backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jan 25 at 4:23 PM

For all we know, Al Bundy's socks may be the cure for the global climate crisis.

Will the war for global warming ever be won? That depends on the amount of information we can harvest, analyze and extrapolate from. In all likelihood, the only way we will know for certain if the Earth is heading for a global warming disaster is by waiting another few thousand years and looking at history books.

But, for those not comfortable with the wait and see approach, scientists continue to plunge into one of the crucial factors thought to govern global (I’m trying not to snicker) climate change, the global carbon sink system. Roughly composed of just about every living and even more dead things, these parts of local, regional and whole-Earth ecosystems are under high scrutiny as researchers try to understand how present day climate change will further affect future climate change. The popular idea seems to be that global warming is like a snowball rolling downhill – as it rolls it picks up more snow and eventually hits something and explodes. Exploding is bad for the Earth, honest.

From the University of Colorado at Boulder comes a study supporting the theory that extended growing seasons may not be the boon for the carbon sink that many have previously thought. At least not for subalpine conifers such as the lodgepole pine, subalpine fir and Englemann spruce. It turns out these trees depend much more upon snowmelt for their summer water fix than rainfall, and in years where spring comes early due to mild winters and low snowfall, the trees actually take in less carbon dioxide over the year than when spring arrives late with heavy snow still on the ground. Up to 60% of their internal water supply from stems and needles was identified to be from spring snowmelt rather than rainfall in the fall months. We can thank our friends the hydrogen and oxygen atoms for this precise identification work.

Since around 70% of the western USA’s carbon sink is found in these subalpine forest ranges, watching the snow caps shrink yearly would definitely affect their ability to operate to capacity, should this study be accurate. Facts don’t lie; snow good, carbon dioxide bad.

On a somewhat brighter note, according to researchers at the National Oceanographic Center, Southampton, another very large and poorly understood carbon sink may be completely underestimated in present carbon cycle models. Echinoderms, which comprise a vast portion of the ocean’s calcium carbonate dump, may sequester much more carbon yearly than previously thought.

Echinoderms suck in carbon from seawater to form their skeletal systems and include such happy marine animals as star fish, sea urchins and sea cucumbers. When these animals find the end of their lifecycle, they typically sink to the ocean floor with their captured carbon and become indefinitely buried in the sediments. Some of the calcium carbonate finds its way back up the “biological carbon pump,” but probably much less than is taken down to the depths.

This could mean that the ocean is once again showing itself to be far more excellent at helping regulate global carbon levels, or it could just mean scientists still don’t really understand what’s going on in there.

If these studies only prove one thing it is that we, as a global community, race, organism and observer still have very little understanding in the way all of our ecosystems work together to regulate the Earth’s climate. It’s far too early for any sane person to jump on the “we’re melting, melting” or “Minnesota never left the ice age, what’s your problem” camps. There simply aren’t enough data to concretely support any given theory with certainty and these kinds of discoveries are shining examples of why.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/8/2010 8:07:57 PM , Rating: 5
A a statistics researcher, I can say without a doubt, they have not studied all aspects, cannot study all aspects in less than 200 years (and requiring all people on Earth be scientists to study such during this time period), and will not understand the dynamics.

Their models are designed with bold statements about a few items, and never EVER seem to include the opposite side of the coin, natural reductions.

Each one is disparately studying (not desperately, disparately) their little version, and using data each allows to be flawed 'for the greater good'.

I have seen these lies, such as 'no glaciers ever melted away prior to..' or 'no glaciers are growing...' or 'the Spotted Owl can only live in Old Growth trees' (The Spotted Owl was placed in Old Growth trees, dead bodies that is, to prove this, later studies after the protection was added proved they did not live there, yet the regions they are protected in grew, and did not adjust to reality, leaving large spaces of land 'protected' where no owls really are...) and so forth.

When the ultra of any group has taken over the direction of the mainstream we all suffer. Right now the ultra-left is in charge of our government, the ultra-environmentalist has taken over environmentalism, and ultra-radicals have taken over the mantra of race relations.

Plus these scientists have the same Government agenda... "spend everything or they will reduce our budget, threaten lack of.. or disaster via... to get more funds, and never EVER reduce our size".

Further they will NEVER ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG! Instead they will spend MORE MONEY to show while their models were wrong they think it will work with this change... endlessly working on bad science!




RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/8/2010 8:10:14 PM , Rating: 3
Oh a quicky here...

Environmentalist based science is like a kid in the kindergarten who says "That man is scary" when all the man did was look at the kid doing something wrong.

The cops come, they want to believe the poor crying kid, and for nothing... The man was never doing any wrong, but the police still got involved... and the child, a spoiled brat, will never get punished.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Captain Orgazmo on 1/10/2010 2:54:57 AM , Rating: 3
Huh?


RE: The World is Too Big
By Cullinaire on 1/10/2010 10:10:59 PM , Rating: 1
You're absolutely right.


RE: The World is Too Big
By AssBall on 1/8/2010 8:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
You're absolutely right. There is not only way too much data sources, but we don't even have a clue yet how to analyze and integrate them. To make matters worse, it isn't even a closed system.

