BS: Where's the Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 10:32 AM

Figures lie and liars figure but

answer me this.


If you had to put your child on an airplane that was Guaranteed to crash at a certain percentage, what percentage would you accept?
Truthfully you do accept a certain failure rate already, so would you accept 50 - 50?

10% ?

5% ?

1% ?


Well an increase in Earth temperatures over 100 years is only about 95% certain.

While all the forces in the Universe are always in flux such as the Sun being very cool right now, and the 900% increase in CO2 on Earth since the 1800's, the liklihood of rising Earth temperatures (From whatever cause !) is like putting your child on an airplane that has a high probability of crashing.

Except that in the climate scenario, you HAVE TO put your child on that "plane".








I know people who feel that Sarah Palin has put the climate change "debate" to bed. But when asked the airplane crash question they do give pause.




So

stick that in your pipe and chew it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 07:52 AM

Yes, other nutrients are needed, just like in your garden. Soild in mMany areas of the world are nutrient rich. Other nutrient poor areas, like parts of the warm and damp rain forest, plants rely on rapid nutrient recycling. Significant changes in climate can negatively impact this rapid recycling.

Ocean and freshwater plants gets nutrients from land sources and upwelling of nutrients from ocean depths and the seafloor. Wind storms (especially in the winter and spring) and currents bring the nutrients to upper layers, where sunlight is present.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 07:31 AM

Penny S
I think this is the report you were interested in. Plant growth depends on the availability of various nutrients, not just CO2.
KP
Plants reduce less of our carbon mess

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 11:50 PM

TIA: If you belay the knee jerks and read what I wrote you will see I am not denying there is a problem.

On this chart temperature rise precedes CO2 rises. So how can CO2 case the rise in temperature.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 11:41 PM

"There are more storms now off the coast of the US turning into hurricanes."

2009 Atlantic hurricane season was below average in activity, with a total of nine named storms and three hurricanes. For the first time since 2006, no storm brought hurricane force winds to the United States, and only four storms made landfall anywhere at tropical storm force.

"The sea level has been measured by reputable scientists and is rising"

It has been rising at a steady pace since 1915 on this chart. If it was tied in to global warming, how come it did not abate in the '70's when there was so much shouting about global cooling and it has not risen at a faster pace recently. Remember the hockey stick curve?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 10:22 PM

Fer Crissakes. Of course the UN can't fix the problem. But you can. And I can. And we all can.
But, first you have to stop pretending the problem does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 10:14 PM

I certainly hope the UN will fix this problem in the same way it has fixed other problems in the world.

Here is a list:

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 08:12 PM

Global warming or climate crisis doesn't insist that there is warming all over the planet.
It sometimes creates terrible temperature drops suddenly in certain areas. In the meantime, polar ice caps are melting and Australia and Africa are becoming victims
of desertification.   There are more storms now off the coast of the US turning into hurricanes. The sea level has been measured by reputable scientists and is rising.

The question "where's global warming" misses the point. This is a climate crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Penny S.
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 06:52 PM

Now why would the UN want no wars? Because it was set up to prevent them? Wars are good? The disunity that led to the world wars was seen as an evil at the time, when people knew what the effects of war were. Many of the civilians of the world knew then, and still do, what war means.

Methinks our guest does not know his history, and does not live where war has ravaged of late.

Global warming is not a term coined to control. It is descriptive. There is atmospheric warming. It is happening globally, and recorded by several bodies under the control of various authorities. What else do you call it?

Oh, while the average temperature smoothed out around the world is rising, there will be places which cool - the UK will reach Canadian temperatures if the Gulf Stream stops. Currently, I gather the USA is not as heated as other places.

The conspiracy is not to promote global warming as a means of controlling the people. It is to blind the people to the science.

Look to see who pays the piper.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 12:26 PM

rich countries will be permitted to emit twice as much CO2 as poor countries ?

2 % tax on GDP of nations, plus tax on travel, all going to The World Bank, IMF, WTO....abandoning Kyoto, and bypassing the UN ?

conspiracy ? read the text of the secretive Copenhagen document,,,, now that's some scary shit...

something rotten in Denmark.... smells like NWO

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 12:00 PM

And smoking doesn't cause cancer.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 11:38 AM

"Let the world take care of itself for pity's sake."

The Earth would be in no danger if we did exactly that. Problem is - we are not.


"Temperature drives CO2 levels."

On this subject, Tim Lambert of Univ. NSW, AU famously stated:
"CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. See also my forthcoming paper: 'Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them'."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Alice
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 11:07 AM

The people who want to believe in conspiracy theories about the UN and who don't want to understand the scientific research about climate change already have their minds made up about the issue.

For those who are interested in understanding climate change, here is a bit of info from National Geographic. They have 2 pages on their web site called "Global Warming Fast Facts". Click the second page link to go to "Are Humans Causing It".

National Geographic, Global Warming

snip
quote
"...Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it....

Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less...."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Phallan
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 10:19 AM

"Global Warming."

This is a term coined by the UN and used like an enemy to unite the people. When people are united they are easily manipulated. The UN wants no wars. It wants no nations. It wants to govern and get its illuminate rich. George Orwell was correct. This is where we are at.

Look folks, it's simple. Just ignore the big pigs who govern. If you want to conserve energy do so, if not don't worry. Don't pay unnecessary taxes. But most importantly don't vote at all. That is the only way to return to sovereignty and sanity.

