Global warming spirals upwards (record consecutive CO2 increases)

[TinaTyson]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=505798

Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have jumped abruptly, raising fears that global warming may be accelerating out of control.

Measurements by US government scientists show that concentrations of the gas, the main cause of the climate exchange, rose by a record amount over the past 12 months. It is the third successive year in which they have increased sharply, marking an unprecedented triennial surge.

Scientists are at a loss to explain why the rapid rise has taken place, but fear that it could show the first signs that global warming is feeding on itself, with rising temperatures causing increases in carbon dioxide, which then go on to drive the thermometer even higher. That would be a deeply alarming development, suggesting that this self-reinforcing heating could spiral upwards beyond the reach of any attempts to combat it.

(more)

[K-W]

1. Gulp.

Scary scary stuff.

[tjwash]

3. Even more scary is runaway greenhouse effect.

It starts as temperatures originally rise, and melt the caps, raising ocean levels and causing water evaporation trapping in more heat. Then, As the temperatures rise, more water evaporates. But as more water evaporates, our atmosphere gets thicker -- causing the temperatures to rise even more. And as the temperatures rise even more, even more water evaporates. And as even more water evaporates...there is a chain reaction, and we have runaway greenhouse.

[TinaTyson]

5. Was a recent report (quick search on the web didn't turn it up)

that the water vapor effect might be lower than previously thought. At least some semi-good news. Maybe!

[tjwash]

4. Of course this can also kick-start another ice age also.

Mankind emits a hell of a lot of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide. Plants and algae live on carbon dioxide. They'll grow and grow, because there's plenty of the stuff around. Already, this effect is clearly seen in oceans, where algae and plankton abound more than ever.

But then, after some decades, the carbon dioxide level may suddenly start dropping because there is so much algae and plants consuming it. The problem is, after a majority of the carbon dioxide is sucked up by the plants and algae, all the extra plants and algae will still be there, sucking up all carbon dioxide they can get. In a short period of time, they will use up way too much carbon dioxide out of the Earth's atmosphere.

And when that happens, the stage is set for the next big freezing, since carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas that prevents the warmth from flying away from the Earth's surface.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Right, but not because of algae

Wallace Broecker (and the scientists he trained over the years) have developed a very sound, well-documented idea about how ice ages begin and end, at least since about 10 million years ago.

A very distinctive set of currents form in the North Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf Stream. These currents are part of a "supercurrent" sometimes called the Oceanic Conveyer Belt, or thermohaline circulation, since its ability to transport heat varies with salt concentration. In short, the more salt, the better the circulation mixes the warm and cold water.

The warmer atmospheric temperatures have increased melting of glacial ice from Greenland, Canada, and Northern Siberia, which has brought the salinity down enough so that the temperature transport has become much less effective. The hot water stays south, producing wilder weather (like the freak hurricane that hit Brazil last week) and the cold water stays north, which eventually causes temperatures north of 45 degrees north latitude to fall dramatically.

There is also another temperature separation that happens relative to altitude. As the lower atmosphere heats up, the upper atmosphere cools down, dramatically.

This becomes an unstable system very quickly, probably in as little as a decade. Then, there is a snap-back, and the world's weather changes states from warm to ice-age. This "climate flip-flop" also happens in about a decade. It may take centuries for a mile of ice to form over Canada, but Toronto could be in a perpetual winter within a year or two of this state-change starting.

I'm leaving a lot of details out, but that's the idea in a nutshell. It is very easy to find this information online now, since so many of the theory's observations have been confirmed lately.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute maintains a web page for their Abrupt Climate Change Research Center. An hour or two spent there on-line will give you a good idea of how the next ice age will set in.

And what about algae? Well, some paleoclimatologists think that it was the proliferation of extremophile algae that ended the "Ice Ball Earth" periods, two of which took place in the late pre-Cambrian period. It's still a new theory, and as yet is poorly supported, but is attracting active ongoing research. I would defer to DinoBoy on this topic, since he's a professional paleontologist, and even his avatar is a pre-Cambrian fossil.

--bkl

[blurp]

10. Actually, it's water vapor that is the primary greenhouse gas

Most predictions for warming assume increases in water vapor will occur as a result of modest CO2 induced warming. The increase in water vapor acts as a sort of multiplier. It's effect is something like 3 to 4 times that of CO2.

[blurp]

34. What happens when those plants and algae die?

The mechanism is self-correcting, though. Let's assume all these plants "suck up" all the CO2. What happens then? Well, they quickly die. And when plants die, they re-release much of the carbon they took up as they degrade and ultimately it is returned to the atmosphere.

[G_j]

2. global warming is feeding on itself

what the Pentagon report warned about. Of course Bush can't be bothered with such things, he's making the world a 'safer place'.

[Minstrel Boy]

7. "The Methodic Demise of Natural Earth": caution, chemtrails ahead

I know, I know: chemtrails? But the more I read about the crisis of our atmosphere, the less crazy it sounds that such remedial action would be taken, and potentially do more harm in the process. And dammit, I've been seeing some strange things in the sky.


