Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Warming... fact, fiction, or a little of both?
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 76 of 113 (244948)
09-19-2005 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by 1.61803
09-19-2005 2:28 PM


Re: Who is stirring the pot, changing equilibriums
quote:
On the contrary, if Homo Sapiens sapiens are a natural consequence of Earth and the Cosmos then who's to say anything that humans affect is un-natural.
Oooh, a philosophical point that I think bears some consideration.
I've always thought that from a purely objective standpoint the definition of "pollution" is rather odd. When humans release toxic substances it's pollution. When an alleopathic plant like sagebrush dumps natural herbicides into its surroundings, it isn't pollution.
The oxygen crisis back in the Precambrian wasn't pollution, either for that matter.
However, it should not be forgotten that people, unlike plants and algae, can alter their effects on the environment to accomplish a purpose.
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-19-2005 02:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by 1.61803, posted 09-19-2005 2:28 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by 1.61803, posted 09-19-2005 2:52 PM gene90 has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 77 of 113 (244956)
09-19-2005 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by gene90
09-19-2005 2:37 PM


Re: Who is stirring the pot, changing equilibriums
gene90 writes:
However, it should not be forgotten that people, unlike plants and algae, can alter their effects on the environment to accomplish a purpose.
However, it should not be forgotten that people, unlike plants and algae, tend to be more interested in whats happening on they're favorite reality telelvision show than what effects they're single passenger Hummer is having on the environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by gene90, posted 09-19-2005 2:37 PM gene90 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 78 of 113 (245033)
09-19-2005 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Silent H
09-19-2005 5:24 AM