There appears to be higher global temperatures right now but soon there will be lower global temperatures. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas it is a catalyst. Climate warmists declare doom over a geologically recent 180 parts per million increase in the gas. The largest green house gas is water vapour. ( oh God! Now water is scary stuff)

Temperature drives CO2 levels. Increase CO2 drives increased carbon sinks. Let the world take care of itself for pity's sake. IT DOES NOT NEED OUR HELP!

P

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Penny S.
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 04:38 PM

The effects of increased CO2 are not as simple as may seem at first. We all know that plants use the stuff in photosynthesis, but above a certain level there are other factors that kick in and prevent the plants benefitting further. Something to do with pressure. I need to check up on the details, but I have a friend who has been researching this sort of thing with regard to planetary habitability, and he has checked atmospheric stuff with a colleague in the Met Office.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 02:52 PM

an expert on warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 01:38 PM

My post below, which you accuse of presumpption and being ill-informed, is, unfortunately, a quote from the BBC, not my own, citing environmental experts.

Here's a bit more:

"The WMO said global temperatures were 0.44C (0.79F) above the long-term average.

"We've seen above average temperatures in most continents, and only in North America were there conditions that were cooler than average," said WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud.

"We are in a warming trend - we have no doubt about it."

Mr Jarraud emphasised that the final analysis would not be complete until early next year; but the UN agency always issues a summary during the annual climate negotiations in order that delegates have the latest information.
Graphic showing global average land surface temperatures (Image: BBC)

The WMO uses three temperature sets - one from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and two from the US, maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and the space agency Nasa.

Asked whether the controversy surrounding e-mails hacked from CRU could have any bearing on the results, Mr Jarraud replied that all three datasets showed the same result.

Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office made the same point: "The datasets are all independent, and they all show warming," she said.
        
Graphic of global warming projection (Image: BBC)

Global warming: A future glimpse

The Met Office figures indicate that the years since 2000 - the "noughties" - were on average about 0.18C (0.32F) warmer than years in the 1990s; and that since the 1970s, each decade has seen an increase of about the same scale.

Although the Met Office has 1998 as the single warmest year, that coincided with strong El Nino conditions - the warming of surface waters in the eastern Pacific that releases heat stored in the deep ocean into the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally.

Now, after a period of La Nina conditions which depressed temperatures in 2008, another El Nino is developing; and it is this, combined with greenhouse warming, that is pushing temperatures upwards again, according to Dr Pope.

She declined to give a forecast for the next few years - the Met Office is releasing that later during this summit. ..."

P'raps your advice should be taken to heart on your own side.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 12:50 PM

There have been some things said in the last few threads here which to me defy common sense.

Please keep in mind the influence of the sun which we observe every day.
the sun shining on the ground produces many orders of magnitude of heat than anything that man does the problem with greenhouse gasses is that they keep a percentage of heat from radiating back to space.

Water tends to self regulate. On the one hand water vapor may trap heat near the surface, on the other, clouds, an obvious manifestation of water in the atmosphere, reflect much much more heat than air saturated to pre-cloud levels can trap.

In North America, especially in the southern, in my experience, the droughts have only been serious problems to those employing irrigation. So the problem is not people. It is lawns and monoculture.

In the west, particularly California, the problem is the same. However the dearth of snow in the Sierras means that the water resources will support an ever decreasing level of activity. Can California remain America's fruit basket?

Only the intentionally ignorant would deny that humans are increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. And knowing that Only fools would wait to see if that would affect the ecosystem.

We are living under two potential avalanches. The polar ice caps and the millions of acres of permafrost. The tipping point awaits. If both significantly melt more than they already have. Coastal geography will significantly change for the worse.

It would seem to me that the risk is much to great to ignore. The disaster in New Orleans looked inevitable. A pop song was written about it for gosh sakes.

Do we really need to wait for President Sarah Palin to promise gondola launches for the remaining buildings of lower Manhattan before this is taken seriously.

Don't look it as alarmism. Think of it as the passengers of a bus traveling toward the center of a lake with thinning ice. They know that eventually the ice will give way. They are doing anything they can to get the driver to at the very least, slow down.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 12:28 PM

Some interesting stuff on BBC World Service which I'm hoping should be available outside the UK

Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 12:03 PM

Amos:

Tia has a much more coherent, original and believable answer than yours. You tend to browbeat others without demonstrating any knowledge is the matter. It is as if you know you are right even if you don't know the subject matter because so many others think the same thing. A herd mentality that does not require the hard thinking and decision making. The Emperor's new clothes scenario. The Bloods against the Crips.

However more and more Experts are reversing thier opinion on the matter.

Personally I do not deny that there is global some warming. My question is what is really causing it and if anything can be done about it. I am questioning the alarmist consensus.

Burning fossil fuels should be replaced by solar, wind, hydro and hydro ASAP if only to reduce or dependence on foreign energy sources and negative health issues. Fossil fuels and nuclear should be used sparingly as a bridge until an ultimate energy source {fusion?] is perfected.

However any energy source, no matter how much CO2 it produces or does not produce, creates heat that is trapped by the atmosphere.

How are we going to overcome that? We will need even less CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere than the was when this so called man made global warming began so that the heat can radiate out into space.

