Global Warming Test

[Cycadcenter]

global warming test

Thought you may like to take a Global Warming Test.

I Don't think this would deemed political??

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Bruce

[Tad]

most interesting, I got some wrong, but I got more right!

[Jim in Los Altos]

Clap your hands. I got 100% on this test. Why? I don't take seriously what the 'mass media' tells me and I do my own research. The mass media has a history of sensationalizing news and typically a blatant disregard for the "whole story". Over time, I think, that most people will realize what the truth is. Remember in the 1970's we were in a crisis due to a returning of the ice age according to news outlets?

[Coloradoboi]

IMHO, it is obviously slanted towards the right, but still a very well done quiz.

I am still not sure if humans are at least partially to blame.  

I do know, however, that Large portions of Colorado (my home state) have received rain this December.  In my 17 years of living in Denver, I have never once seen rain in December.  We always get snow.  Heck, it even rained at close to 9,000 ft.  If you have lived in my area for a few years, you know that this is not normal.

The once beautiful forests in this area are all dead.  "Global Warming" has caused this.  Pine Beetles have been attacking our forests.  We used to never have this problem, because temps below -20 would kill them.  We haven't seen temps below -15 in years, and the pine beetles have been able to thrive.  

All of these problems occur because of warmer temperatures.  Face it folks, our planet is in danger.

Besides, it never hurts to conserve a little.  Recycle, ride the train to work, etc.

[Jim in Los Altos]

Scott,

No disagreement here except that when certain species of trees succumb to environmental effects (warming), there will certainly be other tree species to take their place that will flourish in higher temperatures. This has happened throughout history as the world's climate is always in the state of change. I think most people are on the same page as far as believing that warming in occurring. The difference is whether you believe in the scientists that show it as normal climatic cycling or the ones that want you to believe that you as humans are at fault. I tend to favor the first group of scientists but I am still very environmentally responsible because I hate to see wasted resources and I will love it someday when we can tell the Middle East that they can keep their oil.

[Palmy]

100%, however I did guess on 1, but got it right. Well atleast an educated guess. I study meteorology and astronomy.

[steve 9atx]

Come on, Jim.  You and guys like this http://epw.senate.gov/public....ebd151c are shaking my confidence in the consensus.

Steve

[Neofolis]

100% also, but I may not have got that, if these things hadn't been discussed here previously.  I like it when it says stuff like "You are correct, how did you know that? Are you a climatologist?"  Most amusing.

[sonoranfans]

Well of course, being a PhD scientist I answered all the questions correctly.  Being  a vibrational spectroscopist by training, I can describe why gases cause a greenhouse effect in terms of quantum mechanics, and why water is the #1 greenhouse gas.  Molecules need a net dipole moment to absorb the infrared(heat), and there is much more water(with a net dipole) than CO2 in the atmosphere on the planet, much more(withheld the quantum description, mercifully).  This test had no political content, just facts, so I dont understand the "right wing" bias claimed by coloradoboi.  A little bit or reading at any astrophysical website at any accredited university would lead to 100% correct answers.

[amazondk]

I missed one.   But, I had doubts about that one as well.  From what I have been able to dig up while looking around at the subject is that abrupt climate change is normal and has happened throughout the history of our planet.  NOAA even has a whole area of research here.  Global cooling will be much worse than global warming.  It will have much greater economic impacts.  And, it is going to happen sooner or later from every thing I have been able to find.  This article is interesting and from a major new source.

BBC Climate Change

The only good thing from my standpoint is that during the last Glacial Maximum where I live continued to be a humid tropical forest.  So, I guess I will not have to move.

Here is the NOAA site on Abrupt Climate change.

Abrupt Climate Change NOAA

dk

[ruskinPalms]

Well. I got 100% on the little quiz too and I am definitely not a climatologist. If the graphs are indeed true then it is easy to see that global warming is affected by the cycles of the sun for the most part. A couple critiques though would be where they stated that coal fired plants aren't too polluting. Well, maybe when done well they aren't, but the TECO plant about 10 miles northeast of me in Apollo Beach, FL leaves a nasty smudge of particulate matter that is clearly visible to the naked eye. It is most apparent when there is a temperature inversion that caps the atmosphere and the nastiness spans for 20 to 30 miles downwind. Kinda a cool weather geeky thing though is when the plant actually "seeds" clouds and creates little rain showers in a line extending downwind of the plant - I am sure it is poisoning me though when the particulates rain down on me.... I don't give a crap about CO2, it is the other junk that is in there that worries me. Another critique would be the last graph where they had "years" on both the X-axis and the left Y-axis. I think I understood it and made sense of it and I think I agreed with it, but I am not sure. Statistics can always be taylored to an agenda and I hope I am not falling for something here. And yes, the damn quiz has political agenda. They stated politcal figures names and talked about politcally charged conferences etc. - but they did support themselves with very good climatilogical evidence.

OK, back on topic. Up until a year or 2 ago before I really started reading this board, I would have been totally sure that global warming is totally mitigated by human activity, as the press would have you believe. I have learned a lot about climatology from this forum. But, just like in all scientific debates, one cannot wear the blinders and be too polarized and think that one theory on the natural phenomenon in question explains it all and the competing theory is total crap. I guess I have a lot more experience in human Anatomy/Physiology/Biology and human Sociology/Psychology than the phycal sciences. I am sure a lot have heard of the nature vs nurture debate regarding which factor determines who an individual turns out. I think most prudent scientists agree that it is a combination of nature (DNA) and nuture (Environmental Factors) that determines the final presentation of a human being. However, there are some that are very polarized and ignore the other side's arguments. OK, I had a point. Where is it? Oh yeh, I think that human activity does contribute in a small way to global warming, but I think that overwhelmingly the evidence shows that we have been experiencing a global warming trend since long before the purported causitive human activity began.