In this century, we believe we are witnessing the gradual, purposeful demise of the Earth's Natural System. There are those who will debunk/dis-info all that is written regarding the subject of this paper: ChemTrails. What's this? ChemTrails are only a vague description, in lay-terms, of a greater theater of toxic materials being released into the atmosphere/stratosphere, for a myriad of crude and toxic agendas.

...

Dr. Edward Teller wrote a white paper in the late 1990's describing a remedial operation, strategy, epic-in-proportion, to change the predicted course of what was believed by an International group of Scientists, including Dr. Edward Teller, Livermore National Laboratories, et al, to be the cataclysmic certainty from the results of global-warming, crisis level Ultra-Violet/Cosmic radiation, crisis Ozone-layer depletion and other theoretical doom.2 Demonstrating here, that the same mind, Dr. Edward Teller, Father of the H-Bomb, was responsible for many ill-conceived strategies and not one gave considerations to the consequences in the Human realm. Safety, toxicity, lethality, exposure, Environmental Impact, morality, were not words with which Dr. Teller had a high-degree of familiarity.3

These Global-Warming Mitigation Strategies, UV Mitigation and the cessation of the effects of Atmospheric Greenhouse-gases were given a commonality by Teller, et al, and this was the use of a sub-micron particulate. Barium, Aluminum, Thorium, Selenium were to be processed into a sub-micron particle dispensed from high-altitude aircraft, ionized with a specific electrical charge.4 (Chemtrails and Barium - absorption & inhalation .. see links below)5 We must surmise that ionization keeps the specific heavy metal particulate aloft for longer periods of time. This electronically charged particulate matrix might also be the perfect RF control field. Theoretically, the heavy metals would block and reflect the sunlight from entering the Earth's atmosphere and reflect 1-2% back into space. UV radiation levels would decline. Teller also recommended the use of Commercial Aircraft as-well-as-Military Aircraft to carry out the enormous and epic task of coverage to the Earth's Stratosphere. We believe that the weaponization use of these technologies has been well demonstrated for a US DOD program entitled "RF Dominance". The US Air Force VTRP and the Navy's RFMP are other military programs utilizing aerosolized heavy metal particulates, including aluminized fiberglass or chaffe are characteristic of current military operations.6

CIA-led Project Cloverleaf was one of the initial "aerosolized heavy-metal particulate" operations. Massive spraying of the upper-atmosphere/Stratosphere commenced. The U.S. DOD operations soon followed, as the US Air Force became embedded in the overall operations, strategically. The U.S. Air Force would also play significantly into the expansion of a significant Global-Warming Mitigation strategies in the form of Weather Modification and Geo-Engineering practices.7, 8

http://www.wnho.net/methodic_demise.htm

[opihimoimoi]

8. Com'on guys, this is all bull. Rush and his ditto hds have been saying

there is No such thing as Global Warming. Its all a freaky surge in Nature, perfectly normal, and will soon return to the way it was. Its a Lib scare tatic.

sarcasm off

I hope Rush lives on a Beach so his house is first to go under the waves.

Come, we go fill sandbags, help save Florida.

[bloom]

21. bad for Hawaii too, eh?...n/t

[opihimoimoi]

62. Bad for HUMANITY ! Period.

These Pubs don care for us, they figure they got theirs and forget the rest of us.

Its that old style of Leadership, the selfish kind. Thats what the Pubs use/do. What they don't realize is, if this Planet gets comped with poor management, we ALL SUFFER big time. Reactive rather than Proactive, they wait for the Famines to hit then react.

Where are the Famine Prevention Depts?? Is God gonna come down and rescue their asses?..............evidence shows no one is gonna bail us out of our mess we created ourselves.

We have drilled large holes in our lifeboat called Earth. The Pubs care only for their portfolio and their cruise ships to the Bahamas/Tahiti/etc.

Come, join me at the Pub, lemme buy the first round.

[dbt]

12. Thank you, Minstrel Boy!

Everyone here needs to learn this fugly word: Chemtrails. We are all being sprayed with something day and night. As many as 300 missions will be flown over Arkansas (for instance) in any 24-hour period.

The gubmint will not tell us what's being emitted from the planes, who's flying the planes, who owns the planes, who gave the order to begin this, where the planes are based, how much it costs or why we didn't get to vote on it.

NOAA would have you believe that these trails in the sky, these artificial clouds, are "persistent contrails." Contrails dissipate. They do not hang around the sky and expand laterally. Moreover, a decent set of binoculars will reveal that some of these supposed "contrails" come right off the horizontal stabilizers at the tail of the aircraft. I have seen any number of two-engine aircraft leaving three trails--two on one side, one on the other.

And I'll bet you have seen some strange things in the sky! Maybe planes disappearing??? I have seen four instances of this since late December.

But not to worry. The debunkers will soon arrive to reassure you that you cannot possibly be seeing what you are seeing.

:freak:
dbt
"Chemtrails are real." --Dennis Kucinich

[Minstrel Boy]

18. I've seen the pattern repeatedly in Toronto skies in recent months:

Out of a clear sky planes appear, laying down parallel lines of laterally expanding and enduring trails. These lines are then crossed with other lines, rapidly forming a blanket of artificial cloud where minutes before there had been blue sky.

