Solving Global Warming

[CapelDodger]

Doesn't attempting to control climate change miss the point somewhat? If we plan on surviving on this planet for any significant length of time (in geological terms) we need to use less energy.

People don't generally plan on that sort of timescale. They think on the timescale of their children and grandchildren, getting those generations established in the way they were themselves. There's an assumption of stability, that most things will still be equal. Learn a trade, you'll be set for life, and such. Get an education and you'll get on.

In truth, there are times when the getting-on changes the environment - social, economic, diplomatic, and so on - too quickly for those plans to work out. Too many exponential curves in play for too long mean a storm is surely a-comin'.

The problem with using less energy is it hurts our economy, which seems to be sustained by us amassing bigger and better gadgets. That to me is the real challenge, coming up with an economy that does not require consumption to increase for its stability.

A real challenge, but who is it being issued to?

The storm will come (it's harbingers are probably with us already, damn I miss the Cold War, you knew where you were in those days) stuff will happen, and a sustainable society will emerge at the other end. That may mean extinction, but hey, there's nothing new in an evolutionary dead-end. We may just be the first to document it happening to us. The first on this planet, anyway.

As for global warming, I find it hard to believe we have the ability to model a system as complicated (chaotic?) as the earth’s climate accurately enough to make the kind of long term predictions that are being made. For example, in my job as an electronics engineer, I've done a little bit of work with adaptive filters. These are really simple systems compared to the earths climate, yet due to such things as noise and quantization effects, typically the only way to be sure they're stable is to try the exact implementation of them out.

Weather is to climate as electronics is to power-generation. The oceans and continents aren't going anywhere, no noise from that source, and what we're getting from the ice-thing all over is definitely signal. Ditto permafrost. The best model is presenting its results right outside everybody's door.

The other models are trying to predict, but prediction is very hard. Especially about the future. Predictions that models made twenty years ago have been broadly correct, despite the perturbation thrown in by Soviet collapse which nobody had catered for. Well, you don't, do you? Volcanoes, yeah, but one-offs like that, how can they be modelled? We'll have to wait for the US collapse to get even a second datum point, which won't tell us much. The Americas always were an anomaly.

 

[Azure]

And I'm wondering if we should change something that could very well be part of a natural cycle.

The sun has also been getting hotter for the past 1000 years, which would obviously contribute to global warming.

One Russian scientist thinks the earth will begin cooling off by 2011...or was it 2021?

Now how much truth can you put to that? Also, there was a study done that pointed how the earth didn't warm up from 1998-2005. In fact, we cooled up just a tad bit. A small observation in the bigger picture, but an important observation nonetheless.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I don't understand how the moon is related to valcanic gassing. Could you explain a little more please.

Sorry. I completely lost this thread.

There's no direct connection, except insofar as lunar induced earth tides would have been a more significant trigger of quakes and eruptions (and degassing) when the moon was closer in , which it was.

But- the presence of a big moon persistently strips faster moving gas ions or molecules from a planet's outer atmosphere and flings them off into space. It's not a huge effect, but it's a very persistent one. The Earth - Moon system is practically a double planet. If we had no moon, our atmosphere would be thicker and a higher partial pressure of that would have been CO2 from the start. Had Venus been part of a similar system it would have lost much of it's atmosphere by now between the moon and outgassing.

Clearly it's only one effect in many. In the absence of life, the fixing of CO2 in carbonates is far rarer for instance.

 

[varwoche]

The sun has also been getting hotter for the past 1000 years, which would obviously contribute to global warming.

The evidence indicates otherwise:

most climate models—including ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—already incorporate the effects of the sun's waxing and waning power on Earth's weather
...
that particular mechanism [sunspots], which is most intuitive, is probably not having an impact

 

[Azure]

How is it possible to come to that conclusion?

In fact, how it it even possible to measure the effects sunspots have on the earth? They change almost daily.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/SORCE/sorce_03.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/SORCE/sorce_04.html

The darn quote button doesn't work for me....

