That is the key question. Incidentally I did not find any study showing that air vapor increased globally. an increase of temperature will likely increase water vapor content, thus speeding up the solar radiation budget.
> What about methane?
a GHG with 40x the potential of C02 and hopefully in smaller numbers. It is also a contributor to the increased radiation budget. Sources are from the increase of intensive cattle farming, Methane leaks and Methane discharge from russian melting Permafrost and landfills.
No, he started out as a hair on fire global warming extremist. We have now beaten him down to the point that he says the jury is still out. The next round of beat downs will have him in the man made global warming deniers camp!!
Was never a "hair on fire extremist." To be that guy, I would have had to worship at the altar of AlGore, which I have NEVER done.
I have believed since Day One on this forum that the warming is occurring. I still don't think it's all natural warming either. When 19 of the last 25 years in the USA are warmer than normal, that indicates something fishy, to me.
But I realize that neither side can definitely prove the warming is or is not man-enhanced at this moment.
The next round of beat downs will have him in the man made global warming deniers camp!!
LOL. I'll bring the popcorn, chex mix and drinks... sounds like one beat down I will not want to miss. :shades:
I've noticed Tidesters southpaw style has been difficult for his opponents to counter. With a background in physics, it is difficult at best for the lay person to mount much of a challenge to the Tidesternator. Still, everyone has made a good accounting of themselves... enjoyable and informative reading. Carry on.
It is nice to read comments from someone who has not bought into the Global Warming MYTH that is espoused in the popular media. The idea that man is responsible for the change in global temperature is horrible science based on flawed interpretation of climatic data. Earth's mean temperature is greatly influenced by the solar cycle. We have, over the last 10 to 15 years experienced a period of high sunspot activity - which has ALWAYS resulted in warming on earth. It should be noted that during this same time period, that the temperature on the planet Mars has also increased . . . how has man's activities on Earth caused the temperature to increase on Mars? Think about it . . . As far as the "hockey stick" graph showing an increase in global carbon dioxide levels . . . you should stop and EXAMINE that graph very carefully. The rise in CO2 levels FOLLOWS . . . that's right . . . FOLLOWS an increase in temperature. FIRST comes a temperature increase . . . then CO2 levels increase - never the other way around!! Why? Because as temperature rises the ocean cannot contain as much dissolved Carbon Dioxide and releases it into the atmosphere. This can be readily demonstrated with two bottles of carbonated beverage. Place on in the refrigerator and keep one at room temperature. The colder of the two will have more CO2 (fizz) because the temperature directly determines the amount of CO2 that can be dissolved in the liquid. Besides . . . despite the doom and gloom scare tactics that sell newspapers and magazines . . . an increase in atmospheric CO2 would be a good thing . . . it would lead to more fruit and vegetables . . . plants love more CO2. Now, we should be good stewards of that which God has given us . . . which means that we should not be wasteful of our resources . . . but please get the story straight first.
Another consideration.... Look at a proportionally correct cross section of the earth. We are no more than a thin skin of 7 to 30 miles thick floating on an active fireball. I am actually amazed that this stuff is holding together long enough to develop beyond the amoeba stage. The stuff we burn is negligible. When Mt. St. Helen blew it put more poisonous gases and pollutants in the air in one punch than all of mankind has produced since the Romans. I will agree that one is not to unnecessary pollute the world, but we cannot predict the weather in SoCal for the next 24 hours, how in the heck would anyone be able to finger my Honda as the source of all evil...? :confuse:
cwalti says, "When Mt. St. Helen blew it put more poisonous gases and pollutants in the air in one punch than all of mankind has produced since the Romans"
Exactly. And that damage is cumulative, not absorbed and filtered away to nothing. Look also at the oil fires in Kuwait after the Gulf War - those fires put more pollution in the air than millions of cars.
But there is a limit to what the Earf's systems can handle on their own. We have not yet reached that limit, but we might if we don't take measures. The population is not getting smaller and our consumption of resources is not going down. At some point, a "tipping point" might be reached.
We are, over time, going to pollute the air and the oceans at a faster rate than they can correct our damage, if we do not take steps to be a better steward of the planet.
Being more green in your life is not Marxism or a dictatorship or rocket science or something anyone should fear. Just pay attention to what you do and try to do the right thing when it comes to waste, usage, and recycling.
Buying a less-polluting car and trying to drive less is not a jail sentence.
Since everything you call pollution comes from the Earth, whether it is the lava, solid rock, ocean, or atmosphere, how exactly is the Earth in danger? A few species, maybe even humans can be in danger as the Earth continues to change, but the Earth is really in no danger until the Sun becomes a Red Giant (or some other powerful astronomical phenomenon hits).
With life in the oceans living at the volcanic vents of the oceans miles down, I think mankind doesn't have much of a chance of ending Earth. "As well as hardy micro-organisms, there are small animals, which have learned to live in crushing pressures, temperatures over 200 degrees Celsius and alongside toxic chemicals." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/406144.stm
And that damage is cumulative, not absorbed and filtered away to nothing.
Surely you jest?! You don't think most of the CO2 emitted is reprocessed by nature? You don't think animal waste is reprocessed by nature, or are you up to your eyeballs in it? Even radioactive elements decay into other harmless materials.
Look also at the oil fires in Kuwait after the Gulf War - those fires put more pollution in the air than millions of cars.
Yes and when that smoke mixed in with clouds, and it rained it was washed from the air.
Even after supervolcanos (30-40 miles in diameter) erupt - thousands of times larger than Mt. St. Helenes - the atmosphere cleanses itself - as we are here.
Even if mankind launched every single nuclear missile and bomber in every country's arsenal today, it would be miniscule compared to the power of a supervolcano or 10-mile asteroid impact. And the Earth has survived. So stop creating in your own mind this god-like scenario, that mankind can destroy the Earth, or end life on the planet.