Why people get on either extreme and state vohemently that something is or is not some kind of "fact" is just as stupid as arguing about the merits of religion (or lack thereof). This argument currently is going the same direction: nowhere .


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 12:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
It is possible in most religious debates to get 'somewhere', for you can talk history, and such very well. And the fact that this history goes back for 4000+ years also bodes for the fact we can talk of this. People can go to the great wall in Israel, or to other religious sites, and see evidence they may or may not accept.

Global Warming... the history is the key, yet few can go and see it for themselves..

Do I make sense to you? I am trying to say Religion is one everyone can see, to some extent, the history of it... where weather is one where few have the ability to discern the deep history of weather...

As for the closed system part, I fully agree. Various parts of the equation have variables where they fit in just fine, yet these variables are not being accounted for. Take fruits for instance, in higher CO2 content they grow bigger, fuller, and faster. In low CO2 content they grow smaller, less total, and slower. This is just one of the variables involved in the total math.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Captain Orgazmo on 1/10/2010 3:09:49 AM , Rating: 4
Sometimes a little simple logic, our innate gift, is more useful than all the scientists, statisticians, and time in the world.

quote:
Echinoderms suck in carbon from seawater to form their skeletal systems and include such happy marine animals as star fish, sea urchins and sea cucumbers. When these animals find the end of their lifecycle, they typically sink to the ocean floor with their captured carbon and become indefinitely buried in the sediments. Some of the calcium carbonate finds its way back up the “biological carbon pump,” but probably much less than is taken down to the depths.


The shells of these animals, including corals, eventually undergo lithification and become what is called limestone. There are billions of tons of limestone in the Earth's crust, including large portions of the Rocky Mountains. So yeah, they definitely store carbon. Hydrocarbons are just another form of long-term carbon storage.

Just think about how much CO2 it took to create those mountains and all that oil and gas... and hmm the Earth just sucked up all that CO2 and, er, pooped it out, like nobody's business. So here comes little old industrialized us, in the last infinitesimally small fraction of Earth's geologic history, and we release an infinitesimally small fraction of all that stored CO2, and suddenly it's the end of the world as we know it?

Is it just me, or does that seem a little preposterous?


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: The World is Too Big
By Reclaimer77 on 1/11/2010 12:23:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Humans have a far greater impact than such organisms because we do not produce gases just from breathing. Think of how many breathing humans would emit the same amount of CO2 as a smokestack running for a day.


Think of how much Co2 and toxins Mount Saint Hellen's and other active volcano release when they smoke for decades on end.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/11/2010 1:33:42 PM , Rating: 1
Sure but such emissions become relatively constant once you stretch the time interval out long enough. In other words they are already accounted for in natural climate cycles. Volcano emmissions, solar activity, yearly seasons etc are all cyclical or a constant that has already been accounted for. (ie thats why the temperature already is what it is)

What GW scientists are trying to do is akin to measuring sea level to the nearest inch during a storm. While the "Waves" from large events like volcanos, solar activity etc are impressive they never change the average depth. A "garden hose" of human activity isn't very impressive but it's constant and non cyclical so it will have an impact on the average.

My point: although the question remains whether humans are having an impact or not it's certainly possible that we do. Other organisms have done it before and it will happen again.

Also to think that organisms cannot have *more* impact that such massive events like volcanos would be folly. Cyanobacteria are one such example. While we bicker about small changes to the 0.1% of CO2 these guys swung O2 content by some 20%.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Reclaimer77 on 1/11/2010 2:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point: although the question remains whether humans are having an impact or not it's certainly possible that we do. Other organisms have done it before and it will happen again.


Of course we have an impact, we live here don't we ? We have just as much right to have an impact as any other animal don't we ?

Now is that impact going to lead to the slow destruction of every living thing as we somehow destroy the climate ? NO. It's a big sham and the world now knows it.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/11/2010 2:40:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

Now is that impact going to lead to the slow destruction of every living thing as we somehow destroy the climate ? NO. It's a big sham and the world now knows it.


Nobody is saying every living thing will be destroyed**. I think the general worst case fears are: Weather gets shitty, certain populations will need migrated (not relocated...it will be slow), diseases become a bit more problematic, food supply becomes a bit more problematic etc..

GW won't eradicate human life it will just cause a great degree of pain-in-the-ass.

As to having a right to impact? Our impact is an order of magnitude higher than any organism on the planet. We need to keep that in mind. *I* feel we have the right to make whatever impact we want. We're the resident sentient being on this planet so we handle management duties. I think we have the right to make decisions as long as we're ready to accept the consequences.

**Note: actually I'm sure *somebody* is saying this but hey there are nutbags on both sides of the argument.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/11/2010 3:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
Ug people are so heated on this topic that they can't think.

Can someone *rational* from the flip side tell me what's so disagreeable about my post above? I make no claims I'm right but an explanation instead of an anonymous -1 would be constructive.


RE: The World is Too Big
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 1/11/2010 3:54:43 PM , Rating: 1
While I agree that the impact of human machinations on ecosystems, local and global, is probably greater than any other organism per capita, it should be qualified that our overall impact is probably very slight compared to the many other measurable biomasses on Earth.

