Topic: Global Warming

[Civvik]

What are you talking about? All I said was that CO2 Global Warming theory has serious problems.  That qualifies as intellectual arrogance? Do you know anything about me or my scientific background? Can someone please address the specific issues without insulting me?

Because your choice of words for several pages now has been very much about you, your beliefs, your victimization, selectively admitting your own ignorance, implying ignorance of others, dismissing other peoples opinions as "ca-ca," etc. In other words, baiting a conflict. That's fine with me, it breaks no forum rules. But don't play the game and then play the victim. That type of debate is just annoying.

[tedolph]

OK-here goes the science.  Venus, Earth and Mars are all in the so called "habitable zone". They are not that much closer to or further from the sun to account for their different climates.  Venus is very similar to the Earth in mass so gravity is similar.  Mars is smaller (almost the size of a moon) and only has about 1/3 as much gravity.  It is believed that Mars also had an insufficient magnetic field (maybe because no molten core) allowing charged particles from the sun to reach its original atmosphere, water vapor was thus broken down to its constituent parts and there was not enough gravity to hold on to atomic hydrogen gas and the solar wind blew it away.  Without the H2, no rain and the planet dessicated.  Without its water vapor greehouse gas it got cold.  The water that was left froze and in the reduced atmospheric pressure sublimated to gas, rose into the atmosphere, broke down into O2 and H2 which was lost to space, etc.  Venus on the other hand had too much methane (a powerful green house gas) in its original atmosphere which acted as a blanket.  It got hot, the pressure rose and it eventually rained sulfuric acid.  The acid dissolved the rocks releasing CO2 raising the pressure even more.  The methane boiled off leaving the CO2.  Earth was like one of the three bears, it was just right and has been in homeostasis (more or less) for the past 500 million years, since the break up of Pangea.  That is what changed the carbon cycle to give us the climate we have now. 

Also, I never said anything about a conspiracy.  I resent the accusation that I did.

[Civvik]

As for getting back to the topic, you are entirely correct. Methane and Water Vapor are tens of times more powerful greenhouse drivers than CO2. Here is a link to the abstract for one of the big studies that helped steer the conversation towards methane. http://www.pnas.org/content/103/37/13570

However, here's what the lead scientist of this study is quoted as saying about the best way to address it:
"We can't control this particular source of methane," she said. "The wiser thing to do would be to think about controlling our overall greenhouse gas emissions. There's a lot more carbon dioxide than methane in the atmosphere."
-- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060829-methane-warming_2.html

Let that at least give one pause.

[tedolph]

"but I we all know that correlation does not imply causation"

I would modify this slightly, "We all know that correlation does not prove causation" and that is the whole problem with those that carry the burden of proving that CO2 concentration causes Global Warming.  All they have is correlation. 

[tedolph]

I didn't say that Global Warming is ca ca.  I was repeating what an eighth grader said when she and her partner were assigned to represent the Global Warming hypotheses in a scientific debate in science class.  Two others represented the "non-global warming" side of the argument.  The eighth graders assigned the pro-global warming side concluded at the end of their literature research that global warming was "ca ca" and told their science teacher so but did their best to present a case they no longer believed in.  It was interesting because both started the project believing in Global Warming as has been presented in the media. 

[tedolph]

"There's a lot more carbon dioxide than methane in the atmosphere."

And that I submit is one proof of why we are probably not experiencing "Global Warming" as that term is used in this discussion.  If the methane levels were rising, now that would worry me. 

[Civvik]

NOAA stunner: Methane, CO2 levels up sharply in 2008
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090421_carbon.html

[Clvlndr in LV]

"Carbon dioxide has increased from .28% to .38% due to human causes and that certainly has caused an increase in temperature of the atmosphere"


