My SIL has seen it, she is very politically active and got onto quite a soapbox the other day, about 'Gore / Hillary / free-trade / 10,000 villages'. She is very upset that we buy American goods rather than South American goods, and was terribly offended at the idea that the earth is still coming out of it's last most recent ice age, so of course it is still warning up.
I did listen to a local talk radio show talking about Gore's movie. The radio show is primarily about heating and cooling systems [called "hot and cold"], the host is a heating contractor and his permanent guest is a University of Maine Ecology and thermal-dynamics Professor. Together they insisted that the over-whelming majority of studies, trade journal reports, and general opinion among those engineers who study this; is that we really have no idea what is causing the Earth to continue to warm. IT certainly does appear to be in the middle of many different cycles. Some cycles are decade, some are century, and some appear to be stretched out over many millenia. They were saying that while monitoring CO2 is interesting, it is only one out of a field of dozens of variables, and nobody has any good idea of what causes them to change.
Is the earth warmer than it was a few decades ago? Yes. Is man responsible (even in part)? Impossible to tell. A lot of people want to look at a correlation and see causality. One could make a fair correlation between the number of Southern Baptists and global mean temperature, but that doesn't mean the Southern Baptists are the cause of global warming. (I'm trying really hard not to make a comment about hot air!) I remember seeing a REALLY good correlation between solarization (sun activity) and global mean temperature a few years ago. I wish I had kept a copy of the article.
Haven't seen the film, but there is no doubt that there is something going on. The ice caps are melting and the permafrost line is moving further north in many areas. There has been a measurable increase in golbal average temperature. These are indisputable facts.
I agree with George that is is impossible to tell what the cause or causes may be. There are too many factors involved and some of them may even be unknown.
I think it is bad science and foolishness to conclude that the cause is strictly due to human activities that result in "greenhouse gases", although these could indeed be major factors.
There are other things that could be major factors as well -- things like volcanic activity, solar spots, the Earth's changing magnetic field, phytoplankton levels,. etc. These, among other things must also considered along with greenhouse gases.
But ....even though human activities may not be the sole cause of "global warming", these are the things that we do have some control over, so I think it is equally foolish to ignore these things or not take prudent and appropriate action because we aren't completely sure of what's going on.
I was all ready to embrace the movie (haven't seen it)... but what I've heard is that you can line up just as many experts from one side as the other to agree or disagree with the 'science' in this movie...
That being said, we do need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, that cannot be argued...
I'm sorry, it's just really hard for me to take anything seriously that has Gore's name attached to it. <_<
that is unfortunate, you could well be missing some good stuff. On the other hand, since you choose to ignore some views, I do hope you apply the same filter to stuff with some other pepe's names attached too.
I was all ready to embrace the movie (haven't seen it)... but what I've heard is that you can line up just as many experts from one side as the other to agree or disagree with the 'science' in this movie...
That being said, we do need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, that cannot be argued...
Haven't seen the film, but there is no doubt that there is something going on. The ice caps are melting and the permafrost line is moving further north in many areas. There has been a measurable increase in golbal average temperature. These are indisputable facts.
I agree with George that is is impossible to tell what the cause or causes may be. There are too many factors involved and some of them may even be unknown.
I think it is bad science and foolishness to conclude that the cause is strictly due to human activities that result in "greenhouse gases", although these could indeed be major factors.
There are other things that could be major factors as well -- things like volcanic activity, solar spots, the Earth's changing magnetic field, phytoplankton levels,. etc. These, among other things must also considered along with greenhouse gases.
But ....even though human activities may not be the sole cause of "global warming", these are the things that we do have some control over, so I think it is equally foolish to ignore these things or not take prudent and appropriate action because we aren't completely sure of what's going on.
i agree with you. there is no way to Know for sure what is causing the rise. But the movie or documentary presents some decent logic and at least provides us with valid statistical correlations imo.
Maybe the increase in human population has something to do with it. here is a link to human population. It is astounding. short read, and it has charts if you dont want to read it. Even if human population doesn't have anything to do with it, its pretty amazing.