Re: Who is stirring the pot, changing equilibriums
Landsea appears to be suggesting what many geo people have been discussing which is populations moving into and growing in "risky" areas.
but he said "compared to the huge population increase and infrastructure build-up along the coast, any global warming effects are likely to be so tiny that they're lost in the noise."
Why does this depend on the location of the people? Why should we notice less global warming if they lived eleswhere? Why should we notice more effect of global warming in other places because more people are living on the gulf coast? The study is about recognizing the effects globally, and often in places that are uninhabited (open ocean), not just effects where people live.
That ought to be instantly recognizable as "famous last words" within science.
Heh. But is that is a scientist talking on a personal level to a reporter, or a scientific statement where they have gone through the exercise of eliminating other possibilities as much as they can forsee? Talk to our physicists about the level of understanding of gravity ... it's hard to imagine what kind of errors might be in the data to make GR wrong ... ?
I have yet to see any data which suggests our species will run into an extinction scenario. Discomfort and personal hardships, that's a possibility. Doomsday? No.
Total survival no, loss of whole subpopulations possible. Current droughts in africa for example. Of course this comes back to what we (as a species) finds acceptable, and it seems that we find it quite acceptable that large numbers of people die elsewhere, based on experience.
In a way I will disagree with Landsea, there very well could be a reason for no change in peak winds.
Yes, there could be a limiting effect of the ability of storms to draw in materials from outside the storm system, and limiting effects of how tall the storm can get in the atmospheric column, such that it is harder to get beyond a certain level. Wonder what the storm models say about it.
But it won't be global, it will be regional in effect. I guess this means that as weather changes,
My impression is that sea level rise would be a fairly global effect, and one of the more easily related to higher temperatures and the {melting\breaking up} of the polar caps. But yes there will be regional changes too -- some areas more drought (Africa?) and some places more rain -- and probably more divergence from the mean climate than is known today.
Hey, I agree. The models are still not accurate. But if you are going to dismiss it then you are dismissing the only "smoking gun" that GW has.
I think there are co-factors and things that can show trends when they are both results of another relationship.
For instance I was involved in a noise pollution study back in the 70's and we found some information on ambient noise levels in different urban environments that could be correlated with violent crime data from the same areas (the interest was due to a propensity towards violence in high noise environments from another study). We could draw a straight line correlation for US cities and Canadian cities, but the slopes were different in the different countries.
Is the general relationship between ambient noise level and violent crime real? I happen to believe that it is related at a broad cultural level (based on the evidence I have seen), but that there are other factors involved at the specific cultural level (like americans being more likely to carry guns).
Or the relation between brain volume and individual IQ -- there is a correlation with brain volume and intelligence displayed by hominids, but there is also variability in {volume/IQ} ratios in people today, and there is also known variability in {surface area/volume} and {connectivity/volume} in people today.
Is the general relationship between brain volume and intelligence real? I happen to believe it is related at the broad species level (based on the evidence I have seen), but that there are other factors involved at the individual level.
Is the general relationship between global warming and GHGs real? I happen to believe it is related at the broad climate level (based on the evidence I have seen), but that there are other factors involved that muddy the waters at the individual storm region level.
Unfortunately we don't really have any control data on this experiment, so it is hard to eliminate variables by degree of effect.
It was sold as being a reducer of GHG production.
It was sold as a means to reduce pollution, with the dust and dirt and smell and lung disease and the ruining of wedding pictures, not based on the pollution causing some big hairy global destruction scenario.
I don't agree that it produces more problems than it solves,
What do you do with waste plutonium? With a half life of 24,000 years it'll be around a while, and the prduction of it will be at a faster rate than this natural decay so there will necessarily be a build-up somewhere.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/pluto.htm
In any case, it beats the hell out of fossil fuel energy production.
Don't be surprised if you start to see fossil deepsea frozen methane energy production get started in the next couple of years as the demand for oil increases globally and the supple can't keep up. Personally I think the US should be jumping all over this as it could totally alleviate dependancy on the muddled east.
Yup. I'm all for proactive environmentalism, indeed as built into manufacturing as we can get. I just don't believe that equals shouting at people that the sky is falling and we need to do something, anything, before it does.
That's why I say the question is not whether the global warming will exceed any previously measured level at any time in the geological past (although really, any measure over geological time should be limited to the period of human existence, as that is the ecological niche we evolved in, eh?), but two fold:
(1) will we like it a little warmer? and
(2) is there anything we can do about it if we DON'T want it a little warmer?
This de-links the question that is important, (1), from our past behavior and relates it directly to our future behavior, (2). It also accepts it that it will be getting warmer, because that is the trend in all the data. If that is "the sky is falling" shouting, then I guess I'll be guilty of it: the world is getting measurably warmer over time.
Will we like it? Do we want more summer weather?
That's the perspective eh?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Silent H, posted 09-19-2005 5:24 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Silent H, posted 09-20-2005 5:51 AM RAZD has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 79 of 113 (245091)
09-20-2005 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
09-19-2005 9:46 PM


