Global Warming vs. Terrorism

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

plainoldme wrote:
Somehow, global warming and its deniers have become akin to the Jesuits and the Reformation.

I'm done addressing you until you have anything of substance to address... and I'm not holding my breath.

WOW!!!! THIS POST IS SO PACKED WITH INFORMATION AND SO FREE FROM INSULTS!!!!!

You're a hypocrite because you know you absolutely reject anything that doesn't come from a source you already approve.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Thomas wrote:
plainoldme wrote:
Somehow, global warming and its deniers have become akin to the Jesuits and the Reformation.

Another point we can all agree on. The question is, who is who?

I guess we'll know when the burnings start. :wink:

It was a bad analogy. I was trying to come up with something religious because the anti-global warming people are sooooooo self-righteous and sooooo militant.

The problem with the Jebbies and the Reformation is that, in that case, both sides were right. The Catholic Church did need reform, if only for the selling of indulgences, which was Luther's prime criticism, and the Church did need protection, which the Jesuits provided.

I thought of the Wars for Religion in France, but, that pitched the Church against the Cathars and they were a bit nutty. While the anti-global warming people are nutty and even as suicidal in as the Cathars -- but not in the same way -- one of the problems is that, left alone, the CAthars would have hurt no one and the anti-global warming people hurt everyone.

I can not understand the titanic irrationality of the right when it comes to climate.

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

But even so, the real power is in the volume of said greenhouse gases. Even if water vapor only absorbed a fraction of infrared rays as CO2 or other greenhouse gases, the shear amount of water vapor, when compared to amount of atmospheric CO2, would have a much greater impact than other greenhouse gases.

Trouble is that "heat retention", to a first approximation, is logarithmic in the concentration of each greenhouse gas. That means a factor 10 between water concentration and CO2 concentration may not make a terribly big difference in retention. And because logarithms are extremely non-linear functions, you just can't approximate a sum of logarithms as a logarithm of sums.

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Here's an interesting log on gas emissions.

HERE.

Thanks CI. They once again left out water vapor and naturally occuring emissions, but did use the same GWP conversions as the link I posted used.

My curiosity was aroused concerning a possible humidity or water vapor trend with temperature. I could not find much information on this, but enough to see that there are apparently trends or variations. This quote from the link provided:

"In summary, in situ and radiosonde measurements tend to show increasing water vapour in the lower troposphere and near the surface, though this is not seen everywhere, and data quality is still an issue. The longer, more reliable data sets suggest multi-decadal increases in atmospheric water vapour of several per cent per decade over regions of the Northern Hemisphere. New analyses of balloon and satellite records indicate that strato-spheric water vapour above 18 km shows an increase of about 1%/year for the period 1981 to 2000 but with a slowing of the positive trend after 1996. Satellite observations of upper-tropo-spheric humidity from 1980 to 1997 show statistically significant positive trends of 0.1%/year for the zone 10°N to 10°S."

http://grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/080.htm

How come nobody is suggesting this could be the cause of climatic temperature trends instead of CO2, or at least most of the cause of temperature trends? Perhaps, this is old hat to some people, but not to me. If somebody understands all of this, please explain.

0 Replies

I'm no expert,so I have a question.

According to some of the things I have read,Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines and Mt. St.Helens have by themselves put more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the air then all of the gasses produced by man.

I dont see any of you taking that into account.
Is it posible that volcanic activity world wide is a major factor in global warming?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I'm no expert,so I have a question.

According to some of the things I have read,Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines and Mt. St.Helens have by themselves put more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the air then all of the gasses produced by man.

I dont see any of you taking that into account.
Is it posible that volcanic activity world wide is a major factor in global warming?

Maybe this will be simple enough for you to understand

Quote:

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

Any claim that Mt St Helens and Mt Pinatubo release more CO2 than man is completely false but oft repeated because some people want to believe.

0 Replies

And it should be pointed out that about 98% of all CO2 produced is naturally rather than man-produced. Add to this the fact that CO2 production and consumption is not static, but dynamic. Also consider that all CO2 makes up only about 3 tenths of 1% of the atmosphere, while water vapor may vary from less than a percent to about 4% of the atmosphere. Also consider that water vapor has about twice the ability to absorb and hold heat as does CO2.

As I've asked before, where is the historical data for water vapor and how it tracks with temperature? Why are global warmers concentrating on CO2, when this is only one factor out of many factors that should be thrown into the mix, and man-caused CO2 ends up being miniscule compared to all factors? There are so many factors that are not even understood well, let alone well quantified. It amounts to the old proverbial blind man grabbing a part of the elephant and declaring what it is, and the answer depends on what part of the elephant the man is grabbing. Right now, its all CO2. Wait a few months, a few years, or more, and I am betting the answer will be entirely different.

P.S. Parados, the data about CO2 production from volcanoes appears to be during the pre-eruption and post-eruption phases. If you can find the actual production of CO2 during the main eruptions of Mt. St. Helens or Pinatubo, I would be interested. Perhaps I am mis-interpreting the data, I am not sure. This is not a disagreement, but an honest question.