[Gileno Machado]

Wow...I flunked many of the questions !!! Is this a politically oriented scientific test? How come the overwhelming majority of public opinion in the world, based upon scientific authorities and seriously conducted research has been cheated and convinced that our activity (as humans), burning too much fossils and forests, has caused so much damage in accelerating the global warming process? Is anyone paying attention to what is being discussed and happening in Bali at the moment? Almost 100% consensus among all nations about the urgent need to reduce emissions and preserve the green...well, almost...

[_Keith]

I believe that mankind's activities are playing a very small part in the overall climate change, but many of these things being called for, are in some cases, things we should have been doing all along for common sense conservation, so they don't bother me much.

[Cycadcenter]

Gileno,

Open and read the link in post #7.

Regards

Bruce

[sonoranfans]

(ruskinPalms @ Dec. 13 2007,19:56)

QUOTE

Well. I got 100% on the little quiz too and I am definitely not a climatologist. If the graphs are indeed true then it is easy to see that global warming is affected by the cycles of the sun for the most part. A couple critiques though would be where they stated that coal fired plants aren't too polluting. Well, maybe when done well they aren't, but the TECO plant about 10 miles northeast of me in Apollo Beach, FL leaves a nasty smudge of particulate matter that is clearly visible to the naked eye. It is most apparent when there is a temperature inversion that caps the atmosphere and the nastiness spans for 20 to 30 miles downwind. Kinda a cool weather geeky thing though is when the plant actually "seeds" clouds and creates little rain showers in a line extending downwind of the plant - I am sure it is poisoning me though when the particulates rain down on me.... I don't give a crap about CO2, it is the other junk that is in there that worries me. Another critique would be the last graph where they had "years" on both the X-axis and the left Y-axis. I think I understood it and made sense of it and I think I agreed with it, but I am not sure. Statistics can always be taylored to an agenda and I hope I am not falling for something here. And yes, the damn quiz has political agenda. They stated politcal figures names and talked about politcally charged conferences etc. - but they did support themselves with very good climatilogical evidence.

OK, back on topic. Up until a year or 2 ago before I really started reading this board, I would have been totally sure that global warming is totally mitigated by human activity, as the press would have you believe. I have learned a lot about climatology from this forum. But, just like in all scientific debates, one cannot wear the blinders and be too polarized and think that one theory on the natural phenomenon in question explains it all and the competing theory is total crap. I guess I have a lot more experience in human Anatomy/Physiology/Biology and human Sociology/Psychology than the phycal sciences. I am sure a lot have heard of the nature vs nurture debate regarding which factor determines who an individual turns out. I think most prudent scientists agree that it is a combination of nature (DNA) and nuture (Environmental Factors) that determines the final presentation of a human being. However, there are some that are very polarized and ignore the other side's arguments. OK, I had a point. Where is it? Oh yeh, I think that human activity does contribute in a small way to global warming, but I think that overwhelmingly the evidence shows that we have been experiencing a global warming trend since long before the purported causitive human activity began.

That question was a little tricky, they asked if co2 from coal fired plants was the problem, if I recall correctly.  Its not the co2, but the so2, which makes acid rain.  So2 results from burning high sulfur coals found in the appalacian area, nasty stuff makes sulfuric acid when so2 is added to water  Now that IS the problem with the coal fired plants, the acid rain (not the co2) kills the forrests.  There are also a number of nasty smaller traces that can cause cancer if the combustion is incomplete, same is true from burning crappy low cetane diesel fuel.  In that question they appeared to be leading you on to believe that co2 was the problem, it isnt.  The media has focussed on Co2 as the nasty gas, they are uninformed idiots.

[sonoranfans]

(Gileno Machado @ Dec. 13 2007,21:26)

QUOTE

Wow...I flunked many of the questions !!! Is this a politically oriented scientific test? How come the overwhelming majority of public opinion in the world, based upon scientific authorities and seriously conducted research has been cheated and convinced that our activity (as humans), burning too much fossils and forests, has caused so much damage in accelerating the global warming process? Is anyone paying attention to what is being discussed and happening in Bali at the moment? Almost 100% consensus among all nations about the urgent need to reduce emissions and preserve the green...well, almost...

Gileno, unfortunately the impact of much of mans behavior has been exaggerated.  Dont get me wrong, I believe in conservation, but the message has been highly exagerated.  The reason for this is that science has been politicized by the funding process and many scientists have conformed to the belief that non scientists cant make proper decisions with the truth.  Those scientists in the political part of the funding apparatus(NSF) have decided that the lay people arent smart enough to decide the degree of the problem so the impacts are highly exagerated to effect the desired outcome, action by the public in attitudes and voting patterns.  

The earth naturally goes through thermodynamic cycles of warming and cooling, mans impact on global temperature is probably minimal compared with the solar variations and other physical climatological variations, but that does not mean conservation shouldnt be a goal.  I am disappointed that scientists feel they must lie to the public, but in the era of the 30 second sound bite, alternatives are also not very attractive as education is impossible.  So the politicians controlling the research money supply have trump over the scientists and the message is distorted for the purposes of achieving the end goal.

