Global Warming and Evolution

[True_Blue]

I did not mean to be cheap and disingenuous. I'm being quite genuine. What I see on this and other discussion boards is that one point is taken and the other, more serious science is avoided. In this case, on this board, I see one poster repeatedly pointing out a reversed cause-effect relationship in the temp/CO2 record, but never an actual discussion of the physical chemistry behind what a greenhouse gas is or why it functions the way it does.

I appreciate your good faith, Thaumaturgy. Keep in mind that global warming, like evolution, is interdisciplinary and multifaceted. For example, good global warming analysis requires a strong statistical background and an economics background in addition to a background in atmospheric physics. Ultimately, when you try to measure what things cause global warming, it's an exercise in statistics, and my statistical training tells me that since the sun accounts for 99.7% of the variation in temperatures on the earth, trying to correlate the remaining 0.3% to CO2 is an exercise in futility. And even if the global warming theory is correct and could be shown with statistical significance, the poverty and economic distress that abatement would cause would be huge because every single country everywhere would have to force their economies to abate all at once, on threat of war (if the US shuts down coal plants and energy prices rise, the markets in foreign countries clear the shortage of energy by building plants there, which the US has been experiencing for decades).

To address your point about the physical chemistry of greenhouse gases, the truth is that water vapor is far more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Creationists have been studying global warming theories via canopy theory for decades to explain why the entire world once had a subtropical/tropical climate, which is manifest in the geologic record, before global warming became popularized a few years ago. I conclude that since God seems to have created the world like a greenhouse via the canopy theory or some alternate theory, it makes sense to suppose that global warming is a good thing, not a bad thing. The rise-in-sea levels-theory has been thoroughly discredited by now, and a report was just released last week saying that hurricanes are not related to global warming (this makes intuitive sense, because deltas in temperature cause hurricanes, not the absolute level of temperate). This means that global warming is essentially not harmful, and we have nothing to worry about. The fact that property prices near the oceans are still sky-high is an indication that the financial markets agree with me.

 

[thaumaturgy]

For example, good global warming analysis requires a strong statistical background

Agreed.

and an economics background

TOTALLY DISAGREE. What possible impact does economic theory have on whether man-made carbon dioxide is on the verge of so dramatically changing the environment that it threatens the human species?

Who are we going to "pay off" to get out of this mess?

in addition to a background in atmospheric physics. Ultimately, when you try to measure what things cause global warming, it's an exercise in statistics, and my statistical training tells me that since the sun accounts for 99.7% of the variation in temperatures on the earth, trying to correlate the remaining 0.3% to CO2 is an exercise in futility.

Really? Because it seems that you are among the minority who feel this way. The models all seem to be reasonably solid. And the theoretical foundations behind what drives greenhouse effects are pretty clearly understood.

Again, don't let small numbers fool you.


But more importantly, the models as far as I can tell, take this into account as a "Forcing Function".

This figure, based on Meehl et al. (2004), shows the ability of a global climate model (the DOE PCM [1]) to reconstruct the historical temperature record and the degree to which the associated temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. (SOURCE)

Seems like Greenhouse gases are still in the lead when you look at the relative forcings.

And even if the global warming theory is correct and could be shown with statistical significance

Which apparently it has to "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter"

But I digress...

, the poverty and economic distress that abatement would cause would be huge because every single country everywhere would have to force

Indeed. It often does cost something to clean up our messes. But the poor don't necessarily have to be beaten up as much as the rich. We can afford to do something and do it now. The rest of the world probably gets a little annoyed at us, the chief user of petroleum when we whine how it will hurt OTHERS if something needs to be done.

their economies to abate all at once, on threat of war (if the US shuts down coal plants and energy prices rise, the markets in foreign countries clear the shortage of energy by building plants there, which the US has been experiencing for decades).

There will be costs. No doubt. But it's not like we can reasonably just "ignore" this.

To address your point about the physical chemistry of greenhouse gases, the truth is that water vapor is far more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Indeed, but we are directly responsible for loading up CO2 in the atmosphere. And we KNOW that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and the isotopic signature of the CO2 influx of late in the atmosphere tells us it is due to us. Water vapor is

changes in its conentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization(SOURCE)

(To be honest I thought we'd be responsible for more water in the atmosphere as well, combustion of coal and petroleum should also yield water as well, I should think.)

The key here is, WE can do something about CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases. WE CAN. WE. US ALONE. It is, in fact, our responsibility.

Creationists have been studying global warming

I am surprised to hear that Creationists have "studied" anything except that which they can cherry pick to the advantage of their ad hoc explanations in order to overturn the rest of science for their religious faith. But again, learn something new all the time.

theories via canopy theory for decades to explain why the entire world once had a subtropical/tropical climate, which is manifest in the geologic record,

How much detail do you know about the geologic record? Can you support your claim above? Are you going to look into the Carboniferous? What does that say about the millions of years of life before the Carboniferous?

before global warming became popularized a few years ago. I conclude that since God seems to have created the world like a greenhouse via the canopy theory or some alternate theory, it makes sense to suppose that global warming is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I've got an idea for you then: Please move to Venus. Or some other, any other planet. If you want to live in a greenhouse, or worse yet, a runaway greenhouse, then by all means, find your own planet. I've adapted quite well to this one.