We certainly MIGHT (and you have no way of knowing this is not true so your argument will only be speculation) be able to eventually turn Earf into an environment where at the population levels we will have reached by that time, man has problems living normally and safely.
kernick says, "You don't think most of the CO2 emitted is reprocessed by nature?"
Yes of course it is. But apparently there is a point where it starts building up in the atmosphere.
( OH, WAIT, that time is RIGHT NOW !!! ))
kernick says, "Yes and when that smoke mixed in with clouds, and it rained it was washed from the air"
And became what> Toxic groundwater? Yes it did. You know how many toxic chemicals exist in burned crude oil? ( I don't either, but it's a lot. )
kernick says, "So stop creating in your own mind this god-like scenario, that mankind can destroy the Earth, or end life on the planet. "
Are you a mind-reader? If so, how do you know what I have created in my head?
I never said that. I said IF MAN IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE WARMING, we can cause problems for mankind, and we CAN. We can also speed up the extinction of organisms which might someday cure cancer, aids, hepatitis, herpes, etc.
There is just NO VALID REASON to just "keep on polluting" without worrying about the consequences.
"...some cars should not be on the road...but typically these people don't have the money to fix these problems...We could make a program to get this running efiiciently..."
As an owner of a stinky old beater truck who can't afford to fix it up I welcome you. Please tell me what kind of non-stinky fuel efficient truck you will be sending me. I prefer blue but any color will do.
I thank you for myself and on behalf of all the poor people who up to now have not been able to put cars on the road which don't offend you. We have all gotten into the habit of eating three times a day and now thanks to you we won't have to give that up. :P
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
While we're deciding what to give the deserving people at someone else's expense, I'd like to have a replacement home. If you can just add another 10 acres to this property that would be best, but I would accept a home in a different location. But I want one in a good school system.
I could use another car. A 4-cyl midsize would be my preference. l find our 2 V6s are very efficient getting 31 and more mpg in driving around, but I'd like a 4-cyl as the one car is almost 11 years old. I prefer red. Like oldfarmer I feel it's other people's job to pay for my things now that I've reached a stage in life.
I could use another car. A 4-cyl midsize would be my preference.
You're just going to have to wait until Obama gets elected. I am sure he has a plan to put a 4 cylinder car in every garage. You do have a garage, right?
I am still waiting for that 35 MPG diesel SUV under my Christmas tree. Maybe this is the YEAR....
CHILLY: Anchorage could hit 65 degrees for fewest days on record.
Published: July 24th, 2008 12:10 AM
The coldest summer ever? You might be looking at it, weather folks say. Right now the so-called summer of '08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees.
That unhappy record was set in 1970, when we only made it to the 65-degree mark, which many Alaskans consider a nice temperature, 16 days out of 365.
This year, however -- with the summer more than half over -- there have been only seven 65-degree days so far. And that's with just a month of potential "balmy" days remaining and the forecast looking gloomy.
National Weather Service meteorologist Sam Albanese, a storm warning coordinator for Alaska, says the outlook is for Anchorage to remain cool and cloudy through the rest of July.
In terms of "coldest summer ever," however, a better measure might be the number of days Anchorage fails to even reach 60.
There too, 2008 is a contender, having so far notched only 35 such days -- far below the summer-long average of 88.
Unless we get 10 more days of 60-degree or warmer temperatures, we're going to break the dismal 1971 record of only 46 such days, a possibility too awful to contemplate.
Not everyone feels that global warming is a bad thing... San Diego has been below average most of this summer. We had a couple weeks of warm weather. We are running about 6-10 degrees below average.
Saw that today also G , Re: Alaska weatherl. Living in Houston, Tx ,I say bring on global cooling.I'm so ready. I leave a small offering outside my ac compressor daily. God Bless you Louis Carrier.
Tidester wrote: Thanks, Duke! I'll be back in four or five months after I check out all those "references" you provided, Exactly, if msft would stop trying to monopolize security( insert deep and hardy laugh here) and release api's ( they have) and finally make the transistion to 64 bit then you could not only check every reference but download the library of congress and still have time to cut your toenails.I'll expect that report by Tuesday young man.
That is the key question. Incidentally I did not find any study showing that air vapor increased globally.
You probably won't find such a study because you and Kernick are asking the wrong question. It's not the amount of water vapor that matters. You should be focusing on cloud formation. There are (obviously) several factor that affect cloud formation including the usual meteorological suspects but cosmic rays apparently also affect both the formation of clouds and where (elevation) they are formed. That's the link to the Sun.
The basic idea is that when the Sun is active (i.e. lots of sunspots) the magnetic field that it projects out into the Solar System is at its strongest. During those periods, the Earth has added protection or shielding from cosmic rays (highly energetic charged particles). When the Sun is "quiet" its magnetic field is weakest and we have less protection. Cosmic rays can trigger condensation in the atmosphere leading to cloud formation (think of those cloud chambers you may have heard about in Phys 101).
For most (but not all!) of the 20th century, the Sun has been fairly active implying reduced cosmic ray flux into the atmosphere. Some think this resulted in reduced cloud formation and is what led to the unusual warming over that period. Currently (over the last ten years give or take), the Sun seems to be entering a quiet phase suggesting increased cosmic ray flux and, therefore, more cloud cover. And, perhaps not so coincidentally, the warming trend seems to have been halted over the past decade.
you could not only check every reference but download the library of congress and still have time to cut your toenails.I'll expect that report by Tuesday young man
Yes, but to absorb it all in that brief interval would probably require Borg implants. I'm not ready to be assimilated
You probably won't find such a study because you and Kernick are asking the wrong question.
It's probably the cosmic rays affecting me. But at least I haven't slid into the mode of assuming the unproven hypothesis is The Truth.