Gee, I was just listening to a radio program this past Saturday, with a thermal-dynamic physics prof who teaches ecology at U of M, they were talking about the dozens of variables that all have to be looked at. And that you cant really interpret any one of them without taking into effect all the other variables. It is a dynamic system.
They were definitely 'anti' global warming' not to say that the earth is not getting warmer, but that it has done this before, and it will do it again, and that we have no idea why.
1.Gee, I was just listening to a radio program...with a thermal-dynamic physics prof who teaches ecology at U of M, they were talking about the dozens of variables
2.And that you cant really interpret any one of them without taking into effect all the other variables. It is a dynamic system.
3.They were definitely 'anti' global warming' not to say that the earth is not getting warmer, but that it has done this before, and it will do it again, and that we have no idea why.
1. That is an expert.
2. I want to see what the other variables are, so i can get a better picture of what may or may not be going on.
3. i'd like to see when and to what extent the earth has ever done this before.
I just want to be informed, not go based upon what someone said that someone said, that why I ask for links, and I try to provide them when i can for anything i say. and when i ask for a link i know its not always possible or reliable.
I'm sorry, it's just really hard for me to take anything seriously that has Gore's name attached to it. <_<
I'll wait for a review from our resident expert in this area, RumRunner.
Goey, George and Galen (hmm the three G's) all posted good evaluations and/or comments about climate analysis to date. I do a fair amount of work in that area with satellite remote sensing in conjunction with the center for cloud physics at Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego as well as the Naval Research Laboratory in both Monterey, CA and NRL at Stennis Space Center in Bay St Louis, MS.
The evidence for global warming is clear. However the majority of the questions about both the mechanisms as well as consequences are still very unclear. Does mankind do things that contribute? Yes. but there is a pretty big but in there... no one has come close to determining that actual human contribution vs natural contributions. If people are contributing 3% and 97% is "natural" then we are screwed by nature. If we are contributing 40 - 50 - 60 percent then it is something we should take action on in the way we live. That being said, whether it is 3 or 60 I still don't believe in crapping in my own dishwaher - i.e. if it is only 3% that is no excuse to continue to contribute when alternatives are available.
One of the big catch phrases which has been hammered into everyone's head is "greenhouse gasses." That is one of many many factors and some of those factors are switch hitters.
There is also the carbon budget which strongly determnes the rate at which greenhouse gases are consumed.
Atmospheric aerosol content is huge because it changes how much solar enegery reaches the earch's surface (think of a large wildfire where the sky is filled with smoke - not a lot of energy reaching us then...) Some of that energy will remain in the atmosphere and some will be reflected back into space. And since aerosol content is not uniform (although typically highest in urban and volcanic environments) it is almost impossible to model. Current aerosol modeling is almost exclusively over small geographic areas.
Cloud physics is even testier - hence my comment about switch hitters. One school of thought believes that if we have complete (or near) cloud cover the earth will heat up... and some physics does indeed support that. Equally pedigreed models show that continuous cloud cover will reflect so much solar energy as to cause cooling (remember nuclear winter? same concept). Now here is a bit of a kicker on clouds... you can take an atmospheric physics model (if you are curious look up things like radiative transfer, MODTRAN, MM5, NOGAPS. COAMPS, atmospheric sounding, etc) tweak it ever so slightly and get either of those results - from the same model being touched just a little.
Now put all that together with politics, sometimes shoddy research or politically driven research, mixed with honest efforts and you have a big case of not knowing enough to stand up and pontificate as so many do on either side. We are not at a place where we can say we understand it yet. A toddler knows he/she likes what mom and dad put into their mouth but they don't know how to cook.
And on and on and on... OK - sorry for the tome... I'd still rather recycle than not - :)
Dmiller - your observations are sound - but 35 years is a long time in science. You probably noticed in my post that we still have VALID scientific controversy about the issues. And trust me I have barely touched on them but did not want to post some giant post that would just bore people to death from some California geek. Here's a couple of thoughts for you though which support neither side - which I hope does not annoy you - but just some obs.
35 years ago serious climatology was not quite infantile but certainly not sophisticated yet. Our long term observations were typically less than a hundred years old. Yes Yes I know the Chinese, among others, have river stage levels etc for a coupe of thousand years... I don't want to split hairs here - they were the giant exception because of certain rapid tidal changes in some rivers.
35 years ago (hmm makes you just a little older than me) we were in the cold war and a lot of climate science was focused on the result of nuclear war (nice thought that one is). Global warming as a concept was vague at best.
I don't want to get into a discussion of politics in science but people who come to GSC undoubtedly know something about politics affecting truth/facts.
I'll simply refer to my post above - certain evidence is there - the full mechanisms and full consequences are not yet accurately defined in any detail by any honest researcher
Time to un-zip (briefly).
Graduating from high school in 1970 -- I heard all about global COOLING, and how
mankind (and his practices), were inducing another ice-age.
I think I've asked this here before -- and received no answer.
Why global cooling 35 years ago, and Why global warming now??
What makes the scientists back then wrong (if they were)
and the current ones of today correct (if they are)???
Who's data is right or wrong??
Haven't both stated their findings from facts gleaned from
(studies), or wherever they got them from????
Supposedly scientific data -- and not speculation.
Why are the ones today *right*, and the ones 35 years ago *wrong*?
Or were they both full of ---- nemmermind.
I'll zip the lip again ---- I can't believe either faction.
Just my IMO.
RumRunner -- since you do work in this field --
meebe you can shed a ray of light on my questions.
Now that I have blabbed all night I just now realized I never really addressed Belle's comment - which was watiing for my reivew. I simply gave my comments about climate variability without seeing the movie. Sorry Belle. And - well I will be on medical leave for a few weeks starting next Monday 24 Jul 2006 so I probably won't see it anytime soon. I'll hit this thread again when I am back in the saddle and have watched the movie if the movie is still around and the thread is still active. Hmm wonder if the mor..ine is gonna be fun.
Thanks man - I'll be fine. Got too many good folk at GSC praying for me to not be fine. - grinnin' - just never did like to use emotes. Oops - umm sorry that was not a comment on ANYONE else using them; just me and my two hundred year old mentality. I'll tell ya about the carnival ride when I get back DM.
Funny thing - junked TWI in 1987 - never thought about it until Groucho told me about GSC a few months ago. Didn't go into The Prayer Room much at first either... now it is a place a I spend a fair amount of time in. Probably a statement of my selfishness. It's always easy to ignore others needs until you have your own - but that should not be on this thread.
2. I want to see what the other variables are, so i can get a better picture of what may or may not be going on.
3. i'd like to see when and to what extent the earth has ever done this before.
I just want to be informed, not go based upon what someone said that someone said, that why I ask for links, and I try to provide them when i can for anything i say. and when i ask for a link i know its not always possible or reliable.
I already told ya everything I know (nothing)... I think RumRunner has given you a number of clues to look at if you're inclined to still do so after reading his posts.
But I think it would be a futile effort on your part. What I mean is, you'll gain a lot more knowledge but no answers. So if gaining knowledge is your goal then go for it.
The reason I say there are 'no answers' is for the same reasons RumRunner said: there are so many variables in action here and even those "in the field" don't know how much they effect the equation... And we all know that when that is the case, you can focus on the effect of a few negative variables while ignoring some of the others and postulate that "a+b=c" and have half the folks line up behind you to say "he is right, he is good!"...
So... knock yourself out (if that's your desire), personally I'm of the belief that the earth is a living, breathing thing... constantly evolving... should we attempt to be better stewards? sure, I don't think that's unreasonable... do we need to lessen our dependence on oil? sure we do...
The earth is very resilient, personally I'm more worried about the effects of deforestation...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
13
7
6
Popular Days
Jul 18
24
Jul 17
15
Jul 21
12
Jul 19
10
Top Posters In This Topic
Galen 11 posts
krys 13 posts
Tom Strange 7 posts
RumRunner 6 posts
Popular Days
Jul 18 2006
24 posts
Jul 17 2006
15 posts
Jul 21 2006
12 posts
Jul 19 2006
10 posts
Galen
I have not seen it.
My SIL has seen it, she is very politically active and got onto quite a soapbox the other day, about 'Gore / Hillary / free-trade / 10,000 villages'. She is very upset that we buy American goods rather than South American goods, and was terribly offended at the idea that the earth is still coming out of it's last most recent ice age, so of course it is still warning up.
I did listen to a local talk radio show talking about Gore's movie. The radio show is primarily about heating and cooling systems [called "hot and cold"], the host is a heating contractor and his permanent guest is a University of Maine Ecology and thermal-dynamics Professor. Together they insisted that the over-whelming majority of studies, trade journal reports, and general opinion among those engineers who study this; is that we really have no idea what is causing the Earth to continue to warm. IT certainly does appear to be in the middle of many different cycles. Some cycles are decade, some are century, and some appear to be stretched out over many millenia. They were saying that while monitoring CO2 is interesting, it is only one out of a field of dozens of variables, and nobody has any good idea of what causes them to change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I'm sorry, it's just really hard for me to take anything seriously that has Gore's name attached to it. <_<
I'll wait for a review from our resident expert in this area, RumRunner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Is the earth warmer than it was a few decades ago? Yes. Is man responsible (even in part)? Impossible to tell. A lot of people want to look at a correlation and see causality. One could make a fair correlation between the number of Southern Baptists and global mean temperature, but that doesn't mean the Southern Baptists are the cause of global warming. (I'm trying really hard not to make a comment about hot air!) I remember seeing a REALLY good correlation between solarization (sun activity) and global mean temperature a few years ago. I wish I had kept a copy of the article.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I'm gonna keep my yap zipped!
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Haven't seen the film, but there is no doubt that there is something going on. The ice caps are melting and the permafrost line is moving further north in many areas. There has been a measurable increase in golbal average temperature. These are indisputable facts.
I agree with George that is is impossible to tell what the cause or causes may be. There are too many factors involved and some of them may even be unknown.
I think it is bad science and foolishness to conclude that the cause is strictly due to human activities that result in "greenhouse gases", although these could indeed be major factors.
There are other things that could be major factors as well -- things like volcanic activity, solar spots, the Earth's changing magnetic field, phytoplankton levels,. etc. These, among other things must also considered along with greenhouse gases.
But ....even though human activities may not be the sole cause of "global warming", these are the things that we do have some control over, so I think it is equally foolish to ignore these things or not take prudent and appropriate action because we aren't completely sure of what's going on.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I was all ready to embrace the movie (haven't seen it)... but what I've heard is that you can line up just as many experts from one side as the other to agree or disagree with the 'science' in this movie...
That being said, we do need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, that cannot be argued...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Come on now, you can trust the man who personally invented the internet.
LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Good post Goey. I hope you won't mind, but I am going to copy and paste it to the other thread that we have on this subject over in political.
And by the way, I hope you are doing well and that you have been healing from your past and fairly recent medical procedure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Goey has a good point.
We do know however that the last hot-spell which ended the previous ice-age was brought on by the dinosaur's and their industrial period.
Unless the dinosaurs did not have an industrial period, in which case it was all a part of a natural cycle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
that is unfortunate, you could well be missing some good stuff. On the other hand, since you choose to ignore some views, I do hope you apply the same filter to stuff with some other pepe's names attached too.
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
link?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
You want a link to a discussion of how we need to lessen our oil dependence?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
i agree with you. there is no way to Know for sure what is causing the rise. But the movie or documentary presents some decent logic and at least provides us with valid statistical correlations imo.
Maybe the increase in human population has something to do with it. here is a link to human population. It is astounding. short read, and it has charts if you dont want to read it. Even if human population doesn't have anything to do with it, its pretty amazing.
http://www.booksaboutthefuture.com/population-statistics.htm
some excerpts if you don't want to click the link.
"How fast is Earth's human population growing?"
"For most of human history, up to around 10 thousand years
ago (generally accepted by science, although some place
the time a few thousand years earlier), Earth's human
population remained stabilized at around 8 to 10 million."
"year
1750......790 million
1800......980 million
1850...1,260 million
1900...1,650 million
1950...2,555 million
2000...6,080 million"
year
1950...2,555 million
1960...3,039 million
1970...3,707 million
1980...4,457 million
1990...5,284 million
2000...6,080 million
Consider that recent "doubling in 40 years" for the
period 1960 to 2000 (increase of just over 3 billion).
This is an average increase of 75 million per year - or
about 205,000 per day, 8,500 per hour, 140 per minute.
Now consider the 10-year period from 1990 to 2000.
The increase for that period is 796 million. This is
an average increase of 79.6 million per year - or about
218,000 per day, 9,100 per hour, 150 per minute."
link to experts who disagree?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Gee, I was just listening to a radio program this past Saturday, with a thermal-dynamic physics prof who teaches ecology at U of M, they were talking about the dozens of variables that all have to be looked at. And that you cant really interpret any one of them without taking into effect all the other variables. It is a dynamic system.
They were definitely 'anti' global warming' not to say that the earth is not getting warmer, but that it has done this before, and it will do it again, and that we have no idea why.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
1. That is an expert.
2. I want to see what the other variables are, so i can get a better picture of what may or may not be going on.
3. i'd like to see when and to what extent the earth has ever done this before.
I just want to be informed, not go based upon what someone said that someone said, that why I ask for links, and I try to provide them when i can for anything i say. and when i ask for a link i know its not always possible or reliable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Goey, George and Galen (hmm the three G's) all posted good evaluations and/or comments about climate analysis to date. I do a fair amount of work in that area with satellite remote sensing in conjunction with the center for cloud physics at Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego as well as the Naval Research Laboratory in both Monterey, CA and NRL at Stennis Space Center in Bay St Louis, MS.
The evidence for global warming is clear. However the majority of the questions about both the mechanisms as well as consequences are still very unclear. Does mankind do things that contribute? Yes. but there is a pretty big but in there... no one has come close to determining that actual human contribution vs natural contributions. If people are contributing 3% and 97% is "natural" then we are screwed by nature. If we are contributing 40 - 50 - 60 percent then it is something we should take action on in the way we live. That being said, whether it is 3 or 60 I still don't believe in crapping in my own dishwaher - i.e. if it is only 3% that is no excuse to continue to contribute when alternatives are available.
One of the big catch phrases which has been hammered into everyone's head is "greenhouse gasses." That is one of many many factors and some of those factors are switch hitters.
There is also the carbon budget which strongly determnes the rate at which greenhouse gases are consumed.
Atmospheric aerosol content is huge because it changes how much solar enegery reaches the earch's surface (think of a large wildfire where the sky is filled with smoke - not a lot of energy reaching us then...) Some of that energy will remain in the atmosphere and some will be reflected back into space. And since aerosol content is not uniform (although typically highest in urban and volcanic environments) it is almost impossible to model. Current aerosol modeling is almost exclusively over small geographic areas.
Cloud physics is even testier - hence my comment about switch hitters. One school of thought believes that if we have complete (or near) cloud cover the earth will heat up... and some physics does indeed support that. Equally pedigreed models show that continuous cloud cover will reflect so much solar energy as to cause cooling (remember nuclear winter? same concept). Now here is a bit of a kicker on clouds... you can take an atmospheric physics model (if you are curious look up things like radiative transfer, MODTRAN, MM5, NOGAPS. COAMPS, atmospheric sounding, etc) tweak it ever so slightly and get either of those results - from the same model being touched just a little.
Now put all that together with politics, sometimes shoddy research or politically driven research, mixed with honest efforts and you have a big case of not knowing enough to stand up and pontificate as so many do on either side. We are not at a place where we can say we understand it yet. A toddler knows he/she likes what mom and dad put into their mouth but they don't know how to cook.
And on and on and on... OK - sorry for the tome... I'd still rather recycle than not - :)
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Time to un-zip (briefly).
Graduating from high school in 1970 -- I heard all about global COOLING, and how
mankind (and his practices), were inducing another ice-age.
I think I've asked this here before -- and received no answer.
Why global cooling 35 years ago, and Why global warming now??
What makes the scientists back then wrong (if they were)
and the current ones of today correct (if they are)???
Who's data is right or wrong??
Haven't both stated their findings from facts gleaned from
(studies), or wherever they got them from????
Supposedly scientific data -- and not speculation.
Why are the ones today *right*, and the ones 35 years ago *wrong*?
Or were they both full of ---- nemmermind.
I'll zip the lip again ---- I can't believe either faction.
Just my IMO.
RumRunner -- since you do work in this field --
meebe you can shed a ray of light on my questions.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Dmiller - your observations are sound - but 35 years is a long time in science. You probably noticed in my post that we still have VALID scientific controversy about the issues. And trust me I have barely touched on them but did not want to post some giant post that would just bore people to death from some California geek. Here's a couple of thoughts for you though which support neither side - which I hope does not annoy you - but just some obs.
35 years ago serious climatology was not quite infantile but certainly not sophisticated yet. Our long term observations were typically less than a hundred years old. Yes Yes I know the Chinese, among others, have river stage levels etc for a coupe of thousand years... I don't want to split hairs here - they were the giant exception because of certain rapid tidal changes in some rivers.
35 years ago (hmm makes you just a little older than me) we were in the cold war and a lot of climate science was focused on the result of nuclear war (nice thought that one is). Global warming as a concept was vague at best.
I don't want to get into a discussion of politics in science but people who come to GSC undoubtedly know something about politics affecting truth/facts.
I'll simply refer to my post above - certain evidence is there - the full mechanisms and full consequences are not yet accurately defined in any detail by any honest researcher
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
RR --- thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Now that I have blabbed all night I just now realized I never really addressed Belle's comment - which was watiing for my reivew. I simply gave my comments about climate variability without seeing the movie. Sorry Belle. And - well I will be on medical leave for a few weeks starting next Monday 24 Jul 2006 so I probably won't see it anytime soon. I'll hit this thread again when I am back in the saddle and have watched the movie if the movie is still around and the thread is still active. Hmm wonder if the mor..ine is gonna be fun.
Regards,
RR
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
RR ---you take care, eh? :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Thanks man - I'll be fine. Got too many good folk at GSC praying for me to not be fine. - grinnin' - just never did like to use emotes. Oops - umm sorry that was not a comment on ANYONE else using them; just me and my two hundred year old mentality. I'll tell ya about the carnival ride when I get back DM.
Funny thing - junked TWI in 1987 - never thought about it until Groucho told me about GSC a few months ago. Didn't go into The Prayer Room much at first either... now it is a place a I spend a fair amount of time in. Probably a statement of my selfishness. It's always easy to ignore others needs until you have your own - but that should not be on this thread.
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
oilfieldmedic
Don't mention the word "warming" to me...LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I already told ya everything I know (nothing)... I think RumRunner has given you a number of clues to look at if you're inclined to still do so after reading his posts.
But I think it would be a futile effort on your part. What I mean is, you'll gain a lot more knowledge but no answers. So if gaining knowledge is your goal then go for it.
The reason I say there are 'no answers' is for the same reasons RumRunner said: there are so many variables in action here and even those "in the field" don't know how much they effect the equation... And we all know that when that is the case, you can focus on the effect of a few negative variables while ignoring some of the others and postulate that "a+b=c" and have half the folks line up behind you to say "he is right, he is good!"...
So... knock yourself out (if that's your desire), personally I'm of the belief that the earth is a living, breathing thing... constantly evolving... should we attempt to be better stewards? sure, I don't think that's unreasonable... do we need to lessen our dependence on oil? sure we do...
The earth is very resilient, personally I'm more worried about the effects of deforestation...
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.