[mike777]

As I wrote last year I just have faith that some smart guy or gal will figure out a cheap and effective way to scrub out the gases and become rich. This may scub from the source or from what is up there already.

Call it blind faith in human innovation and greed.

[mike777]

My feeling is the real debate is not over the facts of who, what or why is there global warming.

I think many of us may say "global warming" but really are saying "dont kill the economy and throw people out of jobs."

Perhaps extreme but what I hear people really saying is:
If you do not believe in Global warming, you are an evil, heartless greedy person who does not care about killing all humans.

If you believe in Global warming, you want to kill the economy, make me lose my job to save some tiny fish no one ever heard of.

Now rephrase and say if there is Global warming we got a real chance here to create thousands and thousands of jobs for people from all skill levels and clean up the air and water....ok.

Note how the discussion shifted to jobs jobs jobs and my not losing my house not about what science says are the real facts about global warming. Let science figure that out and tell us. The rest of us worry about jobs and paying the bills.

[Gerben42]

I guess someone will need to spell it out again. Global warming is a fact, it's the human-enhanced global warming that is under discussion.

Without global warming we'd be freezing. A simple calculation shows that the surface temperature of a planet without atmosphere circling a star is:

T_planet = T_star * sqrt(1/2 * (R_star / distance))

For the sun we have T_star = 5780 K and radius / distance is simply the tangent of half the angle which is spanned by the sun in the sky, tan(15 arc minutes).

Answer: T_Earth = 269 K = -4°C

That's COLD! Take into account that most of the radiation is reflected back rather than absorbed and emitted and it's even colder.

The rest of the heating is due to global warming. But having too much of it heats up the planet too much.

[helene_t]

pclayton, on Feb 27 2008, 09:37 PM, said:

If you suggest that the data may be incomplete or faulty, you are a nutjob, or on the dole for big oil, or part of a republican think tank.

Yeah, a title like "an incovenient truth" sounds indeed more like religion than science. A little modesty would be appropriate, given the embarrassing failure of the "limits of growth" predictions. (I'm sure some of those posters who know something about this issue - I don't - could argue that our level of understanding is fundamentally different from "limits of growth". But to an ignorant like me it just is an unavoidable thought that the environmentalist lobby has been wrong before).

Then again, I think few scientists would deny that both data and theories relevant to this issue may be inaccurate. In fact what you typically see when climatologists give presentations or write articles about it that they compare some 5 very different scenaria.

To really make sure you will be called a dole for big oil you would have not only to express skepticism (which I personally think is a good thing) but also have the attitude that as long as something has not been proven we might as well assume it to be false if that is most convenient.

[kenberg]

Almost all important decisions have to be made while there is still uncertainty. If the question is phrased: Is global warming an established fact then you can get an argument from people who point out that well maybe the scientists are wrong. Evolution is just a theory, global warming is just a theory, quarks are just a theory, etc. It seems that the better question is: Given that a very large number of very respected scientists think that some very bad things are in store for the planet, what should be our course of action? Of course there can be counter arguments explaining away whatever evidence is supplied. Me, I'll go with what clearly seems to be the highly preponderant view of the best scientific minds. Call me a follower rather than a leader, but I don't plan on doing my own position paper on this anymore than I plan on doing an independent study of Evolutionary Theory.

[jtfanclub]

DrTodd13, on Feb 27 2008, 02:44 PM, said:

If a 100% increase in man-made CO2 is only a 0.3% increase in all greenhouse gases then yes it does seem to be pretty insignificant.

A one degree celsius change is only .3% of the total temperature of the planet, given that absolute 0 is about -273 degrees C.

Curious about how much of a temperature change you would consider significant.

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Feb 28 2008, 06:55 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 27 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

han, on Feb 27 2008, 11:17 AM, said:

cherdano, on Feb 27 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

Why is it that the USA is completely unable to discuss these issues without ideological prejudice?

OK, I didn't want to go there but you said it.

arend did ask a good question... does this prejudice extend to all ideologies, i wonder?

I believe that Stephen Colbert nailed this one to a T when he made the following comment during the White House Correspondent's Dinner a couple years back...