Now if you could use PhotoShop or such and assimilate Al Gore rather than Gates; that would make some of our days.
Gagrice - I also would like a little more warmth. Pretty much every night this summer here in NH, we shut all but 1 or 2 windows and just leave those cracked.
Did you say "cosmic rays"? I knew it. I used to have a metal colander that I wore as a hat on those bad cosmic ray days. Now where did I put that thing....
All you needed to do was to hook up that solar power collection/deflection light and heat gizmo to a portable solar battery that powers a portable water cooling machine that flows cold water hoses interwoven/wrapped in clothes that cool critical areas in the body. (or warms) SCHCHA (self contained hydration cooling heating apparatus)
Hmmmm, cosmic rays. Sounds dangerous. maybe we should do something about it. Maybe human activity is causing it. That's it, greedy Americans are causing excess cosmic rays by driving their SUVs and having a bigger house than me.
I'm getting on top of this issue before Al Gore and Ted Turner sop up all the gravy.
Let's see, I propose that we stop cosmic rays by living in holes in the ground and stop growing food. Yea, sounds good. Now all I need is a few Hollywood types....
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
"ScienceDaily (Apr. 4, 2008) — New research has dealt a blow to the skeptics who argue that climate change is all due to cosmic rays rather than to man-made greenhouse gases. The new evidence shows no reliable connection between the cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403083932.htm
".... are asking the wrong question."
Actually, I think a lot of people are way passed the question and have made up their minds when they should still be at step 1 - trying to understand the issue. On one side you have the people that think global warming is a scam. It is not. Humans are influencing the climate and the ICE among other things is part of the issue. GW is an issue that people will need to deal with over the next hundred years or so.
On the other side we have the people saying we must do this or do that. Unfortunately, we do not have enough understanding of the issue to predict the future let alone propose a solution.
Consider the following. What if humans were responsible for 1%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90% or 100% of the GW. Would it even make sense to make major changes if we were responsible for less than 25% of the GW. Our money might be better spent on adjusting to the change since nature will get us there even without humans doing anything.
If humans are responsible for greater than 75% we need to understand what it is we are actually doing to modify the climate. Autos, power plants, land use (cities and roads), deforestation.... there are a number of potential sources for GW.
My own thinking on the issue is that high energy prices will do more to limit the human part of GW than any carbon tax or cap & trade system. People are already adjusting in a million ways to higher energy prices. On the other hand, I am sure future generations will need to adjust to the changes in climate.
I think Science Daily exaggerated a bit with the title and thrust of their article. The abstract (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/2/024001/) of the actual Environmental Research Letters article states "None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it." referring to the possible link between cosmic rays and cloud generation. The abstract goes on to say that up to 23% (technically, "not more than") of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays."
The article itself (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-search=57312778.1/1748-9326/3/2/024001/erl8_2_02- 4001.html) states at one point: In summary, assuming that the correlation shown in figures 1 and 2 is not accidental a very large fraction of the LCC must be generated by ionization. The upshot is that lower cloud cover does correlate with cosmic ray incidence but other (unstated or unknown) factors contribute.
To further confuse the issue, the authors do point out that the effect is strongly dependent on latitude but then they basically wash it out by doing some global averaging. What they did not point out is that while the latitude dependence is strongest at equatorial latitudes, solar irradiance is also greatest at those same latitudes but they appear to give equal weight to midlatitudes and the polar regions. (I.e., that is where the greatest impact on heating and cooling would be.)
I would say the jury's still out and it's not a slam dunk.
Regarding you comment I think a lot of people are way passed the question in reply to my are asking the wrong question remark:
The specific question was about water vapor content in the atmosphere. But since you did change the context to: On one side you have the people that think global warming is a scam. It is not. which I think is also a bit overstated. I think what you are seeing is the failure of the "proponents" to make the scientific case for their theory. Unfortunately, matters have gone beyond the scientific arena and into the political realm. Mix bad science with politics and people are not only entitled to be skeptical, they are obligated to question it.
The remedy is to get the science right (once and for all!) and to put a damper on the political hype.
"I think what you are seeing is the failure of the "proponents" to make the scientific case for their theory. "
Scientists are making observations of global warming. The theory of why we are seeing temperature increases or climate change is certainly not fully developed yet.
"The remedy is to get the science right (once and for all!) and to put a damper on the political hype. "
Yes, I would agree that we should put a political damper on the political hype. That would also include the people that are trying to stop research into the issue. Our current administration has done a lot to silence the scientists. That is the wrong approach. They need to let the scientists do their research and present their findings without changing the wording.
On the other hand, we cannot let certain environmental groups run the show. Their take on the real world is often a bit off. The polar bears might be doomed regardless of what we do. Animals do go extinct.
As to getting the science right once and for all, that is unlikely to happen. As a scientist, I can tell you that you rarely get things completely right. Sometimes you need to make decisions based on incomplete information.
"But since you did change the context to: ..... which I think is also a bit overstated. "
Yes I did change gears. I thought it was a good lead in. I don't think that GW is overstated. We have collected enough observations to say that their is an issue that needs to be investigated. The scam part of this is that the two extremes (opponents and proponents) seem to think it is game over - we have all the facts. I am not sure how much more research, time or observations we will need to flush things out enough to get some solid predictions of climate change. The key thing to do now is double the research into climate change.
We really do need to get a better understanding of climate. Predicting climate goes far beyond global warming. Farmers and water users are just two of the groups that would benefit from better predictions of climate change.
I also wonder how much of an impact the rapid increase in the number of cars from countries like China and India will have on the whole situation. Both countries are also going to need a lot of energy in the future - think coal power plants and cement production. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4162
In any event, Google Earth says my home is at 1825 feet above sea level. Me thinks I should be safe from any rise in the ocean. :shades:
In some ways "science" is a quasi (state) religion. Endeavors (whatever persuasions that use science) compete for the dollars. So in that sense they go to the "watering hole" just as every other program.
