The Global Warming Thing

The Global Warming Thing

by Don Hinkelman -
Number of replies: 52
Picture of Particularly helpful Moodlers Picture of Plugin developers
Ok, time for a new thread! wink

Say, Chris, I agree with a lot of what you say, especially the parts on our fine leaders of USA & UK, and those great historical quotes. But the bits on that "global warming thing", well, you'll have to support them more to convince me. Here some comments...

"The reduction in CO2 emissions required by this new religion will push our industrialised economies back into the dark ages and prevent the emerging economies of the Third World from ever emerging...
Yes, stopping pollution costs money, and we have heard this argument before. But in every country where money was spent to clean up rivers and reduce air-born pollutants, the economy has grown. Look at Lake Erie--it used to be a sewer with no fish, now salmon are back. Look at chloro-flourocarbon refrigerants--we banned them, the ozone layer recovered (hopefully) and the world did not fall into the dark ages.

The "carbon points" system being suggested in the UK will effectively give everyone the same (low) standard of living, because no matter how much money you've got you won't be able to spend it because you'll have the same number of points as someone with far less money.
I don't know the details of this system. But in general I think it is wrong for me to pass on the costs of cleaning up my mess to my children. I would rather pay for cleaning up my pollution as I go.

"... the whole Global Warming thing is a political phenomenon based on junk science..."
If you mean junk science= published papers in internationally recognized journals, then yes you are right. I believe the consensus in peer-reviewed journals is that the current warming trends are human-made and relate to CO2 concentrations. If you have other sources that you think are better, you might want to share them.

"...designed to force through high taxation and restrictions on our personal freedoms and standard of living - socialism by the back door..."
Are you saying this is all a conspiracy? Could be, but my guess is that there many, many motivations, not a single conspiracy. As for me, I am simply in love with Leonardo DiCaprio and his cute Prius. wink

Cheers, Don smile
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Don Hinkelman

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by A. T. Wyatt -
I have a Honda Civic hybrid myself, and am very happy with it! I drive 100 miles a day, get 50 mpg, and am looking forward to more progress by automakers in the future! smile

My motivations are transparent--I think it is better for the environment and for my budget (although I concede that the car cost a bit more up front).

atw
Average of ratings: -
In reply to A. T. Wyatt

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Samuli Karevaara -
(Hijacking a thread here? smile )

I'm driving a Volkswagen Golf Station Wagon, 1.9 litres diesel engine, and I regularly get 58 mpg (US gallons) outside the city centre. I had the feeling the hybrid cars could do better than that (like 70 mpg)?

Edit: in case I'm miscalculating, that's 4.0 litres per 100 kilometers, i.e. 25 kilometers per one litre of diesel. Golf is sold as "Rabbit" (?! smile ) in North America?
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Samuli Karevaara

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by A. T. Wyatt -
Wow, that is great! No, gasoline/electric hybrids like mine do not get much better than 50 mpg. Sorry, I do not know the European equivalent measures! My friend had a Golf several years ago (there was also a Rabbit, but I didn't think they were the same car) and it did get excellent fuel economy. My car does not plug in to recharge, the batteries recharge with braking. I think true electric cars might get better mileage. But, in my case, they have too short of a range!

atw
Average of ratings: -
In reply to A. T. Wyatt

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Frances Bell -
How about this for mpg? Since new cars also consume fuel to build, even developing a fuel-efficient car doesn't solve the problem but it does feel like some sort of progress. I do like the idea of the Prius using 'wasted' energy, but even better if we can share transport wherever possible.
OOps, just noticed that Don already mentioned Prius!
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Don Hinkelman

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Chris Lamb -

I'm all for not polluting the planet we live on, keeping heavy metals out of water-courses, not pumping toxins into the atmosphere, etc etc, but the whole global warming thing is based on the premise that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and is causing the Earth to get fatally hotter.  It isn't.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's actually a plant food, and is emitted by every living thing on the planet.  CO2 levels have been far higher at various periods in the past than it is now, and the Earth was cooler.  The simple fact is that higher CO2 levels don't cause the climate to warm up - it's actually the reverse.  That impressive graph that Gore showed on his video, showing the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature was actually correct, there is a very close correlation.  He just missed out one thing - the x-axis.  When you look at the graph accurately you see that the change in atmospheric CO2 levels happens after the change in temperature, typically by about 800 years.  The reason for this is that cold water can hold more CO2 than warm water, so as the seas warm up they give up some of their dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere.