Re: Who is stirring the pot, changing equilibriums
Why does this depend on the location of the people? Why should we notice less global warming if they lived eleswhere? Why should we notice more effect of global warming in other places because more people are living on the gulf coast? The study is about recognizing the effects globally, and often in places that are uninhabited (open ocean), not just effects where people live.
I'm not sure why his point is opaque to you. I'll give this one more try. Because people are increasingly living in risk zones, and so will be feeling the brunt of nature's inherent variability, the effects of GW will be minor in comparison and so "lost in the noise".
It is not that there will be no effects, just that they'll be inconsequential to natural effects.
Talk to our physicists about the level of understanding of gravity ... it's hard to imagine what kind of errors might be in the data to make GR wrong ... ?
This is where I have to scratch my head. Do you know much about geology/meteorology? Its still a very new field and we don't have enough data, and more importantly MODELS of activity, to be reaching decisive conclusions, much less to say "well I don't know what else there could be".
You have some scientists stating that, including some who were co-authors on the study.
Total survival no, loss of whole subpopulations possible. Current droughts in africa for example.
We've had droughts and famines long before global warming became a possibility, and we will continue to have them. As globalization continues, regional droughts will become less a problem for a population.
Wonder what the storm models say about it.
heheheh... that's my point and in a way Landsea's. He was dealing with the latest models and saying the results did not match in a way to suggest GW. I raised the issue that maybe the model's are wrong. In any case that impacts GW.
My impression is that sea level rise would be a fairly global effect
It would only have coastal effects. But there would be changes in many different ways as deglaciation effects plates. The rise of sweden due to loss of glacial ice, is making netherlands sink. Whoops!
Is the general relationship between global warming and GHGs real? I happen to believe it is related at the broad climate level (based on the evidence I have seen), but that there are other factors involved that muddy the waters at the individual storm region level.
I wasn't talking about regional weather effects in this case, but actual global temperature change. The models indicate that there are much greater factors in temp variability, just that GHG effects remain longer.
It was sold as a means to reduce pollution, with the dust and dirt and smell and lung disease and the ruining of wedding pictures, not based on the pollution causing some big hairy global destruction scenario.
You are correct that there was a broad based appeal, but I am unsure why you are discounting the GHG portion. Once GHGs became an idea to focus on, nuclear was discussed as a solution to this. It only produces H2O vapour, and radioactive waste.
What do you do with waste plutonium? With a half life of 24,000 years it'll be around a while, and the prduction of it will be at a faster rate than this natural decay so there will necessarily be a build-up somewhere.
That's a problem, but not more problems than it solves, which is what you said and I questioned. I'm not sure that nuclear waste is necessarily more frightening than quality of life problems generated by fossil fuel usage.
Yes there will be a build up, but the question becomes if we will be able to invent tech to deal with it. If we can make waste material which won't "move", and so lock it up, then it would be less of a problem. There is also the possibility of dispersing it. These materials were not nonexistent in the environment before we opened the reactors. We pulled them out of the environment and concentrated them.
Personally I think the US should be jumping all over this as it could totally alleviate dependancy on the muddled east.
I disagree. Methane is also a GHG. Burning it will produce GHGs. If your concern is for GW, then that is not a wise option.
If that is "the sky is falling" shouting, then I guess I'll be guilty of it: the world is getting measurably warmer over time.
No, your commentary isn't as rabid as what I am addressing. I think this is where people are departing from my point. People talk relatively calmly and act as if that is the environmental movement around GW. I am discussing that movement and questioning if they are essentially fundies going well beyond data and using hyperbole to net agendas rather than solutions.
I will point out, again, that while the world is getting measurably warmer, the GHG contribution to that warmth we are feeling is very small, even according to the best models. Fluxes in aerosols and solar radiation appear to be the greatest and overrriding factors in what we experience as global temps. Indeed that is why GHG effects were not only negated but wholly reversed for a 30 year period.
One can say, hey this is a taste of what we could be having on a more regular basis if we allow GHGs to accumulate, but not that this that we feel now will be the point of departure for all future weather (including heat).

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2005 9:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by gene90, posted 09-20-2005 11:49 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 09-20-2005 10:58 PM Silent H has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 80 of 113 (245155)
09-20-2005 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Silent H
09-20-2005 5:51 AM


Re: Who is stirring the pot, changing equilibriums
quote:
That's a problem, but not more problems than it solves, which is what you said and I questioned. I'm not sure that nuclear waste is necessarily more frightening than quality of life problems generated by fossil fuel usage.
Here is a very interesting little essay hosted by the gov't. The point is that when it was written, coal-fired power plants were releasing more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear plants that operate within Federal guidelines. (Uranium and thorium like to chemically associate with carbon out in the wild).
Page Not Found | ORNL
I think I should point out, though, there is a trend for coal power to clean up its act these days.
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-20-2005 11:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Silent H, posted 09-20-2005 5:51 AM Silent H has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 81 of 113 (245382)
09-20-2005 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Silent H
09-20-2005 5:51 AM