Slight enough to push something too far? Who knows. How fragile IS the global eco/climate system? If we knew, all the arguments would be a moot point to begin with.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/12/2010 11:37:22 AM , Rating: 2
They found during the biodome experiments that organisms in the soil produced far more CO2 than expected and they finally had to cancel the experiment when CO2/O2 levels became dangerous.

So yes there are definately other organisms having an impact out there.

To further complicate: we have an impact on how much impact they have. There is tons of biomass, carbon, and mostly dormant microorganisms buried in the northamerican and asian tundra. If this stuff gets warmed a few degrees it will become a massive carbon producer all on it's own.

That question of the "tipping point" is the big one. Scientists don't have that answer yet. I believe that they are trying in good faith to find out and not just trying to wreck financial destruction on all of mankind to satisfy some imagined conspiracy.


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 1:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yes there is the question of impact. What impact does a forest fire have? What impact does a volcano eruption in winter, versus summer have?

Do we need to spend trillions solving this? No we do not.

This sort of thing would be best left in college studies, not in scientific studies, where students can correlate easily gathered data and present it, rather than the expensive means of employment we have now.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/13/2010 4:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This sort of thing would be best left in college studies, not in scientific studies, where students can correlate easily gathered data and present it, rather than the expensive means of employment we have now.


If it's easily gathered data then it's done. The low hanging fruit is gone. Our scientists are trying to figure out what is going to happen to the climate of the entire planet decades or centuries from now. This is HARD to do.

Some professor's class ain't gonna pull it off during their semester project. No, you're going to need some team hiking off to who knows where taking ice cores, vegetation samples, programming a supercomputer etc. It's expensive but the issue is "impact all of humanity" serious.

I think you exagerate on "trillions" (with regard to _research_ costs) but *IF* GW turns out to be the real deal then trillions will be a drop in the bucket. It would cost more than a trillion dollars just to relocate New York city or 1/4 of Florida.


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 8:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yes trillions have been spent or lost due to the efforts here. I am not exaggerating.

I find it funny that some scientists being paid $140,000 a year (a goodly number of them) use a satelite put up in the 70's, and say 'the ice cap is shrinking' when a bunch of do-gooder kids (If it were not but for those meddling kids!) using a more up to date satelite proved the old satelite is a BAD ONE TO USE because it completely showed the cap is not being reduced year by year since Google Earth clearly showed it to be much larger than the scientists earning the huge salaries said it was.

College and University students who did not get the memo have found all sorts of things wrong with the science of these extremely over-paid scientists. So much it makes me laugh. Not only that, but I believe the leading edge of science in rockets, solar energy, lasers, carbon nanotubes, other new materials is coming from the University more often than the paid scientists.

This says something to me, says a lot actually. I would trust, right now, a Student at MIT with 4 years under his belt, than most scientists with 20+ years of experience.


RE: The World is Too Big
By AssBall on 1/12/2010 5:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
And!!!! You get downrated for a reasonable post, further cementing one of your article's points. [That people pretend to but DON'T KNOW SH|T].


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/13/2010 9:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
No kidding.

*I'm* the guy arguing with him and I would have given his post a +1 for it's thoughtfulness.


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 1:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
I have some questions for you... if you think we do have an impact then.

Do we outnumber trees? Do we have a greater ratio than 1 human per 1 million blades of grass? Do you think there is more corn grown than humans existing per year, or less?

What effect do these plants have, is it greater, or lesser, than the impact humans have?


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/13/2010 4:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
Such a ratio is one of the big questions but there is a bigger one: What is happening to the ratio over time?

You don't need to know the ratio to know if it is changing. We've got X amount of carbon producing humans and Y amount of carbon consuming plants. There is some ratio between the two that will result in the equilibrium in CO2 that currently exists.

I think (I hope) we can agree that X is rising and Y is shrinking.

If X was just animals I wouldn't be worried but X is humans and we do some really stupid sh1t. If there is an overpopulation of deer they starve and die. If there is an overpopulation of humans we move to a new source of resources, clearcut a forest, plant corn there, then burn half the corn in our cars.

So I don't know what the ratio is and it's not important for a simple "this is good or this is bad" conclussion. If you want to know how good or how bad (ie make a prediction on temp 100 years from now) then I suppose you'll have to figure it out.


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 8:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
What are you on?

I mentioned yield on purpose.

A Douglas Fir is a great example.

Take a group of firs in a forest. Say that over 20 years 1/2 die due to fire, infestation, and rot. The other half still grow to be 30 odd feet high at minimum.

Your therefore missing a critical element right there.

The number of plants is a variable we will have a hard time calculating properly, as is the changing size of said plants, the yield of the plants, the changing sequestering of said plants, and of the strength of the plants in how much conversion they will do.

We also omit natural selection, aka some plants will do better than others, in this entire process.

Your argument has many wrong falacies in it. In Ethopia they have families based upon the ability to support the families. The same in many other nations. My sister here in the United States has chosen to have a 3rd child due to her ability to afford the third child. Free market conditions rely upon resources that are not running out, which I also say with a 200 year (for the whole world) supply of oil known to exist, we can look at this as probably not an issue over the next 200 years (since science is progressing) and beyond. No resources, when broken to base types, is truly running out, but there is a limited supply available perhaps, and this is an element of the free market.