Science is really the documention of past and to (sometimes) future failures. It can/does suggest future study. So in that sense the "process" will NEVER "get it right" once and for all.
Google Earth says my home is at 1825 feet above sea level. Me thinks I should be safe from any rise in the ocean.
That should be good for a few thousand years. I am at 1960 feet and feeling pretty safe.
I think you are looking at GW from a very balanced viewpoint. I would like to be that balanced myself. I just get so incensed over the GW hysterics that I feel someone needs to say wait a minute. Let's not go off half cocked. While I have no doubt the current administration has played a role of down playing the GW hysteria. The last administration was not open to any dissent from within the government ranks as well. Not signing Kyoto has been proven to be the right move.
I do think that climate research from a strictly open stance is needed. I wonder if it is possible with so many forces on either side. I think legitimate research of alternative energy is a far better way to spend money than chasing a red herring. Wasting government money on studies that DO NOT directly benefit the US citizen are questionably legitimate under our Constitution. (they smell of Pork)
I am not optimistic about any kind of HONEST scientific research with the polarity in this country. Too many conflicting agendas, for real scientific study. That includes our Universities as well as government agencies.
>The idea that man is responsible for the change in global temperature is horrible science based on flawed interpretation of climatic data.
I won't elaborate any further about the ideas that I already posted in response to Tidester but I will add some comments to some questions I did not address.
> We have, over the last 10 to 15 years experienced a period of high sunspot activity - which has ALWAYS resulted in warming on earth.
I would welcome a support for both statements. It does not like this looking from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot-number.png. Whereas the graphs I previously linked to a clear and unprecedented (over a period of 1000 years) temperature increase. I don't see the increase is happening after the the CO2 output increase.
>Because as temperature rises the ocean cannot contain as much dissolved Carbon Dioxide and releases it into the atmosphere
You have to factor in the phytoplankton which is also absorbing CO2. The ocean is much more complex than a bottle of carbonated water. Do you have link to studies showing a measurable increase in CO2 rejection from the ocean ?
>an increase in atmospheric CO2 would be a good thing . . . it would lead to more fruit and vegetables . . . plants love more CO2.
Provided that we stop deforestation. CO2 is a result of a scissors crisis. Man made CO2 output increasing in volumes and CO2 traps such as trees are decreasing in number. The result is pretty obvious
Of course it is difficult to oppose directly both figures as we can't compare the experiment background. It seems that a prevailing opinion is that Solar Cycles are much less significant than human made GHG in contribution to GW.
>And, perhaps not so coincidentally, the warming trend seems to have been halted over the past decade.
This is the part we disagree the most. If we put aside the satellite-measured tropospheric temperatures which are under debate, do you have some other sources that would support those views ?
If we put aside the satellite-measured tropospheric temperatures which are under debate, do you have some other sources that would support those views ?
The global climate models all predict increased tropospheric temperatures assuming CO2 as the agent driving global warming. Satellite measurements show no such increase. Therefore, ...?
I've already given you references. I also posted a graph showing the flattening of the temperature over the past decade. The best summary is contained in Solomon's "The Deniers" which lists tons of references to the scientific literature.
Most of the people I have heard/seen saying "the debate is over" are referring to the fact that the warming is occurring and changes in various locales around the world are proof of that.
Anyone who incorrectly says "the debate is over and that MAN IS DEFINITELY CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING" is most assuredly completely WRONG about that statement.
That debate of the cause of the warming is not over at all - in my mind, the cause of the warming is the key issue and why we need to study it and why we should err on the side of caution.
Anyone who incorrectly says "the debate is over and that MAN IS DEFINITELY CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING"
That is exactly what the IPCC and the GW Cult IS saying. There are no more questions to be answered. Man is the cause and if we don't shut down CO2 NOW we will all drown. That was the gist of the Al Gore movie crammed down the throats of our children. That is my main reason for angst. I can accept that there is GW. I can accept that man has a role. I cannot accept we can make very much difference, without moving into a cave and hunting for each other to feed ourselves. I look at it just the opposite of Ted Turner. To live up to Kyoto we will have to kill off a sizable portion of the World population.
Think about what Al Gore just recently said. WE HAVE TO GO ALL ELECTRIC CARS By 2020. We have to GO all renewable energy by 2020. How stupid is that guy? That is impossible even if the technology existed.
Ahh, the Borg. Now there's a topic we can really sink our teeth into. How about that Seven of Nine ? Is she geek hot or what? So after contemplating the fate of mankind and whether automobiles are a major cause of global warming I felt the only way I could obtain insight was to go the great BG himself. Not real close mind you, he is after all Borg. So I asked him, Oh mighty BillGatus of Borg, are automobiles a major cause of global warming ?
Most of the people I have heard/seen saying "the debate is over" are referring to the fact that the warming is occurring and changes in various locales around the world are proof of that.
That may be what you're seeing but it most certainly is not what I am seeing particularly in all the major news outlets. The people I hear saying "the debate is over" invariably say, in the very same breath, "we must DO something now!" meaning we have to stop CO2 production. That can only mean they have concluded that we had something to do with it in the first place. It's unambiguous.
However, I am happy to see that you are coming around to a more open minded view. Way to go!
Radio discussion described Virginia as carbon neutral under Rev. Gore's type of thinking. They have 4 nuclear electric power plants. That supplants a lot of carbon dioxide normally required from a fossile fuel plant.
Oddly Rev. Gore doesn't want to talk about nuclear success such as that because it doesn't play into his being able to control the money benefit of trading carbon "credits," whatever those are.
