Global Warming - What do you think (and tell kids)?

[Beavah]

Beavah - marketing strategy for Greenland? Is that where the GW crowd has to fight their case now?

 

Yeh asked a simple question, eh? "Why is Greenland named that?" I answered. Because Eric the Red was trying to attract Danish settlers to the place. At least, that's what the Danes say . Farmin' was never really successful in Greenland, and they reverted to subsistence fishing. Eventually da colony collapsed. I agree, it seems like an odd thing to bring up when talkin' about Global warmin', eh?

 

Climate change has definitely happened in the past, and the earth has been warmer than it is now. But from what I can tell, it's never happened as fast as it's happenin' now.

 

I suggest you look up Michael Bellesiles. While not a scientist, many supported the conclusions in his award winning book until the data (or lack of) proved him a liar.

 

Huh? So I looked him up, eh? He was a historian who may have fudged some research about a totally different subject. I'm often a bit dense, but I don't see the connection.

 

Beavah - who was paying for those scientist to be taking ice core samples? Were they there to investigate GW?

 

Can't say as I know who the funders were, but typically that kind of basic research is funded by governments. I figure that's usually higher quality than private-interest funded research. Yah, I think you're right, there's always risk of unintentional bias in research, and we've certainly seen a few cases of outright fraud especially in the high-$ privately-funded research like medicine.

 

That still doesn't stop me from listenin' to my doctor.

 

Fact is, there's bias and fraud in business, and lots of it in da media and in government, and plenty of it in law. Seems to me the science crowd are pretty much choir boys by comparison. And at least there, fraud is career-ending, which is more than we can say for other professions .

 

I'm a Christian, a mostly Republican but sometimes split-ticket voter, and a long time conservative. I'm not in favor of gettin' all enviro-whacky. But us old-time conservatives, unlike da neo-ones we have around these days, believe in responsibility. Ownin' up to responsibility, not tryin' to deny it or shirk it.

 

To me, bein' responsible means payin' attention to the data and the good people workin' hard on such things, and sacrificin' to make things better when that's called for. Not playin' borrow-and-spend-and-deny-and-spin to give ourselves wealth and power in the present, at the expense of da future. (At least da liberals have the intellectual honesty to tax-and-spend, eh?)

 

I miss huntin' on snowshoes. These days, even in da northern lake states it seems snowmobilin' in the winter is hit or miss. I would have liked to pass these along to my grandchildren. Seems that's what "conservative" should mean.

 

Beavah

 

[BrentAllen]

Beavah,

You said "I think that it's interesting that the guys who wrote those ice core studies are proponents of the Global Warming theory. That means a lot more to me than what a commentator says about their data."

 

Michael Bellisiles is in the gun control crowd. He wrote a fraudulent book supporting this bias. He didn't want anyone to look at the data he used, because it actually contradicted his points. So be careful of those who write or study with an agenda. Check their data, and pay special attention to those who disagree with the conclusions. He fooled a lot of very intelligent people.

 

I think it is very appropriate to talk about how much the conditions on Greenland have changed. It shows how much the climate can change, without any influence from man. This is a natural cycle. GW promoters seemt to ignore this fact.

 

"To me, bein' responsible means payin' attention to the data and the good people workin' hard on such things, and sacrificin' to make things better when that's called for."

 

So, what do you think of the point man for GW? Gore predicts very bad things for man and the earth if we don't make immediate changes in our way of life, yet his power bill is over 10 times that of the average household. Does that sound like someone concerned about the planet and GW? Sacrificing? Leading by example? Taking responsibility?

To me, it sounds like a snake oil salesman.

[Gonzo1]

Merlyn,

Trees and plants use the CO2 to make oxygen.

 

Short of nuclear holocaust, man can not ruin the earth.

 

It's hot here, cool there, kinda like high tide, high someplace, low someplace else.

 

Merlyn, what major city do you live near?

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gonzo1 writes:

Trees and plants use the CO2 to make oxygen.

 

And do you think they somehow magically use up more CO2 if the CO2 concentration goes up? They're slacking off, because it's been going up since they started measuring it in 1958. Shouldn't plants be sucking up all that excess CO2 according to you?

