Politiscience....Global Warming

So, even if CO2 levels are on the rise *solely* due to humans, we're going to immediately pin it all on the US? CO2 comes from a very large number of sources, bear in mind. Humans are a cause, yes. But it's more across the board, you realize...

Also, don't forget about China. The US is relatively clean in comparison.

As for temperature swings, the time required can be very narrow. Heating and cooling cycles aren't just straight cooling or heating. Much like a scatter plot, things will swing around. The last major Ice Age ended 10,000ybp (years before present). As a result, the Earth is essentially on a warming spell. Still, things are going to waver.

Now, the CO2 rise is almost in-cue with the Industrial Revolution, so pointing the climb toward humans as the cause is reasonable. But the increase really isn't as "deadly" as folks think it is.

About 300 years ago, the Earth was experiencing the "Little Ice Age." It had descended into this relatively cool period from a warm interval about 1,000 years ago known as the "Medieval Climate Optimum." During the Medieval Climate Optimum, temperatures were warm enough to allow the colonization of Greenland. These colonies were abandoned after the onset of colder temperatures. For the past 300 years, global temperatures have been gradually recovering. In fact, they are still a little below the average for the past 3,000 years. The human historical record does not report ''global warming'' catastrophes, even though temperatures have been far higher during much of the last three millennia.

The radiative contribution of doubling atmospheric CO2 is minor, but this radiative greenhouse effect is treated quite differently by different climate hypotheses. The hypotheses that the IPCC has chosen to adopt predict that the effect of CO2 is amplified by the atmosphere (especially water vapor) to produce a large temperature increase. While CO2 has increased substantially, the large temperature increase predicted by the IPCC models has not occurred. In fact, the computer modeling of climate changes is still very new and full of holes. For example, water vapor is the largest contributor to the overall greenhouse effect. It has been suggested that the computer climate models treat feedbacks related to water vapor incorrectly.

Bottom line is saying that temperature is increasing because humans are here, and they spew out CO2, is very short-sighted. The atmosphere isn't that simple. The computer climate models have tons of uncertainties. This is not surprising, since the climate is a non-linear dynamical system, and a very complex one.

An experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century (my old boss was involved in it). It includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, atmospheric Greenhouse Gases have risen substantially. Yet atmospheric temperatures have not risen. In fact, during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases, temperatures have fallen.

Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed the experimental test, but it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be said that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to Greenhouse Gases will nullify the initial temperature rise.

The global warming hypothesis is not based upon the radiative properties of the Greenhouse Gases themselves. It is based entirely upon a small initial increase in temperature caused by Greenhouse Gases and a large theoretical amplification of that temperature change. Any comparable temperature increase from another cause would produce the same outcome from the calculations.

At present, science does not have comprehensive quantitative knowledge about the Earth's atmosphere. Very few of the relevant parameters are known with enough rigor to permit reliable theoretical calculations. Each hypothesis must be judged by empirical results. The man-made global warming hypothesis has been thoroughly evaluated. I can personally say, having attended the AGU Conference last Winter, that it does not agree with the data and is, therefore, not validated. There is no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased.

We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if the current long-term natural warming trend continues. Bear in mind that the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects.



Most amazing jew boots

I'm quite a fan of burning styrofoam, myself ;D

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by How Unfortunate

Could you explain the negative feedbacks? Most of what I've heard has been positive feedbacks. Which are "supposedly" what scare the scientists shitless.

• Heating decreses glacier surface area, decreasing white space on the earth, increasing thermal radiation pick-up, which melts further ice...
• Heating kills plants, which release CO2, which further heats, which...
• Heat causes summer droughts, which speeds CO2 release from peat bogs, which, causes harsher droughts, which...
• Heating melts methane hydrates, which...

etc. etc. until you weep for the baby owls or something.

The biggest negative feedback that comes to my attention is a backlash that'd dart us into another ice age of sorts. As ice melts, you get more and more water percentage on the surface area of the Earth. The evaporation rate would get unreal if things got as hot as folks are proposing. Water would evaporate and a hefty amount of Water Vapor would get into the atmosphere. Now... Water Vapor is a much larger potential troublemaker than CO2, theoretically. It'll insulate heat at first, but as it grows in massive quantities, it begins to mess with the Albedo Effect. It would block the sunlight and cool things down very quickly. Water vapor would continue to accumulate and floods would really shift into high gear on activity. Blocking of sunlight results in things cooling until the water vapor isn't blocking up the atmosphere quite as much.

For another keep-in-check mechanism, read up on CaCO3 production by Plankton (Foraminifera). I'd rather not copy and paste a lengthy glob on it =p

As for plants, they can adapt to temperature change quickly. If not, mankind can always step in and do a little genetic work. But that's an extreme. Warming and Cooling trends have wiped dozens of species off the map before. They can adapt to very severe spikes. As shown in my earlier diagram, some temperature booms were very sharp.