The rise-in-sea levels-theory has been thoroughly discredited by now,

By whom? Because, if I recall my freshman level physics, you melt ice on land and the sea level will increase. You melt ice in water and the water level doesn't rise. But gosh ahmighty I guess you'll get to test out the theory when Greenland starts melting at a faster pace!

So far, the rise in sea level is because warmer water takes up more room than colder water, which makes sea levels go up, a process known as thermal expansion. "The real question is what's going to happen to Greenland and Antarctica," Stouffer said. "That's where the bulk of all the fresh water is tied up."
(National Geographic)

How 'bout some numbers:

The complete melting of Greenland would raise sea levels by 7 meters (23 feet). But even a partial melting would cause a one-meter (three-foot) rise. Such a rise would have a devastating impact on low-lying island countries, such as the Indian Ocean's Maldives, which would be entirely submerged.
(ibid)

That's one lousy meter. Are you still thrown off by the size of the numbers involved?

Oh, yes, and do try to tell the inhabitants of Bangladesh and the Maldives that we in the U.S. didn't want to endanger their economy by giving up our gas-guzzlers and exhorbitant use of petroleum.

If anything the rest of the world should put our feet in the fire and make us scream.

This means that global warming is essentially not harmful

Oh, if that helps you sleep at night, then more power to you. Personally I'm scared of the damage I've done to this planet. I am not a religious man, but I know all about paying the piper.

Only problem is, is we think we can simultaneously act like bloated pigs at the table and tell emerging markets like India and China that they better be careful or their emergence will use up too much petroleum! Ha!

What right do we have to tell anyone anything until we remove the beam from our own eye?

, and we have nothing to worry about.

Except: thermodynamics, physics and chemistry.

But other than that we're golden!

The fact that property prices near the oceans are still sky-high is an indication that the financial markets agree with me.

That's absurd. That is gross illogic. The "market" has nothing to do with the physics behind this. Give me a break. I still see people driving around in SUV's and gas here just hit about $ 3.99/gal. Does that mean high gas prices are GOOD for SUV drivers?

 

[True_Blue]

Agreed.

TOTALLY DISAGREE. What possible impact does economic theory have on whether man-made carbon dioxide is on the verge of so dramatically changing the environment that it threatens the human species?

Thaumaturgy, I recommend you read some of my earlier posts in this thread. Economics is the whole reason global warming exists in the first place—it’s a vehicle used by the environmentalist movement to convince governments to force deindustrialization, similar to the ozone layer, global cooling, and other discredited theories.. The price of energy and the price of food are related. If energy prices go up and the price of food goes up, people all over the world who live on a few dollars or less per day begin to starve—they have to cut back on a meal or on their kids’ education to pay for more expensive food. This is happening to hundreds of millions of people as we speak. There’s no way around this—people have to choose between people (starving children) and global warming/environmentalism. I choose people. Global warming is an utterly evil philosophy for this reason, even if its adherents don’t understand the ramifications of their authentically and deeply held belief in global warming.

In my earlier post, I mentioned how predictions from the 70s and 80s said that if CO2 levels increased at current rates, global warming would cause cities near the ocean to flood from rising sea levels by the year 2000 (a nice, round number). That didn’t happen, and I predicted it wouldn’t happen when I was in the 4th grade. Everyone should have stopped listening to the global warming demagogues by 2001, but instead, the liberals in the industrialized world adopted global warming en mass by about 2005 or so.

Yes, there are tons and tons of fossilized tropical fossils, both plants and animals throughout the polar regions, even accounting for continental drift. This is common knowledge.

Speaking of other planets, the icecaps on Mars have been shrinking, as another poster pointed out. The icecap on the North Pole was recently hugely melted, but the sea levels didn’t change at all—I’ve been here in Hawaii for three years and have seen no difference in sea levels.

 

[Gawron]

There is much to respond to here, but it is worth the time and effort. I will probably have to post this in multiple blocks. Part One:

“You are perfectly free to learn the science.”

If you have read my post here, you know I am not a neophyte. I simply don’t feel the need to list my credentials every time someone espouses an opposing viewpoint.

“What I see on this and other discussion boards is that one point is taken and the other, more serious science is avoided. In this case, on this board, I see one poster repeatedly pointing out a reversed cause-effect relationship in the temp/CO2 record”

Then you are not looking very close. I have been addressing the ‘science’ of global warming, just not from a perspective you approve of. Cause and effect is not the only argument which has been made here. Again, you are attempting to dismiss the argument without actually addressing it.

“but never an actual discussion of the physical chemistry behind what a greenhouse gas is or why it functions the way it does.”

Again, misdirection. No-one has tried to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What I have been pointing out “repeatedly” is that C02 accounts for only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, accounting for 0.117 percent of the greenhouse effect. Additionally, I have been illustrating the myth of anthropogenic driven climate change. Here is another example.