Boy, you couldn't be more wrong.  It is methane and water vapor that have historically (geological timeline) been the driving forces of global warming periods.  The CO2 build up comes later as a result of the CO2 sequestration system warming and being unable to lock up as much CO2 in limestone.  Your best argument for Global Warming is that CO2 is an indicator, the "canary in the mine" so to speak.  That is, as the oceans warm, atmospheric water vapor increases,  methane is released from permafrost and probably the shallow areas of oceans, lakes, etc. and this is what causes things to start to get hot.  As a result, the carbon cycle warms and the homeostasis of CO2 in the atmosphere (rather than locked up in limestone)rises.  Thus, CO2 levels rising has historically (talking about hundreds of millions of years of data) been a result of Global Warming, not a cause.  As I said before, this was the accepted thinking by climatologists for many years and was confirmed  by the planetologists from the Mars and Venus data.  Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is pretty much irrelevant.  None of the scientist talking about terraforming Mars talk about adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  They do talk about adding water vapor (e.g. melting the ice caps).  The primary green house gas on Venus was methane, not CO2. 

" The primary green house gas on Venus is methane, not CO2." - Tedolph

I'm afraid that is completely false. The atmosphere on Venus is by most accounts 96.5% CO2 by volume and roughly 3% N (Nitrogen) with trace amounts of SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide), water vapor, CO among others but no source lists Methane as even existing in trace amounts.

You are correct- I used the wrong tense.  The current Venusian atmosphere is mostly CO2 because it is stable at high temperatures.  The hypothesis is that the primordial atmosphere was methane and that this is what started what is now a runaway greenhouse effect.  Venus is now very hot, way to hot for methane to exist (probably above its flashpoint).  It would have burned off long ago. 

Tedolph you seem reasonable and informed and I wouldn't bother correcting you had you not made such an impression on others: "...logical and convincing..." says Hootenany "interesting" Time Warner (MTS)

Sorry to say my contention is not just the atmosphere of Venus but several points in that earlier post.
You say it is methane and water vapor that have been the driving forces of climate change yet ignore what's known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (among other eras), a period in which CO2 levels doubled in a time frame of 10,000 years and brought about mass extinction. Lets go to the beginning of procaryotic life on this planet when creatures as insignificant as blue green algae consumed enough CO2 (not methane or water vapor)to make the entire planet habitable for O2 consuming life forms;   not to mention changing the climate.

You wrote " That is, as the oceans warm, atmospheric water vapor increases,  methane is released from permafrost and probably the shallow areas of oceans, lakes, etc. and this is what causes things to start to get hot."   Why is the ocean warming?

Just to be clear limestone is a sedimentary rock made of silicates and calcium carbonate,aka Calcite (Sea shells, corals and such); the main source of which are the marine organisms that are responsible for most of the carbon sequestration in the ocean. The point here is living organisms very susceptible to changes in dissolved CO2 as well as temperature are responsible for the sequestration not dead rock that forms as a byproduct millions of years later.
 
All discussion of terraforming Mars revolves around the thawing of "dry ice" locked in the polar caps of our red neighbor. Of course you know dry ice is solid CO2. No mention of methane since as you mentioned it's very unstable. Even in earth's atmosphere it is broken down by UV radiation in the span of approximately a decade.

I remember just enough of my CSU geology and chemistry to question you and as Civvik suggested just enough internet surfing to be dangerous; certainly not a scientist. Truly the whole point is that CO2 is not this evil compound; it just needs to be in balance. As surly as we know you can grow a tomato in a hot house in January, we know CO2 increases in the atmosphere will cause increases in temperature. Even if our current warming trend was based on a solar cycle or some other explanation, should we not mitigate the outcome as best we can?

[kingfish out of water]

Great way to cut methane emissions: go vegetarian and/or take action against cow farts: http://earthfirst.com/tag/methane/

[Hootenany]

^And this is how we arrive back at population control... it's come full circle.

[kingfish out of water]

Vegetarians have no trouble reproducing.