Here we show that trends in MSU channel 2 temperatures are weak because the instrument partly records stratospheric temperatures whose large cooling trend offsets the contributions of tropospheric warming. We quantify the stratospheric contribution to MSU channel 2 temperatures using MSU channel 4, which records only stratospheric temperatures. The resulting trend of reconstructed tropospheric temperatures from satellite data is physically consistent with the observed surface temperature trend.
In short, the corrected Satellite readings do not contradict the GW measured on the surface.
In short, the corrected Satellite readings do not contradict the GW measured on the surface.
In short, none of the climate change models included any such ad hoc "corrections" and so are to be considered unreliable. Neither did any of the models predict the cooling or "temperature rise abatement" of the past decade. Again and again the models fail yet we are supposed to rely on them both to explain what is happening and to use them as a basis for deciding what to do about it? I think that would be unwise.
>Neither did any of the models predict the cooling or "temperature rise abatement" of the past decade
I just quoted the direct study that strongly questions the validity of the claim that there is any cooling occuring in the troposphere. Is it unreasonable that I ask another source/reference seriously supporting your theory that there has been some global cooling ?
Right there is a book you mentioned to me and that I have yet to read, but any other source?
>Again and again the models fail yet we are supposed to rely on them both to explain what is happening and to use them as a basis for deciding what to do about it?
That scientific studies display some different or conflicting results is not a failure. technology improvement and further researches allow us to refine our understanding and shed lights on conflicting areas. All the studies I saw clearly underline a GW trend.
Chepis wrote : " Ever thought about solar energy? " Indeed I have but the energy conversion ratio's are very poor for photovoltaic cells. Best technology so far is First Solar who has managed to obtain around, I believe, 18%. We need to progress alot further on this technology. So far the more viable projects have been in wholesale production of electricity with solar concentrators and the like. Definitely showing good progress and viable for small electrical needs.
Comments
That is the key question. Incidentally I did not find any study showing that air vapor increased globally. an increase of temperature will likely increase water vapor content, thus speeding up the solar radiation budget.
> What about methane?
a GHG with 40x the potential of C02 and hopefully in smaller numbers. It is also a contributor to the increased radiation budget.
Sources are from the increase of intensive cattle farming, Methane leaks and Methane discharge from russian melting Permafrost and landfills.
LOL, I bet you're enjoying the break. You've got a couple of green "buddies" now to share the load with.
Right Larsb?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Was never a "hair on fire extremist." To be that guy, I would have had to worship at the altar of AlGore, which I have NEVER done.
I have believed since Day One on this forum that the warming is occurring. I still don't think it's all natural warming either. When 19 of the last 25 years in the USA are warmer than normal, that indicates something fishy, to me.
But I realize that neither side can definitely prove the warming is or is not man-enhanced at this moment.
That's why more study is required.
LOL. I'll bring the popcorn, chex mix and drinks... sounds like one beat down I will not want to miss. :shades:
I've noticed Tidesters southpaw style has been difficult for his opponents to counter. With a background in physics, it is difficult at best for the lay person to mount much of a challenge to the Tidesternator. Still, everyone has made a good accounting of themselves... enjoyable and informative reading. Carry on.
Now, we should be good stewards of that which God has given us . . . which means that we should not be wasteful of our resources . . . but please get the story straight first.
As Groucho Marx should have said, "If he's that smart, why's he spending his time correcting us?!"
If Richard posted here he could tell me if the apostrophe in Mom's is correct and if I spelled apostrophe correctly.
I enjoy this forum very much. Tons of good info on both sides, and, as usual, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
P.S. Just kidding Tidester :shades:
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Look at a proportionally correct cross section of the earth. We are no more than a thin skin of 7 to 30 miles thick floating on an active fireball. I am actually amazed that this stuff is holding together long enough to develop beyond the amoeba stage. The stuff we burn is negligible. When Mt. St. Helen blew it put more poisonous gases and pollutants in the air in one punch than all of mankind has produced since the Romans. I will agree that one is not to unnecessary pollute the world, but we cannot predict the weather in SoCal for the next 24 hours, how in the heck would anyone be able to finger my Honda as the source of all evil...? :confuse:
Exactly. And that damage is cumulative, not absorbed and filtered away to nothing. Look also at the oil fires in Kuwait after the Gulf War - those fires put more pollution in the air than millions of cars.
But there is a limit to what the Earf's systems can handle on their own. We have not yet reached that limit, but we might if we don't take measures. The population is not getting smaller and our consumption of resources is not going down. At some point, a "tipping point" might be reached.
We are, over time, going to pollute the air and the oceans at a faster rate than they can correct our damage, if we do not take steps to be a better steward of the planet.
Being more green in your life is not Marxism or a dictatorship or rocket science or something anyone should fear. Just pay attention to what you do and try to do the right thing when it comes to waste, usage, and recycling.
Buying a less-polluting car and trying to drive less is not a jail sentence.
With life in the oceans living at the volcanic vents of the oceans miles down, I think mankind doesn't have much of a chance of ending Earth.
Surely you jest?! You don't think most of the CO2 emitted is reprocessed by nature? You don't think animal waste is reprocessed by nature, or are you up to your eyeballs in it?
Even radioactive elements decay into other harmless materials.
Look also at the oil fires in Kuwait after the Gulf War - those fires put more pollution in the air than millions of cars.
Yes and when that smoke mixed in with clouds, and it rained it was washed from the air.
Even after supervolcanos (30-40 miles in diameter) erupt - thousands of times larger than Mt. St. Helenes - the atmosphere cleanses itself - as we are here.
Even if mankind launched every single nuclear missile and bomber in every country's arsenal today, it would be miniscule compared to the power of a supervolcano or 10-mile asteroid impact. And the Earth has survived. So stop creating in your own mind this god-like scenario, that mankind can destroy the Earth, or end life on the planet.