[packsaddle]

Brent, Oops, sorry about that subscription thing. Those sites automatically recognize me so I tend to forget that detail. I'll clip a little of it below so you at least get the 'feeling' of the cutting edge.

 

>title and abstract< I think you can get this without subscription:

 

Nature 412, 523-527 (2 August 2001) | doi:10.1038/35087544; Received 7 February 2001; Accepted 19 June 2001

 

Covariation of carbon dioxide and temperature from the Vostok ice core after deuterium-excess correction

Kurt M. Cuffey1 and Franoise Vimeux2

 

Department of Geography, and Department of Earth and Planetary Science, 507 McCone Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-4740, USA

Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, UMR CEA-CNRS 1572, CEA Saclay, Batiment 709, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, France

Correspondence to: Kurt M. Cuffey1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to K.M.C. (e-mail: Email: kcuffey@socrates.berkeley.edu).

 

Abstract: Ice-core measurements of carbon dioxide and the deuterium palaeothermometer reveal significant covariation of temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations throughout the climate cycles of the past ice ages. This covariation provides compelling evidence that CO2 is an important forcing factor for climate. But this interpretation is challenged by some substantial mismatches of the CO2 and deuterium records, especially during the onset of the last glaciation, about 120 kyr ago. Here we incorporate measurements of deuterium excess from Vostok in the temperature reconstruction and show that much of the mismatch is an artefact caused by variations of climate in the water vapour source regions. Using a model that corrects for this effect, we derive a new estimate for the covariation of CO2 and temperature, of r2 = 0.89 for the past 150 kyr and r2 = 0.84 for the period 350150 kyr ago. Given the complexity of the biogeochemical systems involved, this close relationship strongly supports the importance of carbon dioxide as a forcing factor of climate. Our results also suggest that the mechanisms responsible for the drawdown of CO2 may be more responsive to temperature than previously thought.

 

>Back to me, I'm afraid.

Sorry, even with the html formatter I can't seem to get the equations to show up in this post. One alternative would be to actually go to the library and look it up. Better yet, write the author at his email address and he'll send you a legit copy, courtesy of the author.

Brent, you might also engage him in a dialogue regarding your suspicions about scientific honesty. Then share his reponse with me, I'm curious to know how he responds.

However, in the abstract you will notice that they claim to have found the reason for the apparent mismatch between CO2 and temperature. The body of the paper explains their reasoning. I'm afraid that after searching for a while for a free version of this, I have failed to locate one so you'll have to get it on your own. Anyone who wants to ascertain the truth about this needs to understand the scientific basis for these predictions. Failing that, you are left with conflicting opinions that are embarrassingly shallow...on both sides. I too cringe when I think about Al Gore's movie. It has, at least, caused people to think about the issue whether they agree or not. And 'thinking' is something that I 'think' Americans should do more of. Lately they don't seem very good at it.

 

Brent, I am very sympathetic to your mistrust of money and politics as motivations for action. However, the term 'fact' is being used by both sides to support their personal prejudices. On the proponent side, I hear the term used to try to support actions that they think are prudent. On the nay-sayer side the term is again used, almost as a pejorative, to attack the proponents. I view both approaches as intellectually bankrupt.

You speak of data and yet you yourself have produced none whatsoever. Instead you argue about why someone applied a certain name to an island. This is not science. You suspect the motivation or support for the core research, yet you have the ability to determine who did it and through what support...online. Go ahead...investigate it.

You are not alone.

Comparisons between Mercury, Venus, and Mars are incomprehensible. Mercury has no atmosphere at all and both Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost totally CO2. There is nothing comparable to Earth, in fact our ideas about those other planets are based largely on physical processes and relationships that we first discovered and applied on Earth!

 

As for some of the rest of these responses, folks, this is embarrassing...the oxygen produced by plants does NOT come from CO2. It is produced during photosynthesis when water molecules are split in photosystem II. This is middle school science, folks.

 

I think there is a television show that compares adults to 5th graders or something like that. My observation so far is that the adults have a steep hill to climb if they are going to win. But good luck anyway.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I do not think when presenting an argument much good comes from deriding the character of your opponent. I am not sure how well Einstein's Theory of Relativity was first received, but I am not sure many dismissed it because it was from that jew who lives in New Jersey.