[tedolph]

Thanks for your insightful post Clvlndr in LV.  A few points.  First the changing methane levels.  The graph is calibrated in parts per billion not million.  I would suggest that those changes are in the noise although the trend is disturbing and not indicative of measurement noise.  Second point.  I believe that the oceans are warming due to sub sea volcanism-we have not begun to chart these volcanos and they are far more numerous than surface volcanos.  One volcano (Krakatoa sp?) changed the climate for three years. What drives volcanos is another question but it certainly isn't CO2 buildup.  Third point, we don't know what caused the P. E. Thermal maximum.  We know that it is correlated to CO2 concentration but that is a long way from cause and effect.  Fourth point, the ice on Mars is now believed to have a substantial water component and not so much CO2.  All the seasonal changes in the size of the Matian ice cap is melting of CO2 (note that even that massive change in atmospheric CO2 from a percentage point of view has no effect on climate).  The remainder of the ice cap is water and it doesn't melt.  If it did there would be Martian Global Warming! Final point, CO2 in the atmosphere is always in "balance" regardless of density.  That is the basis of the carbon cycle.  The question is are we somehow fundamentally changing the system so that there is no longer a negative feedback loop (e.g. open loop Mars or Venus climate) or are we just cycling though historical equilibrium points (closed loop feedback), none of which were catastrophic.  Also I disagree with your contention that living organisms are a principle factor in sequestering CO2.  Although this is true in the short term as they are part of the carbon cycle,  limestone is the principle long term repository of carbon. 

[tedolph]

By the way Hts. what does Rush Limbaugh have to do with any of this? I leave the house at 7:00AM and don't get home until 7:00PM.  Who has time to listen to him? I don't get my information from Rush Limbaugh.  Do you? 

[eastvillagedon]

By the way Hts. what does Rush Limbaugh have to do with any of this? I leave the house at 7:00AM and don't get home until 7:00PM.  Who has time to listen to him? I don't get my information from Rush Limbaugh.  Do you? 

only when he's in his underground bunker sporting his tinfoil hat

[Hootenany]

I don't agree with every assertion in this article, but they make a few good points.  Take it for what it's worth.

100 Reasons Why Climate Change is Natural
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

Here's a couple of their reasons:

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

[AJ93]

Interesting piece in Business Week, looks at how the Kyoto Protocol's Cap & Trade system is being exploited by developing countries to gain carbon offset credits for projects they were going to do anyway. Apparently this is big business.

China: Climate Change or Hot Air?
The mainland earns billions in carbon-offset sales. But by taking credit for projects that would have been built anyway, it may not be playing by the rules

"On the wooded hills outside the city of Harbin in the northeastern province of Heilongjiang, Chinese developers are building towering wind turbines that will spin day and night to generate clean electricity. The project represents the hope that China, which recently surpassed the U.S. as the world's largest source of greenhouse gases, has truly embraced environmentalism.

The planned 29 turbines near Harbin represent something else as well: the widely accepted notion that market forces can be harnessed to aid the fight against climate change. Under the international treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol, Chinese wind-power developers are selling "carbon credits" reflecting their reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. "


"...Unfortunately, wherever they have been used, carbon credits have been subject to manipulation. On Dec. 4 the U.N. committee that oversees the international credit trade refused to approve 10 Chinese wind farms, including the Harbin complex. The U.N.'s concern is that the Chinese projects would have been built even without the proceeds from credits.

If that's correct, the sale of credits would not stimulate production of any additional clean energy. Credit purchasers would receive empty environmental bragging rights, and the Chinese developers would obtain an undeserved windfall. "This is 21st century climate-policy snake oil," says Michael Dorsey, a professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College..."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_51/b4160000488833.htm

[Hts121]

By the way Hts. what does Rush Limbaugh have to do with any of this? I leave the house at 7:00AM and don't get home until 7:00PM.  Who has time to listen to him? I don't get my information from Rush Limbaugh.  Do you? 

Limbaugh has been selling his audience on the notion that the global warming issue is a world-wide hoax "fueled by political agenda."  Those were his words that I heard him say just yesterday on his show.  Now, let me quote you:

It doesn't matter.  It is a religion fueled by political agenda.  Nothing we say will make any difference.  Anyone with an eighth grade understanding of general science could see that the CO2 global warming hypothesis has serious problems.  It does not comport with the historical data, the geological data, the planetary data, etc. and that should at least give rise to pause but it hasn't.