And in the same sky, I often see other planes, leaving regular, dissipating contrails.

I really want to disbelieve this, because the implications are so grave, and it makes me feel even more paranoid than I already am. But I see what I see, and what I see looks a lot like what had been proposed in the early 1990s as a solution to counteract the greenhouse effect.

More generally, weather modification has been an admitted goal of the US military for decades. How close it is to reality is debatable, but with HAARP online, it's closer than ever. Remember: just because it's crazy, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

FYI, a pretty decent chemtrail forum here:

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro

[theHandpuppet]

23. A Recommended Reading For You...

I think you would find this book VERY interesting.

Green, Fitzhugh; Title: A Change In The Weather; Publisher: W. W. Norton & Co, New York, 1977 (There have been subsequent printings; the book is available from many online out-of-print booksellers for an average six bucks.)

I obtained my original copy via the Astronomy Book Club over twenty years ago. In the book were scientfic discussion/theories on how weather and climate could be controlled and even used as a weapon.

This is not science fiction, folks -- the govt has been working on this for a LONG time.

[blurp]

9. This is CO2 that was in the atmosphere before. Why no "runaway" then?

All of this carbon was in the atmosphere in the past, yet there was no runaway Venus like event as far as we can tell.

So, why assume a runaway effect now?

We do know that there were plenty of times when the temperature was much colder. It's believed that the Earth has been completely covered with ice several times in it's history.

Now look at this image:



Is the CO2 controlling temperature, or is CO2 following temperature? What caused the periodic increases in CO2 in the past? It looks like we should be in for a decline in temperature if the period holds. Is our injecting CO2 into the atmosphere preventing catastrophic global cooling?

[Aquarian_Conspirator]

11. What's really tragically ironic...

is that, if we cross the environmental thresh hold, and the earth enters into yet another ice age, our oil supply will have peaked just when we need it most! Invest in down coats.

[blurp]

14. Well, we could (and will) move to burning coal

There is something like 150 years worth of coal in the US, so the peak in oil production doesn't mean a peak in CO2 production.

[theHandpuppet]

16. An increased burning of coal only increases...

... the greenhouse effect, not to mention that mercury is one of nasty leftovers for which no technology has been developed to deal with it.

[tom_paine]

55. Yes, but that is what his Masters want

So he's all for it. You don't get to be a good PR man, trolling boards and attacking truth by having a conscience.

But he gets paid, and THAT is what is improtant to him.

We're just practice for the Big Game.

Besides, if his Masters tell him to sell us on the fact that a mercury-rich diet will keep our hair glossy, then he'll do that.

How 'bout it, PR Man blurp? Mercury good for us, too? In great quantities?

Do tell.

[tom_paine]

22. So I decided to do a little checking on your graph

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/index.html

(from the article who's graph you stole to lend credence towards your quarter-truth)

Whether the ultimate cause of temperature increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor probably doesn't matter much. It could have been one or the other, or different combinations of factors at different times in the past. The effect is still the same. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is that GTGs account for at least half of temperature increases, and that they strongly amplify the effects of small increases in solar radiation due to orbital forcing.

The graph below includes data from the Nature paper, plus data from other studies referenced below. Notice how CO2 concentration rises vertically at the end of the time series. The increase appears vertical because of the large time scale, but it actually occurs over the past 150 years, which corresponds to the age of fossil fuels (the modern industrial age). Notice too that there hasn't been a corresponding increase in temperature during this time period. This is probably due to the ability of the oceans to function as a heat sink, and thereby delay the increase in atmospheric temperatures. However, there are recent indications that the oceans are now warming, which will reduce their ability to act as a heat sink.

Have you ever read the book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell them?

It is a VERY Fair Und Balanced book which details how Bushevik Operatives omit, lie, distort, and misuse statistics to show the opposite of what they actually show.

Ever read it? It's quite a good book.

In case you didn't catch the title, please allow me to repeat it, so that I'm sure that you'll buy the corrct book.

LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM
by Al Franken

[BillZBubb]

30. Good work debunking!

When I saw the far right edge (end of time series) of the graph, I almost choked on my coffee. That spike refutes every point the original poster was trying to make. I was going to reply, but you saved me the effort.

I'm not sure of the motivation for posting that graph. It doesn't add anything to the discussion and is misleading.

[blurp]

32. Good work?

He didn't do any debunking. He merely called me a liar.

When I saw the far right edge (end of time series) of the graph, I almost choked on my coffee. That spike refutes every point the original poster was trying to make. I was going to reply, but you saved me the effort.

How about replying anyway. What about that spike at the end refutes every point I was trying to make? Please give me your reason. I'd rather you not do what the original poster did by simply cutting and pasting from the original page. Give me some reasons.

I'm not sure of the motivation for posting that graph. It doesn't add anything to the discussion and is misleading.

Look at my response to the "debunker".

[tom_paine]

40. As weak as your original post

I wasn't trying to debunk you, per se (you would know if I did that by your red ass and red face). I was pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of misusing scientific writings/graphs charts.

And I believe I mentioned the recent spike in CO2 in my last post.