 

I am not sure Al Gore is right or wrong on GW, but just because I agree with very little of his political thinking does not mean he is wrong on GW, nor does it mean he is right either

 

When humans have been tracking weather patterns for less than 200 years, its tough to beleive that the next 100 years can be predicted. I guess Andreas didnt get the memo the Hurricaine season doesnt start for another couple weeks. I am all for conservation, LNT and developing alternative energy sources, not because I think we are changing global climate but because I want my grandchildrens grandchildren to see Yellowstone and I would love for the US to be energy independent.

 

And if plants are the engine that turns carbon dioxide into oxygen, shouldnt we be a little more on the bandwagon to stop rain forest destruction and be planting more and building fewer shopping malls and sururban housing developments where farm land once stood?

[BrentAllen]

pack,

I have seen all the evidence I need to believe this is just a natural cycle for the planet.

 

Beavah sees less snow in the winter, and automatically assumes it must be man that is causing the change. People hear the glaciers are retreating, and they wring their hands, feeling guilty because they think we have caused it.

Glaciers have been growing and shrinking since this planet was created! North America used to be covered by glaciers. Greenland used to be inhabited, instead of just a sheet of ice. The planet has been warmer in the past than it is now. Are we to assume it would never warm up again, unless humans caused it to?

 

I just saw another scary report - temperatures in Atlanta are going to be between 100 - 110F. Wow! That is really hot! So I read the report, and found out that is going to be in the year 2080. Funny how all these dire predictions are beyond most of our lifetimes. I guess they don't want to look like those hurricane predicters after what happened last year. Every time they fail miserably, they claim some new enlightenment. When it comes to understanding the atmosphere and climate, we have a long way to go, with much enlightenment ahead.

 

As the father of the science of modern climatology said about CO2, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

OGE, the "Deutsche Physik" movement in Germany in the 1930s rejected the "Jewish science" of Relativity, as that lead to moral relativism.

[Trevorum]

I'm trying to remember here - Brent, aren't you the fellow who believes that all species were created in their modern form?

[BrentAllen]

Sorry, Trev - wrong guy. I've never posted anything about that.

[Trevorum]

Must have been Rooster.

[FScouter]

"As for some of the rest of these responses, folks, this is embarrassing...the oxygen produced by plants does NOT come from CO2. It is produced during photosynthesis when water molecules are split in photosystem II. This is middle school science, folks."

 

The O in CO2 is part of the equation. My recollection of chemistry is that CO2 + H20 react in the presence of sunlight energy through chlorophyll (photosynthesis) to produce CH and 02. From carbon dioxide and water we get food , lumber (stored sun energy) and oxygen.

 

It makes perfect sense that the more active chlorophyll we have on the planet, the more oxygen and less carbon dioxide there will be. Intentionally burning down the worlds forests doesnt help. Accelerated burning of hydrocarbons stored over the millennia doesnt help either. The resulting increase in the CO2 / O2 ratio is decidedly not a natural cycle. That is unless one considers the changes humankind imposes on the planet to be "natural".

[FScouter]

"Short of nuclear holocaust, man can not ruin the earth."

 

Define "ruin the earth". They're doing a pretty good job of it around here.

[Gonzo1]

 

FScouter,

By man not ruining the earth, I mean that man can't destroy Earth. Sure, man can pollute, man can do many things, but not destroy the planet.

 

I've said we should be good stewards, put trash in cans, then landfills, preferably lined landfills. Some trash should be recycled, etc. Don't use the street for a toilet, etc.

 

In the first Gulf War, Saddam dumped a lot of oil into the Persian Gulf. but just a couple of years later, there was no evidence of any oil spill.

 

One volcano eruption does more harm to the atmosphere than man could ever do.

 

Let's become energy independent, go to ANWR and get the oik, let's drill off shore and let's also continue to improve fuel economy and get 18 wheelers to quit spewing all that black junk into the air.

 

There are many things we can do, but man can't cause the temperature to go up.

[SWScouter]

A fellow wood-badger Craig Idso, is the Chairman of CO2 Science. It hosts another web site about increases of CO2 in our atmosphere and its impacts. I think a lot of its funding/revenues may be from industry. See http://www.co2science.org

 

Ignoring climate changes, plants tend to thrive in our higher C02 environment. It the CO2 is there, the plants will take advantage of it.

 

SWScouter