We certainly MIGHT (and you have no way of knowing this is not true so your argument will only be speculation) be able to eventually turn Earf into an environment where at the population levels we will have reached by that time, man has problems living normally and safely.
Yes of course it is. But apparently there is a point where it starts building up in the atmosphere.
( OH, WAIT, that time is RIGHT NOW !!! ))
kernick says, "Yes and when that smoke mixed in with clouds, and it rained it was washed from the air"
And became what> Toxic groundwater? Yes it did. You know how many toxic chemicals exist in burned crude oil? ( I don't either, but it's a lot. )
kernick says, "So stop creating in your own mind this god-like scenario, that mankind can destroy the Earth, or end life on the planet. "
Are you a mind-reader? If so, how do you know what I have created in my head?
I never said that. I said IF MAN IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE WARMING, we can cause problems for mankind, and we CAN. We can also speed up the extinction of organisms which might someday cure cancer, aids, hepatitis, herpes, etc.
There is just NO VALID REASON to just "keep on polluting" without worrying about the consequences.
As an owner of a stinky old beater truck who can't afford to fix it up I welcome you. Please tell me what kind of non-stinky fuel efficient truck you will be sending me. I prefer blue but any color will do.
I thank you for myself and on behalf of all the poor people who up to now have not been able to put cars on the road which don't offend you. We have all gotten into the habit of eating three times a day and now thanks to you we won't have to give that up. :P
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I could use another car. A 4-cyl midsize would be my preference. l find our 2 V6s are very efficient getting 31 and more mpg in driving around, but I'd like a 4-cyl as the one car is almost 11 years old. I prefer red. Like oldfarmer I feel it's other people's job to pay for my things now that I've reached a stage in life.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You're just going to have to wait until Obama gets elected. I am sure he has a plan to put a 4 cylinder car in every garage. You do have a garage, right?
I am still waiting for that 35 MPG diesel SUV under my Christmas tree. Maybe this is the YEAR....
CHILLY: Anchorage could hit 65 degrees for fewest days on record.
Published: July 24th, 2008 12:10 AM
The coldest summer ever? You might be looking at it, weather folks say. Right now the so-called summer of '08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees.
That unhappy record was set in 1970, when we only made it to the 65-degree mark, which many Alaskans consider a nice temperature, 16 days out of 365.
This year, however -- with the summer more than half over -- there have been only seven 65-degree days so far. And that's with just a month of potential "balmy" days remaining and the forecast looking gloomy.
National Weather Service meteorologist Sam Albanese, a storm warning coordinator for Alaska, says the outlook is for Anchorage to remain cool and cloudy through the rest of July.
In terms of "coldest summer ever," however, a better measure might be the number of days Anchorage fails to even reach 60.
There too, 2008 is a contender, having so far notched only 35 such days -- far below the summer-long average of 88.
Unless we get 10 more days of 60-degree or warmer temperatures, we're going to break the dismal 1971 record of only 46 such days, a possibility too awful to contemplate.
Not everyone feels that global warming is a bad thing... San Diego has been below average most of this summer. We had a couple weeks of warm weather. We are running about 6-10 degrees below average.
It's only a two car garage. I'd like a 3 car garage along with an outside storage barn like I have now for the riding lawn mower.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I can't think of any place else where my guidance is so desperately needed! :P :P
Thanks, Duke! I'll be back in four or five months after I check out all those "references" you provided, Exactly, if msft would stop trying to monopolize security( insert deep and hardy laugh here) and release api's ( they have) and finally make the transistion to 64 bit then you could not only check every reference but download the library of congress and still have time to cut your toenails.I'll expect that report by Tuesday young man.
You probably won't find such a study because you and Kernick are asking the wrong question. It's not the amount of water vapor that matters. You should be focusing on cloud formation. There are (obviously) several factor that affect cloud formation including the usual meteorological suspects but cosmic rays apparently also affect both the formation of clouds and where (elevation) they are formed. That's the link to the Sun.
The basic idea is that when the Sun is active (i.e. lots of sunspots) the magnetic field that it projects out into the Solar System is at its strongest. During those periods, the Earth has added protection or shielding from cosmic rays (highly energetic charged particles). When the Sun is "quiet" its magnetic field is weakest and we have less protection. Cosmic rays can trigger condensation in the atmosphere leading to cloud formation (think of those cloud chambers you may have heard about in Phys 101).
For most (but not all!) of the 20th century, the Sun has been fairly active implying reduced cosmic ray flux into the atmosphere. Some think this resulted in reduced cloud formation and is what led to the unusual warming over that period. Currently (over the last ten years give or take), the Sun seems to be entering a quiet phase suggesting increased cosmic ray flux and, therefore, more cloud cover. And, perhaps not so coincidentally, the warming trend seems to have been halted over the past decade.
Yes, but to absorb it all in that brief interval would probably require Borg implants. I'm not ready to be assimilated
It's probably the cosmic rays affecting me. But at least I haven't slid into the mode of assuming the unproven hypothesis is The Truth.
Now if you could use PhotoShop or such and assimilate Al Gore rather than Gates; that would make some of our days.
Gagrice - I also would like a little more warmth. Pretty much every night this summer here in NH, we shut all but 1 or 2 windows and just leave those cracked.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
All you needed to do was to hook up that solar power collection/deflection light and heat gizmo to a portable solar battery that powers a portable water cooling machine that flows cold water hoses interwoven/wrapped in clothes that cool critical areas in the body. (or warms) SCHCHA (self contained hydration cooling heating apparatus)
(Schoo cha)
Now I remember. I quit wearing it after I got caught out in that lighting storm.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Hmmmm, cosmic rays. Sounds dangerous. maybe we should do something about it. Maybe human activity is causing it. That's it, greedy Americans are causing excess cosmic rays by driving their SUVs and having a bigger house than me.