Will Cap and Trade do that? Did ethanol from corn do any good?

Not my words:
"Please make the effort to educate yourself about what the other side has to say. An excellent place to start would be to view The Global Warming Swindle, featuring some 17 eminent scientists, many of whom were for a good long time situated prominently in the Global Warming camp (among whom were a founding editor for Scientific American Magazine, as well as a founding member of Green Peace). I believe you'd find the list fascinating. Even more fascinating is getting to see and hear these scientists themselves explain how it is they came to reconsider their views on Global Warming"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Brian Peters
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 10:56 AM

"I'm a lot more worried about deforestation and desertification than I am about carbon emissions... We need to protect our forests and reclaim lost forestlands."

Climate change = more desertification. Protecting forests = reduced carbon emissions. A = bad, B = good. No contradiction there.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 10:01 AM

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years.

The US space agency Nasa suggests that a new global temperature record will be set "in the next one or two years".

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and Met Office scientists have been giving details of the new analysis at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen.

The WMO said global temperatures were 0.44C (0.79F) above the long-term average.

"We've seen above average temperatures in most continents, and only in North America were there conditions that were cooler than average," said WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud.

"We are in a warming trend - we have no doubt about it."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 09:26 AM

Interesting:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/publications/article/2009/12-07-09-eng.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 06:45 PM

BEcause some people respect human life as the ultimate resource, PDQ, believing that it is th eonly organic form f life capable os intelligence.

Others may disagree that there really is such an organism. YMMV.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 05:58 PM

" I am not a climate change scare monger - I am more of a human overpopulation scare monger since that is the root of *all* environmental problems..."

Well, I have said nearly the same thing on various Mudcat topics for years.

We do not have a water crisis in the western US, we have a people crisis (as in too many).

Same thing with wars. Mostly caused by the fact that a given group has inadequate amount of land that they control for their population. They think the answer is to land that belongs to others. See Albania, et al.

Perhaps someone can explain why we have a "climate change summit" going on right now, not a "population crisis summit"?

Rain forests? Being cut down to make room for excess people.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad, but the Climate Summit folks meeting right now in Denmark to stop C0₂ emissions, arrived in 1500 limousines and 150 large poluting airplanes.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 05:23 PM

To be (I hope) more optimistic, this link is a review of some of the developments in renewables technology likely to appear over the next few years. Its part of a larger booklet prepared for the international all-energy conference in Aberdeen earlier this year.

Current Status of Renewables

In summary, yes there are technologies but its going to cost a lot to implement enough of them. Also guess which country has installed the most hydropower and is already second in wind power? The answer may surprise some.

KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 05:11 PM

Good point, TIA. I'm a lot more worried about deforestation and desertification than I am about carbon emissions. I think CO2 is a bit player in the scenario, and its importance is being greatly overemphasized by the popular Global Warming theories. We need to protect our forests and reclaim lost forestlands.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 05:07 PM

LH asks:

"Plant life benefits from an increase in atmospheric CO2, does it not? Increased plant life benefits other living creatures, does it not?"

Answer is of course "Yes".

But at the same time that we are increasing atmospheric CO2, we are decimating rain forests, and paving vegetated areas, and desertification is rampant in many areas - thereby completely undermining Earth's ability to naturally equilibrate.

FWIW: I am not a climate change scare monger - I am more of a human overpopulation scare monger since that is the root of *all* environmental problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 05:01 PM

KP posted above a link to a good cartoon of the carbon cycle.

Quick summary:
Very true that plants use a lot of CO2 -- land plants absorb about 440 Gt of CO2 per year. Various biological and chemical processes in the ocean absorb another 330 Gt. This is where it is "going".
As to where it is "coming from": Consumption of vegetation by other organisms produces 220 Gt per year. Respiration by plants produces another 220 Gt, and the ocean releases about as much as it absorbs, or 330 Gt. Humans are producing a paltry 26.4 Gt per year in emissions.
But see how perfect the balance is without human emissions?
And what happens to these human CO2 emissions?
About 40% are absorbed (mostly into an increasingly carbonized = acidifying ocean...a potentially huge problem in its own right). The rest remains in the atmosphere for a net annual gain. Natural changes of about 100 ppm in the past have occurred over thousands of years. Atmospheric CO2 is now at its highest level in 800,000 years, and the latest increase of 100 ppm took only 120 years! Something unatural is definitely going on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 05:00 PM

Thanks Amos, I am aware of the network, many nations contributed to the network which supplied valuable information.

A promising new piece of equipment is in the final stages of development at Canada's Bedford Institute of Oceanography. It's calles an SEACYCLER. The equipment is moored near thedeep ocean bottom for long periods. Each day a probe is sent up to the surface measuring oceaographic properties (and back down again. When there is a passing satellite, it transmits the data. It is energy efficient, operating for a year on about 500 flashlight batteries stored inside. The equipment is being developed in association with Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of Bremen, IFM-Geomar (Germany), the National Oceanography Center (Southampton) and a private ocean researtch company, ODIM (Brooke Ocean).


The device is based on a similar piece of equipment developed at the same research facility....the SEACYCLER....that is moored under the Arctic ice cap, and sends a probe up each day to measure the fresh melt water under the ise. This piece of equipment operated on its own for a year, and is picked up by a vessel and a years worth of data is then anaylsed.