The temperature of the Earth is determined by the Sun.  Not just because that's where all our energy comes from, but because the Sun's heat output fluctuates, as does the number of sunspots on its surface, which has an effect on us.  We're not that far from the Sun, really, and we're actually within its upper 'atmosphere'.  Couple that with eccentricities in the Earth's orbit which take us closer or further from the Sun, and variations in the Earth's axial tilt, and we have a natural cyclical variation in the temperature of the Earth.  This was discovered back in the 1920's by a Serbian scientist called Milutin Milankovitch, and named after him.  The Milankovitch cycles predict the Earth's temperature pretty accurately, whereas the computer models used by the global warmers can't even predict what's already happened, never mind what's going to happen - they just come up with ever more apocalyptic scenarios which are then used by politicians to justify tax increases.

Once we accept that rising CO2 levels are a consequence of, and not a cause of, rising temperatures, the whole global warming thing falls apart along with all the restrictions and taxation being ushered in on the back of it.  We can then use our economic prosperity to further reduce genuine pollutants, and the emerging economies can actually emerge and improve the lives of their populations.

Oh, and in case anyone's worrying, the Earth isn't going to keep on getting hotter.  Milankovitch's theories, coupled with solar astronomy, predict that it will start to cool down again in about 2012 - whether we use our cars or not!  smile

Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Frances Bell -
And what do you drive Chris?
or do you use public transport exclusively?
BTW, I drive a Ford Focus occasionally, travelling to work usually by public transport. When I work at home, I am plagued by the stream of 4WD vehicles dropping off (usually) 1 child at the private school opposite my house.
Despite the verbiage above, I am just wondering how you explain global warming. I visited my brother in Iceland recently and he told me how they measure global warning by the visible retreat of the glacier.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Frances Bell

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Chris Lamb -

I rarely, if ever, use public transport.  I own a six-cylinder 2.9 litre Ford Granada, in which last year I covered the huge distance of 3,331 miles.

Global warming is easily explained - it's part of a natural cycle.  The Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years before we got here, and it will be warming and cooling for millions of years after we've gone.  The UK has at times been an arid desert, and at other times covered in ice to a depth of 1.5 miles.  We're currently in the warming part of a cycle, which is estimated to end around 2012, when we'll enter a cooling phase again.  It's just Man's arrogance, plus a big dollop of political opportunism, which makes us think that if the climate is changing then we're causing it.

The glacier thing is interesting.  Not long ago the leader of the British Conservative Party, 'Stuntboy Dave' Cameron, flew to the Norwegian island of Svalbard to perch photogenically on a glacier in order to 'prove' global warming and thus enhance his green credentials.  The glacier was carefully chosen, because it was one of the ones on the island that were retreating.  They took care not to stand him on one of the ones that were advancing!  Professor Ole Humlum of the Norwegian research centre on Svalbard pointed out that glaciers there typically experience a rapid advance lasting 5 to 7 years, then retreat slowly for the next 80 to 100 years - it's entirely natural.  Remember that glaciers are rivers of ice, not lakes of ice, and they flow down to the sea.  If bits didn't break off or melt occasionally there would be ribbons of ice running from pole to pole.

It's not surprising that temperatures are rising at the moment - we're in the final stages of emerging from a 'Mini Ice Age' which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.  It's very easy to say "Temperatures are higher than at any time since records began" when you start your records in the middle of an ice age!

Climate change is a perfectly normal and natural phenomenon which has been happening since the Earth was formed.  Global Warming is a political phenomenon which has been happening over the last twenty years.  When a politician says "We must save the planet" watch out - he wants to empty your wallet and steal your car.

Here's my simple guide to Global Warming:

Is the Earth warming up?  Yes.
Are we causing it?  No.
Can we stop it?  No.

smile

Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Maldersop Fupertio -

The best response to the global warning freaks is to smile and wave at them when you drive by in your big car. Here is what I drive everyday.  

hummer-pass-view.jpg

Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to Maldersop Fupertio

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by John Isner -
From the picture, it looks like you are stuck in traffic as a commuter train whizzes by. As it should be smile
Average of ratings: -
In reply to John Isner

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Chris Lamb -
He'll be sitting in his comfortable car listening to the radio while the commuters stand in the aisles with drunks being sick on their shoes.  The commuters will also have to walk from the station to their homes, whereas he will park on his drive and stroll into his house.  I know which I'd rather do!  smile
Average of ratings: Fairly cool (2)
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Frances Bell -
This view would be formed from your rare, if ever, use of public transport , would it Chris? Well at least that sheds some light on your rigourous use of evidence tongueout
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Frances Bell

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Chris Lamb -

It's cause and effect - having experienced public transport in the past I now try to avoid it as much as possible.  I do occasionally go by train, if it's convenient, but I'd rather go to the dentist than travel on a bus!  big grin

Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to John Isner

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Maldersop Fupertio -
Yes, and doesn't the idea that I'm just sitting there, burning up gas, destroying your ozone, make you mad wink. You'll have plenty of time to stew over that while you're waiting on your crowded train so that you can save the planet smile
Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to Maldersop Fupertio

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Frances Bell -
Welcome to Moodle. We have seen you in the Lounge over the last few days but don't forget there are lots of other spaces to explore to find out more about Moodle. It's always a good idea to complete your profile so people know more about you and why you are here.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Frances Bell

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Maldersop Fupertio -

It's always a good idea to complete your profile so people know more about you and why you are here.

