are generally _more_ humid because of the transpiration of the trees, and the ability of the (better) soil in forests to trap and retain water.

Ok. So if the permafrost thaws there should be an increase in nitrogen and a possible increase in water (transpiration), increase in oxygen (photosynthesis), and decrease in carbon dioxide (photosynthesis)? The concern would be the increase in nitrogen and possible increase in water. The nitrogen could be dealt with by planting specific vegation where the permafrost thaws. The water ... I'm not sure about at this moment.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 3,120]

>So if the permafrost thaws there should be an increase in nitrogen . . .

Well, there won't be any more of it, and the nitrogen contained in the mud is 'bound' so it won't be released as a gas - but may be available to plants via the roots as a nutrient. Are you thinking methane? Nitrogen already makes up 78% of our atmosphere.

>and a possible increase in water (transpiration) . . .

In places where permafrost becomes mud, then there will definitely be a local increase in water as a) the water becomes available and b) grasses and trees first use it then transpire it. However, overall, that's not going to do much for total water vapor, because 70% of the planet is covered with water - and that will always tend to "swamp out" contributions from local forests.

>increase in oxygen (photosynthesis), and decrease in carbon dioxide
>(photosynthesis)?

Locally, yes. (Neglecting any anaerobic rotting that happens as the mud thaws.)

>The water ... I'm not sure about at this moment.

I think such a forest would increase precipitation locally but not have much effect on the total water carried globally.

[Butters 0]

Quote

>So if the permafrost thaws there should be an increase in nitrogen . . .

Well, there won't be any more of it, and the nitrogen contained in the mud is 'bound' so it won't be released as a gas - but may be available to plants via the roots as a nutrient. Are you thinking methane? Nitrogen already makes up 78% of our atmosphere.

Oops ... What can be done to decrease methane?

Quote

>and a possible increase in water (transpiration) . . .

In places where permafrost becomes mud, then there will definitely be a local increase in water as a) the water becomes available and b) grasses and trees first use it then transpire it. However, overall, that's not going to do much for total water vapor, because 70% of the planet is covered with water - and that will always tend to "swamp out" contributions from local forests.

>increase in oxygen (photosynthesis), and decrease in carbon dioxide
>(photosynthesis)?

Locally, yes. (Neglecting any anaerobic rotting that happens as the mud thaws.)

>The water ... I'm not sure about at this moment.

I think such a forest would increase precipitation locally but not have much effect on the total water carried globally.

So, you don't believe the increase in water in the atmosphere would have an affect on global warming because it would remain local?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 3,120]

>What can be done to decrease methane?

In order of effectiveness:

1) Better landfill systems. Putting barriers and pipes into a landfill lets you capture the methane released and use it for power; several landfills I know of do this and run generators on the gas produced.

2) Fewer leaks. A lot of the additional methane in the atmosphere comes from natural gas we just plain leak. We leak it from pipes, flare it off on oil drilling operations, and release it from industrial processes.

The good news is that methane levels are starting to "top out." They're still considerably higher than before industrialization, but since they break down fairly rapidly (usually within 10 years) nature has a better shot at stabilizing them. That, combined with our modest efforts to reduce emissions of the gas, is helping stop the increase.

The other bit of good news is that methane is a useful gas for us (natural gas) so we have an incentive to not waste it.

>So, you don't believe the increase in water in the atmosphere would
>have an affect on global warming because it would remain local?

I don't think it would have much of an effect overall. There's just not that much permafrost compared to ocean, water is removed from the atmosphere very rapidly (on the order of days) and not all the permafrost is going to melt. Would certainly have some local effects though.

[mikkey 0]

Well, the only thing I can say is that the hysterics and followers of the holy church of the alarmist GW religion will not like the data starting to be collected.

Quote

This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 3,120]

> Well, the only thing I can say is that the hysterics and followers of the holy church . . .

I really don't think there's much future in the type 1 denial. It's too easy to disprove. Most people have switched to type 2 (i.e. "it's getting hotter, but we're not doing it.")

>This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures . . .

That data is for the US, not the world. (Note that things like the ice caps and the atlantic and pacific oceans, which do affect us, are not in the US.)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> Well, the only thing I can say is that the hysterics and followers of the holy church . . .

I really don't think there's much future in the type 1 denial. It's too easy to disprove. Most people have switched to type 2 (i.e. "it's getting hotter, but we're not doing it.")

>This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures . . .

That data is for the US, not the world. (Note that things like the ice caps and the atlantic and pacific oceans, which do affect us, are not in the US.)

It is really amazing to see how easy this is getting for 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

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

> Well, the only thing I can say is that the hysterics and followers of the holy church . . .

I really don't think there's much future in the type 1 denial. It's too easy to disprove. Most people have switched to type 2 (i.e. "it's getting hotter, but we're not doing it.")

>This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures . . .

That data is for the US, not the world. (Note that things like the ice caps and the atlantic and pacific oceans, which do affect us, are not in the US.)

It is really amazing to see how easy this is getting for you

Yes, especially after posting how hot it recently has been in the US.

The interesting issue is - if anybody cares - that it looks like it is the Artic areas which are getting warmer. The other areas are not showing the warming in recent years - including the Antartica which holds most of the ice ( so the sea level issue is more dependent on the Antartic - not the Artic).
It has been shown that the ice areas have been melting before and the temperatures were much higher kust 1000 years ago - or why do you think the Vikings called Greenland green and New Foundlan "Wine land" - Vinland.....

The climate has always been in a process of change, but that does not suit the greenies - who are more concerned telling us that cow manure is bad and we shoul feed our kids ratts and goat milk (Heather Mills) then looking at the enormous direct pollution in China and India.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[rushmc 23]

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/2007_will_not_rank_as_warmest_year_for_the_northern_hemisphere1/

"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 3,120]

>It is really amazing to see how easy this is getting for you . . .

And harder for the people who keep claiming it's not happening.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>It is really amazing to see how easy this is getting for you . . .

And harder for the people who keep claiming it's not happening.

I think it is quite the oposite sir. You keep using the same old same old and you have to refute new info coming out daily.

"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 3,120]

>I think it is quite the oposite sir.

Of course you do. And ten years from now, when CO2 continues to ruse, average temperatures are still going up and ice is still melting, you'll have another cut-n-paste angle from the pages of Newsmax to claim it's really not happening.

Who knows? Perhaps future threads from you might be entitled:

There's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 2005!
There's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 2007!
There's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 2013!

I bet you could keep that up for the rest of your life.