Here is a link:http://www.brooke-ocean.com/icycler.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:59 PM

Plant life benefits from an increase in atmospheric CO2, does it not? Increased plant life benefits other living creatures, does it not?

Here are the stats on the composition of the Earth's atmosphere:

Composition of dry atmosphere, by volume[2] ppmv: parts per million by volume (note: volume fraction is equal to mole fraction for ideal gas only, see Gas volume#Partial volume)

Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)

Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)

Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 387 ppmv (0.0387%)

Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)

Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)

Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)

Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)

Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)

Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)

Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9x10−6%)

Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0% to 7x10−6%)

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2x10−6%)

Iodine (I) 0.01 ppmv (1x10−6%)

Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv

Ammonia (NH3) trace

Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface



Okay....so CO2 comprises less than 4 hundredths of a percent of the Earth's atmosphere. Oxygen comprises about 21% of the Earth's atmosphere. Water vapor comprises about 1 to 4% of the Earth's atmosphere at sea level...about 4 tenths of a percent over the full atmosphere.

Water vapor is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is about 10 times the amount of CO2.

Anyone smell something odd in the current global warming scare as applied to human-based carbon emissions? I do.

Here's the webpage with those stats I pasted in above:

Earth's atmosphere

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:27 PM

When the Sun shines, plants work all day to remove atmospheric CO₂ and convert it to the nutrients that support both plant and animal life. You need only think of how much plant life exists on planet Earth to know that plants will take out much more CO₂ than Man could possibly produce:



CARBON DIOXIDE AND LIFE
By Adip Said

Carbon Dioxide is an organic compound formed by one atom of Carbon and two atoms of Oxygen (O=C=O).

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural constituent of the atmosphere with a density of 747 mg per cubic meter of air. Its concentration in the composition of air is roughly 0.032%; however, of all the organic compounds, carbon dioxide is by far the most important one for the sustainability of the biosphere (the whole of life on Earth).

Without CO2 the life of photosynthetic organisms and animals would be impossible, given that CO2 provides the basis for the synthesis of organic compounds that provide nutrients for plants and animals.

Through photosynthesis, organisms with chlorophyll take in atmospheric CO2 or dissolve CO2 in water to form more complex molecules, such as carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleic acids. The general formula of photosynthesis is as follows:

6CO2 + 6H2O + Light = C6H12O6 (Glucose) + 6O2

Carbon Dioxide is fixed in the chloroplast stroma. Thus fixed, carbon dioxide is then used by cytoplasm to synthesize sucrose.

An organism with chlorophyll absorbs light, CO2 and water from its surrounding environment. The water molecule is broken and the Hydrogen molecule bonds with carbon dioxide molecules to form glucose. Oxygen from the water molecule is released to the atmosphere, whereas the energy provided by photons is stored in the bonds of the glucose molecule.

Any nutritional chain begins with producer organisms; that is, with those organisms that produce their own food. These organisms are called autotrophs. Plants are autotrophs because they produce their own food; the raw materials for photosynthesis are water, carbon dioxide and light.

It has been determined experimentally that the density of carbon dioxide needed for the optimal development of all kinds of plants is 895 mg per cubic meter of air (about 500 ppmv).

Certain plants grow much better in atmospheres with very high densities of carbon dioxide; for example, the pteridophyte and certain species of conifers develop more successfully in humid atmospheres with 5000 ppmv of carbon dioxide.

Carbon Dioxide is not an environmental polluting agent because it is not detrimental or poisonous to life. Carbon dioxide cannot kill living cells by altering their structure or physiology in the same way, for example, as a snake venom will. It can only suffocate an organism when Oxygen is not present at a sufficient concentration to sustain life...

{last portion cut off for space considerations}

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:23 PM

Two things on water:

1) It is quite stable in the atmosphere. If too much vapor is present, it condenses and falls as precipitation.

2) Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas. Since evaporation is directly proportional to temperature, there is a huge positive feedback - anything that raises temperature raises evaporation, which hugely raises temperature. That is one of the reasons the relatively weak greenhouse effect of CO2 is so important. Similar effect for methane - warming thaws the permafrost, which releases methane, which hugely aids warming. The focus is on CO2 because it is a controllable emission with huge climate leverage (due to the feedbacks described above).

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:17 PM

Crap.
that one doesn't work.
Sorry...here is the URL to cut and paste:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=1999&year2=2008&base1=1961&base2=1990&radius=1200&pol=reg

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:14 PM

Ooops.
clicky 2 above points to the wrong map.
Current temperature anomalies are here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=1999&year2=2008&base1=1961&base2=1990&radius=1200&pol=reg

clicky 2 for real

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:13 PM

People keep calling CO₂ a pollutant. That is absurd:


CARBON DIOXIDE AND HUMAN HEALTH
By Nasif Nahle

Pollutants are dangerous compounds for living beings.

Like water, CO2 is vital for life on Earth; thus, CO2 is not a pollutant or contaminant.

The specific heat of CO2 is 850 J/Kg K, which means carbon dioxide is able to absorb, store and emit heat. However, we cannot take this property into account when considering if CO2 is a pollutant because Water has a specific heat of 1,996 J/kg K, which means it is more efficient than CO2 at absorbing, emitting and storing heat. Water, like CO2, is vital for living beings.