As I have said before, water vapor comprises the most significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and it accounts for 95 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Water vapor is 99.99 percent of natural origin. However, most warming models completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, probably deliberately or, at best, through ignorance. This has the (desired?) effect of overstating human impacts by a factor of up to 20.

Note that other atmospheric greenhouse gases, such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and various other gases are also primarily natural in origin. However, if water vapor is factored into the equations, human activity accounts for a whopping 0.28 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is a crucial point. The difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or global warming, compared to a negligible one is inherently attached to whether or not water vapor is taken into account when preparing the modeling data. Yet most facts presented completely ignore this fact, concentrating instead on C02.

 

[Gawron]

Part Two:

Here is an example of what I mean. The chart below was constructed by the DOE, published to summarize concentrations of various atmospheric greenhouse gases. The concentrations listed are calculated in parts per billion; in other words, very small amounts. Therefore, the DOE chose not to display or include water vapor as a greenhouse gas.

TABLE 1.​

The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) ​

(all concentrations expressed in parts per billion)

Pre-industrial baseline​

Natural additions​

Man-made additions​

Total (ppb) Concentration​

Percent of Total​

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

288,000​

68,520 ​

11,880 ​

368,400 ​

99.438% ​

Methane (CH4)

848​

577 ​

320 ​

1,745 ​

0.471% ​

Nitrous Oxide (N2O)

285​

12 ​

15 ​

312 ​

0.084% ​

Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)

25​

0 ​

2​

27 ​

0.007% ​

Total​

289,158​

69,109 ​

12,217 ​

370,484 ​

100.00% ​

 

[Gawron]

Part Three:

Scary, isn’t it? You are always talking about the dangers of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, why not account for the effects of water vapor as well? The chart below is more descriptive of what is actually going on.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant




















“In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities”

As I have already said, the IPCC is not an organization of climate scientist, but rather a political bureaucracy.

“IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.”

You keep repeating that mantra, “whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter”, as if repetition alone will make it the meaningful absolute you desire. However, you should know that the largest organization of earth and atmospheric scientist is the American Geophysical Union. The AGU does not say “most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” Instead, they say that they believe mankind’s activities are contributing to natural climate fluctuations. Recently, however, an increasing number of climate scientist are publishing papers under the AGU’s auspices which support the work of Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Institute, a scientist who has quite thoroughly and categorically demonstrated that all of the climate change over the past century can be accounted for by solar activity.

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/

"I bet quite a few of the 31,000 signatories you list are not people whose "expertise bears directly on the matter", since that is usually the case for these mass "detractors". But I don't know about this list of signatories."

Many on the list I linked to are members of the world’s largest body of sedimentary geologist, known as the American Association of Petroleum Geologist. As I am sure you know, sedimentary geology is paleoclimatology.

http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm

As can be seen from the link, the AAPG’s position is shown below. I have underlined key points.

“Geologists study the history of the earth and realize climate has changed often in the past due to natural causes. The Earth’s climate naturally varies constantly, in both directions, at varying rates, and on many scales. In recent decades global temperatures have risen. Yet, our planet has been far warmer and cooler than today many times in the geologic past, including the past 10,000 years.”


“Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models. To be predictive, any model of future climate should also accurately model known climate and greenhouse gas variations recorded in the geologic history of the past 200,000 years.”

• AAPG supports expanding scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate specifically including the geological, solar and astronomic aspects of climate change. Research should include understanding causes of past climate change and the potential effects of both increasing and decreasing temperatures in the future.
• AAPG supports research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate.
• AAPG supports reducing emissions from fossil fuel use as a worthy goal. (However, emission reduction has an economic cost, which must be compared to the potential environmental gain).
• AAPG supports the premise that economies must retain their vitality to be able to invest in alternative energy sources as fossil fuels become more expensive.
• AAPG supports the pursuit of economically viable technology to sequester carbon dioxide emissions and emissions of other gases in a continuing effort to improve our environment and enhance energy recovery.
• AAPG supports measures to conserve energy, which has the affect of both reducing emissions and preserving energy supplies for the future.

Kind of make sense, doesn’t it? Note that for the above citation on the AAPG, I must also give credit to a geologist friend of mine. However, as I have discussed before, constructing past climate models is problematic at best. The IPCC models cannot accurately do this, and overestimate the actual warming which has occurred. They also failed to account for the cooling which has been occurring over the past few years, as well as factoring in sunspot cycle length. This correlates almost perfectly with warming and cooling cycles, to include the most recent cooling, since the end of the Little Ice Age.

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node5.html

You also seem to be arguing consensus science, as if the consensus rules simply because it is a consensus. Consensus science preserved the Ptolemaic Solar System despite all contradictory evidence, as well as the geosynclinal theory of mountain building despite all contradictory evidence, as well as the flat earth theory. But I suppose we should all jump on board the anthropogenic warming band wagon simply because of the “consensus”, despite the lack of evidence for it in the face of massive and compelling evidence for solar and astrophysical causes.