Re: Who is stirring the pot, changing equilibriums
holmes writes:
I'm not sure why his point is opaque to you. I'll give this one more try.
It's not opaque to me. I don't confuse the cost of human (re)construction in risky areas with the size of the storm.
Whether 10 houses are knocked down or 20 is a result of building in way of the storm, and not on the size of the storm.
The effect of GW is on the size of the storm: it is big enough to knock down houses (and trees and telephone poles etc, however many there are or what they are).
We notice the effect of GW is that the storm is big enough to knock down houses (and trees and telephone poles etc), regardless of the number of houses.
The effect (under discussion) is that there are more storms that are cat 3 and up as a result of GW even though many of them stay out to sea (like cat 2 Phillipe right now) -- how is that effected by where people live?
As globalization continues, regional droughts will become less a problem for a population.
I would argue the opposite because more people would be moved into marginal habitats, and the climate changes are likely to be more to increasing extremes than tempering them (hence the bigger winter storms too)
heheheh... that's my point and in a way Landsea's. He was dealing with the latest models and saying the results did not match in a way to suggest GW. I raised the issue that maybe the model's are wrong. In any case that impacts GW.
Does it? We can argue about the amount of change seen, but not that change has been seen. We can argue about the amount of effect human interaction has in the total, but not that it is a contributing factor on many different fronts, and not any (as far as I know) mitigating factors\behaviors.
Let's eliminate the variable of human interaction and see what happens ... oh, that's right, we don't have any {control elements} on this experiment to cover that.
The rise of sweden due to loss of glacial ice, is making netherlands sink. Whoops!
Watch out for antarctica rising. You don't think that loss of the Arctic cap would change ocean currents? That this would not affect global climate patterns? It may be distinquishable by regions, but still be a global rearrangement.
You are correct that there was a broad based appeal, but I am unsure why you are discounting the GHG portion.
Because it's my recollection that nuclear energy was already on the way out before global warming became a big issue. It may well have been adopted as a reason, but that is like saying the reason to invade iraq is to bring democracy to the middle east.
These materials were not nonexistent in the environment before we opened the reactors. We pulled them out of the environment and concentrated them.
You mean controlled the reactions so that a lot more of it was formed during our processes than ever occured in nature with natural reactions.
I disagree. Methane is also a GHG. Burning it will produce GHGs.
Burning it breaks it down into smaller components.
Wikipedia - Methane (click)
A principal component of natural gas, methane is a significant fuel. Burning one molecule of methane in the presence of oxygen releases one molecule of CO2 (carbon dioxide) and two molecules of H2O (water):
CH4 + 2O2 ’ CO2 + 2H2O

Methane is a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 21.
Wikipedia - Greenhouse Gases (click)
  • CO2 duration stay is variable (approximately 200-450 years) and its global warming potential (GWP) is defined as 1.
  • Methane duration stay is 12 +/- 3 years and a GWP of 22 (meaning that it has 22 times the warming ability of carbon dioxide)
From (one molecule x gwp 21 or 22) to (two molecules x gwp 1) is an 11 fold reduction, isn't it?
Numerical Study of Contaminant Effects on Combustion of Hydrogen, Ethane and Methane in Air (click)
The largest effect is observed with combustion using hydrogen fuel, less effect is seen with combustion of ethane, and little effect of contaminants is shown with methane combustion.
So that makes it a better choice for fuel than the others eh?
No, your commentary isn't as rabid as what I am addressing. I think this is where people are departing from my point.
Ah, regarding topic applicability. I think people that don't understand it both overplay and underplay it. AND I think the ones who underplay it are more dangerous (and are more likely to be misrepresenting the information intentionally).
Most people would also think that a little warming would not be a bad thing. It is the change to climate patterns, sizes of destructive storms, possible change to ocean currents that concern me, whether we are the cause or 1% of the cause.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Silent H, posted 09-20-2005 5:51 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2005 4:21 AM RAZD has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 82 of 113 (245395)
09-21-2005 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD
09-20-2005 10:58 PM