CO2 densities have increased to more than 4000 ppmv in some geological eras, for example, during the Permian Period. When CO in the terrestrial atmosphere has reached densities this high in the past, life flourished abundantly. Consequently, we cannot consider such a high concentration of atmospheric CO2 as "pollution".

CO2 is the basic nutrient for plants and other photosynthetic organisms. Plants form the base of every food chain. Thus, the greater the density of CO2 in a given environment, the greater will be the production of food for plants and of the animals that feed on them.

In recent times it has become fashionable to relate CO2 to global warming, but water in its liquid or gaseous phase absorbs, stores and emits heat 4 times (400%) more efficiently than CO2. If, therefore, by this property water is not considered a pollutant, CO2 then cannot be considered a pollutant either...

{last portion cut off for space considerations}

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:05 PM

Good question LH. And timely. there was a paer last month in Science magazine on exactly this (Mann et al., 2009).

Turns out the "Medieval Warm Period" or MCA, was a highly locallized phenomenon. It affected the North Atlantic, but other regions of the globe were actually cooler. Thus, there was no "Global Climate Change" at that time. The Earth was close to the baseline 1961-1990 global average temperature.

In contrast, today, all regions of the Earth are warmer than the 1961-1990 baseline. It is truly a global phenomenon.

Compare the temperature anomlies for the MCA on this map:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content-nw/full/326/5957/1256/F2
clicky 1


With modern temperature anomalies on this one:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content-nw/full/326/5957/1256/F3
clicky 2

Big difference between then and now.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:01 PM

Ed:

Peter Niiler, an oceanographer of international repute working from Scripps, has spent the last twenty years building a network of drifter buouys which collect and transmit data on ocean currents. The drifters have built up a vast wealth of data points over the years from which Niiler was able -- with some additional satellite observations and some very advanced math--work out the existence of what has come to be know as Niiler striations in the current formations of the major oceans. See this page at Scripps and this piece. More on the Niiler drifter program.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 03:37 PM

I posted some material to indicate why the ocean is important to climate and carbon uptake. The oceans are hard to study and model because they are vast, complex (differing in currents, salinity, chemical and biological content), deep, salty, cold, stormy, and pressure increases as you go down.   Many ocean areas fall out of any national jurisdiction....but many ocean processes cover vast ocean areas (for example the Global conveyor belt) Satellites can only give so much information. Ship research is necessary.

Offshore ship research is costly....upwards of 30 K a day. (and onne day doesen't get you far). There are only so many specialized research ships under a few flags, and very few that can operate and conduct research in while moving, and in extreme weather and ice. Most world nations do not have these ships. Many science ships are getting older, and science budgets are getting smaller (for this type of research) and costs are in creasing. Only a few nations have science budgets to do research beyond their own coastal areas.

There are only a few pieces of specialized equipment that can operate remotely collecting data on the deep ocean. Again, they must be built big to withstand pressures, storms and hazards.. They must be able to be efficient...as they operate on batteries in a cold sourrounding. They are very expensive and to be most useful be able to pass information on to sattelites. (Gliders, moorings, pop up equipment are a few).

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 03:27 PM

The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. Look up some stuff about that. Study its comparative effects alongside those of CO2.

Then study the lengthy medieval warming period when you could farm in Greenland, as the Vikings did, and that's why they called it "Greenland". What caused that warming period? Rampant industrialization? Increased human-based CO2 emmissions?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 01:47 PM

Thanks to GUEST,KP as well as Burton Coggles and Ed T for raising the level of discouse just a bit.

The bio of Dr. Roger Ravelle was posted because everybody should know who he was. Simple, eh?

Dr. Ravelle is where the concept of C0₂ as a "greenhouse gas"started, early 1950s.

He was an honorable man and did not adjust data to fit his politics. He was a pioneer in the study of oceans and the mechanics of their storage of C0₂.

As far as physics/chemistry types vs biology/natural science types, the gulf can be large.

People who do not know about the importance of C0₂ in photosynthesis may not really know where the stuff really goes. Google a few articles on the subject and keep an open mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 12:53 PM

AAArgh!

I wrote a longish exposition to pdq's second question/comment and it vanished when I tried to preview it.

I'll try again.

I said: "Humans are burning a lot of hydrocarbon fuels that have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

PDQ said' Well, 35% of all atmospheric carbon is returned to the Earth each year, so "stuff" produced by factories during the early days of the Industrial Revolution is long gone.

Also, you seem to be a physics/chemistry type. You did not mention that plants take in CO2 and give us back Oxygen is such quantities that the human-sourced CO2 insignificant.'

I think the numbers look like this:
800 billion tonnes (Gt) CO2 in atmosphere
2000 Gt in various biomass sinks
9 Gt added each year, 5 Gt removed by various 'sinks'
61 Gt involved in plant photosynthesis but 60 Gt returned by plant respiration. So 1 Gt acts as a 'sink' (included in 5 Gt above)
carbon cycle diagram

These people reckon that it will take a long time to lower CO2 down to pre-industrial levels
Carbon is forever

But like you say, I'm a physics/chemistry guy so some of this plant science is not my forte!

cheers
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 12:04 PM

Sawzaw:

The graphs you keep providing for Amos to interpret have very cleverly chosen axis limits. One begins at 1998 - which is an historic peak, so of course all that follows looks like cooling.

Another starts at 1979 - similar trick.