[amazondk]

Gileno,

Tom has a very good point.  I have been looking around on the internet for at least the last year at the subject of climate change and if you take as objective a point of view as possible it becomes obvious that global warming is part of a natural cycle and that man's impact is not the major force behind it.  One of the latest alerts from the WWF which came out this week in the news is that the Antarctic ice is melting and that it is harming the penguin populations there.  This is true, although the seal populations are increasing due to the same factor.  But, what it does not mention is that due to increased humidity in Antarctica the snow pack has been increasing in most of Antarctica and the majority of the glaciers are actually growing.  The same is true of Greenland.  As more of the Artic ice has been melting the water in the north Atlantic has become increasing less salty.  As this continues it could and probably will at some time shut down the Gulf Stream which brings warm water north producing milder weather in Europe than would be normal for the latitude.  This has happened in the past.  Some dispute this link, but from what I have seen most evidence is on the side that this is a consequence.  If and when this happens it will lower the temperatures of Europe and probably even North America and may bring on the next ice age.  The impact of Global Cooling will be much greater than global warming, especially on human food production.  The current glacial cycle has been gong on for over a million years and we are currently in an interglacial period.  So, the odds are that some time the ice will rule again.  Of course there are those that dispute this and feel that current levels of human produced climate change will take the planet out of this cycle.  Personally I doubt this.  Closer to home here in Brazil there was a report out last week that Amazonia would turn into savanna due to global warming.  In reality most of Amazonia has been savanna land (cerrado) off an on for the past million years.  But, this was due to the ice ages.  In fact I just read something today that rainfall has been increasing over deforested areas in Para and Mato Grosso states.  The standing foest has an important role and the resource should be used wisely.  But, the story is more complex than what many claim. The only area which has consistently been in humid forest cover is the state of Amazonas west to the Andes.  I am not in favor of deforestation and conversion of our region into pasture land and soy bean and sugar cane plantations.  The interesting thing with so many so called experts is that they point to factors in our climate over a short time span and often ignore the larger picture which spans thousands to millions of years.  With so much dynamics going on in our solar system and planet it seems sort of small minded to think that in the span of 100 years we would change the way our planets climate is regulated.  As well as the links I posted earlier on the subject there is good information at the Woods Hole Oceanagraphic site - Woods Hole Abrupt Climate Change .  As you may notice in their information there is still a lot of IFS in climate change.  What strikes me about the politically motivated Global Warming doomsayers is that they really do not use IF much.  It is hard to scare people much IF things are IFY.  There is a lot of money being generated for NGOs, research agencies, politicians, etc with the Climate Change scare tactics.  I did take the time to read over a lot of information produced by the IPCC and a lot of the assumptions they base their findings on have a lot of IF content if you look at them closely.  If the current climate cycle falls into something even similar to Little Ice age which ended about 200 years ago there will be some major problems probably much greater than the warming trend to deal with.  Take a look at information on the Little Ice Age as well when you get a chance.

This is a pretty good background on the Little Ice Age - Little Ice Age

dk

[Neofolis]

I would also agree that the quiz has a political bias, because, whilist it only presents facts, it is only presenting facts that suit one side of the argument.

Whilst I totally agree that the warming cycle is caused by solar activity and this is a natural phenomenon that has occurred for millions of years, there has always been a natural balance.  Humans may or may not be affecting the balance to a greater or lesser extent.  If we look at Venus, we see a planet that used to go through similar warming and cooling cycles and had a climate similar in some ways albeit warmer than earth.  At some point in it's history, millions of years ago, the cycles stopped and global warming continued to the point where Venus is now superheated by an excessive greenhouse effect and is far warmer than Mercury, despite being further from the Sun.  What ended the balanced cycles is unknown, it may have been a single event or a long term process that caused things to change, but, either way, it is evidence that the natural cycles can stop.

At the moment, there are far too many unknowns.  We don't know how delicate the natural balance is, whether or not human activity now or in the future will be sufficient to upset that balance or whether there are other phenomena beyond human control that may also affect the balance.  What we do know is that by reducing human influence, we are also reducing the chance that human influence will have any effect.  That said, without knowing what influence humans are having or what else could affect the balance, it is also possible that human activity could be helping to maintain or fortify the balance.  I think most people would, however, agree that it is safer to assume that nature will do a better job without our assistance.

[amazondk]

Corey,

With the current world population of 6.7 billion people it is hard for our species not to have an impact.  I think the question is that no matter what we do what will be the impact or lack there of.  I firmly believe that we need to use our resources wisely and develop mechanisms to live in better harmony with our planets natural balances.  But, from the geologic record these balances and changes have had great impacts on life on the planet, long before humans started walking around.  And, will continue to have.

As to Venus I found this as interesting.  Since Mercury has almost no atmosphere it really is not a fair comparison with Venus.  Link to this Real Climate

The runaway greenhouse that presumably led to the present Venus is an extreme form of the water vapor feedback that amplifies the effect of CO2 increases on Earth. Is there a risk that anthropogenic global warming could kick the Earth into a runaway greenhouse state? Almost certainly not. For an atmosphere saturated with water vapor, but with no CO2 in it, the threshold absorbed solar radiation for triggering a runaway greenhouse is about 350 Watts/m2 (see Kasting Icarus 74 (1988)). The addition of up to 8 times present CO2 might bring this threshold down to around 325 Watts/m2 , but the fact that the Earth's atmosphere is substantially undersaturated with respect to water vapor probably brings the threshold back up to the neighborhood of 375 Watts/m2. Allowing for a 20% albedo (considerably less than the actual albedo of Earth), our present absorbed solar radiation is only about 275 Watts/m2, comfortably below the threshold. The Earth may well succumb to a runaway greenhouse as the Sun continues to brighten over the next billion years or so, but the amount of CO2 we could add to the atmosphere by burning all available fossil fuel reserves would not move us significantly closer to the runaway greenhouse threshold. There are plenty of nightmares lurking in anthropogenic global warming, but the runaway greenhouse is not among them.