Re: Who is stirring the pot, changing equilibriums
The effect (under discussion) is that there are more storms that are cat 3 and up as a result of GW even though many of them stay out to sea (like cat 2 Phillipe right now) -- how is that effected by where people live?
I'll drop this as you are being deliberately obtuse. For a person who has gone on and on about how this is an issue of how people wish to be effected by their environment, its a bit insulting to see you pretend not to understand when someone else is discussing GW in the same manner.
Let's eliminate the variable of human interaction and see what happens ... oh, that's right, we don't have any {control elements} on this experiment to cover that.
Well than that's a pretty shitty study.
Watch out for antarctica rising. You don't think that loss of the Arctic cap would change ocean currents? That this would not affect global climate patterns? It may be distinquishable by regions, but still be a global rearrangement.
From what I've read antarctica is cooling and ice is thickening in places. I do believe that the loss of the arctic ice cap (and the antarctic) would potentially have an effect on global climate patterns. I have absolutely no reason to believe it will cause an ice age however.
Because it's my recollection that nuclear energy was already on the way out before global warming became a big issue. It may well have been adopted as a reason, but that is like saying the reason to invade iraq is to bring democracy to the middle east.
RAZD at this time I think I am done arguing with you. You seem to have not done your homework on this issue, including reading the articles I have linked to up thread. Even while the Ice Age theory was going on, scientists understood the capabilities of CO2 and other GHGs to potentially reverse and warm the earth, even into a GW apocalypse.
Nuclear negated CO2 emissions and was lauded for this saving grace.
You mean controlled the reactions so that a lot more of it was formed during our processes than ever occured in nature with natural reactions.
No, not exactly.
From (one molecule x gwp 21 or 22) to (two molecules x gwp 1) is an 11 fold reduction, isn't it?
How much methane must be burned to get the same equivalent amount of heat as CO2? How much methane will be released and not captured for combustion, in freeing that source of fuel? Although it is higher in gwp its lasting contribution to climatic change is much lower. And on top of all that one will still be releasing CO2.
So that makes it a better choice for fuel than the others eh?
Apparently, if we decide to run our cars using scramjets.
AND I think the ones who underplay it are more dangerous (and are more likely to be misrepresenting the information intentionally).
I think they are equally dangerous. Pushing for solutions to nonproblems, and worse still nonsolutions to real problems, can be just as bad. I do not subscribe to an idea that the devil I don't know is better than the one I do know, especially when the devil I do know isn't killing me.
I do agree that those who underplay it misrepresent the information intentionally more often than the other side. But intentionally or unintentionally is little difference to me.
Most people would also think that a little warming would not be a bad thing. It is the change to climate patterns, sizes of destructive storms, possible change to ocean currents that concern me, whether we are the cause or 1% of the cause.
Personally I don't like hot summers, and I don't like big storms, and I would rather have the gulfstream. I think the data suggests we should be looking for ways to curb GHG emissions, or alleviate them, so that over the long haul we will not have some of these effects. It does not however show that the effects are currently being seen by anyone (other than a potential in making some storms worse, though not the worse storms any worse).
I have also seen no data to suggest we have any responsible mechanism, with credible science, for curbing or alleviating GHG effects.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 09-20-2005 10:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2005 7:42 AM Silent H has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 83 of 113 (245418)
09-21-2005 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Silent H
09-21-2005 4:21 AM