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=35979&page=3

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:
But even so, the real power is in the volume of said greenhouse gases. Even if water vapor only absorbed a fraction of infrared rays as CO2 or other greenhouse gases, the shear amount of water vapor, when compared to amount of atmospheric CO2, would have a much greater impact than other greenhouse gases.

END OF QUOTE.

I will add-----------------

The question of water vapor is enormously important when we wish to discover the AMOUNT of GLOBAL WARMING from CO2. The water vapor feedback is said to be the MAIN REASON why our emissions of CO2 would cause a significant warming.

(See IPCC report---2001a:7.2.1.1 which says:"Water vapor feedback continues to be THE MOST CONSISTENTLY IMPORTANT FEEDBACK ACCOUNTING FOR THE LARGE WARMING PREDICTED BY GENERAL CIRC ULATION MODELS IN RESPONSE TO A DOUBLING OF CO2"

I hope it is clear that the IPCC itself has noted that Water Vapor Feedback is the MOST CONSISTENTLY IMPORATANT FEEDBACK ACCOUNTING FOR THE LARGE WARMING PREDICTED BY GENERAL CIRCULATION MODELS IN RESPONSE TO A DOUBLING OF CO2

0 Replies

Bernard, welcome back. What happened to ya?

And what do they say causes the water vapor?

0 Replies

Now that all should be aware that the IPCC(The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)--arguably the most important panel researching Global warming has indicated that Water Vapor feedback is THE MAIN REASON WHY OUR EMISSIONS OF CO2 WOULD CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT WARMING WE MUST NOW LOOK AT OTHER FACTS--

First of all, A strong water vapor feedback is not primarily dependent on the surface temperatures but especially on the temperature in the troposphere. Or to put it another way, the temperature readings done on the surface of the earth do not predict a strong water vapor feedback.

The water vapor feedback only works effectively if THE ENTIRE LOWER TROPOSPHERE WARMS UP, making the troposphere able to hold more water. If this does not occur the water vapor feedback will be much weaker since the troposphere accounts for about 90 PERCENT OF THE WATER VAPOR FEEDBACK.

(See Hall, Alex and Manabe, Syukuro in "The Journal Of Climate"(certainly a scientific peer reviewed journal) article--"The role of water vapor feedback in unperturbed climate variablity and global warming: 12(8):2,327-46

Anyone with a scientific article from a peer reviewed source which contradicts or substantially modifies the finding above is urged to replicate it.

0 Replies

Now, since it has been established that the IPCC itself has indicated that Water Vapor feedback is the main reason why our emissions of CO2 would cause a significant warming and

Since it has been referenced from a peer reviewed Scientific Journal--The Journal of Climate--that a strong water vapor feedback is dependent on the temperature in the troposphere, we must, of course, review the data on the tropospheric temperatures.

The IPCC Models( Computer Models which are fed data in order to PREDICT--PREDICT--future climatic occurences all PREDICT that tropospheric temperatures will increase as fast or faster than the measured surface temperatures.

These predicitions appear to be mistaken.

These predictions appear to be mistaken.

They are mistaken because the satellite measurements made since 1979(by the NOAA- The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--) have made very precise measurements of the tropospheric temperatures from all over the world including above deserts, rainforests and oceans where it is very difficult for reliable SURFACE temperature readings to be taken.

These readings show no trend. WHEREAS THE MODELS OF THE IPCC EXPECT WARMINGS OF ABOUT 0.224C PER DECADE, THE SATELLITE DATA SHOW A WARMING OF ONLY ABOUTR 0.034C PER DECADE.--A WARMING LESS THAN A SIXTH OF THE EXPECTED AMOUNT.

Indeed, the IPCC has acknowledged the problem of diverging tropospheric temperature in models and observation as the FIRST IMPORTANT UNCERTAINTY( See IPCC 2001a:12 executive summary>

0 Replies

If we then review the important facts which have been gathered we find:

A. Water Vapor Feedback is the MAIN REASON why our emissions of CO2 would cause a significant warming.

B. This MAIN REASON is dependent not on surface temperatures but rather on temperatures in the troposphere.

C. The observed tropospheric temperature shows essentially no WARMING trend( See Temperature Deviations of the NASA/GoddardAOCGM for the surface and the troposphere)--
http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/

It is clear then that the Warming trends predicted by the IPCC and others are greatly overstated.

************************************************************

I feel fairly certain, OKIE, that despite my reference to sources and despite my clearly stated points, no one will rebut these posts and no one will attempt to give evidence which DIRECTLY relates to the points I have made.

Parados, As I am sure you are aware, is apparently ignorant of the basic facts in this discussion and is, as you have noted, fond of steering the debate away from issues that he appears to be unable to handle.

We shall see, Okie, but if there is no rebuttal on the points I made, THEY STAND!!!!

0 Replies

I see you have decided to start with personal attacks the minute you get back Bernard.