The third starts at maybe 2000 (the legend partially covers the axis) - same trick.

The farther back you look, the more pronounced the current warming trend.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 11:57 AM

TO answer the OP:

Right here,

Temperatures are changing in the lower atmosphere - from the Earth's surface all the way through the stratosphere (9-14 miles above the Earth's surface). Scientists are working to document temperature trends and determine their causes.
Surface Temperature Change

Figure 1: This diagram (See link above) shows global mean surface temperature anomalies over land and ocean from 1880 to 2008. The anomalies are in comparison to the 1901-2000 mean. From the late 1800s to the late 1930s, temperatures were below the long-term mean. Between the late 1930s and late 1970s temperatures ranged above and below the long-term mean. Since 1980 temperatures have been well above the long-term mean.         
Figure 1: Annual Average Global Surface Temperature Anomalies 1880-2008. Courtesy NOAA (Surface temperature records such as the one shown here have been quality controlled to remove the effects of urbanization at observing stations in and around cities).


United States Surface Temperature Trends

Observations compiled by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center indicate that over the past century, temperatures rose across the contiguous United States at an average rate of 0.11°F per decade (1.1°F per century). Average temperatures rose at an increased rate of 0.56°F per decade from 1979 to 2005. The most recent eight-, nine-, and ten-year periods were the warmest on record.

Warming occurred throughout most of the U.S., with all but three of the eleven climate regions showing an increase of more than 1°F since 1901. The greatest temperature increase occurred in Alaska (3.3°F per century). The Southeast experienced a very slight cooling trend over the entire period (-0.04°F per century), but shows warming since 1979.

Thumbnail map of the United States, depicting annual mean temperature anomalies from 1901 to 2005. The map shows which areas of the country that have warmed or cooled during this period. Warming occurred throughout most of the U.S. during this period, with all but three of the eleven climate regions showing an increase of more than 1°F since 1901. The greatest temperature increase occurred in Alaska (3.3°F per century). The Southeast experienced a very slight cooling trend over the entire period (-0.04°F per century), but shows warming since 1979.

Figure 2: Annual Mean Temperature Anomalies 1901-2005. Click on Thumbnail for full size image. Data courtesy NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by about 0.9°F since 1880 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate system is now "unequivocal," based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (IPCC, 2007).

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 2008 State of the Climate Report and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) 2008 Surface Temperature Analysis:

    * Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
    * The Earth's surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ºF/decade or 2.9°F/century.
    * The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005.

Additionally (from IPCC, 2007):

    * The warming trend is seen in both daily maximum and minimum temperatures, with minimum temperatures increasing at a faster rate than maximum temperatures.
    * Land areas have tended to warm faster than ocean areas and the winter months have warmed faster than summer months.
    * Widespread reductions in the number of days below freezing occurred during the latter half of the 20th century in the United States as well as most land areas of the Northern Hemisphere and areas of the Southern Hemisphere.
    * Average temperatures in the Arctic have increased at almost twice the global rate in the past 100 years.

The IPCC has concluded that most of the observed warming in global average surface temperature that has occurred since the mid-20th century is very likely a result of human activities (IPCC, 2007). During the first half of the last century, there was likely less human impact on the observed warming, and natural variations, such as changes in the amount of radiation received from the sun, likely played a more significant role.


Tropospheric Temperature Change

Measurements of the Earth's temperature taken by weather balloons (also known as radiosondes) and satellites from the surface to 5-8 miles into the atmosphere - the layer called the troposphere - also reveal warming trends. According to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center:

    * For the period 1958-2006, temperatures measured by weather balloons warmed at a rate of 0.22°F per decade near the surface and 0.27°F per decade in the mid-troposphere. The 2006 global mid-troposphere temperatures were 1.01°F above the 1971-2000 average, the third warmest on record.
    * For the period beginning in 1979, when satellite measurements of troposphere temperatures began, various satellite data sets for the mid-troposphere showed similar rates of warming — ranging from 0.09°F per decade to 0.34°F per decade, depending on the method of analysis.


Stratospheric Temperature Change

Weather balloons and satellites have also taken temperature readings in the stratosphere – the layer 9-14 miles above the Earth's surface. This level of the atmosphere has cooled. The cooling is consistent with observed stratospheric ozone depletion since ozone is a greenhouse gas and has a warming effect when present. It's also likely that increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the troposphere are contributing to cooling in the stratosphere as predicted by radiative theory (Karl et al., 2006).


Recent Scientific Developments

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) recently published the report "Product 1.1 Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences," which addresses some of the long-standing difficulties in understanding changes in atmospheric temperatures and the basic causes of these changes. According to the report:

    * There is no discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere. This discrepancy had previously been used to challenge the validity of climate models used to detect and attribute the causes of observed climate change.
    * Errors identified in the satellite data and other temperature observations have been corrected. These and other analyses have increased confidence in the understanding of observed climate changes and their causes.
    * Research to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed temperature change shows clear evidence of human influences on the climate system due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and stratospheric ozone.
    * An unresolved issue is related to the rates of warming in the tropics. Here, models and theory predict greater warming higher in the atmosphere than at the surface. However, greater warming higher in the atmosphere is not evident in three of the five observational data sets used in the report. Whether this is a result of uncertainties in the observed data, flaws in climate models, or a combination of these is not yet known.

