Shunned For Over 10yrs For Denying Climate Change.

Heh, dude, Bellamy was a big TV personality in the late 70s and early 80s. He would 'gwapple his gwapenuts' every week on his nature programs.

He just went out of fashion.

Nothing to do with his vacuous claims and poor standing on climate change science. When he started coming out with his flaky arguments on this issue a few years back, he was no longer a TV personality. It did lose him numerous positions in certain organisations he represented though.

He's been pushing wacky stuff for a while (he was railing against europe before climate change). Lets say he's gone a bit 'emeritus', happens to many academics.

In 2002, barely a mention of his new found climate change denial, but the roots of his whining about environmental groups?

2002 interview

And the article you posted is just Bellamy regurgitating rancid denier's talking points.

He was good in my childhood, one of the many that helped turn me on to science and nature. Pretty sad to see him fall so low.

Friday, October 31st, 2008 9:00 am
Written by: Jessica Fries-Gaither

In September, we reported that the Arctic sea ice extent during the 2008 summer melt season dropped to the second lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979. While the minimum extent did not surpass the 2007 low, sea ice melted faster in August 2008 than any August before. Preliminary data also suggest that the Arctic sea ice hit the lowest volume ever recorded, due to the increased presence of thin annual ice. In March 2008, this thin, first-year ice covered a record high 73% of the Arctic Ocean.

Now, the globe is warming, this shows it. A lot of scientists and researches blame Anthropogenic causes. Some like the individual in the OP, do not and claim it is natural, he claims he was ridiculed for this, but we all know that this is happening to both sides of the global warming debate. If he was of real value Channel 4 in the UK would have snapped him up, as they have hammered the GW crowd via Martin Durkin.
Many of the people who claim it is anthropogenic have claimed that we would see the above happen, and the below as well.

Summer 2008 also meant extreme melting and a record number of melting days along the northern portion of Greenland’s ice sheet. Scientists hypothesize that high surface temperatures and possibly other factors such as solar radiation played a role in the increased melting.

A new book published by the US geological survey shows that more than 99% of glaciers in Alaska are experiencing significant retreat, thinning, or stagnation.

But this is interesting too. And supports natural cycles.

Two studies are providing insight into Arctic ice of the past. Mapping of beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the Arctic Ocean may have had significantly less ice cover 6000 to 7000 years ago and may have been periodically ice free.

Polar News

Its funny how many people scream about how positive environmental change to help stop us pumping crap into the air will come at a cost and we will incur a tax and how its a big scam, when most of the western world just gave billions and billions of tax dollars for toxic debts. I find that quite amusing and absurd. People are afraid of losing their homes, investments, savings, i get it, but alot of people are concerned about the one home we all share, the one thing we all have an investment in, the one thing above all else we should save.......why won't we bail that one out? Mother earth.

I think when we look at the topic of denial of global warming/climate change, people should understand its origins. I think this lecture might help or at least should be of interest to people on both sides of this discussion.

reply to post by atlasastro

I think when we look at the topic of denial of global warming/climate change, people should understand its origins.

My only argument against this subject is that climate change is down to mankind.I also do not believe it is happening on the scale they say.

Nature lives on a cycle,always has and always will.Man's impact on that is nothing.There's been ice ages,this means that the planet has gotten colder.The ice has melted,this means the planet has gotten warmer.And all this happened long before man started to pollute the planet.Forest fires and floods happen on a yearly basis,land is created land is destroyed.Nature can and always will take care of itself.

Does this mean man should pollute at will? Of course not.But we should not be lied to,manipulated and taxed to death over something that not only isn't true,it can't be stopped either.Nature will have her way.

And natures way is sometimes hard for humans to understand.
Example:forest fires are seen as highly destructive by most humans.But,as was discovered in America with such trees as redwoods,they need that fire to survive!