"Reality has a well known liberal bias"

Don't get me wrong: There are plenty of kooks and ideologues on the Left. However, from what I can tell, most of them are isolated nutcases.

In contrast, the Right has a well orchestrated machine that is designed to propagate all sorts of lunacy. Large corporations and wealthy individuals (essentially) pay individuals to manufacture controversy in all sorts of areas.

Its very interesting that han brought up the Tobacco think tanks: The same group of people who paided for "scientific" studies claiming that there isn't any clear evidence between smoking and cancer are the ones sponsoring all the research that is promoting the idea that Global Warming is a massive hoax/conspiracy.

For all their talk about "liberal bias" in the news media, the Right is the group that went out and built itself an overt propaganda machine. Ever wonder how it was that the overwhelming majority of the American public fell victim to the exact same delusion that Saddam Huseein was reponsible for 9/11?

Let me guess ...

you are a Republican

[DrTodd13]

blackshoe, on Feb 27 2008, 01:14 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 27 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

Even according to the global warming people, CO2 is less than 3% of all global warming gases.  Human production of CO2 is dwarfed by natural production of CO2.  Again, I don't remember the exact numbers but I'll be generous and say that humans are responsible for 10% of all CO2 (I think the actual number is even less).  Thus, humans are responsible for 0.3% of all global warming gases.

Hang on a minute. You are asserting here that humans are not responsible for any global warming gas that isn't CO2. I don't believe it.

That's not what I'm asserting. My understand is that water vapor contributes about 97% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 is maybe 2% or so. Methane and others are even less. Humans may be adding some methane. What are humans doing to water vapor? I don't know but I suspect that directly they aren't doing much. We certainly don't hear about calls to restrict human influence on water vapor. Temperature has a big effect on water vapor concentrations but that interaction is fraught with feedback loops that I don't think the scientists have a complete grasp on.

[DrTodd13]

kenberg, on Feb 27 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

Almost all important decisions have to be made while there is still uncertainty. If the question is phrased: Is global warming an established fact then you can get an argument from people who point out that well maybe the scientists are wrong. Evolution is just a theory, global warming is just a theory, quarks are just a theory, etc. It seems that the better question is: Given that a very large number of very respected scientists think that some very bad things are in store for the planet, what should be our course of action? Of course there can be counter arguments explaining away whatever evidence is supplied. Me, I'll go with what clearly seems to be the highly preponderant view of the best scientific minds. Call me a follower rather than a leader, but I don't plan on doing my own position paper on this anymore than I plan on doing an independent study of Evolutionary Theory.

If there is scientific fact, there is no need for consensus opinion. Studies have shown that experts are no better than laymen at prediction when it is purely a matter of a guestimate. If you have facts then you just run the numbers and get an answer. If they just have an educated opinion then I don't think that is worth much and I certainly wouldn't throw the world into financial disaster based on opinion.

[luke warm]

DrTodd13, on Feb 27 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

kenberg, on Feb 27 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

Almost all important decisions have to be made while there is still uncertainty. If the question is phrased: Is global warming an established fact then you can get an argument from people who point out that well maybe the scientists are wrong. Evolution is just a theory, global warming is just a theory, quarks are just a theory, etc. It seems that the better question is: Given that a very large number of very respected scientists think that some very bad things are in store for the planet, what should be our course of action? Of course there can be counter arguments explaining away whatever evidence is supplied. Me, I'll go with what clearly seems to be the highly preponderant view of the best scientific minds. Call me a follower rather than a leader, but I don't plan on doing my own position paper on this anymore than I plan on doing an independent study of Evolutionary Theory.

If there is scientific fact, there is no need for consensus opinion.

now *that's* an inconvenient truth

[kenrexford]

kenberg, on Feb 27 2008, 05:10 PM, said:

Almost all important decisions have to be made while there is still uncertainty. If the question is phrased: Is global warming an established fact then you can get an argument from people who point out that well maybe the scientists are wrong. Evolution is just a theory, global warming is just a theory, quarks are just a theory, etc. It seems that the better question is: Given that a very large number of very respected scientists think that some very bad things are in store for the planet, what should be our course of action? Of course there can be counter arguments explaining away whatever evidence is supplied. Me, I'll go with what clearly seems to be the highly preponderant view of the best scientific minds. Call me a follower rather than a leader, but I don't plan on doing my own position paper on this anymore than I plan on doing an independent study of Evolutionary Theory.