Sorry for drawing the correlation... but, regardless, I never said that you listened to him or formed your opinions based on his drivel.  I just took your post as implying that a conspiracy  was at play (which Limbaugh asserts as fact) since I wouldn't think that you would really allege that the majority of the worldwide scientific community is not as smart as an eighth grader.  Maybe quit taking things so personal and you can limit your posts to the relevant points which I find interesting and enjoy reading even if I don't buy all in.  I assume you are either a scientist or have a strong scientific background, but your tone gives the impression of an advocate.  We have enough of those in this debate.

[Hootenany]

^I've gotta back tedolph in this one.  His claim that global warming has turned into "a religion fueled by a political agenda" is pretty accurate IMO.  I don't think it means that there is a world wide conspiracy, but the global warming community has garnered a very large blind following over the years who believe that "the debate is over" and "we must act now."  Something similar can probably be said about the skeptics side of the debate as well.  In any case we shouldn't let this statement distract from the facts simply because it sounded like a political talking point.

I didn't think tedolph's posts contain much if any of a political undertone.

[tedolph]

I don't know if it is a conspiracy or not.  I do know that: i) CO2 is certainly not a toxin as repeatedly stated on this board and that ii) the CO2 Global Warming hypothesis has obvious problems with historical data, geological data, planetary data and that even eighth grade science students doing there own literature review come to this conclusion.  Given the above, I can not understand why this hypothesis drives international policy except that the proponents have accepted the hypothesis on faith based what some scientist are saying.  To me that is a religion.  The polotics comes in because it is a convenient faith for controlling national economies through international bodies/agreements.  So, to me it is a religion fueled by political agenda.  On second thought, perhaps it is a political agenda fueled by a religion.

If Rush Limbaugh independently came to the same conclusion then I guess that makes me a "ditto head"!

Also, I am an advocate by profession so I can't help the tone. 

I will now be returning to my underground bunker tuning in Limbaugh on my short wave radio!

[tedolph]

P.S. Hts. admits to listenting to Rush Limbaugh.

[DanB]

How else would he come up with his talking points?

[Hts121]

P.S. Hts. admits to listenting to Rush Limbaugh.

Never denied it.  I also watch Fox News and read the Drudge Report.  You see, I like to listen to varying viewpoints and make up my own mind.  I try to not get propagandized by limiting my informational intake to one set of values/beliefs.  You can go completely off-topic, make a pointless post and try your best to insult me for it if it makes you feel like a bigger man.  Doesn't bother me one bit, but only damages your credibility.  May I suggest learning how to use the modify button?  It is not that hard... any eighth grader could do it

[Boreas]

I don't know if it is a conspiracy or not.  I do know that: i) CO2 is certainly not a toxin as *repeatedly stated* on this board

No it hasn't.

and that ii) the CO2 Global Warming hypothesis has obvious problems with historical data, geological data, planetary data...  Given the above, I can not understand why this hypothesis drives international policy except that the proponents have accepted the hypothesis on faith based what some scientist are saying.  To me that is a religion.  The polotics comes in because it is a convenient faith for controlling national economies through international bodies/agreements.  So, to me it is a religion fueled by political agenda.  On second thought, perhaps it is a political agenda fueled by a religion.

You're projecting and you're insulting
when you say "controlling economies" and "it's a religion".

[tedolph]

I ain't sayin nuttin. 

[Hts121]

It snowed in Coppenhagen today 

[David]

I agree somewhat with tedolph. For scientists, it's something that gives them grant money and recognition through published materials. There's no money to be made in claiming that the earth is fine. For politicians, particularly the G8 or G20, it's a way of manipulating policy in other countries.

Do you really think they're having these summits and making large scale decisions all of a sudden because of what academics are saying? The academics are just ammo in their arsenol. If we had policy based on academics, our country would have a hell of a lot more passenger trains due to their high ROI.

when you say "controlling economies"

What do you think the IMF and World Bank are for? Handing out money out of the goodness of their heart?

[kingfish out of water]

Countries and economies adapt and evolve over time. Evolving away from finite fossil fuels and developing lower-impact renewable energy sources seems like a much-needed shot in the arm to a moribund global economy. We all agree dependence on oil and coal is a short-term solution at best and a lethal one at worst. What's wrong with putting change into motion and funding the research to make sure it is implemented thoughtfully?