Thank you for the welcome. I have been using moodle for some time now and I know about the other areas here. I like moodle, but I choose to remain anonymous here for my own safety. I'm afraid some global warning extremist may track me down and throw a pie in my face smile Anonymity is allowed and even encouraged in many online discussion sites. Isn't it allowed here?

As far as "why I am here". Do I need to express a reason? If so, my reason for posting here is to let the global warning extremists know that not everyone takes them seriously.

Should I express my reason each time I make a post? I'm just trying to understand your rules.

Why is it "always a good idea to complete your profile". I was always taught sharing personal information was a personal decision. Shouldn't one be cautious about the amount of personal information one posts to the Internet? Are the rules different here?

And finally, what does this have to do with "the global warming thing"?

Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to Maldersop Fupertio

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Frances Bell -
I am pleased to hear that you have been using Moodle for some time (though I note that you only created an account just before you started posting on global warming). You seem to have made a decision on anonymity before the 'pie threat', and I, for one, would respect that decision ( we have no rules on identity). You don't have to express any reason for being here - in most cases, people's reason for being here is inferred from their contributions.
You are under no obligation to complete your profile - I simply suggested that doing so might give Moodlers an idea of why you are here. After all, some may think that someone who arrives and posts only on global warming is a troll, not realising that this person is interested in Moodle.
Why don't you share with us some of your views and ideas on Moodle?
BTW, yours is such an unusual name - is it a pseudonym?
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Frances Bell

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Debora Wasem -
I appreciate the welcome message.  I am a new user to Moodle because it has been talked about as a Learning Management System.  As an educator, whenever I hear about something new, I start learning what I can.  I prefer not to complete my profile with any great detail and remain as anonymous as possible.  I don't visit chat rooms as a practice, but I'm learning and think they are very helpful on a directed topic.  One thing I can assure is that I would never use inappropriate language or inappropriate uses for Moodle (or anything).  I'm off to explore other spaces within Moddle.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Debora Wasem

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Frances Bell -
You are most welcome Debora. If you are going exploring, you might like to check out your profile, particularly auto-subscribe and email options. You may find that you get a lot of messages from forums you have visited. You can manage this by unsubscribing from forums and by setting your profile to email digest option. There is also an option to hide your email address if you wish.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Maldersop Fupertio

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Chris Lamb -

Hey, is that a Hummer?  Nice motor!  And won't it annoy those people who think they're saving the planet by buying a Toyota Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid when they learn that the 'dust-to-dust' energy consumption and allied CO2 emissions of their 'green' cars is about 40% higher than the Hummer! Not to mention the fact that production of the Prius creates huge amounts of real pollution rather than the pretend pollutant carbon dioxide - the area around the mine in Ontario that produces the nickel for the batteries, for example, has been damaged so badly that NASA train astronauts there because it resembles the surface of the Moon.

Go green - buy a Hummer!  big grin

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Hidden%20Cost%20of%20Driving%20a%20Prius%20Commentary.pdf

Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Maldersop Fupertio -

Now Chris, don't confuse all the self-righteous, global warming do-gooders with facts. Their little minds can't handle it. They'll have to run to their great leader, the inventor of the Internet and global warming guru, Mr. Al Gore to ask how they should respond smile. But, I will still be driving my Hummer, smiling and waving at them smile

Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to Maldersop Fupertio

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Smallish Matt -
Maybe you can answer the question, based on the facts:

Mars gets less solar energy than the Moon, yet it is warmer than the Moon.

Please explain why this is?

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Smallish Matt

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Chris Lamb -

Does Mars have an atmosphere?  If it does, then that's why - it's wrapped in a snuggly warm blanket.  If the Earth didn't have its atmosphere then it would be as cold as the Moon.

Now, I think this is where you're hoping to go "Aha! So the atmosphere does cause the planet to warm up, so more CO2 will make the planet hotter, so global warming is true, QED."  The evidence doesn't support that though.  Apart from the 800-year lag between changes in temperature and the corresponding changes in CO2, there have been times in the Earth's past where the temperature was higher despite lower CO2 levels, and periods where the Earth has been much colder despite CO2 levels many times those at the present.

Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Smallish Matt -
The 'snuggly warm blanket'--how does it work? Surely you can describe in some detail how this 'snuggly blanket' keeps a planet warm, if you know something about atmospherics.