"Let's just say I'll believe a climate scientist on a climate topic long before I'll believe an economist or structural engineer on a climate topic. I also have the added advantage of some background in the appropriate sciences here."

You have quoted your qualifications. You should be aware that geologist and geophysicist are climate scientist.

"Global climate change is real."

That is not the dispute, anthropogenic driven climate change is.

"Anthropogenic global climate change is likely real."

As I have said before, the data does not support this statement. The IPCC can place as many decimal points on their subjective qualifications of the word “likely” as they wish, and it won’t change the fact that there remains no evidence to support the claim that changes in C02 concentrations in the atmosphere are driving climate change. This is true for any period over the last 600 million years.

"There's something we can do about it now."

Perhaps if we erect a “Mr. Burns Sun-Blocker” to blot out all of that terrible sunlight, then I suppose there is something we can do about it. Until then, a rise in C02 emissions by man would asphyxiate all of us long before it would alter the Earth’s climate.

"If we dawdle around while all the uninformed balk we lose."

I disagree. If we “dawdle around” the American people win. Only the enviromarxist will lose. And yes, I use that term deliberately in the same sense that you use the term “uninformed”.

"Everyone loses."

Only by destroying the US economy trying to prevent or alter the natural cycles which drive climate change.

 

[Gawron]

Part Three is now up. Waiting for replies.

 

[Gawron]

Here is a book worth the read:

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming


By Lawrence Solomon.

Excerpt from the book description:

Is The "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming a Myth? Yes, says internationally renowned environmentalist author Lawrence Solomon who highlights the brave scientists--all leaders in their fields-- who dispute the conventional wisdom of climate change alarmists (despite the threat to their careers)

Al Gore and his media allies claim the only scientists who dispute the alarmist view on global warming are corrupt crackpots and "deniers", comparable to neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust.

Solomon calmly and methodically debunks Gore's outrageous charges, showing in on 'headline' case after another that the scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday scenarios have far more credibility than those who support Gore's theories. These men who expose Gore's claims as absurd hold top positions at the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world. Their work is cited and acclaimed throughout the scientific community. No wonder Gore and his allies want to pretend they don't exist.

This is the one book that PROVES the science is NOT settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming--like Al Gore's--to survive.

From the Publisher Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

End Quote.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by thaumaturgy:

• America is the global leader in consumption of petroleum. We make up 5% of the earth's population but use 25% of the petroleum.

Oil is fundamental to our economy. But perhaps you are correct, we should destroy the US economy and go back to the horse and carriage.

2. America is the global leader in power and economic muscle. If anyone should step up to the plate and do something it is us.


We should erect Sun-Blockers. Got it.

3. "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter " agree that global warming and likely anthropogenic global warming is real and should be addressed.


There is that mantra again. But I have already addressed this.

4. The physical chemistry and quantum concepts are firmly in place around why CO2 is a known greenhouse gas.


For the umpteenth time, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is drives global climate change is the question which you ignore.

5. The time for discussion and dawdling is quickly drawing to a close. At some point in every legal topic broached by Americans throughout their history we have had to come to a concensus. In this case the concensus is in when "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter " have agreed that this is a serious concern.

Ooom-mataponti-oom! But again, the question of the “consensus” I have already addressed.

“If you wish to keep the discussion going on ad infinitum then sadly you will get the globe you deserve.”


Only if we bankrupt ourselves trying to alter the natural cycle of the earth.

“WHY do you not want us to moderate our carbon footprint?”


Because it won’t change the outcome. The earth will continue to warm and cool as it has for millions of years. But I said this as well.

“Now, I don't know you,”

True.

“so I'm just guessing.”

And poorly.

“But usually when someone so vehemently denies physics and chemistry on this level and prefers the teachings of a small minority group to "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter ", it is usually for a decidedly non-scientific reason.”

Nope. This comment is a dismissive tactic worthy of the Darwinist based on an incorrect analysis of my comments.

“And I similarly suspect that if "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter " came along and told you that looking at pictures of Ralph Nader caused cancer you'd be among the first to wave that banner high and proud and use it to outlaw the Ralph Nader pictures. For the safety of society!”


Wow. That’s…..amazing. Really. You even worked the mantra into it again. But everybody knows that exposure to Ralph Nader only causes nausea.

“But again, I'm just guessing.”

And poorly.

 

[Psudopod]

Oil is fundamental to our economy. But perhaps you are correct, we should destroy the US economy and go back to the horse and carriage.

The point here is how much oil is being used. Other contries manage with considerably less per head. Obviously if you banned all oil usage at once you would have major issues. But you can implement measures to reduce usage, and fund research into other methods of energy. There might be issues, but is the US economy more important that the lives of people on third world coastlines, for example?

 

[metherion]

Following up on Psudopod's point, what about areas of the US that will flood? Or other first world countries? In addition to the 3rd world countries, obviously. I mean, if losing one city in Louisiana caused a huge uproar and strain to deal with refugees, how bad do you think it will be if we lose large parts of Florida and Maryland? (only some of the East Coast examples) How much of a strain will go on the oh-so-precious economy then?