I dislike intellectual dishonesty. Are you really going to assert that you aren't using the graph in a purely semantic and unscientific way?

Go ahead. You've come this far, why not go the whole 9 yards.

Up is Down
Slavery is Freedom
Forest Fires Are caused by Trees
Pollution is cause by excessive regulation of industry
1 + 1 = 3
:puke: :puke: :puke:

[blurp]

48. You reject my arguments for unscientific reasons

You're rejecting my arguments because you don't like their conclusions, not because they are bad arguments.

That's not science.

I dislike intellectual dishonesty. Are you really going to assert that you aren't using the graph in a purely semantic and unscientific way?

Yes, I will assert that. I'll go further, I say it's you that are deceiving yourself into believing that your prejudices are really science.

[tom_paine]

53. Of course, your "arguments" are highly unscientific and conjectural

Which is also intellectual dishonesty.

I know. You stand behind it.

Plus, you never answered my question: What scientific training have you to draw your own conclusions from raw data?

Not that you can't pull stuff out your ass as much as you like (it's still a 98% "free" country). Clearly you have no problem with THAT.

The funniest thing in all of this is that you basically have these assertion that you made up, while I haven't even begun to make a serious debunking but have prodded you regarding your intellectual dishonesty, your weak assertiuons and your prejudices gussied up with a nice graph (from a paper which uses the data to assert the opposite of your "hypothesis").

So, what could be more natural and human of you than to accuse me of what you are doing, even to the extent of borrwing a graph for a little Orwellian Reinterpretation.

Yes, adding a graph (even stolen from a paper asserting the opposite of your unsubstantiated claim) to your prejudices does give a veneer of legitimacy to your prejudices to people who don't know any better.

And let me make one thing perfectly clear since you are so convinced I am attacking you on a scientific level

You wouldn't know a scientific debunking if it bit you on the ass, PR-man, so I suppose I can forgive your ignorance.

I am attacking your scientifc "method", if it could be called that and your blatant intellectual dishonesty not to mention the disingenuous tactic of accusing me of what you are doing yourself.

You want a scientific debunking? Ask a climatologist, who can rebut you as easily as I but on your data, as opposed to your sloppy and shoody reasoning (and have I mentioned your intellectual dishonesty lately)?

However, having now discussed things at length to me, it is perfectly clear how such distinction could be lost to you. Feel free to continue to pursue this fruitless straw man if you wish.

Oh yeah, and you might want to take a science class or two.

[blurp]

56. Your ranting proves my point. Thanks.

[tom_paine]

58. A credit to the PR industry. Professional Liars everywhere take note

I understand diversion due to the weakness of your argument, but the addition of using my rebuttals as "proof" is simply BRILLIANT

It also allows you to avoid replying.

You must be a VERY GOOD PR Man & Professional Liar/Distractor. Bet'cha have a corner office at Heritage.

Oh, and exactly WHAT is your scientifc training again (outside the field of psychomanipulation and professional dissembling)?

Waiting...

[blurp]

31. Please look at the data itself, instead of parroting what the author said.

Don't be a jerk by calling me a liar. I omitted the author's opinion because I disagree with it. I'm allowed to do that. I produced the graph because it is not opinion. It's measurement. There's a big difference between the two.

I used the graph to suggest several things: 1)that warming is periodic, 2)that CO2 usually follows warming, and 3)that we may be preventing an ice-age by putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

1) seems obvious from the graph. It's been noted before that ice-ages seem to have a period of about 100,000 years -- the same period as changes in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit.

2)is supported by asking whether or not there is a mechanism to account for the periodicity of CO2 concentrations outside of temperature variations. That is, if CO2 causes increases in temperature, then what caused the CO2 increases in the first place? Do volcanoes belch CO2 into the atmosphere every 100,000 years? Unlikely. There were no industrial revolutions hundreds of thousands of years ago, so that can't be a source. So what was it? Since the two graphs show a correlation, it's at least possible that warming causes increases in CO2 or that they at least share the same cause. What seems least likely is that the CO2 caused the warming shown in the graph. We don't know of a periodic mechanism for CO2 release on the order of 100,000 years.

This journal article also suggests that temperature has led CO2 increases:

Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

3) Even supposing #2 is wrong, the graph does suggest another ice age is on the way. If CO2 does greatly increase warming, maybe it is a good thing that it's being put into the atmosphere. Maybe we're accidentally "saving the Earth". Is that so bad?

Thinking for yourself is a virtue of the liberal mind.

[tom_paine]

38. The Earth has been saving itself for millions of years

Do you honestly think that altering systems of equibrium that have evolved so by digging up all the carbon in the Earth, and vaporizing it into the atmosphere will aide these systems?

To what degree is your understanding of the admittedly young science of ecology. Of climatology?

The simple fact is that even your graph supports a conclusion of human addition to natural feedback systems. The CO2 level currently (and it has recently undergone a major triennial spike so even this data is "tame" comparted to reality) is higher than it has EVER been at least as recorded in that graph.

You say we are "saving the Earth" by pumping all this carbon which would normally be locked in the ground, in trees, etc.