Or, is it magic??
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Samuli Karevaara -
Yes, there are a lot of hidden costs in manufacturing hybrid cars and especially batteries, but the mine thing is a bit of a myth. Toyota only purchased a bit more than half percent of the output of the mining co. + most of the environmental damage around the mine was caused in the 70s. They have reported that the mines sulfur dioxide emissions are down 90 percent from those days, and they aim for a 97-percent reduction by 2015.

You can google for "hummer prius myth" for example.

Disclaimer: I also believe that the earth would be getting warmer no matter what we do. But I also believe that we can be speeding up the process. Also, the global effects of all pollutions are hard/impossible to measure, so as a precaution it might be better to prevent/cut down all pollution of any kind smile
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Samuli Karevaara

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Chris Lamb -

as a precaution it might be better to prevent/cut down all pollution of any kind

Ah, the famous precautionary principle beloved of the global warmers when their science is shown to be bogus!  "Even though I'm wrong, shouldn't we do what I want anyway as if I was right?"

I'm all in favour of cutting down on pollution - real pollution.  If we can reduce the amount of sulphur dioxide pumped into the atmosphere, the chemicals pumped into our watercourses, and the heavy metals polluting our soil, then yes, let's do it.  But CO2 isn't a pollutant - it's a totally natural by-product of organic life, and is in fact a food to green plants.

Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Samuli Karevaara -
Although I almost get what you are saying, it still does not completely compute. A non-pollutant can obviously still be bad in too large quantities or in a wrong/unnatural place. A bit (but only a bit) like salt is an essential ingredient to a human body, but too much of it is lethal.

You're too provocational, obviously on purpose. "Even though I'm wrong..." was supposed to be "Even though there is still some evidence to the contraire (though more in my way)..." HTH. smile
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Samuli Karevaara

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Josep M. Fontana -
>I also believe that the earth would be getting warmer no matter what we do.
>But I also believe that we can be speeding up the process. Also, the global
>effects of all pollutions are hard/impossible to measure, so as a precaution it
>might be better to prevent/cut down all pollution of any kind

Yes, and to back up what you are saying with some scientific data and argumentation you can cite the following articles. Despite the unquestionable scientific credentials of the authors, the data and the argumentation, I'm afraid Chris will continue to try to convince us that these articles are part of a world-wide conspiracy of crypto-communists bent on curtailing our most basic freedoms and imposing the socialist yoke under the cloak of environmental concerns.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/#more-430
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Don Hinkelman -
Picture of Particularly helpful Moodlers Picture of Plugin developers
Thanks, Chris, for laying out your arguments in way I could understand. Like you have done, I think I need to critique the science more and consider possible alternative explanations you have made, that CO2 levels are not a pollutant and the higher levels are not an impending problem. I hope you are right, but I am worried. mixed

Frances also raises a good question. How do we explain the retreat of glaciers in Iceland, Greenland and ice shelves in Antartica? We could say these retreats are normal cycles, however, scientists who are studying historical and prehistorical cycles are saying that the rate of change is so fast (geologically speaking) that it is impossible to explain due to "normal" cycles. I would like to write this all off as alarmist theory (remember Y2K?), but too many studies are saying this not explainable unless you add human use of fossil fuels into the equation.

P.S. I was glad to see that new appliances in Japan now have stamped in their registration plate the number of kilograms of CO2 that the appliance directly & indirectly outputs. For example, the heat pump I saw emits 1.2 kgs of CO2 per year. If we can put a price tag on the cost of removing that 1.2kg of CO2, I would be willing to pay that in the cost of my heat pump, rather than pass it on to the "government" to pay for out my taxes or my childrens' taxes. That makes me wonder though, if I pay companies the fee, how do they remove the CO2? (assuming it is a problem).
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Don Hinkelman

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Frances Bell -
I heard Donald Mackenzie speak recently about carbon markets including European Union Emissions Trading Scheme: ‘cap-and-trade’. If you follow the link to the powerpoint slide show, you'll find lots of lovely pictures of Edinburgh University's new heating system (that will contribute to the National Grid through the use of an exhaust gas heat exchanger - details a little opaque to me wink ). This is his summary of scheme

"Covers CO2 from large fixed installations (eg over 20 MW). National allocation plans: ‘caps’. Allowances (tonnes CO2) distributed, mainly for free, to operators.

  • Produce more CO2 than you have allowances: buy allowances or be fined.

  • Produce less CO2 than you have allowances: can sell allowances.
"

Being a sociologist of technology, he is very interested in the social and political aspects of energy, the environment and how we respond to change.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Smallish Matt -
The simple fact is that higher CO2 levels don't cause the climate to warm up - it's actually the reverse.

If this were true, then you would have to explain why Mars is much cooler than the relative amount of insolation it recieves would suggest, while Venus is much hotter.

What looking at this data shows is that Mars has almost no greenhouse gasses, while Venus has a very large amount.