[sonoranfans]

The interaction of light and matter(spectroscopy) is my area of expertise(doctoral area of concentration), so its safe to say I understand it better than even a climatologist who studies many other things. I study the interaction of light and matter quantitatively for a living as an infrared spectroscopist.  I am not going to refute global warming, in my opinion that cannot be refuted effectively with facts.  I will refute the importance of CO2 by showing that it does not have the capacity to be a major factor in the greenhouse gas effect.  

To better understand some of the science, I will explain a few things for the lay people.

1) the mechanism of global warming is that the infrared wavelengths naturally produced by the sun are trapped and converted to heat via the natural infrared absorption spectrum of a greenhouse gas.  This happens because the light is absorbed and changes the vibrational quantum energy state of the molecule, which then vibrates against other molecules rendering heat by friction(a simplistic description, but accurate enough to prove the point).

2) the amount of heat that a given greenhouse gas species can trap depends on its spectral fingerprint.  That is, the integrated area under the spectrum for a fixed concentration of gas.

CO2 has a very simple spectrum in the infrared with narrow but strong peaks at 2.7um, 4.3um, thus a very limited fingerprint.  The integrated area is low but the narrow band peaks are strong due to the simplicity of the CO2 vibrational modes.

H2O has a very large number of peaks and many wavelengths with large integrated area, many times greater than CO2.  So this means that, on an aggregate basis, H2O is more effective in trapping light and converting it to heat.  the reason for this is that the many quantum states of H2O molecules means that light can travel a long distance through the atmosphere and still survive to be absorbed by one of the many quantum states of water vapor.  In contrast the light from the sun that is absorbed by CO2 is gone after about 10 meters and the surviving light does not meet the wavelength criteria(einstein's quantum relation, E=hv) for a quantum absorbtion/ heat conversion event.  You could say the heat energy of light at 2.7um and 4.3um is way less than the 5-7.7um range where water vapor has hundreds of peaks.  Water vapor also absorbs in the continuous region of 1.4 to 2.8um as well.  An analogy would be that a CO2 molecule can only absorb two specific "colors"(like the visible but you cant see them), while a water vapor molecule can absorb many "colors", many wavelenths emitted by the sun and it can convert them to heat.  Once the two "colors" of the CO2 quantum criterion are gone, no more can be absorbed and converted to heat, none.  So overall, of all the suns wide output of wavelengths, the CO2 can only use a few, while water vapor can use many hundreds to make heat.  The potential for solar energy absorbtion is much greater for water vapor than CO2.  In fact, the water vapor absorbs some of the same wavelengths as CO2, so limiting CO2 will not limit the greenhouse gas effect for the 2.7um CO2 peak, as it will be absorbed by water anyway.

3) overall, the total heat depends on the heat per molecule AND the number of molecules in the atmosphere that are in s position to absorb the suns rays that meet the quantum conditions(wavelength) for heat conversion.  Water vapor is about 100 times more concentrated than CO2 in our atmosphere.  CO2 has risen, at most, 5-10 percent(but likely much less) over the last 100 years since the large scale consumption of fossil fuels has commenced.  So it is just plain ridiculous to blame CO2 for global warming.

A final truth: the oceans have way more water than the atmosphere and any remaining solar energy is absorbed by the oceans.  Remove the water vapor and CO2 and the oceans will absorb and conver the light to heat anyway.  Note here reflective ice plays a huge role as it reflects(as opposed to absorbs) much of the incident light, preventing further heating.  When that ice melts, an accelerated warming effect will occur.

Here is a link with a simple explanation of the greenhouse gas conversion of light into heat.

http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html

The truth will set you free but a 30 second sound bite will imprision you with ignorance.  And "earth in the balance" was a political fraud of a movie, unfortunately.  I just dont trust people who lie so cavalierly, even if I have the same goals.

I support studies on global warming, but the scientists must be allowed(through a nonpolitical funding apparatus) to study the true effects, not outcomes based "junk science".   Junk science is insured by allowing the political funding apparatus to direct funds to their pet projects, ones that are doirected towards a certain result BEFORE the research is initiated.  For example funding research under the condition that it shows CO2 is a dominant factor in global warming.  This is what the drug companies do to show their drugs work better(at least marginally) than a placebo, its junk science and ignores the big picture(for them side effects).  The political lobbyists targeted demon(CO2) as the best way for us to limit our impact BEFORE the research grant is approved.  Targeting CO2 does suit the purpose of pressuring the oil companies as all fossil fuels produce CO2.  The oil companies have destroyed much habitat  with crude spills, so they deserve prosecution, but prosecuting them for greenhouse gas effects has little basis in truth.  

For now, we can all be conservationists, plant a tree and respect the natural evolution of species.  Men should limit their impact on the balance of nature.  And let scientists perform the science, keep the politicians out, or you will get junk science and alot of ignorance.