Therefore that portion of your argument is also null and void. Consider my words well, for they are statistically and mathematically sound.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/14/2010 10:21:08 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

quote:

Therefore that portion of your argument is also null and void. Consider my words well, for they are statistically and mathematically sound.


Sir I think your words are completely unsound and I think the first uncivil words you've used with me really apply to you: "what are you on?"

I don't buy your argument on Ethiopia, and the pretty much useless anecdote regarding your sister's 3rd child. The popupulation of the world has grown by 4 BILLION since 1950 so X is most definately growing.

Comparing a satellite shot of South America in 1970 to one today also makes it very obvious that clearcutting alone is enough to decrease Y. You will not find enough positive growth on the globe to offset such changes.

Your previous arguments have been both polite and strong. This one seems so far out that I'm wondering if you replied to the correct post.


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 1:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
Those are just a portion of the emission sources. Think of underwater volcano's, the gasses emitted by large lava flows, forest fires, and even such things as 'old glory' (aka geysers).

These all emit to a certain extent, and they are not fully mapped out.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/13/2010 4:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure there are more natural greenhouse gas emission sources than you and I put together could possibly think of. There are more CO2 emission sinks than we can imagine too. The number of variables overall is staggering.

This brings up a bit of a counter to the argument you put forth in the other thread fork...

Someone has to drive the research to put the list together. That's why we spend so much money on this topic.


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 8:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
The research can be safely spread out over time, with no, to little, impact upon society. Yet this is not being done, instead we are doing a Manhatten sized project already, and then wish to double down to the 10th power on top of it.

There is no need to do half of what the Dems are proposing to do even if the Global Warming scientists were halfway correct. I do not wish to spend so much money on fruitless directions when instead we could put it to more effective use, including dropping taxes so that more people can afford things, and so that more jobs are created, more competition, and so forth.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/14/2010 2:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ah sorry man you loose my interest quick when you bring politics into it. It was an otherwise fun discussion.


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 1:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
Well one has to wonder how the initial carbon we had when the Earth was formed ever turned from a molten and/or gassified state when it started, to current, if it traps heat so well ;)

Of course I am being a little sarcastic, but then again am I?

The points you make however stand. This planets history of sequestering in of itself and our minute 'modification' does not sway me to alarmist thinkings.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/13/2010 5:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yes you're sarcastic but there's still a decent point buried in there :)

The answer is easy: A planet-dominating organism capable of surviving in the existing climate came along and altered the composition of the atmosphere to have far more oxygen than CO2. That also resulted in a climate change that obliterated said organism. I'm not making this up.

History will repeat and the lession we need to learn is: An organism that comes to dominate the planet can change the climate. That's a FACT. Humans being such an organism right now is just a theory.


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 8:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the thing that I think heated and cooled earth was water. We have a lot of it to do this with also. It is such a higher level of heat trap when in the atmosphere, as molecules, but when bound as clouds it reflects heat extraordinarily well.


RE: The World is Too Big
By JediJeb on 1/13/2010 5:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
This is something I have been wondering also. If the Earth has sequestered so much CO2 in the form of limestone and fossil fuels, the what was it like when those things were free carbon in the atmosphere? The amount of carbon on Earth today is relatively the same as it was 100 million years ago, because it is not created or destroyed in any of the chemical processes that trap or release it. If we put all of that carbon back into the atmosphere where it once was, shouldn't the Earth have been orders of magnitude hotter in the past? Not just a few degrees up and down as most of the climate history seems to show.


RE: The World is Too Big
By kattanna on 1/11/2010 11:22:48 AM , Rating: 3
one of the biggest problems with current models is the grid size. take this study for example:

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/extinction...

quote:
Their bioclimatic model attempted to predict the survival of alpine plant species in the Swiss Alps. When the model was run using 16 km by 16 km (10 mile by 10 mile) grid cells the model predicted a loss of all suitable habitats during the 21st century. When they changed the model's grid to a much finer 25 m by 25 m (80 ft by 80 ft) cell size the same model predicted persistence of suitable habitats for up to 100% of the plant species. The authors attributed these differences to the failure of the coarser spatial-scale model to capture local topographic diversity, as well as the complexity of spatial patterns in climate driven by topography


we still do not have computers capable of running world wide climate models with any sort of fine grained grid size, and there fore with any accuracy.

and lets not get into the fact that none of the current models were able to predict the current cooling trend, or maybe we should.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/11/2010 1:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and lets not get into the fact that none of the current models were able to predict the current cooling trend, or maybe we should.


I believe we're near the tail end of a predicted 15 year cooling trend right now.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/11/2010 1:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
...but... I otherwise agree with you.

There are limits to the models and while some minute details will average out over a long time, other minute variable could cause substantial change (innaccuracies) over time.


RE: The World is Too Big
By kattanna on 1/11/2010 4:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
others say we are in the beginning of a 20-30 year cooling trend.

and thats the real problem. no 2 models confirm each other, and none can accurately make any real predictions.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/12/2010 2:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I could be wrong. I was paraphrasing from a vague memory. The models actually aren't too bad given the scale of what they are trying to accomplish.