Metherion

 

[TheManeki]

Oil is fundamental to our economy. But perhaps you are correct, we should destroy the US economy and go back to the horse and carriage.

Nice false dilemma there. We can also work to use oil more efficiently, and cultivate other sources of energy so we only need to use oil for things like a source for the chemical industry. How does that necessitate going back to "the horse and carriage"?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thaumaturgy, I recommend you read some of my earlier posts in this thread. Economics is the whole reason global warming exists in the first place—it’s a vehicle used by the environmentalist movement to convince governments to force deindustrialization,

Sorry to say this, but you've left the science behind. Sure economics got us here, but an appreciation of economics has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of global climate change. That is science.

The price of energy and the price of food are related. If energy prices go up and the price of food goes up, people all over the world who live on a few dollars or less per day begin to starve

Yes, I understand that. And those of us in the developed U.S. have enough money that we can devour 25% of the worlds petroleum and buy extreme gas-guzzler vehicles.

Look, you keep trying to make it sound like our acting responsibly in this area will somehow hurt others. If that's the case, then maybe we need to learn how to act responsibly.

—they have to cut back on a meal or on their kids’ education to pay for more expensive food. This is happening to hundreds of millions of people as we speak. There’s no way around this—people have to choose between people (starving children) and global warming/environmentalism.

That is simply absurd. I don't even know where to begin on dismantling this strawman-argument. As I've said ad nauseam, it is going to cost. But guess who has the $$$$ to pay? And guess who has the responsibility to pay? "From those to whom much has been given, much will be required." That's us.

I choose people.

Not really. You choose "short term" economic "ease" for the developed 1st World in hopes that the real damage from all the models won't manifest itself, or won't manifest itself before you are no longer "on the hook" for it.

Sorry, but we in the West who have repeatedly sucked the rest of the earth dry of resources for a century or more now have to consider that our lifestyle will have to take a step down.

Global warming is an utterly evil philosophy for this reason

If you set up the strawman well, you can ignite it quickly.

, even if its adherents don’t understand the ramifications of their authentically and deeply held belief in global warming.

Sadly for you, us "adherent" actually understand the science in this science-topic, and the long-vision of what is really at stake.

You keep making it sound like the dirt poor untouchables in India are going to bear the brunt of the cost here. That's silly. That's like looking at the poor in Appalachia and saying "YOU guys are on the hook for building Enron a new business center".

If you are as savvy as you like to think about economics, then maybe you can tell us a bit about the relative cost of just about any natural resource Americans make use of daily. As my mineralogy professor said back in grad school: "how much would you pay for your car? Now, how much would you be willing to pay for that car if you knew the metals in the catalytic converter were being mined by people working in horrendous conditions for near slave wages in South Africa and if you paid a bit more for your car, they could live better?"

We do it all the time to the rest of the world. SUre, now we try to be more understanding that things have a cost. But we whine when we have to pay more than a small amount for a resources. We want cheap cars and cheap gas.

In my earlier post, I mentioned how predictions from the 70s and 80s said that if CO2 levels increased at current rates, global warming would cause cities near the ocean to flood from rising sea levels by the year 2000 (a nice, round number). That didn’t happen, and I predicted it wouldn’t happen when I was in the 4th grade.

And why do you think global warming which has demonstrably shrunken the sea ice in the Arctic won't similarly start melting the land-ice in Greenland? Because when that happens on a faster scale there will be flooding. THAT IS SIMPLE HIGH-SCHOOL PHYSICS. YOu seem to be busy arguing against physics and chemistry quite bit. You like to rely on what you predicted in 4th grade. Sorry but I don't much put faith in 4th graders' predictions when "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter " agree that global warming and likely anthropogenic global warming is real and should be addressed.

Yes, there are tons and tons of fossilized tropical fossils, both plants and animals throughout the polar regions, even accounting for continental drift. This is common knowledge.

And this says "what" to you? (Oh, and by-the-by, we real geologists don't use the term continental drift much anymore as that was superceded by "plate tectonics". "Continental Drift" is the older hypothesis by Wegner, but it lacked detailed explanations and support for the mechanisms.)

Speaking of other planets, the icecaps on Mars have been shrinking, as another poster pointed out.

And if you measured the carbon isotope signatures on Mars I suspect you'd find it isn't due to industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels.

Congrats on yet another strawman! Remember, science deals in details.

The icecap on the North Pole was recently hugely melted, but the sea levels didn’t change at all

It's almost like you didn't read my post. Didn't I address this point directly? Are you aware that the North Pole ice is OVER WATER?

Here's an experiment even YOU can do in your own kitchen. I'm sure you'll find a way to ignore this physics too.

Put ice in a glass of water and measure the level of the water. Let the ice melt. Measure the level of water in the glass. Did it go up?

The key here, as I'll repeat, is that land ice will increase sea level. Sea ice won't have the same impact.

Instead of reading so many economists, perhaps you should read more intro science texts when discussing this issue.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Psudopod:

"The point here is how much oil is being used."