Top of page
References

    * IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Exit EPA DisclaimerContribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning (eds.)].
    * National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. Exit EPA Disclaimer National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
    * Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. Thomas R. Karl, Susan J. Hassol, Christopher D. Miller, and William L. Murray, editors, 2006. A Report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 11:45 AM

Your point?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 11:20 AM

Here is a bio of the "Father of Global Warming":


Roger Revelle
   
    Born: March 7, 1909
       Seattle, Washington
    Died:July 15, 1991 (aged 82)
       San Diego, California

    PhD: University of California, Berkeley
   
    UC San Diego's first college is named Revelle College in his honor.

Roger Revelle was born in Seattle to William Roger Revelle and Ella Dougan, and grew up in southern California, graduating from Pomona College in 1929 with early studies in geology and then earning a Ph.D. in oceanography from the University of California, Berkeley. Much of his early work in oceanography took place at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) in San Diego. He was also Oceanographer for the Navy during WWII. He became director of SIO from 1950 to 1964. He stood against the UC faculty being required to take an anti-communist oath during the Joseph McCarthy period. He served as Science Advisor to Interior Secretary Stewart Udall during the Kennedy Administration in the early 1960s, and was President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1974).

Revelle was deeply involved in the growth of oceanography in the United States and internationally after World War II. Working for the Navy in the late 1940s, he helped to determine which projects gained funding, and he promoted the idea that the Navy ought to support "basic research" instead of only trying to build new technology. At Scripps he launched several major long-range expeditions in the 1950s, including the MIDPAC, TRANSPAC (with Canada and Japan), EQUAPAC, and NORPAC, each traversing a different part of the Pacific Ocean. He and other scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography helped the U.S. government to plan nuclear weapons tests, in the hope that oceanographers might make use of the data. Revelle was one of the committee chairmen in the influential National Academy of Sciences studies of the biological effects of atomic radiation (BEAR), the results of which were published in 1956. In 1952, along with Dr. Seibert Q. Duntley, he successfully moved the MIT Visibility Lab to SIO with financial support of the U.S. Navy. Along with oceanographers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Revelle planned the American contributions to the oceanographic program of the International Geophysical Year (IGY). He became the first president of the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research, an international group of scientists devoted to advising on international projects, and he was a frequent advisor to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, created in 1960.

Revelle was instrumental in creating the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1958 and was founding chairman of the first Committee on Climate Change and the Ocean (CCCO) under the Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) and the International Oceanic Commission (IOC). During planning for the IGY, under Revelle's directorship, SIO participated in and later became the principal center for the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Program. In July 1956, Charles David Keeling joined the SIO staff to head the program, and began measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa Observatory on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and in Antarctica.

In 1957, Revelle co-authored a paper with Hans Suess that suggested that the Earth's oceans would absorb excess carbon dioxide generated by humanity at a much slower rate than previously predicted by geoscientists, thereby suggesting that human gas emissions might create a "greenhouse effect" that would cause global warming over time. Although other articles in the same journal discussed carbon dioxide levels, the Suess-Revelle paper was "the only one of the three to stress the growing quantity of CO2 contributed by our burning of fossil fuel, and to call attention to the fact that it might cause global warming over time."

Revelle and Suess described the "buffer factor", now known as the "Revelle factor", which is a resistance to atmospheric carbon dioxide being absorbed by the ocean surface layer posed by bicarbonate chemistry. Essentially, in order to enter the ocean, carbon dioxide gas has to partition into one of the components of carbonic acid: carbonate ion, bicarbonate ion, or protonated carbonic acid, and the product of these many chemical dissociation constants factors into a kind of back-pressure that limits how fast the carbon dioxide can enter the surface ocean. Geology, geochemistry, atmospheric chemistry, ocean chemistry ... this amounted to one of the earliest examples of "integrated assessment", which 50 years later became an entire branch of global warming science.

During the late 1950s, Revelle fought for the establishment of a University of California campus in San Diego. He had to contend with the UC University Board of Regents who would have preferred merely to expand the University of California, Los Angeles campus rather than create an entirely new campus in San Diego. He also faced local San Diego politicians and businessmen who tried to undermine establishing the new campus near the original Scripps Institute in La Jolla by suggesting it be placed in less optimal sites in San Diego proper, such as near San Diego State University or in Balboa Park. The watershed decision was made in 1959, with the first graduate students enrolled in 1960, and the first undergraduates in 1964.

Revelle's struggle to acquire land for the new campus put him in competition with Jonas Salk, and Revelle lost some of what he called the "best piece of land we had" on UCSD's eventual Torrey Pines site to the fledgling Salk Institute. In later years Revelle continued to show some animosity toward Salk, once saying, "He is a folk hero, even though he is... not very bright."

When at Scripps and while building UCSD, Revelle also had to deal with a La Jolla community that refused to rent or sell property to Jews. In addition to battling the anti-semitic restrictive covenant of La Jolla real estate, Revelle helped found a new housing subdivision for Scripps professors, partially because some of them would not have been allowed to live in La Jolla.

Revelle left Scripps in 1963 and founded the Center for Population Studies at Harvard University. In over ten years as director there, he focussed on the application of science and technology to the problem of world hunger. In 1976 he returned to UC San Diego as Professor of Science, Technology and Public Affairs (STPA) in the school's political science department.