Re: Who is stirring the pot, changing equilibriums
I'll drop this as you are being deliberately obtuse.
Let's try a different tack: were Landsea's comments made in criticism of the study showing and increase in the size of storms over the last 35 years, or were they made in some other context and tacked on by the author of the articles (two)?
If they were criticism of the article, then the population of Gulfport MS bears no relationship to the size of hurricane Phillipe and it is a strawman argument.
If they were made in some other context then it is a non-sequitur fallacy made by the author. If this is the case then they are irrelevant to the study.
The study data shows that the storms are bigger, not that we are noticing them more: they are not based on {anecdotal\subjective\perceptional} criteria.
Well than that's a pretty shitty study.
Well that is a problem for the whole {life on earth} issue, isn't it. Hard to run a significant test based on one data set.
I have absolutely no reason to believe it will cause an ice age however.
Fine. But I'll keep an eye on it, and be glad to see anyone interested pursue futher study. The historical data does show a (geologically) quick transition in past events.
RAZD at this time I think I am done arguing with you. You seem to have not done your homework
I used to be directly involved in environmental science, I've moved out of that area, but that doesn't mean that my past is suddenly somehow changed.
Apparently, if we decide to run our cars using scramjets.
Argument from incredulity. The products of combustion and other possible sources of pollution (and GHGs) evaluated for an admittedly more extreme use than currently built into personal band wagons, do set an upper limit to what we would expect from the use of Methane in vehicles.
We also have current technology to use this gas, so there is no {invention\reinvention} involved in the delivery end. The only concern would be in generating the supply.
You also have the question of the relative rate of loss compared to (a) current technology and (b) cows.
I have also seen no data to suggest we have any responsible mechanism, with credible science, for curbing or alleviating GHG effects.
I agree with you there. It also seems to me that when you have a potential energy source (methane) that recovery of it should have some economic advantage as well as provide for a reduction in GHG effect. Probably not enough to be economic on its own, but possibly with the cost of reductions elsewhere thrown in.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2005 4:21 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2005 9:08 AM RAZD has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 84 of 113 (245441)
09-21-2005 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by RAZD
09-21-2005 7:42 AM


Re: Who is stirring the pot, changing equilibriums
Let's try a different tack: were Landsea's comments made in criticism of the study showing and increase in the size of storms over the last 35 years, or were they made in some other context and tacked on by the author of the articles (two)?
Again, I will say that I cannot tell you exactly what he meant, and perhaps he made the mistake you were suggesting. I am only pointing out that there is another valid interpretation which would make sense given his specialty, dialogues within that realm, and the correlation of his statement to those dialogues.
In that case what happened was that he started by discussing the results of the study in specific, and then moved on to the issue of how such effects are likely to be felt by humans.
On can criticize him for mixing and matching issues I suppose.
Well that is a problem for the whole {life on earth} issue, isn't it. Hard to run a significant test based on one data set.
That's where good data sets in terms of length are important. We can look past the time of industrial pollution by man, and man's existence at all, with regard to the climate to some degree. In the case of specific weather we can't really.
But then we can use models and testing to eliminate human effects and see how much they play. If that were not possible then we'd still be scratching our heads about what happened from 1940-1970. You can't say we can only determine human effects in models, and not possibly rule them out.
Fine. But I'll keep an eye on it, and be glad to see anyone interested pursue futher study. The historical data does show a (geologically) quick transition in past events.
Let's be clear, I'll also be keeping an eye on such research and will be glad that people pursue it. I'm just not breaking any sweat on it, and feel pretty confident in saying there is no scientific basis (support) for the claim at this point in time.
Its a hypothetical issue, not a concern.
I used to be directly involved in environmental science, I've moved out of that area, but that doesn't mean that my past is suddenly somehow changed.
Okay, then I can only conclude you are being intentionally obtuse on the subject we are discussing. I have presented evidence for my statements all along. Most of the time we've been talking about stuff I've cited previously up thread.
Argument from incredulity. The products of combustion and other possible sources of pollution (and GHGs) evaluated for an admittedly more extreme use than currently built into personal band wagons, do set an upper limit to what we would expect from the use of Methane in vehicles.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I could only read the abstract), but that was discussing issues regarding fuels in engines that perform thrust, like rockets. This is not the same as what would be used in the closed systems of cars, especially hydrogen cars.
It also seems to me that when you have a potential energy source (methane) that recovery of it should have some economic advantage as well as provide for a reduction in GHG effect. Probably not enough to be economic on its own, but possibly with the cost of reductions elsewhere thrown in.
I'm probably coming off more negative on methane use as fuel than I really I am. There are of course other advantages for methane, such as the possibility of not having to use as much energy, and destroy as much area of earth, in order to get it.
I'm just saying that from a GHG standpoint, and so a GW standpoint, that is not going to be coming off much better than what we already have.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2005 7:42 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2005 4:31 PM Silent H has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 85 of 113 (245535)
09-21-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Silent H
09-21-2005 9:08 AM