Yes, in essence I agree with your comment. At no time did I state any opposition to developing alternative fuel sources or means of energy production which would eventually decrease our dependence on oil. As a veteran I would like nothing better than to no longer be dependent on the Middle East or Ugo Chavez for anything, but as long as the environmentalist stand in the way of progress, this will not be the case.

However, we have need for oil now which cannot simply be wished away, and crashing the system to assuage the guilt of some college professor whining about the working conditions in some third world country which has its own government to address such issues will not help anyone in the third world. If the US is suppose to fork over billions in order to appease the consensus, we should at least ensure that our economy can continue to function effectively. Have you guys looked at what is happening in the air-line industry at this moment, due to rising fuel cost? One question you don't seem to want to answer is, where will all of this money come from if the US economy goes into recession? The liberal left is, and has been, screaming "recession-recession-recession" for months now. What happens when we actually do experience a recession, combined with the added burden of funding the requirements of the extortionary Kyoto accords?

Posted by thaumaturgy:

"But guess who has the $$$$ to pay? And guess who has the responsibility to pay? "From those to whom much has been given, much will be required." That's us."

But you don't see it as a responsibility, you see it as a mandate to be enforced without regard to the American people or any effects enforcing this mandate will impose upon them. You have said as much on this thread, when you stated that they get no voice in deciding the issue, only the "experts" have any say. Fortunately, many of the "experts", as I have outlined, disagree with your notion of imposing a draconian socialist agenda in the name of saving the poor dumb masses from natural climate change, destroying their way of life in the process.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If you have read my post here, you know I am not a neophyte. I simply don’t feel the need to list my credentials every time someone espouses an opposing viewpoint.
...
As I have said before, water vapor comprises the most significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and it accounts for 95 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Water vapor is 99.99 percent of natural origin. However, most warming models completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, probably deliberately or, at best, through ignorance. This has the (desired?) effect of overstating human impacts by a factor of up to 20.

Since you're not a neophyte, then you'll appreciate the subtleties that climate scientists deal in. One of the big differentiators between CO2 and H20 as greenhouse gases is that H2O is largely a "feedback" function owing to, if I am understanding correctly, it's short "residence time" in the atmosphere.

CO2 has a much longer residence time. CO2 resides in the atmosphere, once it's put in there for decades or centuries, H2O for days or weeks.

It isn't until you get to the stratosphere for anthropogenic water fluxes to make a difference because the water residence time there is longer.

Now, I'm assuming the amount of water in the atmosphere overall is a relative constant background to the models, but again, I'm not an expert on this.

Here's a bargraph of relative climate forcings from 1750 to 2000:

(SOURCE)

Now, considering that CO2 is the highest relative forcing among the various other material listed and since anthropogenic H2O is largely a problem in the stratosphere from water sourced from CH4, well I think we have an issue to contend with.

Remember, the isotopic signature of the CO2 (that's the big bar) indicates we have a clearly human-sourced recent massive influx from the burning of fossil fuels.


Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas. It is also capable of quickly adjusting to ambient temperature. As we pump a powerful greenhouse gas like CO2 into the atmosphere and it stays there for a long period of time the H2O vapor will respond by increasing (that's relative humidity you may have heard of). Water will quickly reprecipitate out (rain or snow) and has a short residence time.

SUMMARY:
If we pump a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and it has a significant focing factor in increasing the global temperature (both proven points, as shown above) we will see a concommittant increase in H2O (and another extremely nasty greenhouse gas, CH4, from clathrate hydrates currently stored in permafrost in the arctic, and CH4 is 23 to 25 times more powerful than CO2) into the atmosphere making the situation even worse.

So, viola, we are still on the hook for the damage.

Sorry, there's no way around this. If the globe goes through normal warming cycles that's one thing. If we are responsible for kicking one off and we could have done something to ameliorate the problem, but we choose not to for selfish economic reasons, well then we deserve the hell we make for ourselves.

Note that other atmospheric greenhouse gases, such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and various other gases are also primarily natural in origin.

Again, look at the relative forcing function in the graph above.

As for CH4, well, as I pointed out, we are currently seeing the arctic permafrost melting and the potential for massive release of CH4 from clathrate hydrates is pretty impressive and will only make things worse...

However, if water vapor is factored into the equations, human activity accounts for a whopping 0.28 percent of the greenhouse effect.

Remember what we are talking about here: "God Grant Me The Courage To Change The Things I Can".

You seem to be stuck on just paying attention to the things you can't change.

We know we are responsible for pumping a huge amount of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

We know this greenhouse gas has a RELATIVE FORCING FUNCTION nearly 2X higher than it's nearest competitor.

We know how to ameliorate this problem.

If we choose to do nothing, not even force Americans to use less petroleum than they currently do, then we, again, deserve the hell we make for ourselves.

Honestly, we make up 5% of the world's population but use 25% of the petroleum.

Doesn't that mean anything to you?

Why can't we moderate OUR appetites?

That's all I'm asking for. That's all anyone can be asked to do.