It has been alleged that near the end of his life Revelle expressed doubts about climate change, but his daughter wrote that Revelle

...remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore's professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming. Nothing could be farther from the truth. When Revelle inveighed against "drastic" action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense - measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate."

During his last decade at UCSD and SIO, Revelle continued to work and teach. In the early 1980s, he taught undergraduate STPA seminars twice a year, in Energy and Development (mainly on problems in Africa), the Carbon Dioxide Problem (known now as the Global Warming problem), and Marine Policy. In 1986 he won the Balzan Prize for Oceanography/Climatology. A 1990 heart attack forced him to move his course to the Scripps Institution from the Revelle College provost's office, where he continued to teach the Marine Policy program until his death the following year. In 1991, he was awarded the National Medal of Science by President George H.W. Bush (one of about 500 recipients in the 20th Century). He remarked to a reporter: "I got it for being the grandfather of the greenhouse effect."

Revelle died in San Diego on July 15, 1991 of complications of cardiac arrest. He was survived by his wife, Ellen Clark Revelle (1910-2009) three daughters, and one son, William, as well as numerous grandchildren. In his honor, a new research vessel at the Scripps Institution was christened R/V Roger Revelle.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 06:47 AM

PDQ,
You asked:
"Please explain the difference between "CO2 absorbs heat" and "CO2 reflects heat back to Earth".

Hope this is neither too pedantic or simplistic, but here goes.

A multi-atom molecule like carbon dioxide absorbs electromagnetic radiation. The radiation hitting each molecule imparts energy to the molecule (at uv and high frequencies the molecules vibrate, at lower frequencies the molecules just spin and twist). Some of the energy is therefore used up in making the molecule spin/twist/vibrate (yup, sounds like 1960's pop music...) and less is available for other purposes. This is energy absorption. Only certain frequencies excite these various rotation/vibration modes (like the way a guitar body vibrates best at certain frequencies/notes), so if you measure the spectrum of em radiation going through CO2, you'll see reductions in radiation intensity at these particular frequencies. One big point of argument is how broad these absorption bands are, and whether the large band for water vapour overlaps and swamps the smaller one for CO2.

The 'greenhouse' process can be summarised as:
1. high energy radiation from the sun impacts the earth, warming it
2. As the earth warms up, it then radiates heat in the form of lower energy infra-red rays
3. CO2, water, and methane absorb much of this radiation coming from the earth which would otherwise be 'lost in space'
4. This absorption of radiation speeds up/twists/turns the various absorbing molecules so they have more energy. This then causes (but its not the only cause) the variety of secondary effects we call 'climate change'.

I find it more conceptually useful to say that CO2 puts more energy into the global climate system than to talk about average temperature. With more energy in the system, you'd expect to get more extremes (hurricanes being more intense, hotter places being hotter, wetter places being wetter, but also anomalous cold spots). One consequence of climate change might be to disrupt the Gulf Stream warm current which would make northern Europe a lot colder.

Reflection on the other hand is where the radiation just 'bounces off' the molecule without being absorbed. This happens when solar radiation hits for example a symmetrical molecule like nitrogen (N2) or oxygen (O2). It also happens, (as BeardedBruce's article points out) when you have aerosols - tiny droplets in the atmosphere. These aerosols reflect the sun's radiation back out to space and mitigate the warming effects. Producing more aerosols in the atmosphere is a potential approach to controlling/reversing climate change. Just burning more dirty coal probably isn't the answer though - for one the cooling impact discussed in the final paragraphs of that article are quite small, partly because the aerosols are largely in the lower atmosphere. Also, the aerosols you get from coal burning are essentially dilute sulphuric acid aka 'acid rain'. What you'd need would be less toxic aerosols, higher in the atmosphere where smaller quantities would have a bigger impact.

So it is not really accurate to say that CO2 reflects heat back to earth - it is really the absorption process that is causing the 'greenhouse effect'.

Hope this helps. I'll see if I can find some references, and address your other point about CO2 in plants, a bit later.

regards
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 02:33 AM

Excellent post KP.

I think the point you make about fossil fuels running out (and the politics of obtaining what remains) is reason alone to act, along the lines you suggest: i.e. investing in renewables/nuclear* combined with efficiency increases.

Combine this with the precautionary principle regarding potential climate change due to C02 from fossil fuels and I think the need for action becomes even more critical.

It would be nice if governments offered a little more "carrot" and less "stick" though in helping us reduce energy usage or general consumption.

Pete.


*I'm not convinced about nuclear though. Safety + waste issues...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 09:02 PM

A good summary on the importance of the oceans to climate and absorbing atmospheric carbon:

http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 07:34 PM

GUEST, KP...

Thank you for declaring this a debate. It should be, but a quick check of earlier posts suggests it is more a shouting match.

I will address a few points...

"Carbon Dioxide absorbs heat from solar radiation."

Please explain the difference between "CO₂ absorbs heat" and "CO₂ reflects heat back to Earth".

"Humans are burning a lot of hydrocarbon fuels that have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

Well, 35% of all atmospheric carbon is returned to the Earth each year, so "stuff" produced by factories during the early days of the Industrial Revolution is long gone.

Also, you seem to be a physics/chemistry type. You did not mention that plants take in CO₂ and give us back Oxygen is such quantities that the human-sourced CO₂ insignificant.