Lets look at your data..
You posted a way to run the data but not the data itself. Did you bother to look at the data? I bet not since it contradicts your statement.
But for those that don't want to download the data file and run them let me post other citations that prove you wrong Bernard

Quote:

We have analyzed the global tropospheric temperature for 1978 to 2002 with
the use of passive microwave sounding data from the NOAA series of polar
orbiters and the Earth Observing System Aqua satellite. To accurately retrieve
the climatic trend, we combined the satellite data with an analytic model of
temperature that contains three different time scales: a linear trend and functions
that define the seasonal and diurnal cycles. Our analysis shows a trend
of 0.22° to 0.26°C per 10 years, consistent with the global warming trendderived from surface meteorological stations.

Global warming trend of Troposphere

A lovely graph of the increases in troposphere temperature can be found here
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/assessments/assess_98/fig7.gif

An interactive java chart of satellite temperatures can be found here
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/

Funny how the satellite data directly contradicts your claims Bernard.
Your own website directly contradicts the claim you made about it.
http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/

The only thing that is clear Bernard is you are willing to present false statements and claim they are true.

0 Replies

Part of your problem Bernard is I bet you were using data from before 1998. That seems to be your standard MO, use old data while ignoring new data. The data readings have become more accurate as scientists have redone how the temperature is figured from the satellite readings.

Troposphere warming faster than surface

The orbital decay of the satellites was added.
http://www.ssmi.com/papers/msu/A_Reanalysis_of_the_MSU_Channel_2_Tropospheric_Temperature_Record.pdf

0 Replies

okie,
Here is a simple answer for your Mt St Helens question.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html
I recall USGS had it on its website a number of years ago. I will have to try to find it.

Even if St Helens had erupted every day for an entire year its CO2 would have been 8 x 10^*9 Far short of the 17.6 X10^12 that man puts into the atmosphere. If I did my math right it would require 3000 St Helens in full eruption every day of the year to equal what man is doing. If there were 3000 active volcanic eruptions every day we wouldn't be worrying about global warming.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

And it should be pointed out that about 98% of all CO2 produced is naturally rather than man-produced.

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=35979&page=3

Wow! Nature produces more than 24 billion tons? Stupendous!

0 Replies

Parados, first about Mt. St. Helens, I've seen your link before, and if I am reading it correctly, I think they do not have data on the actual eruption. A quote from your link: "The total amount of gas released during non-eruptive periods from the beginning of July to the end of October was 9.1X10^8 kg ." I am not interested in CO2 from "non-eruptive" periods. If the numbers are to be believed for estimates of CO2 produced from volcanoes around the world during non-eruptive periods, I am willing to take those numbers into consideration inasmuch as what those numbers show. Factoring in a bit of reasoning here, I think there is a very high degree of uncertainty concerning even those estimates, which is evident by the large ranges given in estimates I've read.

In regard to the troposphere and statosphere, you claim your graphs show it plainly. Well, I looked at your graphs, and I don't see them as that impressive or definitive. Also, the paper re-interpreting tropospheric temperatures, I read it, and the reasoning strikes me as jumping through lots of hoops to get where he wants to go with his conclusion. He may be onto something, but maybe not as well.

Parados, climatic science is in its infancy, and most of it is highly speculative. Face it. I will continue to look at the data offered, but I retain my healthy skepticism. Practically the only thing I am sure of about this is the fact that the theories will change. Such has been proven over and over in every scientific discipline that is in its infancy. We've only enjoyed the luxury of satellites for a few decades now and we are still just now employing newer and better monitoring devices. In my opinion, we simply do not yet have enough knowledge of pertinent parameters to make sweeping conclusions about climate change. I am willing to listen to theories, but thats all they are, just theories, and not too hot at that, so don't be a fool by calling us skeptics fools.

0 Replies

Global warming is just one of our concerns.

PESTICIDES INCREASE RISK OF PARKINSONS DISEASE
A new Harvard study has linked pesticide exposure to a 70% increase in Parkinson's disease. The study, which is the largest ever conducted, was released in the July 2006 issue of the Annals of Neurology. This research backs up earlier animal studies linking pesticide exposure to brain and nerve damage. For those who were exposed, occupation was not a risk factor, as farm workers and everyday home bug-sprayers all had the same increased risk. The study did not correlate the increased risk with any specific pesticides, but rather found the connection in overall general use of pesticides. "This is certainly the biggest and most serious populations study on people, and it appears to be the best proof today that there is a general association between pesticide and Parkinson's among people," said Robin Elliot, executive director for the Parkinson's Disease Foundation in New York City, describing the findings as "important and solid

0 Replies

Who knows, plainoldme, could be a link? However, you must remember we are living longer now than we did before pesticides. Keep it in perspective, plainoldme.

I find it curious they found no link to specific pesticides and that occupation was not linked? One would need to examine assumptions, methodology, and their statistics to see if this is again another example of junk science. Maybe not, but just because it comes from Harvard means little.

0 Replies

Hmm, I agree, okie:

Quote:

Exposure to pesticides - even at relatively low levels - may increase an individual's risk of developing Parkinson's disease by 70%, according to a study of more than 140,000 people.

"may" = junk science
"140,000 people" = well, perhaps with those, but what about the others.
"Harvard" - suspecious, suspicious, BernhardR relies on that.

0 Replies

Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know