This is going to be an issue one way or another sooner or later. We are likely at "Peak Oil" or close by on a world-wide scale. We will need to start exploring alternative energies. We in the U.S. have plenty of coal, but that will be a significant problem for the atmosphere. A coal fired powerplant is not a clean, green source of energy.

These are topics we cannot afford to ignore until it's too late. Either because we didn't plan and ran out or it destroys our only home.

If we love our SUV's more than the planet, then indeed damn us straight to hell.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Part Two:

Here is an example of what I mean. The chart below was constructed by the DOE, published to summarize concentrations of various atmospheric greenhouse gases. The concentrations listed are calculated in parts per billion; in other words, very small amounts. Therefore, the DOE chose not to display or include water vapor as a greenhouse gas.

TABLE 1.


The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)

U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)​

(all concentrations expressed in parts per billion)

Pre-industrial baseline


Natural additions


Man-made additions


Total (ppb) Concentration


Percent of Total​

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)​

288,000​

68,520 ​

11,880 ​

368,400 ​

99.438% ​

Methane (CH4)​

848​

577 ​

320 ​

1,745 ​

0.471% ​

Nitrous Oxide (N2O)​

285​

12 ​

15 ​

312 ​

0.084% ​

Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)​

25​

0 ​

2​

27 ​

0.007% ​

Total​

289,158​

69,109 ​

12,217 ​

370,484 ​

100.00% ​

Again, just quoting numbers and pointing out how "small" they are is like me saying "Hey, it's only a couple milligrams of this potent poison, go ahead, take it!"

And please don't pester me with "tiny ppb" amounts. As I said earlier, I spent a year measuring parts-per-trillion amounts of CFC's in sea water (as a tracer, not for environmental issues). The "smallness" of the numbers is not at issue.

Unless of course you look at science as a "neophyte" would and you get lost in the small numbers.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You keep repeating that mantra, “whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter”, as if repetition alone will make it the meaningful absolute you desire.

Reputation? You think this is all about "reputation"?

Sorry but I'll take the word of people who work with this topic every day and understand the science over a couple of detractors who have degrees in economics.

I'm a professional scientist. I know how non-scientists deal with science.

However, you should know that the largest organization of earth and atmospheric scientist is the American Geophysical Union. The AGU does not say “most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” Instead, they say that they believe mankind’s activities are contributing to natural climate fluctuations.

And that means, what, exactly, to you? "Contributing to".

Do you want to know what the AGU says from the AGU site:

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. (SOURCE)

Many on the list I linked to are members of the world’s largest body of sedimentary geologist, known as the American Association of Petroleum Geologist.

The AAPG, of which I am quite familiar, having done much of my graduate work in petroleum and coal geochemistry, has a somewhat vested interest in petroleum, dontcha think?

All of the petroleum geologists I went to school with who are now working in the oil patch are probably now members of AAPG.

As I am sure you know, sedimentary geology is paleoclimatology.

And as I'm sure you know, AAPG is not simply a "Sed geo" group. It is a petroleum group.

AAPG supports reducing emissions from fossil fuel use as a worthy goal. (However, emission reduction has an economic cost, which must be compared to the potential environmental gain).


Kind of make sense, doesn’t it? Note that for the above citation on the AAPG, I must also give credit to a geologist friend of mine.[/quote]

I'm a geologist too.

You also seem to be arguing consensus science,

Well, considering you (I'm guessing) are not an expert, nor am I, I have to rely on the best science from people whose expertise bears directly on this topic.

Consensus science preserved the Ptolemaic Solar System despite all contradictory evidence, as well as the geosynclinal theory of mountain building despite all contradictory evidence, as well as the flat earth theory. But I suppose we should all jump on board the anthropogenic warming band wagon simply because of the “consensus”, despite the lack of evidence for it in the face of massive and compelling evidence for solar and astrophysical causes.

Well, to be fair, the best available data currently indicates the "global warming deniers" are the "Flat Earthers" and the "Ptolemaic Astronomers" of the current age.

You have quoted your qualifications. You should be aware that geologist and geophysicist are climate scientist.

Indeed. And as such, I think I have some insight into the science and not just go by "reputation" of the source alone.

I disagree. If we “dawdle around” the American people win.

You do realize that climatic shifting is already occuring as agricultural "hardiness zones" are moving north, right? So the American people get to win for only a few more years and then the Canadians get to win:

(SOURCE)

Only the enviromarxist will lose.

Say "Hello" to our soon-to-be Canadian FOOD SUPPLIERS!

Only by destroying the US economy trying to prevent or alter the natural cycles which drive climate change.

Want to see the American Economy destroyed? Try destroying the midwest's ability to grow massive amounts of grain. I bet then those SUV's will be so popular!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Posted by Psudopod:
However, we have need for oil now which cannot simply be wished away, and crashing the system to assuage the guilt of some college professor whining about the working conditions in some third world country which has its own government to address such issues will not help anyone in the third world. If the US is suppose to fork over billions in order to appease the consensus, we should at least ensure that our economy can continue to function effectively. Have you guys looked at what is happening in the air-line industry at this moment, due to rising fuel cost? One question you don't seem to want to answer is, where will all of this money come from if the US economy goes into recession? The liberal left is, and has been, screaming "recession-recession-recession" for months now. What happens when we actually do experience a recession, combined with the added burden of funding the requirements of the extortionary Kyoto accords?