This brings up an even bigger problem. We're all a bunch of f'n armchair scientists who are not directly involved in climate research yet we all think we're experts.

The best is when someone breaks out the "it's all just cycles" or "it's all just (insert obvious thing)". Thanks guy! The scientists researching this for half their lives never thought of a variable like sunspots! That's why their all wrong...because joe public thought of something joe doctorate didn't.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/12/2010 4:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
they're


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 1:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is some of us are scientists, with valid input.

My math is very much capable of answering this entire thing, and I have pointed out it has as much to do with the whole as anything else.

The answer lies in history, yet our own scientists (read earlier DailyTech articles) have purposely LIED about the history. The answer is there, just need to examine the truth. I have seen enough of the truth to base my professional opinion upon it.

That opinion is: "Man affects the climate only in such minor ways as to be lower than a hundredth of a decimal of a percentage. While this percentage can increase in certain localized regions, in the whole the entirety of the world is much more a modifier of weather than anything we could ever do short of nuking the entire planet in a cascade, rather than a single strike. The entire ecosystem clearly has built in balancers, with the ability to cope for variances in the entire ecosystem in a variety of directions, and we cannot affect this system to the extent Al Gore and other so called AGW believing scientists say."


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/13/2010 5:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'll bow out of this argument soon (it gets old as I'm sure you know) but I would at least like to thank you for your courtesy. Such discussions usually go to sh1t but this one hasn't.

I think you and I disagree and I think both of our minds are pretty well made up. However I also think both of us are open to the idea that we may be wrong. As long as science continues to be open to the idea that it could be wrong then science will be alive and healthy.

I'll throw one last thought at this portion of your opinion:

quote:
The entire ecosystem clearly has built in balancers, with the ability to cope for variances in the entire ecosystem in a variety of directions, and we cannot affect this system to the extent Al Gore and other so called AGW believing scientists say


I think our ecosystem's natural ability to balance is more than enough to take care of our impact . A million years from now you may look back to see that it only took mother nature 1000 years to completely blot out the source of excessive greenhouse gasses. :(


RE: The World is Too Big
By JediJeb on 1/13/2010 5:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you and I disagree and I think both of our minds are pretty well made up. However I also think both of us are open to the idea that we may be wrong. As long as science continues to be open to the idea that it could be wrong then science will be alive and healthy.


I didn't get in on the begining of the discussion, but I will agree this one has been rather civil and productive for the reason you stated. I think the problem we not experts have with the current pro AGW scientists is that most seem to not follow the above statement on being able to admit they could be wrong. That is what is ruining the whole study of the change in climate and possibly driving us into some very bad political areas with the false belief that government can control the climate.

Someone mentioned using their knowledge of math in examining the problem, I use my knowledge of chemistry. The one thing about many of the theories that troubles me the standard line on temperature versus CO2 concentration in the oceans. The AGW group says that CO2 concentration rises in the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise, causing the ocean to absorb more CO2 and become more acidic. The problem with that from a chemists view is that as temperatures rise the ocean will desorb CO2 which should make it become less acidic. It would seem that CO2 rise in the atmosphere should follow behind temperature rise not cause it. Their theory from a chemistry standpoint would suggest that climate over-rides the laws of chemistry and physics which should not be able to happen. I may be wrong and not be seeing something that is taking place there, but none of the AGW theories have yet to explain the discrepancy.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/13/2010 5:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The AGW group says that CO2 concentration rises in the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise, causing the ocean to absorb more CO2 and become more acidic.


I thought the AGW consensus was the opposite of that. Warming should cause the oceans to emit CO2 rather than absorb it.


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 9:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
There are so many 'ocean this and ocean that' theories as to make me cry for sanity. All the ones who include the ocean have so many variances in what is supposed to happen, it almost feels like they are trying hard to account for anything so they can say 'eureka' when their model follows the oceans a bit.

Recently however Al Gores primary scientist backtracked when he said the Oceans were not heating as much as his models had indicated they should, showing a greater ability to diffuse heat somehow.

The real scientists of the oceans however have said... oh crap I forget the word... Submarines move between the layers in the ocean commonly... dangit I hate forgetting a word!!! Anyways these thermal barriers keep divergent tempatured waters away from each other, and each section can grow, or shrink, with local temperature conditions.

The layers therefore can be huge for a warm spot, when weather above increases, compacting the lower, more cooler, levels down, or it can be visa versa. The current situations also help dictate changes in how these thermal levels work, since the areas with a permanent current get cycled from warm to cold, or visa-versa.

But your chemical study could be a great avenue to go down. The scientists I follow have said a lot that carbon dioxide in the past increased as a result of heating, and not the other way around.


RE: The World is Too Big
By JediJeb on 1/14/2010 2:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
Is the word " thermocline "?


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 1:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the anti-global warming scientists have been having rather accurate models showing this cooling trend.

Sadly it looks like we are entering another 11 year cycle of (relatively) no sunspots, which will indicate another severe cooling cycle.

The only questions I have pertaining this cooling is:

1) What specific radiations have the greatest affect upon the outer reaches of the suns magnetic sphere and at what rate of travel do these radiations travel at?