I think we should spend a quadrillion dollars to make sure that we don't evolve into people from West Virginia.

[finally17]

Unrelated to the particulars of the discussion, here's an interesting news story. It sounds like something straight out of ABC's The Practice, and I can't imagine how the plaintiff's lawyers expect to have a shot at even a token settlement (but then, I am not a lawyer):

Alaskan town sues big oil, coal and power companies, etc for $400 million over effects of global warming on town.

[pclayton]

finally17, on Feb 27 2008, 03:44 PM, said:

Unrelated to the particulars of the discussion, here's an interesting news story. It sounds like something straight out of ABC's The Practice, and I can't imagine how the plaintiff's lawyers expect to have a shot at even a token settlement (but then, I am not a lawyer):

Alaskan town sues big oil, coal and power companies, etc for $400 million over effects of global warming on town.

Public Agencies are requiring that effects on Global Warming are considered project-based effects and that builders and developers are required to mitigate them.

A whole new industry known as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) has been spawned as a result. I have heard stories about builders having to install white roofs instead of normal BUR at about 3x the cost.

Like Clinton says (I'm paraphrasing here), "the economy may have to slow down a bit so that we can make these structural changes to combat global warming".

[kenrexford]

I find something to be wildly idiotic, on a somewhat related note.

There seems to be this notion that we can all benefit from the hundreds of thousands of "green collar workers" that will result from good environmental practices.

I like that idea. Heck -- let's create all kinds of new jobs for people. How about yellow-collar jobs, where people walk around writing sticky notes to other people telling them to have a nice day. We could tax the rich and create 5 million new jobs for Happy Note Writers.

Heck, the economy will be booming because of all these new yellow-collar jobs. So, we might need it to calm down a bit. Black-collar jobs could be created for another 5 million folks, taxing of course the rich who are benefiting from the booming happy notes industry. These black collar jobs would offer a service to the recipients of happy notes workers, one that reigns in all of the consumer confidence built thereby, noting how difficult it should really be to have a nice day, considering the state of affairs in East Timor. I would suggest keeping the focus on East Timor, because that seems to be extremely critical for some reason.

Now, we might need to accept some bad things out of this beautiful stimulus package. People will undoubtedly try to get more nice-day sticky notes than they deserve, requiring more enforcement officers to audit nice note receipts. I would also see those damned lawyers bringing suits against black collar workers for NIED. We might need caps there.

[whereagles]

DrTodd13, on Feb 27 2008, 06:38 PM, said:

Human production of CO2 is dwarfed by natural production of CO2.  Again, I don't remember the exact numbers but I'll be generous and say that humans are responsible for 10% of all CO2 (I think the actual number is even less).

(...)

Whereagles, the data says that temperature changes precede changes in CO2.  Historically that is what the data says.

Allright, coming back to this, I checked my textbook. The book is

"Renewable Energy", Bent Sorensen

Data about carbon cycle is based on papers from multiple authors. Let me see if I can reproduce the figures out of my head. Units below are 10^12 kg (billion tons) of carbon and the time scale is 1 year.

There are 4 types of flow of CO2 between ground and atmosphere:

1. oceanic exchange
2. breathing/photosyntesis of living beings
3. human activity
4. volcanism

Volcanism is apparently too small as compared to the other, so we skip that one.

Oceanic exchange is dissolution of CO2 in the water and its bubbling out. Dissolution traps 100 units per year and bubbling releases 97, so oceans do trap more CO2 than they release.

Breathing releases 57 units, while photosyntesis absorbs those 57 back. No swing.

Human activity releases 5.5 units via fossil fuel burning and 1.5 from agriculture (deforestation, deep ploughing - apparently, ploughing unearths CO2 trapped in the earth).