Another successful strategy is their dependence on fire.Redwoods need fire to survive.The bark of the coast redwood contains tannins,chemicals which resist burning....As fire sweeps through the redwood forest, it burns other plants and debris, enriching the soil. The redwood seeds then have a hearty supply of nutrients to encourage growth. Since fire has been suppressed for so long on public lands, few young redwo ods have sprouted from seeds. More often they rely on two alternate methods of reproduction: sprouts and burls.

www.sfgate.com...

All things in nature happen for a reason.

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by atlasastro

 

I think when we look at the topic of denial of global warming/climate change, people should understand its origins.

My only argument against this subject is that climate change is down to mankind.I also do not believe it is happening on the scale they say.

Nature lives on a cycle,always has and always will.Man's impact on that is nothing.There's been ice ages,this means that the planet has gotten colder.The ice has melted,this means the planet has gotten warmer.And all this happened long before man started to pollute the planet.

Watch the video. There is and was an active movement to deny and doubt the scienec behind GW. Watch the video as the OP mentions the denial og GW.
As per your comment, yes you are dead right that the earth goes through cycles, but where is all the past cycles do we see the level of human activity and impact on the earth that we observe today. You cannot exclude human influence. But you can change that influence.
And as for mans impact being nothing, well, now thats is a fine example of being in denial.

reply to post by atlasastro

As per your comment, yes you are dead right that the earth goes through cycles, but where is all the past cycles do we see the level of human activity and impact on the earth that we observe today. You cannot exclude human influence. But you can change that influence.And as for mans impact being nothing, well, now thats is a fine example of being in denial.

Where was the human impact that caused the last ice age? Where was the human impact that made that ice age recede? Where was the human influence on the rapid buildup of greenhouse gases in the early Jurassic period?

Those who believe in mans effect on the planet is greater than nature never tell the full story.They talk about the lakes on the African continent drying up,but they don't mention all the news dams that have been built in those areas.They talk of the Aral sea drying up,but fail to mention the vast cotton fields nearby.They take pictures of polar bears 'stranded' on an ice berg and claim that this is an effect of global warming,until it was discovered said pictures were taken in August when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.They talk of the Arctic melting,but don't mention the volcanic activity beneath it.


Climate change is caused by several things.

1)Variations in the Sun's output.
Change in the amount of energy emitted by the Sun is a prime candidate as a cause of climate variability. And there is no doubt that on the longest timescales of Earth's geological history, trends in solar output have played a major role in shaping the Earth's climate – and will continue to do so in the future.

2)Volcanic pollution.
Explosive volcanic eruptions can inject large quantities of dust and the gas, sulphur dioxide, high into the atmosphere. Whereas volcanic debris in the lower atmosphere falls out or is rained out within days, the veil of pollution in the upper atmosphere is above the weather and may remain for several years, gradually spreading to cover much of the globe.The volcanic pollution results in a substantial reduction in the stream of solar energy as it passes through the upper layers of the atmosphere, reflecting a significant amount back out to space.

3)The Milankovitch cycles.
On time scales of a thousand years and longer, changes in the character of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun and in its rotation can significantly affect the way in which the energy from the Sun is distributed by season and by latitude. This is known as the ‘Milankovitch Effect,’ and it generates changes which are cyclic in nature.

4)The greenhouse effect.
Contrary to popular belief the planet needs this effect to stop it from turning into a ball of ice.This is known as the "natural greenhouse effect".It is the "enhanced greenhouse effect" that is cause by mankind,which can effect climate change.

1 out of 4 does not make mankind the major culprit in climate change.The fact that the climate will change without man's influence shows that mankind has had a far smaller impact on nature than nature has on itself.


You may find this link interesting.
Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze.
www.globalresearch.ca...

reply to post by jakyll

I think you raise some good points but I think the crux of this arguement lays around wether or not you think Man's effect on the environment is significant or not. The general consensus is that it is, and that we are seeing change brought on by man. I believe that scientist are saying this, not by ignoring the history of past climate change, but by looking at the history of climate science and comparing the changes we see in relation to that history and also factoring in the componants that have changed, namely mans impact on the earth. I know it is a contentious point that will continue to generate discussion and opinion.
Thanks for your reply and the interesting link.

reply to post by atlasastro


You're welcome.