I'm getting on top of this issue before Al Gore and Ted Turner sop up all the gravy.
Let's see, I propose that we stop cosmic rays by living in holes in the ground and stop growing food. Yea, sounds good. Now all I need is a few Hollywood types....
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403083932.htm
".... are asking the wrong question."
Actually, I think a lot of people are way passed the question and have made up their minds when they should still be at step 1 - trying to understand the issue. On one side you have the people that think global warming is a scam. It is not. Humans are influencing the climate and the ICE among other things is part of the issue. GW is an issue that people will need to deal with over the next hundred years or so.
On the other side we have the people saying we must do this or do that. Unfortunately, we do not have enough understanding of the issue to predict the future let alone propose a solution.
Consider the following. What if humans were responsible for 1%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90% or 100% of the GW. Would it even make sense to make major changes if we were responsible for less than 25% of the GW. Our money might be better spent on adjusting to the change since nature will get us there even without humans doing anything.
If humans are responsible for greater than 75% we need to understand what it is we are actually doing to modify the climate. Autos, power plants, land use (cities and roads), deforestation.... there are a number of potential sources for GW.
My own thinking on the issue is that high energy prices will do more to limit the human part of GW than any carbon tax or cap & trade system. People are already adjusting in a million ways to higher energy prices. On the other hand, I am sure future generations will need to adjust to the changes in climate.
The article itself (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-search=57312778.1/1748-9326/3/2/024001/erl8_2_02- 4001.html) states at one point: In summary, assuming that the correlation shown in figures 1 and 2 is not accidental a very large fraction of the LCC must be generated by ionization. The upshot is that lower cloud cover does correlate with cosmic ray incidence but other (unstated or unknown) factors contribute.
To further confuse the issue, the authors do point out that the effect is strongly dependent on latitude but then they basically wash it out by doing some global averaging. What they did not point out is that while the latitude dependence is strongest at equatorial latitudes, solar irradiance is also greatest at those same latitudes but they appear to give equal weight to midlatitudes and the polar regions. (I.e., that is where the greatest impact on heating and cooling would be.)
I would say the jury's still out and it's not a slam dunk.
Regarding you comment I think a lot of people are way passed the question in reply to my are asking the wrong question remark:
The specific question was about water vapor content in the atmosphere. But since you did change the context to: On one side you have the people that think global warming is a scam. It is not. which I think is also a bit overstated. I think what you are seeing is the failure of the "proponents" to make the scientific case for their theory. Unfortunately, matters have gone beyond the scientific arena and into the political realm. Mix bad science with politics and people are not only entitled to be skeptical, they are obligated to question it.
The remedy is to get the science right (once and for all!) and to put a damper on the political hype.
Scientists are making observations of global warming. The theory of why we are seeing temperature increases or climate change is certainly not fully developed yet.
"The remedy is to get the science right (once and for all!) and to put a damper on the political hype. "
Yes, I would agree that we should put a political damper on the political hype. That would also include the people that are trying to stop research into the issue. Our current administration has done a lot to silence the scientists. That is the wrong approach. They need to let the scientists do their research and present their findings without changing the wording.
On the other hand, we cannot let certain environmental groups run the show. Their take on the real world is often a bit off. The polar bears might be doomed regardless of what we do. Animals do go extinct.
As to getting the science right once and for all, that is unlikely to happen. As a scientist, I can tell you that you rarely get things completely right. Sometimes you need to make decisions based on incomplete information.
"But since you did change the context to: ..... which I think is also a bit overstated. "
Yes I did change gears. I thought it was a good lead in.
We really do need to get a better understanding of climate. Predicting climate goes far beyond global warming. Farmers and water users are just two of the groups that would benefit from better predictions of climate change.
I also wonder how much of an impact the rapid increase in the number of cars from countries like China and India will have on the whole situation. Both countries are also going to need a lot of energy in the future - think coal power plants and cement production.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4162
In any event, Google Earth says my home is at 1825 feet above sea level. Me thinks I should be safe from any rise in the ocean. :shades:
Science is really the documention of past and to (sometimes) future failures. It can/does suggest future study. So in that sense the "process" will NEVER "get it right" once and for all.
That should be good for a few thousand years. I am at 1960 feet and feeling pretty safe.
I think you are looking at GW from a very balanced viewpoint. I would like to be that balanced myself. I just get so incensed over the GW hysterics that I feel someone needs to say wait a minute. Let's not go off half cocked. While I have no doubt the current administration has played a role of down playing the GW hysteria. The last administration was not open to any dissent from within the government ranks as well. Not signing Kyoto has been proven to be the right move.
I do think that climate research from a strictly open stance is needed. I wonder if it is possible with so many forces on either side. I think legitimate research of alternative energy is a far better way to spend money than chasing a red herring. Wasting government money on studies that DO NOT directly benefit the US citizen are questionably legitimate under our Constitution. (they smell of Pork)
I am not optimistic about any kind of HONEST scientific research with the polarity in this country. Too many conflicting agendas, for real scientific study. That includes our Universities as well as government agencies.
I won't elaborate any further about the ideas that I already posted in response to Tidester but I will add some comments to some questions I did not address.
> We have, over the last 10 to 15 years experienced a period of high sunspot activity - which has ALWAYS resulted in warming on earth.
I would welcome a support for both statements. It does not like this looking from
this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot-number.png. Whereas the graphs I previously linked to a clear and unprecedented (over a period of 1000 years) temperature increase.
I don't see the increase is happening after the the CO2 output increase.
>Because as temperature rises the ocean cannot contain as much dissolved Carbon Dioxide and releases it into the atmosphere
You have to factor in the phytoplankton which is also absorbing CO2. The ocean is much more complex than a bottle of carbonated water. Do you have link to studies showing a measurable increase in CO2 rejection from the ocean ?