I maintain (as do the purveyors of the website) that the increase to the feedback cycle as a result will exacerbate things. If we had done nothing to vaporize extra carbon, we would still be warming.

Add in all the carbon from beneath the Earth' surface, and you don't have to be a scientist to make a hypothesis from it.

Finally, it is at the very least intellectual dishonesty to take a graph from a paper which shows one thing and use said graph in your "paper" to try and assert the opposite, particularly in the stunning absence of corroboration.

I should know. I'm a scientist.

How 'bout you? Any scientific training? A physics class in High School and perhaps "Mysteries of the Sky in College"? Something more substantive? How about Earth Sciences? Ecology? Environmental Health?

As this is still a 98% "free country", and I reserve the right to respond aggressively to bullshit, particulary intellectual/scientific dishonesty which happens to really chap my ass.

And I wans't calling you a liar. I was asking if you read Al's book.

:evilgrin:

[blurp]

47. Much more to work with there

Do you honestly think that altering systems of equilibrium that have evolved so by digging up all the carbon in the Earth, and vaporizing it into the atmosphere will aide these systems?

To what degree is your understanding of the admittedly young science of ecology. Of climatology?

We are not, of course, digging up all the carbon in the Earth. That would require that we also be consuming all the limestone. And we are not vaporizing it, we're burning it. There's a difference. I'm surprised that someone who claims to be a scientist would be so careless with his statements. That you would confuse the two suggests something about your understanding of physics and chemistry.

With respect to "systems of equilibrium", I think that systems as a whole will adjust and find a new equilibrium, with added benefits to humans such as increased crop yields and more efficient use of water by those crops. Experiments with CO2 fertilization show this.


The simple fact is that even your graph supports a conclusion of human addition to natural feedback systems. The CO2 level currently (and it has recently undergone a major triennial spike so even this data is "tame" comparted to reality) is higher than it has EVER been at least as recorded in that graph.

You say we are "saving the Earth" by pumping all this carbon which would normally be locked in the ground, in trees, etc.

I maintain (as do the purveyors of the website) that the increase to the feedback cycle as a result will exacerbate things. If we had done nothing to vaporize extra carbon, we would still be warming.

The graph shows much colder temperatures are the norm and that we are due for another very cold period.

Add in all the carbon from beneath the Earth' surface, and you don't have to be a scientist to make a hypothesis from it.

Finally, it is at the very least intellectual dishonesty to take a graph from a paper which shows one thing and use said graph in your "paper" to try and assert the opposite, particularly in the stunning absence of corroboration.

You're absolutely wrong here. Science allows (encourages) me to offer competing explanations for the data. So long as my reasoning is sound, I'm permitted to say, "hey, your arguments suggest something else". The person providing the evidence, graph, chart, data, whatever, might not like it, but that's the breaks.

What I'm not allowed to do is make up data to fit a desired explanation. I'm not doing that.


I should know. I'm a scientist.

How 'bout you? Any scientific training? A physics class in High School and perhaps "Mysteries of the Sky in College"? Something more substantive? How about Earth Sciences? Ecology? Environmental Health?

You should be ashamed that you would have to resort to citing credentials. Credentials are not an argument for anything. Real scientists give real arguments, not credentials. They don't say "I'm right because I have such and such a degree".

You know nothing about philosophy of science, or any of the theories regarding justifiable belief. You must think science is just a collection of facts. It's not.

As this is still a 98% "free country", and I reserve the right to respond aggressively to bullshit, particulary intellectual/scientific dishonesty which happens to really chap my ass.

Don't be surprise when you are treated in kind.

And I wans't calling you a liar. I was asking if you read Al's book.

:evilgrin:

[tom_paine]

54. Funny. Funnier. Funniest.

Ah, the way yuou parse indicates training in psychology and other Public Relations Strategies.

If I was actually speaking to a scietific group, I certainly would be more carfeul with my words.

As it is, I am speaking to an individual with NO scientific training and, as usual for you types, no understanding of the scientific method.

As far as credentialling, it is only improtant as to establish that an individual has enough of a background to understand what he or she is talking about.

Now a PR Man, or a Garbage Man, or the guy who cleans shit up after elephants, any of these can discuss whatever they'd like. You are correct that credentialling isn't everything. But when a Garbage Man hold forth autoritative discussion on Nuclear Physics, we are all correct to look askance, particularly if said Garbage Man is arguing with the "authority" of a leading light in the field.

You may feel free to examine my words for minute misstatements, as you have, although I would state that such nitpicking indicates a weakness of argument.

Please...nitpick some more. You are correct that burning and vaporization are two somehwat different terms. A lovely semantic distraction. Utterly irrelevant, but good score. I am sure that, if you did that with a real climatologist in a real debate and actually forced them to answer your distractive, ludicrous charge, your Masters would reward you richly.

Congratulations. I have no doubt you think very highly of yourself, though one wonders if anyone else shares that view (out the ol' PR firm, that is). Undoubtedly, you think so.

Also, putting words in my mouth is also clear evidence of the moribundity and weakness of your arguments. I guess achieving a degree in science is obvious evidence of my inability to understand scientific method and philosophy.