[osideterry]

I got only 50% correct, which proves that even with my own bias, I've still been partially indoctrinated by the media.

10 years ago the big scare was regarding the ozone hole at the south pole, caused by all the aerosol cans we use. Our atmosphere was in danger of escaping through that if I remember the news stories correctly.

[amazondk]

Tom,

Thanks for the great information.  That matches what I have dug up while investigating the subject.  I agree totally that the pursuit truth through science is what we need.  We do not need alarmist propaganda to serve narrow goals of a few.  The danger is that when things do not turn out as many claim today a real danger may be overlooked for too long.  Not we can prevent any abrupt changes in the climate, but maybe some actions could be taken to mitigate impacts.   I live in one of the worlds supposed environmental hotspots, Amazonia.  You hear all kinds of talk on what is happening to the area, it's global impacts, etc.  What is rare is to hear a balanced picture of what is really going on here.  I do not think that Amazonia is going to turn into a barren waste land of degraded land any time soon.  And, if it does it will be more likely the result of natural climate change the way it has been impacted in the past.  That being said I strongly believe that we should manage our natural resources well and use them for the benefit of the people.  And, in our case here the standing forest is a resource that is renewable and usable.  Since I make my living from selling wood made from trees from this forest I have no interest in seeing the forest disappear.  With proper management the forest remains and contributes to the economic benefit of the local population.  

dk

[Neofolis]

Don,

I wasn't suggesting that the Earth could become subject to a runaway greenhouse effect any time soon, I just wanted to point out that it is a consideration of what can happen to a planet with or without external intervention.  Whilst we are well below the threshold required to kick start a runaway greenhouse effect, many changes can happen exponentially, i.e. one effect acts as a catalyst for another, etc.  So whilst our atmosphere may have low saturation levels at the moment, as the global temperature increases, more water vapour will cause increased saturation, amplifying the effect of co².  None of this is an immediate concern, but it is better to act before any possible issues occur.

I think generally humans are trying to learn to live in better harmony with our surroundings, either though personal choice or through government legislation.  Whilst I also disagree with political influences on science leading to over dramatization of the current state of the planet, more funding for research in this area is useful, as is more investment in renewable energy and resource conservation.

[sonoranfans]

(Neofolis @ Dec. 15 2007,11:12)

QUOTE

Don,

I wasn't suggesting that the Earth could become subject to a runaway greenhouse effect any time soon, I just wanted to point out that it is a consideration of what can happen to a planet with or without external intervention.  Whilst we are well below the threshold required to kick start a runaway greenhouse effect, many changes can happen exponentially, i.e. one effect acts as a catalyst for another, etc.  So whilst our atmosphere may have low saturation levels at the moment, as the global temperature increases, more water vapour will cause increased saturation, amplifying the effect of co².  None of this is an immediate concern, but it is better to act before any possible issues occur.

I think generally humans are trying to learn to live in better harmony with our surroundings, either though personal choice or through government legislation.  Whilst I also disagree with political influences on science leading to over dramatization of the current state of the planet, more funding for research in this area is useful, as is more investment in renewable energy and resource conservation.

Don,

actually if you read the article, more water vapor lessens the effect of CO2 as these species compete for the light.  CO2 is really not a significant factor, however the melting ot the icecaps could be huge.  The problem with all the pseudo science being postulated with the CO2 effect is that it has been continuously altered to try to overcome obvious flaws, but not tested.  It would not pass the inspection of a doctoral thesis and yet many millions of dollars are funding it.  Experimental evidence is completely absent, rendering it susceptible to massive errors in the assumptions that are required to overcome the obvious flaws.  THe really strange thing is that most science requires some sort of experiment to prove an effect(like the "peak shoulder effect" claimed on the CO2 saturation limitation).  This is strange and contradictory science as usually a hypothesis needs to be tested in science, not assumed to be true without a test.  Truly this is junk science at a very ugly level.  The true underlying causes and effects of global warming/cooling will not be studied with all that money that has been earmarked for the "outcomes based junk science", and thats sad because a generation of scientists will learn junk science instead of the real thing and its all on the taxpayers dime.  The american public needs to wake up as the state of science overall(not just atmospherics by a long shot) is periliously poor in its integrity.  We may end up buying it(science knowledge and innovation) from the chinese and Indians if we dont wake up, and that will seriously damage our standard of living in this country for our children.

[Neofolis]

What I don't understand is, why is funding being put into finding out what could happen, rather than what could make things happen and what could stop things happening.  I realize there is money being spent in those areas too, but there does seem to be a disproportionately large amount still being spent on predicting our impending doom.  I don't see what good that would do, even if it was an immediate threat.  I appreciate that the predictions have been used to raise awareness and funding, but now that funding seems assured, so why continue.

[Nigel]

Wow, Dr Joseph Goebbels himself would have been proud of that test.

A true masterpiece in propaganda techniques and psychology.

It really frightens me the way the american media is portraying this issue. The facts now are so obvious that I cant believe people are still clinging to this notion that whats happening is `normal`.

The `normal warming ` argument used by america to put off making the painful changes that most of the responsible developed world has made is ridiculous.

In the earths entire history it has NEVER warmed at this rate before. Its far from normal, mans activities act like a catalyst to the normal process, speeding it up many times, and with the methane in Siberia starting to be released at ever increasing rates, its probably already too late to stop the disaster thats coming.