Reflecting on another point might also help:

The term 'greenhouse gas' describes gasses that reflect infra-red light, otherwise known as heat. Once infrared light gets through a planet's atmosphere, it has a harder time escaping if there are more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

A good place to learn about this issue: realclimate.org. As pointed out there by Jeff Severinghaus

The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. By the way, the lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds rather closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback.

So the point about human contribution to Greenhouse gasses is that we are amplifying an already existing situation by releasing all of the carbon (oil, coal) stored over millions of years by biological process, during a period of natural warming.

This also is confirmed by the Martian and Venusian data-no amount of greenhouse gasses would make Venus warm if it's orbit was out with Pluto, however even it it shared the same orbit with Earth, it would be much hotter than Earth (and Mars would still be much cooler than Earth if it were in the same orbit).

Here is a fun application you can use to explore the effects of insolation and CO2 on Mars.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Smallish Matt

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Chris Lamb -

The simple fact is that higher CO2 levels don't cause the climate to warm up - it's actually the reverse.

> If this were true, then you would have to explain why Mars is much cooler than the relative amount of insolation it recieves would suggest, while Venus is much hotter.

I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote - reading the sentence again it is perhaps a bit ambiguous.  In saying "..actually the reverse" I don't mean that higher CO2 levels cause the Earth to cool down rather than warm up, what I mean is that higher CO2 levels don't cause the climate to warm up, a warmer climate causes atmospheric CO2 levels to increase.  This is due to the oceans de-gassing as they warm up, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

Whilst on the subject of Mars, by the way, apparently NASA have found evidence of global warming there.  I may be wrong, but from the photos I've seen of Mars there don't seem to be too many cars up there...

Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Smallish Matt -
This is due to the oceans de-gassing as they warm up, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

You are forgetting the third step. The steps are:

  1. Temperature increase due to insolation
  2. Oceans warm up and release CO2
  3. Temperature increases further due to the increased CO2
This is what is known as a feedback loop. The historical evidence shows that when CO2 increases (step2) the temperature increases (step 3). In this the present, we are step 2 rather than the warming oceans.

In the past there were few dramatic increases in CO2 that were not caused by rising ocean temperatures, but now we have a dramatic increase in CO2 not caused by increased insolation, asteroid impact, or massive vulcanism.

I may be wrong, but from the photos I've seen of Mars there don't seem to be too many cars up there

Sorry, I don't see what point you are making here, you do realize that one would expect some 'global warming' on Mars as there is some CO2 in Mar's atmosphere? You do realize that the increase in warming would be greater if there was more CO2 in Mar's atmosphere? Again, try to imagine Mars in the same orbit as Earth, would it be hotter, cooler or the same?

The Moon receives the same amount of insolation as Earth, why is it so cold?


Average of ratings: -
In reply to Smallish Matt

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Maldersop Fupertio -

"I may be wrong, but from the photos I've seen of Mars there don't seem to be too many cars up there"

"The Moon receives the same amount of insolation as Earth, why is it so cold?"

So, following your logic, if there were no cars on the planet, Earth would be as cold as the Moon! mixed 

Newsflash everyone: We're in the presence of a genus smile

Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to Maldersop Fupertio

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Smallish Matt -
Lets try a real simple one:

What is it about Earth that causes it to be warmer than the Moon?

Is it magic?






Average of ratings: -
In reply to Smallish Matt

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Maldersop Fupertio -

According to your reasoning, as I have already pointed out above:

Answer: Automobiles

Only God knows how humans lived millions of years ago before an asteroid crashed into earth, resulting in the creation of the automobile, which in turn caused the planet to start warming up enough for humans to evolve and survive. It's ironic that, what allowed us to live on this planet will now continue to cause global warming to the point of our extinction wink

I want to thank you so much for educating me. I have learned so much by following this discussion. I shall tell everyone what an enlightening educational experience this has been--as I'm talking to them on my cell phone while stuck in traffic in my hummer smile

PS: You should really think of joining the community over at www.edge.org

Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to Maldersop Fupertio

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Smallish Matt -
Actually, I was asking you why you thought the Moon is so much cooler than Earth, you don't know?

If you don't have any idea why different rocks have different temperatures even while receiving the same amount of sunlight, that is a good place to start in beginning to learn about the science behind the global warming issue.

Here is a good place to start:
http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/temperatuur.html#v363

Venus has a large greenhouse effect in its atmosphere, so that the temperature at the surface of Venus is much higher than both Teq and Thot. The Earth has a greenhouse effect, too, but it is much smaller than that of Venus. Mercury and the Moon have no atmosphere and they rotate slowly, so the temperature at their equator gets close to Thot.

See the table at the link for values for Thot and Teq.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Smallish Matt

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Maldersop Fupertio -

Actually, I was asking you why you thought the Moon is so much cooler than Earth, you don't know?