2) Will the growing cosmic dust at the edge of the cosmic sphere have an effect upon us in the next few centuries, decades, or just years?

3) Will the hot air put out by Al Gores mouth counter the cooling, and is his hot air a threat to humanity, or is Gaea countering him as evidenced by the sudden cooling at most of his speaking events?

4) Will the price of warm clothing go up beyond the current price by 100% or more?


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/15/2010 10:24:21 AM , Rating: 2
That tells me the model is fine but we lack the computing power to run it the way it needs to be.

BTW current models did predict this cooling trend as well as another.


RE: The World is Too Big
By cocoman on 1/11/2010 12:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
I think all this global warming is a marketing campaign to cover the real truth. Global warming is natural cycle of our planet, but we want to change the planets climate to our needs.

If the planet gets warmer the sea level gets higher, and since most cities are on the coast it would cost xillons of $/€ to relocate the people and create barriers to the sea rise. So the simple solution: Modify the planets climate so that it keeps the temperature and therefore the sea level that we want.

The enviromentalist would be outraged by intervining in mother natures work and then you would have popular and political opinion aginst it because of the high costs. Also people never listen to warnings until its too late.

So what do you do?
Just spend a few millions on a few known faces and a campaign in which you tell people that the global warming is our fault and that we have to fix it. So you have all the envirmentalists and the public opinion in your favor to play god with the climate and they will spend xillions of $/€ willingly and will even sleep better at night.

Be sure that it will not stop by just getting to 0 CO2 emissions. After that they will say it is not enough and we will start actively altering the climate the way China is doing.

On a more serious note:
CO2 makes things hotter. I work on an industrial refrigeration company and we have to take into account its warming effects in calculations.

And also TheEinstein, you sound like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory. The US was the last developed country to enter the global warming hysteria. Europe, specially Germany, and Japan were on it long before the US, so don´t blame it on the democrats.


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 1:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
The global warming conspiracy was started in the United States, it spread to Europe where they were more than willing to believe it compared to the average American citizen, and is being pushed back into our nation.

As for the sea water argument...

I laugh at you sir. Your very funny.

As for your carbon dioxide versus refrigeration argument, I further laugh at you, and mock you for making such a silly bald faced lie. I have done security in enough facilities with need to handle refrigeration of certain area's to know that the atmosphere content is not a worry. Change the variance of any of the major gases, and it is not an issue. The entire falacy of your argument is based upon the premise that you are an 'expert' in a 'field' which has need to monitor, where it clearly is not an issue.

As for warnings and such, I call you out there to. They have tried the 10 year horror prediction...

New York City is still around, no water eating away at it...

I still see the Netherlands when I check Google Earth, so I guess it is still around also.

They have tried the 50 year scare, and it has come up wanting after 15 years so far... so this to will not be a big worry, nor will it pan out.

The 200 year scare... well I assume if the dire predictions ever do happen, 200 years is sufficient warning that living in the Big Easy might be a bad thing...


RE: The World is Too Big
By The0ne on 1/11/2010 4:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more on what you said. Add to it all the bickering on the various sides and the average person isn't going to really know what the facts are. The bad science could be equate to the bad business worker. Someone who knows what they've done isn't right and will spend the money, time and resources even at the expense of other people to find a small glimmer of hope...of which 99% of the time will never happen because it was wrong to begin with.

I don't mind doing "good" by using electricity, cutting down on pollution and such but to have to argue this over what people "think" isn't necessary is ridiculous. If that were the case many would not even both properly throwing trash away, cleaning themselves or visit doctors. If one fails to see that doing something, no matter how small is good, then there's no convincing them of anything otherwise. On a larger scale such as global climate changes, that's a bit different because then we have special interests groups involved.


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 1:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
There is energy, then there is energy.

Solar energy currently costs more energy to produce, than it will produce in its own lifetime.

Wind energy also is the same.

While advancements happen, we do not subsidize the good advancements, we subsidize the bad advancements.

This is because subsidies are done by politicians, who get paid in cash for campaigns. These politicians then subsidize those who helped them. Subsidies are wrong entirely. Only investment should be allowed.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Manch on 1/13/2010 10:39:19 AM , Rating: 2
90% of all statistics can be made to say anything... 50% of the time.


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 12:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
And 99% of Statistics are always wrong...

:P


Article Or Study Logic Seems VERY Flawed
By mindless1 on 1/9/2010 12:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
The article mentions trees taking in less when there is less snowfall, but that is not related to growing season.

You can have a longer growing season and the precipitation is... get ready for it... rain instead of snow.

That the trees were getting more water from snow, is simply the way it was in that climate, not a requirement (if it instead rains more due to it being a longer growing season!!).




By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 1/9/2010 10:27:31 AM , Rating: 3
Basically what they are trying to prove is that rain from extended growing seasons has much less impact than how much snowmelt water is picked up by the plants during the spring. There is no flawed logic there. They showed that in September and October, late grow season months, that up to 60% of held water reserves were from the spring melt water.

In accordance with those numbers, that means that if less water is absorbed in the spring, the plants will not cycle oxygen/carbon as much as they would during a heavy melt as their internal stores are smaller. The extra month of rain water won't make up for their declination in oxygen production throughout the spring and summer growth.