Conclusions seems to be:

1. It is indeed true that natural CO2 release accounts for the vast majority of CO2 put into the atmosphere.

2. However, the trade-off without human activity would be oceans removing 3 billion tons of CO2 per year. With human activity, the atmosphere is filling with CO2 at a rate of 4 billion tons of carbon per year.

3. The ocean-atmosphere CO2 exchange system is probably not very well accounted for. Removing CO2 at the rate of 3 billion tons seems to must have had a bigger impact than what we see in CO2 charts before industrial age. Strange. However, to the question whether this system can absorb all the excess human CO2 from the atmosphere, the answer seems to be "NO" because turnover times for depositing of CO2 in the deep layers of the ocean (so that it doesn't bubble out due to high pressure at deep ocean) are typically way, way bigger than 1 year, so the ocean is not gonna save us. This is confirmed by measurements of atmospheric CO2 in the past decades, that show a definite CO2 increase.

By the way, the ocean-atmosphere system explains the fact that CO2 may increase AFTER a temperature increase. Temperature increases the speed at which a gas dissolved in a liquid bubbles out. In this case, CO2 bubbles out of sea water faster when temperature increases, so there you have your explanation for past events.

Finally, note that models cannot explain the temperature increase of the last decade without extra CO2, so this is probably the case of CO2 inducing higher temperature, not the other way around. Even if you consider that 30% of the models have fundamental mistakes, there's still 70% of them that should be working properly!

[whereagles]

Gerben42, on Feb 27 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

Without global warming we'd be freezing. A simple calculation shows (...)

It's more complicated than that. There's heat radiating from the inside of the Eart too, and then there's the albedo. Anyway, the bottom line is, if I recall correctly, something like -20 ºC without greenhouse effect. Even more cold than your calculation

[whereagles]

DrTodd13, on Feb 27 2008, 11:00 PM, said:

1. My understand is that water vapor contributes about 97% of the greenhouse effect.  CO2 is maybe 2% or so.  Methane and others are even less.

2. What are humans doing to water vapor?  I don't know but I suspect that directly they aren't doing much.  We certainly don't hear about calls to restrict human influence on water vapor.  Temperature has a big effect on water vapor concentrations but that interaction is fraught with feedback loops that I don't think the scientists have a complete grasp on.

1. Water vapor contributes about 4 times as much to the greenhouse effect as CO2. Check this wiki-link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_ef...reenhouse_gases

Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, but its concentration on the atmosphere is negligible. Not so if large amounts of it bubble out of the seabed due to temperature rise; the so-called clathrate gun mechanism. You can check it here:

http://en.wikipedia...._gun_hypothesis


2. Probably not much will go on with water vapor. It merely condensates when the atmosphere saturates. Higher temperatures allow the atmosphere to sustain more of it, hinting at a positive feedback of

higher temp --> more vapor --> more greenhouse effect --> more temperature

However, as hot air is driven towards the poles by convection effects, it will condensate anyway. So the most that can happen is (I believe) higher amounts of rainfall in higer latitudes. This seems to be the experimental weather trend too.

I'm not too worried of water vapor. CO2 is worse because it won't condensate until -70 ºC or so...

[PassedOut]

whereagles, on Feb 28 2008, 07:27 AM, said:

However, the trade-off without human activity would be oceans removing 3 billion tons of CO2 per year. With human activity, the atmosphere is filling with CO2 at a rate of 4 billion tons of carbon per year.

A plain fact. But some, like Dr. Todd, appear to believe in a magic process that will counteract the effect.

[Al_U_Card]

Well, if insolation rises 1% we are cooked and if it drops 1% we freeze....but we can't do much about that.......CO2 production by man-made sources on the other hand....

[DrTodd13]

It is my understanding that the oceans are continually near saturation with CO2. If the oceans get warmer they can hold less CO2 and so there is a net outflow. If the oceans get cooler they absorb more CO2. So, I don't know how your author came to those conclusions but they are not what I have heard.

I love this selective quoting of the wikipedia page re that H20 is only 4x greater greenhouse effect than CO2. The page clearly states that this is only true if cloud cover remains constant and the page says this is an unrealistic assumption if what you are testing is a decrease in water vapor.