Hey, your attack was so Orwellian, you would do great in the PR biz! You could sell salt water to a person marooned on a desert island. Do you guys practice your feigned outrage and stock-in-trade lines? Does that work on scientists when you angrily growl it at them in meetings? If so, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

You see, you are also correct regarding data interprettation. I say again what is so galling is your intellectual dishonesty.

Since you have chose to use nitpicking as your source of refutation, allow me to say that the fact that you used this data under false pretenses, failing to acknowlege the graph's source and most importantly failing to offer (how con-VEEEEEN-ient) that the graph was thought to suggest something different but that you were offering an alternate interpretation.

No. Instead you dishonestly used the graph as if it was an authoritative source, supporting your claims. You claim to understand science, but failure to cite is called plagarism. Further, failure to cite while using the data to represent the opposite point, is doubly so.

But how could that bother you? Plagarism is the stock-in-trade of the advertising/PR business and I am sure whatever job you have such consideration are not part of your makeup.

Last but not least, you are also correct about the Earth achieving a new equibibrium. This is laughable as it proves my point as is your assertion, straight from the "Greening Earth Website", a data mine for corrupt "Industry Scientists" (if they could be called that) rife with lies, half-truths, and cooked data.

It must amuse you to sharpen your PR skills against a real scientist. You do talk well. Like a Professional PR Man or lawyer or Heritage Foundation person should. You must make a good living, even is spite of your lack of scientific training.

What was your scientifc training? Masters in Psychology from BU? A short internship at Wise Use Coalition prior to your being named Senior Upper Imprortant Envirnomental Fellow at Olin Foundation?

Do tell. Do tell.

[Viking12]

45. Here's where your theory runs awry...

I used the graph to suggest several things: 1)that warming is periodic, 2)that CO2 usually follows warming, and 3)that we may be preventing an ice-age by putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

1) Warming and cooling are periodic. We have reasonable certain explanantions for these climate changes -- orbital fluxuation, solar variation, etc...

2) CO2 USUSALLY FOLLOWS in reaction to these other forcing agents. The Earth warms plants thrive and die, the respiration cycle is more pronounced. Currently none of the forcings known to have caused climate change events in the past are occurring. The build up of atmospheric GHGs are the direct result of human activity. For example, carbon from fossil fuels are identifiable through signature isoptopes, other GHGs do not occur in nature. We have a situation where GHG build-up is unprecedented in terms of magnitude and character.

3) Could it be that we are preventing an ice age? Possibly, but very unlikely. Again, see 1). Science has a fairly coherent grasp of previous changes, a coming ice age doesn't appear to be imminent. Is it more plausible that we are stretching the bounds of a chaotic system and leading in a dangerous and irreversible direction? Absolutely yes. We are significantly altering the atmospheric chemistry which in turn will ripple through the climate system on a rate and scale that will likely be ruinous.

For a more scientifically based explanation see Chapters 1 & 2 at the following link:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

[Viking12]

46. See also Chapter 12

Detection and Attribution

[blurp]

50. Well, we seem to agree with nearly 2 out of 3

I guess I'm not doing too badly.

As for #3, I think it's important to emphasize that greenhouse gases are responsible for stabilizing the temperature of the Earth. There would be much greater variation in temperature if these gases weren't present, so why would things become "more chaotic"?

As for the report you provide the link to, keep in mind that many of the predictions there are based on computer models and that recent evidence suggests that they over-estimate increases in water vapor. Recall that water vapor is the "multiplier" used in these models to amplify warming, so this is important.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html

[Viking12]

59. Maybe you should read the articles you post

and read the reports which you pretend to refute:

See chapters 7 & 9

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

It's starting to appear that you have an agenda. Cherry picking, building strawmen, failure to make necessary distinctions between models, making post hoc and non-sequiter arguments don't indicate a predisposition to intellectual honesty.

[tom_paine]

60. He's a PR Man. Truth and fact are NOT his business

Professional dissembling is.

We are just practice.

[Viking12]

61. Again, read before you cite.

Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

This article discusses events after glacial termination. Perhaps you will explain its relevance considering that we're not in a period of glacial termination.

I'll give you a hint, the article discusses "climate-induced changes in the global carbon cycle" we're currently facing the inverse "global carbon cycle-induced changes in the climate". Relevance is limited to "the separation of systematic variations representative for all climatic cycles from those specific for each event, as well as a more detailed knowledge of the leads and lags between greenhouse gas concentrations and climate proxies."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Why increased CO2?

In a word, industrialization, and particularly, so-called motorization.

These used to be confined to Europe and the U.S., with only scattered pockets in the rest of the world. People in places like China and India, long the two most populous nations on earth, lived eighteenth century lives, relying almost entirely on human and animal muscle power.

When I went to China fourteen years ago, the vast majority of urban traffic consisted of bicycles, pedicabs, even horse-drawn vehicles, and a few overcrowded buses. The only private cars belonged to party officials, and there were a small number of taxis and vans for hire. Bicycle repair stands were as common as gas stations are here.

Now I look at recent news reports and movies portraying Beijing and Shanghai as covered with highways and plagued with traffic jams.