Make sense?


RE: Article Or Study Logic Seems VERY Flawed
By d3872 on 1/12/2010 3:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can have a longer growing season and the precipitation is... get ready for it... rain instead of snow.


Argh! I hate this attitude. "I've thought about it for a whole 3 seconds, and I can't figure out how rain would be any different than snow. This proves that their whole study is flawed and the researchers are stupid, because it's impossible that there might be something which I didn't think of in my whole entire three seconds of thinking about it. Revel in my genius."

It's not like the answer is right there in the original article or anything:
quote:
"Snow is much more effective than rain in delivering water to these forests," said Monson. "If a warmer climate brings more rain, this won't offset the carbon uptake potential being lost due to declining snowpacks."


By Smilin on 1/13/2010 6:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Argh! I hate this attitude. "I've thought about it for a whole 3 seconds, and I can't figure out how rain would be any different than snow. This proves that their whole study is flawed and the researchers are stupid, because it's impossible that there might be something which I didn't think of in my whole entire three seconds of thinking about it. Revel in my genius."


Yep that's my favorite. That and.. "hey the amount of sun reaching the earth varies over time (or some other such variable). Why can't scientists understand this is part of a cycle?".

ARGH! Why would some internet tard think he has come up with something that a guy spending his career studying hasn't thought of?? Can you imagine how such a thing would go down?...

"Aw crap! Guys I know we just spent a billion dollars putting together this climate model program but I forgot to plug in the the variable to account for snow being reflective in the winter. We gotta start all over."


By mindless1 on 1/25/2010 4:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
False! The conjecture about snow is not proven, it is a big LEAP upon which the rest falls.

What they did was contrast snow during a normally longer cold season with rain in the warmer season, NOT when the warmer season is longer AND there is ALSO more rain due to that.

The study was a huge huge failure by not having a solid foundation upon which to apply evidence gathered.


yes, and therefore
By spepper on 1/9/2010 10:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
yes, much is not yet understood about what exactly affects climate change, but one thing is certain: absolutely NO evidence can be pointed to, that directly links human activity to it! And therefore, any politician who tells you and demands that you accept that as fact, is a LIAR at best, and is attempting to extort money from you, in the form of carbon taxes, and such nonsense as that--




RE: yes, and therefore
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 1/11/2010 1:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
To my understanding, there is a great deal of information that can infer a direct link between human activity to the global climate.

As well as the opposite.

So my question is, should we disbelieve it because it seems like a conspiracy or should we believe it because it might be the truth?


RE: yes, and therefore
By Smilin on 1/11/2010 2:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So my question is, should we disbelieve it because it seems like a conspiracy or should we believe it because it might be the truth?


Well said.


RE: yes, and therefore
By geddarkstorm on 1/11/2010 3:25:06 PM , Rating: 3
Science is based on the null hypothesis. Scientists are skeptics, in the sense that we are skeptic /about our own work/. We do not test what we think could happen, we test the hypothesis that /nothing/ will happen, or that it'll be utterly insignificant.

For instance, in a drug test, the null hypothesis, what is ACTUALLY being studied, is that the drug will do squat. It'll be injected, and nothing will happen, at all. That's what's actually being tested, and ONLY that. Then, when we see something happen we can now say, "ok, we've disproved our null, and here's what we got, where can we go next?".

Global warming science suffers in that I have rarely seen anyone use a null hypothesis and actually approach it in a scientific manner. They want to prove it, or they want to disprove it. The moment, the very nanosecond, a scientist starts to think that way, they are no longer a scientist. The reason is, is they will, even subconsciously, choose the parameters and massage the data in such a way as to try to steer their experiments to the end they believe it should reach.

So, we end up with a mess, masquerading as science. Computer models! Can you get any more biased and arbitrary?

It's a joke, it's embarrasing to me, a published scientist, to watch this from /both sides/. It makes the public grow confused on what science actually is (observation, that's it), and what it's purpose is (observe x in the presence/influence of y while z is being held constant -- that alone is how we gain knowledge of how things work in any field). And now the public is starting to distrust scientists. And most scientists aren't helping the matter, going on "crusades", trying to sway politicians, governments, and masses when that is not our place.

We only present the data; we are only guardians of the validity of that data and the conditions/methods surrounding that data. It's only our place to make sure knowledge is left uncorrupted. But what people make of it and do with it, is not for us to try to influence. That immediately makes us biased and kills our objective credibility.

I don't know where things are heading with all this, but it's nothing good. Gone is the days of the rigorous science of the 40s and 50s. The science that discovered proteins, DNA (yes, only 60 years ago, amazing isn't it), the atomic bomb, sent us to the moon. Now it's just.. a mess. An endless nightmare mess of bias and bickering.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound bitter, it just breaks my heart sometimes. And in the end, it will all work out, just... eventually.


RE: yes, and therefore
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 1/11/2010 3:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for your input on this. It gives me another thing to cogitate on.


2/3 'rds of this HUGE land mass
By Reclaimer77 on 1/8/2010 10:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
Called North America is at record low temperatures at the moment. That is a MASSIVE area.