Couple of important points here:

Petroleum prices will not be ameliorated by merely destroying an ecosystem in the Arctic (aka "Drilling ANWR"). That will top us off at best for a short while.

Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.(MSNBC)

America hit it's "Peak Oil" back in 1970-72, right in line with Hubbert's model. There may be some stuff out there in offshore spots, but the cost will get extreme to recover that. Here, take a look at this EROI (energy return on investment graph, that's how much energy we get for expended energy to get the energy source):


Note how domestic oil used to have a 100:1 return on energy "invested", now it's down to about 20:1 today.

Even imported oil takes a lot of energy to recover.

As to the "Recession-recession-recession", well, economies always go through "Business Cycles" and there's now the idea we are in a "Bubble Cycle Economy", and I doubt the president has too much to do with that per se. But certainly the fact that we are now on-the-hook for $12 BILLION/ month for a war of adventurism in Iraq due directly to the current administration's actions can't help much.

Oh, and where's the oil we spilled all this blood for?

But you don't see it as a responsibility, you see it as a mandate to be enforced without regard to the American people

Unfortunately the American people have shown themselves, in this case, to be woefully child-like. We want-want-want. I see so many people still driving hummers and SUVs around here and I have to wonder, "What were they thinking when they BOUGHT that albatross?" I know what they were thinking: "Cool, big truck! Me look manly and important!" Now the market is forcing them into ever increasing amounts of debt as they are unable to sell those monsters. It's a hard price to pay, but I bet it would be much easier on them had we not allowed trucks to enter the general sales population that got an irresponsible10 mpg.

Just like we limit the sale of NUCLEAR WEAPONS GRADE PLUTONIUM and ASSAULT RIFLES wholly "enforced without regard to the American people" and their desire to own either of these things.

We are a society of laws. Sometimes laws are there for our own good.

or any effects enforcing this mandate will impose upon them.

So you have friends who will own farms in Canada in about 20 to 50 years? I hope they are nice people and will sell us food cheaply. But frankly we've spread so much nastiness around the globe the past several decades that it offsets our "good name" around the world. I wouldn't sell us cheap food. Not after we systematically destrabilized countries like Iran in the 1950's when we helped oust Mossadegh for the interests of British Petroleum.

You see, we have prices to pay. They aren't all coming due at one time. But we won't be high on the hog forever.

You have said as much on this thread, when you stated that they get no voice in deciding the issue,

And I stand by that statement. If they are uninformed on the basics of the science underlying a science-based decision then they get no voice.

Just as I don't consult my dog, Aleister Growley, when I need dental work.

only the "experts" have any say. Fortunately, many of the "experts", as I have outlined, disagree with your notion

No, you've found a minority dissenting opinion, made up in many cases by non-experts in the appropriate field of endeavor.

of imposing a draconian socialist agenda in the name of saving the poor dumb masses from natural climate change, destroying their way of life in the process.

Sorry, but I'm a highly educated lib'rul with a doctorate in the earth sciences and the ability to gather information and present it and a strong will to do so. I will work ever-so-hard to be your worst nightmare. "Draconian socialist agenda"? Ha! When the feces hits the fan and we've passed all the climactic tipping points or we've run out of cheap oil, you will see stuff that is far worse than any "draconian socialist agenda" you have nightmares about.

I'm also willing to put my money where my mouth is. I've consistently voted for tax increases for better education (despite my not having any kids), I've worked for grass-roots organizations that would impose single-payer healthcare even though I had run the numbers and knew it would increase my tax rate, and I drive a small car. Always have since I was able to make the choice of which car I drove.

Am I saint? No way. I'm as dirty a human as can be imagined. I am annoyed with my profligate ways. I see the need in me to change. I see the need in others to force me to change. Sometimes those changes are easier when everyone is on the hook for the change.

I don't want to destroy the U.S. But I'm willing to alter our lifestyle. Significantly. And I'm willing to pay the price.

Look we all abide by convential agreements and concensus. Sometimes we have laws that I don't like that you do, and vice versa. The key is this is an important issue. About as important as an issue can be. I can't think of one more important.

And I can't think of a country with more responsibility to lead the change or more ability to lead the change than MY COUNTRY.

I'm proud to be an American, but I'm not sure we are God's Gift to the Universe.

 

[Gawron]

"Reputation? You think this is all about "reputation"?

At the moment this is all I have time to address. If you read my post, especially the part you quote, you will see that the word I used was "repitition", not "reputation". Kind of makes your response suspect.

 

[thaumaturgy]

"Reputation? You think this is all about "reputation"?

At the moment this is all I have time to address. If you read my post, especially the part you quote, you will see that the word I used was "repitition", not "reputation". Kind of makes your response suspect.

My bad. Please feel free to ignore all the science and substance of my post because of this.

You're right.

(It sure beats having to actually address the science presented doesn't it? )