[elHoagie]

(sonoranfans @ Dec. 14 2007,10:07)

QUOTE

1) the mechanism of global warming is that the infrared wavelengths naturally produced by the sun are trapped and converted to heat via the natural infrared absorption spectrum of a greenhouse gas.  This happens because the light is absorbed and changes the vibrational quantum energy state of the molecule, which then vibrates against other molecules rendering heat by friction(a simplistic description, but accurate enough to prove the point).

Tom,

You have some great information in your post, but this is not how a greenhouse gas warms the earth. A greenhouse gas is a good blackbody at IR wavelengths, which means that it is good at absorbing AND emitting IR radiation from AND to the surface of the earth (obviously, it also absorbs IR radiation from the sun, but this effect is very minor and actually cools the earth). Also, radiation is BY FAR the dominant method for a greenhouse gas to transfer energy to the earth's surface, not conduction.

If there were no greenhouse gasses, then the earth (with an average temperature of 15C or 288K) would radiate freely out to space. Since space has a temperature of -270C or 3K, the earth would not receive much energy back from space. But, if there are greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, then the earth's surface will receive radiated energy from them.  The difference in energy received from 3K outer space or from 270-290K greenhouse gasses is huge.

To put the effect in perspective, without an atmosphere to radiate energy back to the earth, the average temperature of the earth's surface would be -18C (255K) instead of +15C (288K). That's a difference of 33C (60F)! As you mentioned, water vapor is a MUCH better greenhouse gas than CO2, and there is much more of it in the atmosphere, so most of this greenhouse temperature gain of 33C is due to water vapor. But, the most likely value for the anthropogenic global warming is around 0.5 to 1C, which is a small change compared to the background greenhouse effect warming of 33C...

EDIT: I should not have said that Tom is incorrect, because he does describe a method where greenhouse gasses transfer a small amount of the sun's energy to the atmosphere. However, the effect is negligible compared to the radiative transfer of energy.

[amazondk]

Corey,

If you haven't already looked at this maybe you would like to see what the IPCC, UN panel on climate change is saying.  The link is here IPCC.  My problem with this whole subject is that the more I have looked at the subject the more obvious it has become that it is a very complex thing with many facets.  One of the main points is what impact does human impact really have on climate change.  The climate is always changing and always will, unless someday humans find a way to control it to their desires.  But, I think we are a long way a way from that.  Tom's information on CO2 matches other information that I dug up.  I am no scientist, but I did major in Geography at college and natural systems, geology, meterology were import parts of the course.  Technology has advanced a lot since then.  But, there are still a lot of unknown factors at play.  If we are entering into a period of reduced solar activity as some say it will be interesting to see what the impact of this will be.  The last time we had such a period was in the 60s and 70s.  I remember winters from back then that have not been repeated since.  I believe it was the winter of 1970 in Great Falls, Montana the temperature hovered around minus 15 to 30 F for the entire month of January.  If the Earth starts getting cooler as some say it will be interesting where the global warming arguments go.  But, then it could just as easly get warmer.   I have started to mentally turn off news on the climate change front and concentrate on this much closer to home, like if my plants got enough water.  Since it is raining a lot now that is not too hard to do.

dk

[Nigel]

The first fact is that the climate is finely balanced by nature and water is a constant.

Carbon is not a constant because when its locked underground in fossil fuel deposits it doesnt affect the climate. Pump it into the atmosphere and it tilts the equilibrium just enough to set off a sequence of events.

Warmer air means more water vapour. A warmer planet releases more methane a highly potent greenhouse gas.

The second fact is that these so called junk scientists ( what IS their motive by the way,because the scientists pretending carbon generated global warming doesnt exist DO have a motive) dont have any more proof either way than the group of scientists on the other side.

The reason for that is because the process is not fully understood and not an exact science. Therefore to go with the scientists saying it does not exist is playing russian roulette with the planet,because they dont know for sure any more than the other camp whats really happening.

Somebody made a point about the hole in the ozone layer some time ago. I remember the same scientists claiming it was nonsense and the problem didnt exist. Yet somehow we banned CFC,s and the hole closed up again. I wonder what would have happened if we had gone on pretending it didnt exist and pumping CFC,s into the atmosphere. We would probably all have to go out in protective clothing and have hospitals overflowing with skin cancer victims.

[sonoranfans]

(Nigel @ Dec. 17 2007,08:37)

QUOTE

The first fact is that the climate is finely balanced by nature and water is a constant.

Carbon is not a constant because when its locked underground in fossil fuel deposits it doesnt affect the climate. Pump it into the atmosphere and it tilts the equilibrium just enough to set off a sequence of events.

Warmer air means more water vapour. A warmer planet releases more methane a highly potent greenhouse gas.

The second fact is that these so called junk scientists ( what IS their motive by the way,because the scientists pretending carbon generated global warming doesnt exist DO have a motive) dont have any more proof either way than the group of scientists on the other side.

The reason for that is because the process is not fully understood and not an exact science. Therefore to go with the scientists saying it does not exist is playing russian roulette with the planet,because they dont know for sure any more than the other camp whats really happening.

Somebody made a point about the hole in the ozone layer some time ago. I remember the same scientists claiming it was nonsense and the problem didnt exist. Yet somehow we banned CFC,s and the hole closed up again. I wonder what would have happened if we had gone on pretending it didnt exist and pumping CFC,s into the atmosphere. We would probably all have to go out in protective clothing and have hospitals overflowing with skin cancer victims.