23.5 degrees of tilt results in dramatic differences in the climate at different locations here on earth and you want to debate why there are temperature differences between the earth and the moon? mixed

When your mom wakes you up this morning, gets you dressed, feeds you breakfast, and sends you off to school, do yourself a favor and try to stay awake in science class wink

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Maldersop Fupertio

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Smallish Matt -
The question is why is the average temperature of the Moon so much cooler than the average temperature of Earth, not why there are local temperature differences on Earth.

In science, you need to be able to explain your hypotheses: if you are going to claim that the Moon is cooler than Earth because of 'tilt', then please explain how the 'tilt' makes the heat go away on the moon? Does it make the infrared slide off and fall into the aether?
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Smallish Matt

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Chris Lamb -
You are forgetting the third step. The steps are:
  1. Temperature increase due to insolation
  2. Oceans warm up and release CO2
  3. Temperature increases further due to the increased CO2

Where did step 3 come from?  I know where it came from - it came from an assumption that increased CO2 causes an increase in temperature.  You're trying to overlay Man-Made Global Warming Theory on top of real results.

Following your logic we have the following system:

  1. Temperature increase due to insolation
  2. Oceans warm up and release CO2
  3. Temperature increases further due to the increased CO2
  4. Oceans warm up and release CO2
  5. Temperature increases further due to the increased CO2
  6. Oceans warm up and release CO2
  7. Temperature increases further due to the increased CO2
  8. Oceans warm up and release CO2
  9. Temperature increases further due to the increased CO2
  10. Oceans warm up and release CO2
  11. Temperature increases further due to the increased CO2
  12. Oceans warm up and release CO2
  13. Temperature increases further due to the increased CO2
  14. ...repeat ad infinitum

This is known as an infinite loop, and continues until we get to

3435628749832.  Earth becomes a parched and barren wasteland incapable of supporting life.

Now, at this point the global warmers will be running around shouting "The sky is falling!" and telling us that we have to give up our cars and our comfortable lifestyles in order to prevent this happening, but let's look at it a bit more closely.

We've reached step 2 many times in the past, so if this loop was correct then the Earth should have reached step 3435628749832 thousands or millions of years ago.  Mankind would never have evolved, in fact probably neither would the dinosaurs.  But the Earth didn't reach step 3435628749832, the fact that we're all here discussing it proves that, so why not?  Well, there must be a break in the loop - either step 2 is wrong or step 3 is.  We know step 2 is true, the geological record tells us so, so it must be step 3 which is wrong.

The actual sequence of events is as follows:

  1. Temperature increase due to Milankovitch Cycles (increases in Sun's activity, changes to Earth's orbit and axial tilt, etc)
  2. Oceans warm up and release CO2 (with 800-year delay)
  3. Temperature reduction due to Milankovitch Cycles (reduction in Sun's activity, changes to Earth's orbit and axial tilt, etc)
  4. Oceans cool down and absorb CO2 (with 800-year delay)
  5. ... repeat until the Sun goes nova and destroys the entire Solar System.

This process is a cyclical one rather than a runaway one.  It's what's happened many times in the past, it's what's happening now, and it's what will continue to happen in the future.

Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Smallish Matt -

This is known as an infinite loop, and continues until we get to

3435628749832. Earth becomes a parched and barren wasteland incapable of supporting life.

Exactly, this is the main reason why Venus is a barren wasteland incapable of supporting life. You are on the right track to understanding this issue!

Of course an infinite loop requires constantly increasing inputs of greenhouse gasses, at some point all the available carbon on the planet is in the atmosphere and the temperature increase stops.

Where did step 3 come from? I know where it came from - it came from an assumption that increased CO2 causes an increase in temperature.

From observation of other planets, we know that increased CO2 leads to an increase in temperature, again, both Mars and Venus are warmer than they would be if they had no greenhouse gasses in their atmosphere (see this link for a detailed explanation.*)

Temperature increase due to Milankovitch Cycles (increases in Sun's activity, changes to Earth's orbit and axial tilt, etc)

Of course, Milankovitch Cycles are not at all incompatible with Global Warming, in fact they are one cause of the observed change in greenhouse gasses in the climate record (the main one, until someone started burning up all the sequestered carbon).





Average of ratings: -
In reply to Smallish Matt

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Chris Lamb -

you do realize that one would expect some 'global warming' on Mars as there is some CO2 in Mar's atmosphere?

NASA have found evidence of global warming on Mars, but as there are no seas or rivers on Mars to degas and add more CO2 to the atmosphere, no cars or anything else burning fossil fuels, in fact no apparent activity at all which would increase CO2 levels, where's the global warming coming from if it's supposed to be caused by increased CO2?

The simple answer is that it's being caused by an external influence, ie the Sun.  Now, as global warming is happening on a completely dead planet at the same time as it's happening here, is it not likely that the cause is the same in both cases?  Mankind clearly isn't causing the global warming on Mars, so why should it be supposed that we're causing it here?