That kind of "motorization" has to have an effect on CO2 levels, as does Americans' insistence on driving the biggest bruiser SUVs they can afford.

[cprise]

35. Dude, look at the RED line

There is almost TWICE the increase in CO2 concentration than anything we've had in the past 500,000 years.

The temperature is only beginning to reflect that.

And what makes you think ALL the CO2 was in the atmosphere in the past? Are you implying that tectonic subduction and vulcanism didn't exist?

[blurp]

39. Good point, but

There is almost TWICE the increase in CO2 concentration than anything we've had in the past 500,000 years.

At the end of the graph, oh definitely.

I was using the graph to show the periodicity of ice-ages and to suggest that CO2 isn't historically the cause of warming.

The temperature is only beginning to reflect that.

It might be, sure, but in the past it was unlikely to have been the cause. The graph I think shows this. See my earlier reply to "the debunker".

And what makes you think ALL the CO2 was in the atmosphere in the past? Are you implying that tectonic subduction and volcanism didn't exist?

That one is easy. We are using fossil fuels that come from dead plants and animals. Plants get their carbon from CO2 in the air and the animals get their carbon from the plants ultimately. So the CO2 had to be in the air in the first place.

With respect to the subduction process, remember that the CaCO3 (limestone on the sea floor) comes from sea creatures shells, skeletons, and coatings. These sea creatures get their CaCO3 from the reaction of CO2 in the atmosphere with mostly calcium silicate rocks during the weathering process.

Volcanoes eventually return CO2 from this subducted limestone.

So yeah, most of this CO2 had to be in the atmosphere at some point.

[tom_paine]

41. Wow, more misleading rhetoric. So VERY easy to debunk...

Yes, most of the CO2 had to be in the atmosphere at one time.

At any given time: What is the data on how much of that CO2 was in the atmosphere at any one time?

Even if you are correct regarding CO2 causation of global warming, clearly it is both an indicator of warming and a mechanism (I point to the graph which you posted under false pretenses) of warming, as any First Year Climatology Student could explain to you as well as show you the proper experiment to prove it in the lab.

Therefore, if we are adding to the natural feedback processes of the Earth by adding more carbon to the atmosphere than has ever been present IN the atmosphere (as opposed to being locked in fossil fuels or the ocean) it only stands to reason that no matter the cause, increased CO2 will lead to increased warming, from a mechanistic point of view.

It is also possible to hypothesize, that such an unprecedented increase will increase the natural cycle, causing the "amplitude of the curve" to increase this time around.

Which means a 5 C increase instead of a 1 C increase (whatever the actual numbers turn out to be).

Of course, that was the point of the authros who's graph you so severely and dishonestly used.

And, NO, I will not back off that statement. Find a graph written by someone who supports your views. You can probably find them on some Mining and Power Company Websites.

[cprise]

44. Not quite

Plants get their carbon from CO2 in the air and the animals get their carbon from the plants ultimately. So the CO2 had to be in the air in the first place.


How was 200 years ago any different than 500,000? Plate tectonics was both subducting and releasing carbon back then as it is now. A relatively steady amount of carbon is cached in the earth this way. Having all that carbon in the atmosphere is NOT natural.

So yeah, most of this CO2 had to be in the atmosphere at some point.

When? Before life began?

Sure, let's just create conditions suitable only for uni-cellular life. :eyes: Turning back the clock several billion years is not natural.

[blurp]

51. Remember the original post was about a runaway greenhouse

Remember that the original post was about a "runaway" greenhouse effect. I was only arguing that this was unlikely since the Earth had had much CO2 in it's atmosphere, even billions of years ago, but Earth isn't nearly as hot as say, Venus. It had escaped a "runaway" greenhouse effect.

Also, consider this: about 90 million billion tons of carbon lies in limestone. Humans release about 6 billion tons of carbon each year. At that rate, it would take 15 million years to put as much carbon back into the atmosphere as is locked limestone. So it seems unlikely that we'd ever get close to reproducing the atmosphere as it was billions of years ago in term of CO2 content. If that atmosphere of billions of years ago didn't lead to a runaway effect, what we add now will be nowhere near enough to do it.

[tom_paine]

57. More intellectual dishonesty.

So, you are saying that there was a time when ALL that limestone carbon was in the atmosphere AT ONCE?

Funny. My understanding of the Carbon Cycle suggests that wouldn't be the case. If that was true your assertion might carry some weight.

(though I think scientific tuth is among the furthest things from your mind, though you do feign it well)

What is your scientific training again?

[G_j]

63. thank you

that struck me as ludicrous also.


Scientific background? Which Oil company?

[Mr.Green93]

13. should the U.S. economy be destroyed

to save the planet?

[htuttle]

15. Is that a trick question? Of course!

For one, I'd argue that it is a false choice. I don't think it's possible to have a thriving human economy (over time) on an ailing planet.

To believe otherwise would be cancerous.

[Mr.Green93]

17. destroyed is too strong a word

radically reconfigured is better

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. And what would be so bad about that?

Cleaner air, a slower pace of life, more reliance on local products, which would necessarily bring manufacturing and craft jobs back to the U.S....