I could name a few more, but that's all I could toss out on the top of my head. There are many more, but that'd require a run on Google. And I'd rather not =I

And I believe you mean plants which release O2. But I'm sure that's just a typo =o

I weep for the owls ;_; I must go chain myself to an owl sanctuary. NOW.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Dullenplain

It would be interesting to see what GFF thinks of Peak Oil. I wonder if a thread should be made for that.

Before the crash, I could've forwarded you to an old monstrous thread about Peak Oil. Whitecrab, an former(?) poster was a big fan of Peak Oil discussion, and I believe he made the thread originally.

Maybe we need a new thread on the topic. It was quite a good read =)

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Watts

I think the debate is over. When the New York Times acknowledges it to the degree of calling it an "almost certainty", and it has congressional support there's not much to debate about. Except how far it has penetrated the public consciousness.

Oh, I realize it is accepted. I know about Hubbert's Point and all that jazz. And I know that people know about peak oil. It's just that the thread had interesting discussions on alternate sources for petrol or other means of fuel.

But what I meant in that post was that Whitecrab had a real penchant for discussing the topic. Didn't mean it like "he's a fan of that theory" =p Hubbert's Point was for the US and predicted peak oil accurately. It was distributed to a worldwide scale and will possibly hold true. But there are always variables =d

I was speaking idiomatically.

Plus, bear in mind pollutant levels in Japan. In some regions, elderly folks have to have air-tanks with them to breathe through (supposedly). I recall reading an article or two in the past that mentioned this. The US has much higher level activity in some hotspots, like LA, New York, and Houston. Gotta keep emissions tightly constrained for such situations.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Mexico City's air is thin, hence booths and tanks for breathing. That's due to elevation. Pollution isn't a gigantic problem over there, I don't think...

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

Uh, many people in the US have this and completely unrelated to air pollution; it is called "being ill". COPD, asthma, hypoxemia, etc.

I realize that many elderly folks require oxygen tanks. I didn't fall off the turnip truck last week. My point I was addressing is that there are lots of folks in Japan who require O2 tanks solely due to air pollution. The air is too dirty for their lungs to handle.

Asthma is a physical difficulty in breathing due to breathing passages closing up/narrowing and what-not. COPD is caused by smoking and also was caught by coal miners quite regularly. Hypoxemia is what is experienced in Mexico City due to high elevation.

Japan is much smaller than the US, but it growing tremendously in urban areas. There isn't much land, and there isn't much room for trash. As a result, they burn their trash. A LOT of their trash. Lots of what they burn aren't things you want to be breathing. This is a growing problem

A site on the topic:
http://web-japan.org/factsheet/pollution/other.html

For older generations, there were cases of arsenic poisoning.

Quote:

Japan experienced a number of serious forms of environmental pollution from the 1960s to the 1970s. Besides Minamata disease, a series of other pollution-related diseases have surfaced, one after another, such as itai-itai disease, which broke out in the Jinzugawa river basin in Toyama Prefecture; respiratory disorders in the Tokyo- Yokohama, Nagoya, and Osaka-Kobe industrial belts; and chronic arsenic poisoning in the Toroku district in Miyazaki Prefecture. These forms of pollution occurred as a result of the priority placed on rapid economic growth and the downplay of standards to protect people's health and safety. The consequences led to Japan's setting strict regulations to protect the environment from the 1960s onward.

That is a snippette from this site:
http://www.sg.emb-japan.go.jp/JapanAccess/pollute.htm

Another site on random air pollution topics:
http://www.riskworld.com/Profsoci/sr...2/Ps6ae203.htm

The US has its air pollution problems, but for starters, it has the EPA which is rather stringent on its regulations. Japan is a looser. Secondly, the population density in Japan is larger. People are packed closer together. As a result, one small region's difficulty spreads quite a ways.

You have folks from the previous two generations and people of this generation developing respiratory difficulties due to various pollutants. The pollution isn't reducing swiftly even though Japan is pushing for hybrid technology and what-not for fuel conservation and cleaner burning. Air is still rather dirty to breathe and a good junk of elderly cannot handle it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Uhm... Sorry to burst your bubble, but hail doesn't occur when things are at their coldest.

Hail typically happens in early summers. Surface temperatures are warm enough to cause thunderstorms, but the upper atmosphere is still cool enough to support ice.

Sure, things can be hot enough to melt the ice on its fall, but New Jersey isn't in the tropics. It's in the midlattitudes. And if I'm not mistaken, those are rather ideal spots for hail, particularly in summers.

Jam it back in, in the dark.