Re: Who is stirring the pot, changing equilibriums
We can look past the time of industrial pollution by man, and man's existence at all, with regard to the climate to some degree.
...we'd still be scratching our heads about what happened from 1940-1970 ...
But there is no baseline that can be established: we don't know what the natural change in that time would be. Perhaps it was (as some have claimed) supposed to be descent into an ice age that was slowed, stopped and then reversed by GW.
Okay, then I can only conclude you are being intentionally obtuse on the subject we are discussing. I have presented evidence for my statements all along. Most of the time we've been talking about stuff I've cited previously up thread.
The only difference is in the emphasis on the greenhouse effects. The reduction of CO2 and other pollutants from fossil fuel combustion was emphasised (according to my recollections) to get rid of {haze\smog\inversion} patterns that were becoming increasingly {obvious\odious\hazardous}. LA was the {picture postcard\posterchild} of the obvious hazards to health ... while nuclear energy would make it look like bolder colorado. Of course now, bolder colorado looks like LA ...
FROM: Wikipedia - smog (click)
Photochemical smog is caused when two kinds of air pollution combine in the presence of sunlight. The first kind is the particulates and nitric oxides from the exhaust of fossil fuel-burning engines in cars, trucks, coal power plants, and industrial manufacturing factories.
Nitric Oxide is NO.
FROM: Wikipedia - petrocchemical smog (click)
Photochemical smog is the term used to represent a multitude of chemical agents which are considered to be detrimental to the environment and health. ... Photochemical smog includes the following:
  • Nitrogen Oxides, such as Nitrogen Dioxide
  • Tropospheric Ozone
  • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
  • Peroxyacetyl Nitrates (PAN)
All of these are usually highly reactive and/or oxidising. Because of this, photochemical smog is considered to be a problem of modern industrialization.
Nitrogen Dioxide is NO2
FROM: Wikipedia - greenhouse gases (click)
Greenhouse gases (GHG) are gaseous components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect. The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes between 9-26%; and ozone, which causes between 3-7% (note that it is not really possible to assert that such-and-such a gas causes a certain percentage of the GHE, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower end, for the gas counting overlaps). [1] [2].
Minor greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to: methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons - see complete IPCC List of Greenhouse Gases.
The major atmospheric constituents (N2 and O2) are not greenhouse gases, because homonuclear diatomic molecules (eg N2, O2, H2 ...) do not absorb in the infrared as there is no net change in the dipole moment of these molecules.
Nitrous Oxide is N2O -- laughing gas, and also used to inject into racing engines to give them an added boost in power (adds available Oxygen to the combustion): it is not a product of combustion in power plants or vehicles.
Why this long ramble? Because CO2 is both smog pollutant and GHG, but the nitrogen oxides are not: ergo you can review the articles to see if they talked about reducing the {smog nitrogen oxides} or the {GHG nitrous oxide} (or no mention of Nitrogen Oxides) through the use of nuclear power.
That being said, I think a positive national policy on energy would look at all availabe systems and solutions for their various problems. This would include nuclear energy, especially diversified in low population areas to serve multiple urban environments with minimum impacts.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I could only read the abstract), but that was discussing issues regarding fuels in engines that perform thrust, like rockets. This is not the same as what would be used in the closed systems of cars, especially hydrogen cars.
About combustion of the gases in the atmosphere (as oppossed to a pure oxygen combination typical of chemical classes) and looking for the possible production of pollutants. Thus you also look at the production of the nitrogen oxides.
And in terms of GW, water vapour is a much larger factor than methane, although increases in water vapour can only reach a certain level before they result in percipitation events: storms, storms with more atmospheric moisture available riding over warmer oceans.
I'm probably coming off more negative on methane use as fuel than I really I am.
Believe me I am more that a little leary of sending texas cowboys that don't believe in global warming in to tap this resource without taking precautions. But I also think it is the -->ONE

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2005 9:08 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 86 of 113 (245920)
09-23-2005 10:29 AM