 

[Schneibster]

Too bad, Azure, looks like the IPCC is releasing another report, and they're now saying that the certainty is 99% that it's getting hotter, and going to continue getting hotter, and it's 99% certain that the reason is anthropogenic carbon dioxide. That means that not merely the majority, but the overwhelming majority, of people who are qualified to have an opinion believe with 99% certainty that:
1. There is global warming, and
2. it's our fault.

You can continue believing in phlogiston if you like. I prefer more modern science, myself.

Having had to listen to a bunch of horsepucky about Al Gore, I'm also pleased to announce that An Inconvenient Truth has been nominated for two Oscars.

The President of the US has just acknowledged the existence and reality of global warming in the State of the Union address. Apparently this is just another political move to avoid the oncoming freight train of the first (THE FIRST!) Congressional investigation to bear fruit, that into the directed suppression of taxpayer-funded climate research, by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee of the US House of Representatives, chaired by Henry Waxman. It seems likely that another scandal is brewing and that several more White House staffers will be giving testimony before yet another Grand Jury regarding malfeasance by the US Administration. I await the indictments with glee.

 

[dann]

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

 

[Buckaroo]

But- the presence of a big moon persistently strips faster moving gas ions or molecules from a planet's outer atmosphere and flings them off into space. It's not a huge effect, but it's a very persistent one. The Earth - Moon system is practically a double planet. If we had no moon, our atmosphere would be thicker and a higher partial pressure of that would have been CO2 from the start. Had Venus been part of a similar system it would have lost much of it's atmosphere by now between the moon and outgassing.

Do you have any reference for this? I'm not disputing it, I'm genuinely curious, and would love to have a look at the numbers to see what relative effect this process has. It's kinda neat.

 

[CapelDodger]

And I'm wondering if we should change something that could very well be part of a natural cycle.

The sun has also been getting hotter for the past 1000 years, which would obviously contribute to global warming.

What natural cycle? What drives it? There's been no lack of effort or funding involved in finding another driving force. The product is that there "could very well be" something. Some otherwise undetectable variation in the Sun. Some vague historic 1400-year signal from times when CO2 load was 280ppm give or take, not 380ppm as is the situation now. That increase can explain warming. Everything else is hand-waving, "Ooh, they might be wrong! They're not certain! There could be something we haven't thought of yet!".

One Russian scientist thinks the earth will begin cooling off by 2011...or was it 2021?

Am I missing a parody here? If so .

Now how much truth can you put to that? Also, there was a study done that pointed how the earth didn't warm up from 1998-2005. In fact, we cooled up just a tad bit. A small observation in the bigger picture, but an important observation nonetheless.

1998 saw a strong El Nino, one of the strongest recorded, and such years are always warm in global terms. Why choose 1998 - an anomolous year, because of the El Nino - to base a trend on? And why 2005 to end it on? 2006, with a mild El Nino, was just as warm as 1998. All the years in-between were warmer thatn 1996. "There was a study done ..." Just how credulous are you?

 

[CapelDodger]

How is it possible to come to that conclusion?

In fact, how it it even possible to measure the effects sunspots have on the earth? They change almost daily.

How is it possible to measure the effect seasons have on weather, when weather changes daily? Why do people expect colder days in winter than in summer?

Trends don't vary daily. A cycle of about 22 years in sunspot activity was observed a long time ago.

 

[Azure]

Too bad, Azure, looks like the IPCC is releasing another report, and they're now saying that the certainty is 99% that it's getting hotter, and going to continue getting hotter, and it's 99% certain that the reason is anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

I must have missed the part where the IPCC said it was 99% sure global warming was solely a human caused problem.

 

[Azure]

How is it possible to measure the effect seasons have on weather, when weather changes daily? Why do people expect colder days in winter than in summer?

Trends don't vary daily. A cycle of about 22 years in sunspot activity was observed a long time ago.