Nigel the proof is there, in detail.  Laboratory experiments can be used to verify that CO2 is effect is miniscule in the presence of water vapor.  I have actually made many infrared CO2 measurements at up to 25 meters path length, they are way overabsorbed.  There is NO capacity to absorb heat left after the first 12M or so.  The sham is that many people claim this to be "inexact science" hogwash, its not.  Now the melting icecaps, core heating, water vapor fluctuations, sun spots, thats the inexact science, not CO2 greenhouse gas effects.

And no the water in the atmosphere is not constant, weather changes are all about the movement of heat and moisture.  The earth is a black body radiator that gives off heat after irradiation by the sun.  The trapping of the heat(by a greenhouse gas) depends on water vapor, which certainly isnt constant in the atmosphere.  A melting icecap will sure increase water vapor as temps rise.  No one is disputing whether these things change, but the CO2 argument is very weak.  

Scientific processes involved in global warming that ARE not really understood cannot be learned by junk science, that is by "outcomes based research"(it must be Co2).  I am suprised you didnt know that scientists need funding to survive and further didnt realize that this was the motive to accept junk studies.  Thats what university gratuate provosts do, whip their scientists to go out and get funding because the university gets a cut, between 30-70% of the total right off the top.

Those same scientists would gladly conduct fundamental research if the lobbyists and politics would get out of the way, but special interest groups tend to influence and exert alot of control on the politicians and therefore the money.  "Friends of the globe" or whatever groups there are out there tend to do alot more damage than help as their political influence warps the application of science funds.  they dont just screw up elections, they screw up the science as well.  Lawyers never were very good at science.  Show me an environmental group that uses less than 20% of its funds on lawyers, or isnt lawyer dominated, and I'll dontate to it.  I just cant find that group.

[amazondk]

Tom,

I appreaciate your information.  As I have mentioned before I work in what would be called an environmentally sensitive area, cutting down trees in Amazonia.  There is so much misinformation around this subject for many of the same reasons as the CO2 situation.  In fact they are related.  I read a lot of information on all sides of the subject of the future of the Amazon forest.  And, I do not believe logging is the danger to the forest.  In fact if done properly it protects it as it gives value to the standing forest.  I do not think that all of the positions taken by Green Peace, the WWF and others are wrong either.  In fact many of them are correct.  Just like CO2 the a complex subject so is Amazonia.  In fact thinking about it the role that the Amazon forest has in generating weather, especially humid weather which impacts the rest of Brazil is probably much greater than the CO2 benefits.  Here all you hear about now is CO2, CO2, CO2.  The burning of forest and grasslands in Brazil are major contributors to CO2 levels worldwide.  But, as you show, not that this means so much.   If special interest groups and politicians would leave the management of resources alone and let those that understand them well manage them less damage would be done and people of our region anyway would have more economic gain.   Unfortunately just like the CO2 scare when you say that the Amazon Forest will be gone in a few years it is easier to get funds for many needs.  But, not that these funds really produce many results where they are needed.

dk

[Nigel]

The world was a very hot place before the carbon was locked away in fossil fuels. As the carbon was locked away the worlds temperature gradually fell.

Thats not junk science.

To put it another way. There is no smoking gun proof either way, only two schools of thought. BECAUSE ITS AN INEXACT AND UNPROVEABLE SCIENCE.

They have taken million year old ice samples from the poles and tested it, and they can prove THE EARTH HAS NEVER IN ANY CYCLE WARMED THIS FAST. ITS NOT JUNK SCIENCE ,ITS REAL. SOMETHING IS CAUSING IT.

If you were to take a colt 45 , 5 empty chambers and one with a bullet.

Scientist 1 advises you not to pull the trigger because it might destroy you.

Scientists 2 advises you not to worry about pulling the trigger because its unlikely to blow your head off.

You pull the trigger.... right ??

We cant afford to gamble however small the risk, and I like many europeans are very angry that certain people continue to gamble with the planet and justify it with your brand of junk science that is equally as unproveable.

[sonoranfans]

(amazondk @ Dec. 17 2007,16:10)

QUOTE

Tom,

I appreaciate your information.  As I have mentioned before I work in what would be called an environmentally sensitive area, cutting down trees in Amazonia.  There is so much misinformation around this subject for many of the same reasons as the CO2 situation.  In fact they are related.  I read a lot of information on all sides of the subject of the future of the Amazon forest.  And, I do not believe logging is the danger to the forest.  In fact if done properly it protects it as it gives value to the standing forest.  I do not think that all of the positions taken by Green Peace, the WWF and others are wrong either.  In fact many of them are correct.  Just like CO2 the a complex subject so is Amazonia.  In fact thinking about it the role that the Amazon forest has in generating weather, especially humid weather which impacts the rest of Brazil is probably much greater than the CO2 benefits.  Here all you hear about now is CO2, CO2, CO2.  The burning of forest and grasslands in Brazil are major contributors to CO2 levels worldwide.  But, as you show, not that this means so much.   If special interest groups and politicians would leave the management of resources alone and let those that understand them well manage them less damage would be done and people of our region anyway would have more economic gain.   Unfortunately just like the CO2 scare when you say that the Amazon Forest will be gone in a few years it is easier to get funds for many needs.  But, not that these funds really produce many results where they are needed.

dk

I do support many of the goals of environmental groups, but have seen the damage of the mechanism become great in my lifetime.  These groups have undue influence on the political process just like the big oil companies.  Their ability to influence should be THROUGH the voters or at least in proportion to the number of grass roots votes they can generate, but not in excess of it.  And these groups and their propaganda are no substitute for informed voters.  Many voters do not become informed and just parrot the soundbites. The misconceptions returned from this "global warming test" just verifiy that.