It would be an adjustment, but in the end, we might all be less stressed.

[theHandpuppet]

29. A rather moot point, isn't it?

If the planet isn't saved, the American economy will be forced to undergo "radical configuration" no matter what. This country's economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. We can either choose to be a part of the solution or a victim of the problem.

[cprise]

36. A moment of clarity

Thank you.

[tom_paine]

19. The Earth waits in the backgorund with the Trump Cards

Here we sit, refighting World War II with the Busheviks as the Nazis (but "kinder and gentler") as the Environmental Point of No Return approaches, if it hasn;t passed already.

It is beginning to look like the Human Race will die in a warm, festering pile of it's own dung within 2 millenia (and probably much sooner). Some would say it's just deserts. Deep Ecologists would say the earth is getting a fever and will kill of the "virus".

I subscribe to neither of these theories (though watching the Sheep-like Ignorance of Modern Imperial Amerikan Subjects does tend to move one towards agreement with such ideas).

The Human Race will NOT do the universe a service by going extinct. But the likelihood that it will happen is growing daily, and growing faster every day Imperial Tyranny has America by the throat.

The Nazis were not environmentalists. The Soviets were not environmentalists. The Busheviks are not environmentalists. NO Totalitarian Scum are environmentalists.

[Mrs. Overall]

20. It was 30 degrees above normal yesterday in Seattle--

it broke all the records. Even old timers in the area had never seen anything like it in March. Usually it is 50 and yesterday it was 80.
I'm worried....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. And remember last summer, with all those days over 90 degrees?

That was scary. Usually the Seattle-Portland area gets a week or so of 90+ temps each year Last summer there were six such periods of three days or more before I moved to Minneapolis on July 31. This was in a region where residential air conditioning is almost unknown. My apartment faced west and had windows on two sides, and it was unbearable between about 4PM and 8PM.

Meanwhile, back in Minneapolis, people were telling me how unusually warm the winters have been lately. We had about a week of subzero temps, as opposed to the usually two weeks to a month, which was the norm even eighteen years ago, when I lived here before.

We always expected a blizzard around the time of the state high school basketball tournament, and although there was indeed a major storm this year, it came in the form of rain and high winds. I almost felt as if I were back in Portland.

:scared:

[Mrs. Overall]

28. I do remember!

I admit to loving those hot days since I am a native Californian, but I also realize the horrible impact those hot, dry days have on the indigenous trees and plants in this usually cool and moist area. It will be interesting to see if we have a repeat of last summer.
I agree with you--it is scary!

[Triple H]

27. Thanks to those Hemi-powered engines and gas-guzzling SUV's...

the suburban families are choking themselves--and everyone else--to death...all for a car that they can drive offroad...I mean on a highway (no one drives those damn SUV's offroad:grr:).

When will people start to care that we're killing ourselves? We're choking the air with our vehicles, we're destroying many species off this planet at an alarming rate (scientists say we may be in another mass extinction time period--and I believe so, too), and we're cutting down trees just to farm land.

When will people care about our planet--our only home??????

[Jim__]

33. A nightmare scenario mentioned years ago - the ocean becomes

a source for Carbon Dioxide. I don't remember the name of the book. But it said that, in general, the oceans act as a sink for CO2 but, at some temperature, and no one knew what that temperature was, the oceans could become a source for CO2, and that could essentially cook the earth.

It's scary stuff. Unfortunately we are ruled by an idiot who has followed Rush Limbaugh's lead and declared that all Global Warming reports are just "junk science."

[Nadienne]

37. Oh, come now

Global warming doesn't exist! It's a scare tactic used by haters of industry. Think about how much it costs employees/shareholders when industry has to deal with environmental restrictions - what's crippling to industry is crippling to the economy, right? And those tree-hugging fanatics just have it in for industry. They are blinded by their own greed - after all, what do you think they do with all the money you donate to them?

</sarcasm>

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

42. It's for real

but alot more is not known.

I've been studying weather/climate etc for 15 years. The main green

house gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. Water vapor takes up

approximately 20,000 parts per million in the lower troposphere but

is highly variable depending on season, location, etc.

Carbon dioxide takes up approximately 370 parts per million. The

question is what response to increased carbon dioxide does water

vapor have? It's at least 50 times more abundant. So an increase of

just 1 percent humidity give or take will have a drastic affect on

the earths climate. Also, the clouds response to such an event.

[Bandit]

43. Didn't the GOP say the way to combat this is to get more airconditioners?

I suspect they probably own stock in the airconditioning companies. Build their own Cheney style bunkers and turn up the airconditioning and who cares how the rabble make out. Just more earth left for them to rape and pillage.

[JCMach1]

49. Let me tell you how 50+ centigrade feels

with 100% humidity...

After more than a few minutes of walking you near heat stroke.

That's where we are headed! It's already here in my part of the world come summer.

[cmayer]

52. Global Warming to cause Ice Age...Fortune Magazine

The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare
The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the mother of all national security issues.
By David Stipp

This, from of all places, Fortune Magazine. I was waiting in a doctor's office the other day.


http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584,00.h...