Name calling great science...
Well here's an example of exactly what I was talking about...
A leading British scientist said on Friday the growing ferocity of hurricanes hitting the United States was very probably caused by global warming and criticized what he termed U.S. "climate loonies" over the issue.
Milking tragedy like any other good fundie he says...
"If what looks like is going to be a horrible mess causes the extreme skeptics about climate change in the U.S. to reconsider their opinion, that would be an extremely valuable outcome.
"There are a group of people in various parts of the world ... who simply don't want to accept human activities can change climate and are changing the climate. I'd liken them to the people who denied that smoking causes lung cancer."
So what do scientists actually think about events like Katrina and Rita...
Other leading scientists agree the Atlantic Basin and Gulf Coast regions are being battered by a severe hurricane phase that could persist for another 20 years or more. But they believe that a natural environmental cycle is responsible rather than any human-induced change, AP says.
Hey but don't let science get in the way of using something scary to support a political position.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2005 10:42 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2005 6:07 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 92 by wj, posted 09-23-2005 7:02 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 87 of 113 (245928)
09-23-2005 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Silent H
09-23-2005 10:29 AM


Re: Name calling great science...
Meh, I'd simply ascribe that to your basic artifact of science journalism - striving for the false conflict. "Other leading scientists"? That's journalism-speak for "we found two other guys with letters after their names that would agree to disagree with the first guy."
Science journalism is, unfortunately, not a process where the scientific consensus is accurately represented. Science journalism is a process where the journalist downplays the majority consensus and emphasizes the minority dissent in order to give the appearance of a balanced and undecided conflict. You see it in evolution, you see it in global climate change, you see it in just about every field.
Using science to support a political position? Did it ever occur to you that this guy's political position is based on the science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 09-23-2005 10:29 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Silent H, posted 09-23-2005 11:07 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 88 of 113 (245936)
09-23-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
09-23-2005 10:42 AM


Re: Name calling great science...
Using science to support a political position? Did it ever occur to you that this guy's political position is based on the science?
Not really since the people who made the connection between GW and rising storm strength, as well as the people who provided the first "smoking gun" on GW and climate change have said these storms are not really connected to it.
Did you notice any facts attached to this guy's commentary? If you can find them, please post them in the other thread.
All I saw was an assertion which is not shared by most scientists in that field, and some name-calling.
I'd simply ascribe that to your basic artifact of science journalism - striving for the false conflict.
Then that'd be in the title and the main portion of the text. You don't bury a false conflict which you are inventing to boost interest in a story. You bury the facts which refute the main attention grabbing headline and so make it less interesting.
Weekly World News was a pioneer of this great technique, Fox has brought it mainstreaam, and I'm sad to see it taking root elsewhere.
Do you really think Tal's Fox quotes were all accurate as the facts buried at the end of the articles were simply there as fake conflict?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2005 10:42 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2005 4:49 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 113 (245991)
09-23-2005 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Silent H
09-23-2005 11:07 AM


Re: Name calling great science...
Then that'd be in the title and the main portion of the text.
It was. "Scientist calls other scientists idiots"? How is that not an expression of conflict?
Did you notice any facts attached to this guy's commentary?
In science journalism? Why would there be facts?
If you want the guy's facts, why don't you look up his journal articles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Silent H, posted 09-23-2005 11:07 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2005 5:33 AM crashfrog has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 90 of 113 (246001)
09-23-2005 5:54 PM


Landsea comment
From Yaro's post on the Rita forum
EvC Forum: Doin' It Again - Hurricane Rita
with this link
MIT Hurricane Study: Global Warming ‘Pumping Up’ Destructive Power
Landsea writes:
The results surprised Chris Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division in Miami, US. "This is the first article that has a smoking gun between global warming and hurricane activity," he told New Scientist.
But Landsea says the unadjusted figures show no overall trend, raising doubts over whether Emanuel's model is making the right corrections. Although winds from that period looked too low in the past, Landsea says that wind estimates may actually have been too low in the 1970s through to the early 1990s.
Smoking gun? Interesting.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024