Average of ratings: Not cool (1)
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Smallish Matt -
Mankind clearly isn't causing the global warming on Mars, so why should it be supposed that we're causing it here?

Mars has a very eccentric orbit compared to Earth, it's tilt and distance from the sun change to a much greater degree than that of the Earth.

One huge hole in Abdussamatov's hypothesis (that there is no greenhouse effect) is that Phobos and Deimos are much colder than Mars, while the Moon is much colder than Earth. Since there is no warm fuzzy blanket of CO2 on these moons, the heat from the Sun is mostly re-radiated back out to Space.


Average of ratings: -
In reply to Smallish Matt

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Chris Lamb -

Since there is no warm fuzzy blanket of CO2 on these moons, the heat from the Sun is mostly re-radiated back out to Space.

Why is it only the CO2 part of the warm fuzzy blanket which causes Earth (or any other planet)?  Most of our atmosphere is nitrogen, with large amounts of oxygen and other gases as well, but for some reason you regard the CO2 component (measured in parts per million) as the active bit.  This is rather like suggesting that it's the dye in your blanket which keeps you warm at night rather than the blanket itself.

You've missed the point about the global warming on Mars.  Mars has warmed up, and Mars may well have CO2 in its atmosphere, but there has been no increase in CO2 levels - no sequestered CO2 has been released and no new CO2 has entered the atmosphere.  Why, then, should the CO2 have caused Mars's temperature to go up when the CO2 level has remained stable?  Answer:  because the rise in temperature has nothing to do with the level of CO2.

You still haven't explained why the infinite loop hasn't happened, as CO2 is released from the oceans as they warm up which causes the temperature to rise which causes more CO2 to be released from the oceans, and so on.  It's no good claiming that "This is what's going to happen if we don't tackle global warming" as the alarmists do - if global warming theory is correct then it should have happened thousands or millions of years ago and we should never have evolved in the first place.

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Smallish Matt -
Why is it only the CO2 part of the warm fuzzy blanket which causes Earth (or any other planet)?

Carbon containing molecules reflect more infrared light than most molecules. CO2 is the most common carbon containing molecule in our atmosphere. Chem 101 in accredited university should cover this.

Mars has warmed up, and Mars may well have CO2 in its atmosphere, but there has been no increase in CO2 levels -

Mars has warmed up because it's orbit is variable, this changes the amount of insolation it receives and absorbs. Earth's orbit is much less variable. The greenhouse effect is an increase in warming greater than that explained by changes in the amount of sunlight and/or albedo effects. Mars is getting hotter faster than Phobos, for instance, even though both receive the same amount of sunlight.

Again the question: if this is not due to the greenhouse effect, what causes it?

if global warming theory is correct then it should have happened thousands or millions of years ago and we should never have evolved in the first place.

Happened millions of years ago, the Earth was much warmer when there was more carbon in the atmosphere. Plants and ocean chemistry sequestered most of this primeval carbon in oil, coal, natural gass, and ocean floor deposits of frozen CO2. If average global temperature increases to the level it was 600 million years ago most of our current coastlines are well under water. This doesn't mean the end of life on Earth (due to thermodynamics Earth's global avg. temp can't go as high as Venus'), it does mean that hundreds of millions of people will need to move to higher ground, and that much of the farmland where their food grows will be underwater.

Remember, there are two ways carbon can get into the atmopsheric system:
  1. Out gassing from the oceans or other natural deposits, mainly caused by changes in insolation due to orbital wobble or solar cycles
  2. Release of sequestered deposits (oil, coal, etc.). Oil, coal, etc. don't outgas, they need a large amount of heat input to initiate carbon release, this would not happen on a global scale unless there was planet wide vulcanism, a massive meteorite strike, or...monkeys starting bonfires!
When looking at planetary temperatures, doesn't matter how the carbon got into the air, it matters what effect the carbon has on retention of heat. Of course, monkeys tend to be more interested in who is to blame for a problem rather than what to do about it and so tend to ignore scientific data when it conflicts with their feelings.

Global Average Temp vs. atmospheric CO2:

temp


Average of ratings: -
In reply to Smallish Matt

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Chris Lamb -

Thanks for the graph - very useful, as it knocks a big hole in claims that temperature is related to CO2 levels.