>an increase in atmospheric CO2 would be a good thing . . . it would lead to more fruit and vegetables . . . plants love more CO2.
Provided that we stop deforestation.
CO2 is a result of a scissors crisis. Man made CO2 output increasing in volumes and CO2 traps such as trees are decreasing in number. The result is pretty obvious
Here is a piece of what it could cost. Can't be right, can it ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080723134445.htm
>but please get the story straight first.
I am working hard on it.
mm, I read the link provided by Avalon and I propose to leave that as is, as I am not knowledgeable enough to discuss this issue in details.
If we consider the radiation budget though, we see with this graph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png
That the solar cycles allow for roughly a difference of 1W per SQM between peaks and lows.
OTOH, the combined effects of all human GHG has been calculated at past 2W/SQM. And of course, it is not cyclic but still increasing
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98GL01908.shtml
Of course it is difficult to oppose directly both figures as we can't compare the experiment background. It seems that a prevailing opinion is that Solar Cycles are much less significant than human made GHG in contribution to GW.
>And, perhaps not so coincidentally, the warming trend seems to have been halted over the past decade.
This is the part we disagree the most. If we put aside the satellite-measured tropospheric temperatures which are under debate, do you have some other sources that would support those views ?
Mine is at 230 feet above sea level. I'm looking forward to my ocean front view.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Exactly. But repeated declarations that "The debate is over" don't exactly instill confidence in being able to find the answers.
As a scientist, I can tell you that you rarely get things completely right.
As a scientist you will surely recognize that expending 99% of your effort on 1% of the problem isn't likely to lead to a full understanding.
The global climate models all predict increased tropospheric temperatures assuming CO2 as the agent driving global warming. Satellite measurements show no such increase. Therefore, ...?
I've already given you references. I also posted a graph showing the flattening of the temperature over the past decade. The best summary is contained in Solomon's "The Deniers" which lists tons of references to the scientific literature.
Anyone who incorrectly says "the debate is over and that MAN IS DEFINITELY CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING" is most assuredly completely WRONG about that statement.
That debate of the cause of the warming is not over at all - in my mind, the cause of the warming is the key issue and why we need to study it and why we should err on the side of caution.
That is exactly what the IPCC and the GW Cult IS saying. There are no more questions to be answered. Man is the cause and if we don't shut down CO2 NOW we will all drown. That was the gist of the Al Gore movie crammed down the throats of our children. That is my main reason for angst. I can accept that there is GW. I can accept that man has a role. I cannot accept we can make very much difference, without moving into a cave and hunting for each other to feed ourselves. I look at it just the opposite of Ted Turner. To live up to Kyoto we will have to kill off a sizable portion of the World population.
Think about what Al Gore just recently said. WE HAVE TO GO ALL ELECTRIC CARS By 2020. We have to GO all renewable energy by 2020. How stupid is that guy? That is impossible even if the technology existed.
Ahh, the Borg. Now there's a topic we can really sink our teeth into. How about that Seven of Nine ? Is she geek hot or what?
So after contemplating the fate of mankind and whether automobiles are a major cause of global warming I felt the only way I could obtain insight was to go the great BG himself. Not real close mind you, he is after all Borg. So I asked him, Oh mighty BillGatus of Borg, are automobiles a major cause of global warming ?
link title In case you want to ask him yourself.
And he answered :
" BillGatus advises the outlook is bad and you will be assimilated !"
The science involved was impeccable.
We're screwed.
That may be what you're seeing but it most certainly is not what I am seeing particularly in all the major news outlets. The people I hear saying "the debate is over" invariably say, in the very same breath, "we must DO something now!" meaning we have to stop CO2 production. That can only mean they have concluded that we had something to do with it in the first place. It's unambiguous.
However, I am happy to see that you are coming around to a more open minded view. Way to go!
Oddly Rev. Gore doesn't want to talk about nuclear success such as that because it doesn't play into his being able to control the money benefit of trading carbon "credits," whatever those are.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I meant the satellite measurements you showed us are influenced by the Stratosphere which is cooling because of Ozone depletion.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/nature.fu.2004a.pdf
Here we show that trends in MSU
channel 2 temperatures are weak because the instrument partly
records stratospheric temperatures whose large cooling trend
offsets the contributions of tropospheric warming. We quantify
the stratospheric contribution to MSU channel 2 temperatures
using MSU channel 4, which records only stratospheric temperatures.
The resulting trend of reconstructed tropospheric temperatures
from satellite data is physically consistent with the
observed surface temperature trend.
In short, the corrected Satellite readings do not contradict the GW measured on the surface.
In short, none of the climate change models included any such ad hoc "corrections" and so are to be considered unreliable. Neither did any of the models predict the cooling or "temperature rise abatement" of the past decade. Again and again the models fail yet we are supposed to rely on them both to explain what is happening and to use them as a basis for deciding what to do about it? I think that would be unwise.
I just quoted the direct study that strongly questions the validity of the claim that there is any cooling occuring in the troposphere. Is it unreasonable that I ask another source/reference seriously supporting your theory that there has been some global cooling ?
Right there is a book you mentioned to me and that I have yet to read, but any other source?
>Again and again the models fail yet we are supposed to rely on them both to explain what is happening and to use them as a basis for deciding what to do about it?
That scientific studies display some different or conflicting results is not a failure. technology improvement and further researches allow us to refine our understanding and shed lights on conflicting areas. All the studies I saw clearly underline a GW trend.
" Ever thought about solar energy? "
Indeed I have but the energy conversion ratio's are very poor for photovoltaic cells. Best technology so far is First Solar who has managed to obtain around, I believe, 18%. We need to progress alot further on this technology. So far the more viable projects have been in wholesale production of electricity with solar concentrators and the like. Definitely showing good progress and viable for small electrical needs.