The stupidity of many well meaning groups reminds me of the 1988 presidential campaign when a reporter asked Sen Lloyd Bentsen(from Texas an Oil state) what do do about the greenhouse gas effect caused by buring oil.  The reporter thought he was clever, asking a difficult question to a candidate from an oil state.  Bentzen responded just burn more natural gas and it went right over the idiot press corps heads.  Natural gas is burned into 100% CO2 and water, virtually all "greenhouse gases".  What this shows that even the press corp are not well informed on the issues, and that is their JOB!  The general populace is worse than the press, its very scary.  This is why the goalwise direction of research by the politicians is so scary, no one is at home.

[Coloradoboi]

(Nigel @ Dec. 17 2007,04:56)

QUOTE

It really frightens me the way the american media is portraying this issue. The facts now are so obvious that I cant believe people are still clinging to this notion that whats happening is `normal`.

The `normal warming ` argument used by america to put off making the painful changes that most of the responsible developed world has made is ridiculous.

In the earths entire history it has NEVER warmed at this rate before. Its far from normal, mans activities act like a catalyst to the normal process, speeding it up many times, and with the methane in Siberia starting to be released at ever increasing rates, its probably already too late to stop the disaster thats coming.

A good half of American people would rather pretend that there is no such thing as global warming.

They can't imagine that driving a ford expedition 30 miles to and from work daily could have any impact on the environment.  

Seriously, only a small fringe of the scientific community believes that global warming is a fraud! Get a real scientists opinion and chances are they *know* global warming is real.

Why would most republicans care about global warming??  Conserving would hurt halliburton!!

[elHoagie]

(sonoranfans @ Dec. 17 2007,09:12)

QUOTE

Nigel the proof is there, in detail.  Laboratory experiments can be used to verify that CO2 is effect is miniscule in the presence of water vapor.  I have actually made many infrared CO2 measurements at up to 25 meters path length, they are way overabsorbed.  There is NO capacity to absorb heat left after the first 12M or so.  The sham is that many people claim this to be "inexact science" hogwash, its not.  Now the melting icecaps, core heating, water vapor fluctuations, sun spots, thats the inexact science, not CO2 greenhouse gas effects.

Tom,

Clearly you know much more about molecular absorption in general, and CO2 absorption in particular, than I do. But, just because the path length for for the atmosphere to become optically thick at the three main CO2 absorption lines is of order 10m doesn't mean that increasing the amount of CO2 will not increase the broadband opacity of the atmosphere. The "lines" are not at a single point, they are doppler-broadened by the random motion of the molecules. As you move to wavelengths away from the center of the absorption, the path length becomes longer until the entire atmosphere is optically thin. So, as you increase the amount of CO2 you start to make the atmosphere optically thick at wavelengths that are farther away from the center of the absorption....

Or maybe there's something that I'm missing? I'd like to have a better understanding of the physical processes going on.

Jack

[Nigel]

Surprise surpise........ the author of that test is employed by the coal industry.

About the test

[amazondk]

(Nigel @ Dec. 17 2007,17:09)

QUOTE

If you were to take a colt 45 , 5 empty chambers and one with a bullet.

Scientist 1 advises you not to pull the trigger because it might destroy you.

Scientists 2 advises you not to worry about pulling the trigger because its unlikely to blow your head off.

You pull the trigger.... right ??

Nigel,

I would shoot the scientist.

There is a story around here which is similar.

If you are out in the forest with a gun and run into a jaguar and an IBAMA (the Federal Environmental Authority), which would you shoot?

The proper answer is the IBAMA agent because if you shoot the jaguar he will arrest you, or maybe even worse extort a lot of money from you.

dk

[ruskinPalms]

A lot of high level science in here. You guys have lost me on the CO2 stuff. But isn't H2O released during combustion reactions, like from burning fossil fuels? Did you guys agree that H2O gas is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2? Is it possible that the liberation of H2O from burning fossil fuels is just as detrimental, if not more detrimental towards causing global warming than the concurrent liberation of CO2? I like graphs. Can you guys find more graphs and easily understandable explanations to support your respective opinions. This has been the quickest rise in global temperature since the start of the planet, or at least with the last couple billion years? That is not what the graph looked like in a post that Don K posted here a while back. I am on the fence here, like many US citizens, and my vote could fall to either side. Speaking of voting, try to keep the politics out of this discussion. So far it has been productive and informative and I don't want Dean to lock it up. I know that politics are intimately intertwined in this issue. Let's just agree that there are crooked lobbyists and politicians on both sides of the issue and move forward with more scientific evidence (easy to understand is preferred!). Thanks all.

[amazondk]

Nigel,

Here is a graph of temperature changes over the past 800,000 years based on ice core samples.  It shows rapid warming and also the cooling over the ice age cycles and inter glacial periods.   I think that by looking at paleo climate data one can draw some conclusions about the present.  To me it pretty clear that we are in an interglacial period and that at some time in the future ice will be what rules.   I posted these on a thread I started a while ago.  But, it did not get as much interest.

This one is over the past 160,000 years.

This graph with temperatures and sea levels.  It is interesting how fast the sea level dropped from it's high point about 12,000 years ago.

[ruskinPalms]

Thanks Don, those are the graphs that I was referring to.