Why is the temperature stable up until about 470 million years ago despite the CO2 levels varying wildly, including a sudden rise of about 25% 530 million years ago when the temperature didn't move?  In fact there was a sudden DROP of 10 degrees 450 million years ago which coincided with a RISE in CO2.  When the CO2 level dropped by about 30% between 450 and 420 million years ago the temperature went back up.  The temperature is again stable between 240 and 170 million years ago, despite massive changes in CO2 levels, in fact towards the end of that period when CO2 levels were still climbing the temperature started to fall.  The temperature rose again from about 140 to 130 million years ago whilst CO2 levels were falling, and then remained stable from about 120 to 50 million years ago whilst CO2 levels fell by around 50%.  In fact there seems to be only one place on the entire graph where the two lines go in the same direction for the same length of time, and that's about 250 million years ago.  Given that over the rest of the graph either the temperature is stable while the CO2 level varies wildly or the two lines are actually going in opposite directions I think that's probably just a coincidence.  Those two lines have absolutely no relation to each other.  Might I suggest that you don't offer graphs to support your claims which actually go a long way to disproving them?

If you want to see a graph which does show a relationship between CO2 and temperature have a look at this one: 

monnin.jpg

I think it's a variant of the one which Gore used in his fictional work "An Inconvenient Truth".  There is a very clear relationship between temperature and CO2 levels, but the inconvenient truth which for some reason Gore neglected to mention is that the change in temperature precedes the change in CO2, it doesn't follow it.

the Earth was much warmer when there was more carbon in the atmosphere.

Was it?  Can you produce evidence for that?  The level shown in your own graph for 530 million years ago shows CO2 levels to be about 18 times those of today.  How much warmer was it then?

Plants and ocean chemistry sequestered most of this primeval carbon in oil, coal, natural gass, and ocean floor deposits of frozen CO2

So where are these sequestered deposits of dry ice now then?  I've watched a lot of TV programmes about undersea exploration, and I don't recall anyone pointing to an undersea iceberg and saying "That's one of the frozen CO2 deposits".

monkeys tend to be more interested in who is to blame for a problem rather than what to do about it and so tend to ignore scientific data when it conflicts with their feelings.

Don't be so hard on yourself!  Just go back to the data and be guided to a conclusion by it, rather than starting with a viewpoint and trying to hammer the data to fit.  The simple fact is that climate change is a completely natural phenomenon, we're not causing it, we can't stop it, and we shall soon be entering the next cooling phase of the cycle anyway.  We will serve the people of the Earth much better if instead of trying to hitch political doctrines to a natural occurrence we use our wealth to protect those people who may be adversely affected in the short term.

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Smallish Matt -
very useful, as it knocks a big hole in claims that temperature is related to CO2 levels.

This explains a good deal. You are looking for ammunition, rather than understanding. For instance the graph shows a 200my stable greenhouse with the Oridivician event stuck in the middle of it. This is excellent evidence for a greenhouse effect (temperatures were high and stable until there was an external event, and re-established after the event). The graph provides further evidence for for the effects of life on global carbon and temperature (why is the carbiniferous called that?).

So where are these sequestered deposits of dry ice now then?

http://www.geotimes.org/nov04/feature_climate.html

Estimates show that oceanic gas hydrates currently hold somewhere between 1,000 and 22,000 gigatons of carbon as methane, with most studies suggesting about 10,000 gigatons. Considering that our atmosphere contains about 700 gigatons of carbon, even the low mass estimates make gas hydrate a major component of the global carbon cycle.

They even have a picture, there.

The level shown in your own graph for 530 million years ago shows CO2 levels to be about 18 times those of today. How much warmer was it then?

Global average temp. was 12C higher in through the Cambrian and the start of the Ordovician. When atmospheric CO2 was sequestered by plant life during the Carboniferous, global average temp. fell precipitously.

The simple fact is that climate change is a completely natural phenomenon, we're not causing it, we can't stop it, and we shall soon be entering the next cooling phase of the cycle anyway.

Coal and oil are completely natural phenomenon, as is monkey's burning them in great big bonfires without thinking about the consequences and claiming that Gawdidit the next day.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Samuli Karevaara -
"This is due to the oceans de-gassing as they warm up, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere."

But is that because they are already saturated with CO2 and can't take any more? Thus the CO2 levels would raise after the saturation, then the warming releasing more and so on, the vicious cycle you know. And if it is, then why would that be? (I don't know if it is so, but that's also a possibility)
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Samuli Karevaara

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Smallish Matt -
Cooler water is denser, has more H2O molecules/square centimeter. H20 holds CO2 in by forming bonds between the H20 and the CO2. When water warms up, it becomes less dense, and can hold fewer CO2 molecules. The ones it can't hold are released into the air.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Smallish Matt

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Chris Lamb -

Quite so!  At least we agree on something.  Keep going with the rest of the science - you'll get there!  smile

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Chris Lamb

Re: The Global Warming Thing

by Smallish Matt -
You can't just leave out the bits of science you don't like, such as CO2 reflecting infrared light, and thereby causing planets with CO2 in their atmosphere to be warmer than they would be otherwise, aka the greenhouse effect.

This is just as basic, standard science science as warming H20 releasing absorbed gasses...
Average of ratings: -