And that cycle is supposed to change somewhere around 2010.

And if the earth cools off, what then?

I can't deny global warming, I have never tried. I am just skeptical as to whether or not global warming is something we humans caused, or if it is a natural cycle.

There is no evidence to suggest either. Hence my skepticism.

Funny that a board full of skeptics are so quick to agree with this one-sided(blame mankind) position on global warming.

 

[Schneibster]

I must have missed the part where the IPCC said it was 99% sure global warming was solely a human caused problem.

My bad- it turns out that they took that language out before they released it. They put in language that means a 90% certainty- not 99%, despite the fact that many of the scientists who did the research wanted the 99% language.

Specifically, they now say "very likely," which means >90% probability, rather than "virtually certain," which means >99%, regarding whether the increase in global average temperature is due to human-created carbon dioxide.

In other words, there's a 10% chance you're not an idiot, rather than 1%. Neato. Congratulations.

 

[lenny]

There is no evidence to suggest either. Hence my skepticism.

This is a false claim to skepticism: the claim "no evidence to suggest" in this case is silly. there have been qualitative, even quantitative, scientific arguments advanced and refined for over a century.

and that claim undermines your more relevant point

Funny that a board full of skeptics are so quick to agree with this one-sided(blame mankind) position on global warming.

the evidence supporting projections into the future is not conclusive, and given the state of the science the evidence could not be conclusive;
so it is quite rational to remain scientifically skeptical. doing so can inform decision making.

but the fact is decisions have to be made with incomplete information, and such decisions are made everyday; "waiting" is a high risk decision in this case. do you have evidence to support that decision?

 

[varwoche]

I can't deny global warming, I have never tried. I am just skeptical as to whether or not global warming is something we humans caused, or if it is a natural cycle. There is no evidence to suggest either. Hence my skepticism.

Earth paging Azure.

 

[CapelDodger]

Earth paging Azure.

A Varwoche List! Shock and Awe - and why not?

"No evidence" ... it's sad. But that's denial for you.

 

[CapelDodger]

In other words, there's a 10% chance you're not an idiot, rather than 1%. Neato. Congratulations.

I'm prepared to go out on that limb with you. If global temperatures start falling consistently for a decade or two the nebulous "natural cycle" theory will be vindicated, and we'll seem to be the idiots. I'm prepared to take that risk - and I really hate appearing to be an idiot - with no reward in prospect. "Natural cycle" afficianados have been disappointed for decades now, I see no reason for that to change.

You'll have noticed the desperate effort in the last few years to promote a spurious "cooling-trend" based on 1998 but 2006 saw that off. 2007 will probably be even warmer than 1998, with a much weaker El Nino. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, a few years down the line and before the next El Nino, we see presented a spurious "cooling-trend" based on 2007. Some things are very predictable.

 

[Ben Tilly]

I guess we solved the '70's sky-is-falling fad of Global Cooling a little bit too well? So now we've got, what, Global Warming? Why don't we just undo a bit of the Global Cooling fix?

Hint. The French Government believes in Global Warming. Al Gore believes in Global Warming. Major Hollywood movie stars and rock stars around the world believe in Global Warming. Even Paris Hilton and Britney Spears believe in Global Warming. Yeah there's plenty of proof against the whole "George Bush is being paid off by Halliburton to let Global Warming continue" thing, but the best proof it's BS is who DOES believe in it.

Still not convinced? Okay, the heavy ammo... CHER believes in it.

All in, All done.

All of the above believe that the world is round and the sky is blue. Are those also bunk according to you?

Cheers,
Ben

 

[sbernie87]

here is the new IPCC report, for those interested:
ipcc-wg1[dot]ucar[dot]edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf

 

[sbernie87]

All of the above believe that the world is round and the sky is blue. Are those also bunk according to you?

Cheers,
Ben

Ha, that was the first thing I thought when i read that post, too.