[David]

The Chinese offer,which focuses on energy efficiency, contrasts with the strategy of other nations to reduce total emissions. China has resisted demands to adopt binding limits on its emissions, arguing that environmental concerns must be balanced with economic growth and that developed countries must first demonstrate a significant commitment to reducing their own emissions.

http://livingstories.googlelabs.com/lsps/climatechange#OVERVIEW:false,false,false,n,n,n:15055;

[Boreas]

... For politicians, particularly the G8 or G20, it's a way of manipulating policy in other countries.

Do you really think they're having these summits and making large scale decisions all of a sudden because of what academics are saying? The academics are just ammo in their arsenol. If we had policy based on academics, our country would have a hell of a lot more passenger trains due to their high ROI.

when you say "controlling economies"

What do you think the IMF and World Bank are for? Handing out money out of the goodness of their heart?

Jesus...the governments take direction from the petro-oligarchs and the bankers.  Only occasionally do governments take direction from a populist movement or for protecting health and safety.  I am talking about intervals of a few times per century.

[Hootenany]

... For politicians, particularly the G8 or G20, it's a way of manipulating policy in other countries.

Do you really think they're having these summits and making large scale decisions all of a sudden because of what academics are saying? The academics are just ammo in their arsenol. If we had policy based on academics, our country would have a hell of a lot more passenger trains due to their high ROI.

when you say "controlling economies"

What do you think the IMF and World Bank are for? Handing out money out of the goodness of their heart?

Jesus...the governments take direction from the petro-oligarchs and the bankers.  Only occasionally do governments take direction from a populist movement or for protecting health and safety.  I am talking about intervals of a few times per century.

Exactly, so what makes you think this push for global emissions reductions is any different?.

I was reading some articles on the Copenhagen summit and found some of the discussions very interesting.  It seems to me that the majority of the “developing” nations could care less about reducing global emissions.  They just want their hands on some money.  There was a quote in an AP article from a delegate of a developing nation (can’t remember which) that basically stated that “there is a lot to lose in terms of actual money in this deal.”  He was referring to Clinton’s pledge to commit money to the $100 billion fund to support developing nations with emissions reductions. 

Nothing is going to come out of Copenhagen.  When you get down to brass tacks the cost of reducing emissions is far too expensive and will do little to nothing to stop global warming as it is defined by the UN.  Not too mention that this whole effort appears to the outside viewer to be an attempt to reduce the wealth of developed countries and expand the wealth of “developing” countries… like China.  They demand that we reduce our emissions AND give them money to develop industry.  People in the US aren’t going to like that.

[Boreas]

Umm, the petroleum industry is opposed to carbon dioxide emissions reductions.

"Far too expensive" would be a good way to describe our ridiculous weapons budget.

[AJ93]

Umm, the petroleum industry is opposed to carbon dioxide emissions reductions.

"Far too expensive" would be a good way to describe our ridiculous weapons budget.

Those weapons will be important when we realize the only way to stop global warming is to declare war on the sun.

[Hootenany]

Umm, the petroleum industry is opposed to carbon dioxide emissions reductions.

"Far too expensive" would be a good way to describe our ridiculous weapons budget.

I agree!  But let's try to stay on topic.

You are assuming that the petro industry controls our government whereas others contend that the IMF and World Bank have more influence.

Everyone has a pony in this race.  It will be interesting to see who wins.  Whoever wins stands to either make a lot of money (Al Gore and his "green" companies, those seeking a global currency, those trading carbon credits, etc...) or stay in business as usual (coal and petroleum companies, farmers, electrical companies, car manufacturers, etc...).

[tedolph]

As long as OPEC has the theoretical ability to drive the price of oil down to $20.00/barrel we will never have meaningful private sector investment in alternative energy.  If "peak oil" theory is true, this might finally be changing. 

[Hootenany]

^Peak oil is a much better reason to support and cultivate alternative energy than global warming.  I'm pretty excited about the development of wind farms and the reinvention of nuclear as a clean energy source.  But you can get that carbon tax, cap and trade, and CO2 sequestering nonsense out of here.