And idiots were in Copenhagen still spewing crap about AGW.




RE: 2/3 'rds of this HUGE land mass
By Smilin on 1/11/2010 3:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
There is always some genius that comes along and quotes some "hey it was -50 degrees in buttsecks wisconsin so AGW can't be real".

It's always the same guy who was mumbling about "cycles" when Europe had the deadly heat wave last year.

Thanks for stepping up to be "that genius"!

The rest of us are talking about numbers that stretch between decades and millenia, not one bad winter.


By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 9:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
In Jan 2009 it snowed in a section of Arizona where it had not snowed in over 80 years.

In Nov 2009 it did it again.

New records are being made every day in much of the United States. Florida is covered in ice after a week still.

Oklahoma saw more cars in the median or on the shoulders than ever before during the Christmas week... due to severe ice like they never have seen before.

Flooding continues to wreak havoc throughout the United States, flooding like never seen before.

The scientists who argue against Global Warming predicted this. You either get cold/wet years or dry/warm years.

Hope you like rain, the damned sun is not giving any sun-spots still... so by now it is out of deviations (I think) and therefore this is a second cycle of relatively no solar activity.


How to tune people out.
By Smilin on 1/11/2010 11:49:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But, for those not comfortable with the wait and see approach, scientists continue to plunge into one of the crucial factors thought to govern global (I’m trying not to snicker) climate change, the global carbon sink system.


The moment I hit that I see nothing but bias and reading the rest of the article would be a waste of my time.

Regardless of which side of the debate you are on: Show some respect for the other side. There are intelligent people who may disagree with you. Both sides need to realize the other may be right and dismissing them with no respect helps no-one.

This article is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You won't keep a straight face when talking to GW supporters, why on earth would you think they'll listen to you in return? I'm guessing your article ironically goes on to mention at some point or another why GW supporters don't listen to anyone.




RE: How to tune people out.
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 1/11/2010 12:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
What you see as disrespect, I see as satirical comment about how people are simply not willing to consider anything but what they are force-fed by the mass media.

If you read the article, you will see that I favor neither side of the global warming/climate change debacle, and in fact take shots at both. This is, after all, an opinion piece and my point of view which no one is obligated to respect or agree with.

But let us be honest here, slapping a "climate change" sticker over the "warming" on the old shock and awe signs was just silly. And if you take it seriously, you can consider it even more support for the views I expressed in this piece: they actually haven't got a clue what's going to happen.


RE: How to tune people out.
By Smilin on 1/11/2010 2:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you read the article, you will see that I favor neither side of...


My point was that once I start reading "snicker" in an article I don't take it seriously and I stop reading. Normally this is the end of it but since you've been rationally disagreeing with me in a comment above I'll be happy to finish it.

As for the "climate change" sticker: I believe that was coined by a republican political strategist that worked with Bush (jr). He was on the Daily Show a few years back and the guy was utter genius. One of his big jobs was taking polically hot terms and creating new ones that stick in the mind of the public. Some of his other creations:

war on terror = fight against global extremism.
torture = enhanced interrogation

I forget the bit but John Stewart threw some nasty term at him and the guy whipped up something genius in like 5 seconds. It was impressive.

Anyway, "climate change" was a term coined not by global warming supporters but by their opponents. Global warming supporters call it "global warming".


Wow, have an agenda much?
By nyfd432 on 1/11/2010 2:15:42 AM , Rating: 2
Every week there are new "Findings" from you. Let's watch a little bit more about the minds behind "debunking" the global warming threat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ&feature...




RE: Wow, have an agenda much?
By Tony Swash on 1/11/2010 7:25:52 AM , Rating: 2
Check out the video lectures by some leading scientists here

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/

The notion that the science of climate is settled is really ridiculous, its like saying the science of the earth or the science of cosmology is settled. Its never settled.


Bur Bur Bur Har Har Har
By HostileEffect on 1/10/2010 8:04:29 PM , Rating: 3
12F in Texas! If it gets any colder we will need Chuck Norris to fart and light a match.




You don't need a
By mich0311 on 1/13/2010 8:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
doctorate in climate science to understand what's going on around you.

climate "science" hits a brick wall because there is such a disparity between what they say and what we actually see outside our windows.

now that doesn't happen w/ chemistry, or physics, or the other hard sciences.

when things in those sciences do contradict what we'd expect, they have proofs, experiments - however climate "scientists" can't even predict trends, let alone anything substantial.

as someone posted above, it's all about the money. follow the money, and you'll see where this "science" is coming from.




RE: You don't need a
By Smilin on 1/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: You don't need a
By Smilin on 1/13/2010 1:00:49 PM , Rating: 1
Come debate instead of sniping a -1, pussies.


global warming?
By meepstone on 1/9/2010 11:10:23 AM , Rating: 1
Global scam? The only thing we do know for sure after all these years is that billions of dollars worldwide have been sinked into people's pockets.




To create the perfect image, shape fashion...
By MCNEIL1986 on 1/8/10, Rating: -1
By kake on 1/10/2010 3:22:10 AM , Rating: 2
Die, pig faced trout puffer.


By Chaser on 1/11/2010 7:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
Please DOS attack at that site. Thank you.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki