11-04-11, 05:01 PM #81
11-04-11, 05:05 PM #82
11-04-11, 05:06 PM #83
11-04-11, 05:08 PM #84
11-04-11, 05:08 PM #85
11-04-11, 05:10 PM #86
11-04-11, 05:10 PM #87
11-04-11, 05:18 PM #88
You want me to prove what phase of the Milankovich cycle we're in?
And to prove that basic, classical physics can be used to predict a rise in temperature associated with a rise in ppCO2?
Go back and look at the graph in your own post #4
Milankovitch Cycles on Wiki
And before you critiscize the use of wikipedia, stop and consider the fact that you yourself have used wikipedia as a source.
Note the 900 year general cooling trend:
Last edited by Trippy; 11-04-11 at 05:31 PM.
11-04-11, 06:16 PM #89
11-04-11, 08:08 PM #90
But then again, we can make rubbish disposal profitable, so...
11-04-11, 10:14 PM #91
We add 30 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels and making cement.
Most gets absorbed by the biosphere, but not all of it does and so the CO2 level in the atmosphere goes up about 2 ppm per year.
Each PPM is equal to several Gigatons of CO2.
11-04-11, 10:16 PM #92
07-30-12, 03:06 PM #93
Muller: "I'm now going a step further ...."
Muller: "I'm now going a step further ...."
It is worth noting that Dr. Richard A. Muller has updated his assessment of the climate change issue:
Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming ....
Muller's latest expression, published over the weekend in The New York Times, includes consideration of a prominent point among deniers. The Associated Press reported, last year:
"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.
In his NYT editorial, Muller explains his exploration of the issue:
In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.
But the Berkeley Earth project explored the possibility, including urban heating, data selection, station quality, and data adjustment: "In our papers," Muller writes, "we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions."
The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niņo and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.
Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.
Muller is still critical of what he calls "speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong" rhetoric; he disdains the attribution of Hurricane Katrina to global warming, doesn't want to hear about the polar bears, and seems quite confident that Himalayan glaciers aren't melting as quickly as "alarmist claims" suggest.
The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.
The difficult part, according to Muller, is "agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done".
Muller, Richard A. "The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic". The New York Times. July 28, 2012. NYTimes.com. July 30, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...e-skeptic.html
Associated Press. "Sceptic finds he now agrees global warming is real". October 31, 2012. Stuff.co.nz. July 30, 2012. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/america...arming-is-real
07-30-12, 04:33 PM #94
I hate to say I told you so, but...
Oh wait, no I don't.
The statement by Muller represents the complete vindication of EVERY SINGLE THING I have EVER said on this topic in this forum (and others). Including this bit:
"There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niņo and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant."
I also find it interesting to note that I was saying the same things to The Esotericist twelve months ago that I have said in the last couple of days.
I remember now. I disagree with him on one point, although not completely.
At one stage, he has this to say:
These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.
07-30-12, 05:12 PM #95
The nature of skepticism
I think it's worth reiterating here that it is not the mere fact of skepticism that is annoying, but, rather, the nature of that skepticism. I'm not pleased, for instance, with Muller's simplistic explanation of his dismissal of Hurricane Katrina ("The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up"), but I'm aware that there is more to the case than that simple statement; if I want a deeper explanation, I can look into the Berkeley Earth papers and see if what I'm wondering is included there. But the fact that this skeptic scrutinized the data and altered his outlook is encouraging, and this manner of skepticism is one we can appreciate. As Muller demonstrates, it keeps scientists honest. Well, I suppose that's extrapolating unreasonably from a sample of one, but, still.
07-30-12, 05:49 PM #96
Scepticism V. Dogmatism.
Consider my position. I could find answers to all of the criticisms that I had seen of anthropogenic global warming, except for one. That one point was the assertion that it amounted to a "post hoc, ergo, propter hoc" explanation. We have a correlation, therefore we assume a causation. And sure enough, when I thought about it I could never remember having seen an explanation as to how greenhouse gasses cause warming.
So I did my own research, which also involved investigating the history of the predictions and I was, I must admit, mildly surprised to learn that as a chemist I actually already had all of the answers. I already knew about the Beer-Lambert law - we use it to generate calibration curves in UV-VIS spectroscopy. The basic idea is that if you have a sample of a known substance of unknown concentration in solution, by measuring the absorbance spectrum you can determine an appropriate wavelength to take measurements at. Once you have done that, you can then take a series of standards of known concentrations and measure their absorbance at that wavelength to generate a calibration curve. Once you have done that, you can measure the absorbance of your sample with the unknown concentration, and then applying the Beer-Lambert law to your calibration curve you can determine the concentration in your sample.
As a chemist, I had also learned about infra-red spectroscopy and how the absorption spectra related to simple harmonic motion. I've even done the calculations using what effectively are the spring constants for different bonds. We even have to account for the absorption of both water and carbondioxide when measuring NIR spectra (IIRC).
I already had all of the pieces of the puzzle, I just hadn't translated them in the context of the question. The point, however, was that the impulse to go looking was driven by a combination of scientific skepticism, and curiosity. It is in the same vein as Muller's own enquiries and indeed, I've been through a similar process to Muller in regards to the temperature data. Having said that, I lack Mullers time, and Mullers resources, and so my results lack the scale and robustness of Muller's results.
This is in, shall we say, opposition to the... For want of a better word, dogmatism, that some individuals bring to the table disguised as scepticism.
07-31-12, 01:09 AM #97
07-31-12, 01:50 AM #98
Although global warming may have been proven, and might be an accepted fact, there is nothing which proves that it is not a natural cycle. AGW is not a fact, and therefor, these solutions which you pose are just that, hypothetical, and provide no credible evidence that they would effect this grander cyclical nature of CO2 and temperature fluctuations.
Let's say we stopped all CO2 emissions, mmmkay? According to the historical data, the temperature and CO2 will still climb. Thus, I conclude our activities are irrelevant.
07-31-12, 01:02 PM #99
ERoEI = Energy Return on Energy Invested.
Here is Chinaīs growing oil demand:
More data on Chinaīs energy use/ supply at end.
GraphSource: thatīs a 3328% increase. (And graphīs curve is accelerating!!!)
And global use of coal, worldīs major fossil fuel, is steadily increasing:
US has little hard coal left - We sold it when it was cheap and even burned it, Sigh!
1,2,3 - All together now, letīs sing: "It will be a hot time in the old town tonight!" but Iīm too old to attend the real thermal party or hear the roar of the airconditioners.
PS they helped plunge half of hot India into the dark of a blackout - should do the same for US too when new all time high temperatures come with worst ever wild fires.
BUT, you young energy-use sinners will not got to Hell - Itīs coming to you!
Some data on Chinaīs energy:
Last year, China overtook the United States to become the country with the largest installed wind power capacity, at 62.7 gigawatts … There has been similarly brisk progress with solar power, with the country now aiming for 21GW of power generation capacity by 2015 … China is expected to account for 40% of the growth in renewable energy worldwide. …
Yet for all this, there are few causes for cheer in terms of China's overall carbon emissions, which are set to continue to grow for decades. About 70% of China's energy needs are met by coal, with crude oil and natural gas contributing a further 22%. That means more than 90% of China's energy comes from fossil fuels.
Last edited by Billy T; 08-02-12 at 09:20 AM.
08-04-12, 08:34 AM #100
A few points.
1) Why did the earth ever leave the last Ice Age?
2) Why was there a report out the other day stating that Antarctica had palm trees on it 50 million years ago? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...rn-return.html
3) Who said warming was bad? Apparently it means an increase in crop yields (figures state approx. 20%) which surely is a good thing, considering the population of the planet is still rising? It also means much more land, currently unusable for farming (too cold) can be used to grow crops??
4) Why, whenever the subject of MMGW is raised, does it involve money, politics, and poor people from Africa? The problem in Africa is corruption, not MMGW.
5) What is with this small coincidence that if we don't stop using oil by 2050 or so, we will run out of the stuff anyway? Why is it that to save the earth from MMGW we have to stop using oil and pay lots in taxes? Since when did making the rich even richer, do anything useful?
Forget cause/effect - answer me why the warming is always sharp when it occurs, and the cooling relatively gentle?? What caused all the other peaks in the temperature record?? Man wasn't always around to burn oil...
As for runaway MMGW - only when the Sun becomes a Red Dwarf. Arguments that Venus is an example of runaway global warming is just a load of BS, and the scientists that ever spouted that trash should look for a new line of work. There is small detail that it is some 4 million miles closer to the Sun than we are. I'm sure we'd be pretty hot if we were that close.
There is a simple experiment you can try with a hot plate, but I won't write it in case some idiot tries it, burns themselves, and tries to sue me.
In the temperature data, why does the temperature signal become noisy in the last 150,000 years or so??
By Kailaurius in forum Science & SocietyLast Post: 07-09-12, 05:49 PMReplies: 6
By hayenmill in forum General Science & TechnologyLast Post: 06-19-09, 10:44 AMReplies: 0
By Buffalo Roam in forum World EventsLast Post: 05-20-08, 07:15 PMReplies: 67
By ElectricFetus in forum Biology & GeneticsLast Post: 05-09-08, 06:04 PMReplies: 13
By orcot in forum World EventsLast Post: 05-27-07, 05:56 PMReplies: 23