I believe that scientist are saying this, not by ignoring the history of past climate change, but by looking at the history of climate science and comparing the changes we see in relation to that history and also factoring in the componants that have changed, namely mans impact on the earth.

The co2 in our atmosphere is actually low,there have been only 2 other times in the earth's history that it has been this low.

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm....

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

floatingleaf.rediffiland.com...

reply to post by atlasastro

Friday, October 31st, 2008 9:00 am
Written by: Jessica Fries-Gaither

In September, we reported that the Arctic sea ice extent during the 2008 summer melt season dropped to the second lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979. While the minimum extent did not surpass the 2007 low, sea ice melted faster in August 2008 than any August before. Preliminary data also suggest that the Arctic sea ice hit the lowest volume ever recorded, due to the increased presence of thin annual ice. In March 2008, this thin, first-year ice covered a record high 73% of the Arctic Ocean.

Now, the globe is warming, this shows it.

Not exactly true. This shows that one spot on the globe is warming, and not necessarily from the atmosphere. This is how things get so confused.

Ice forms when water temperature drops below the freezing point. In order for that to happen, it must be cold enough to not only drop the water temperature according to the specific heat capacity of the water, but also enough heat must be removed to overcome the latent heat of fusion. A glass of water may be liquid at 32°F (0°C), or after sufficient heat energy is removed, the same glass of water at the same temperature may become ice. Conversely, this latent heat of fusion is required to be put back into the ice in order to convert it back to water.

The latent heat of fusion for water at 0°C is 334 J/g. The specific heat capacity of water at 0°C is 4.186 J/(g*°C). The specific heat capacity of air ('typical room conditions') is 1.012 J/(g*°C), approximately 1/4 that of water. Carbon dioxide is not some sort of 'blanket' wrapped around the planet; rather it is an atmospheric trace gas which has the ability to absorb a small portion of UV radiation and re-emit the energy as heat. That means that any carbon-dioxide-based heating of the planet must be taking place in the atmosphere, using this principle.

Since the initial heating must be atmospheric in order to be CO2 based, then the amount of heating to raise the temperature of any water by 1°C would raise the temperature of the same volume of air alone by about 4°C. In order for air to be responsible for melting ice into water, the amount of heat energy required is about 80 times that required to raise air temperature by the same 4°C.

Over the last several decades, the largest reported continuous anomalous temperature increase in the atmosphere has been on the order of around 5°C. This is not planet-wide, mind you, but small areas of anomalies, many situated around the Arctic (Alaska and Greenland) areas. Now, that would mean that, even if one discounted the amount of heat required to overcome the latent heat of fusion, the ice in the area would have to have been at less than 2°C below the melting temperature in order for those atmospheric anomalies to have caused any melting.

It just ain't possible. As my daddy used to say, "That dog don't hunt."

The sea water temperatures in the area have risen. In the converse to above figures, a single degree of warming from the oceans will warm the same volume of air by 4 times as much. Part of that heat is being used to melt some of the glacial ice by raising its temperature above the melting point, and overcome the latent heat of fusion. The remainder is what we are seeing as an atmospheric temperature anomaly. Carbon dioxide can have no major effect on sea water temperature rise due to its slight 'greenhouse' effect. It can only result in a water temperature increase by conducting atmospheric heat into the water, which I just showed, mathematically, is impossible with the current observations.

Science is indeed a very useful tool for monitoring changes which happen to our planet. but as you can see, it is a bit more than simply listening to those who have a vested financial stake in pushing a political agenda. Science can be used to see through those agendas, and therein lies its greatest achievement.

In my opinion, anyway.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Carbon dioxide can have no major effect on sea water temperature rise due to its slight 'greenhouse' effect. It can only result in a water temperature increase by conducting atmospheric heat into the water, which I just showed, mathematically, is impossible with the current observations.

G'day, RD.

Well done you for voting in a potentially great president

Anyway, what you say there is totally incorrect. You didn't show anything of the sort. What you did show is that oceans are great heat sinks and will lag atmospheric warming.

Lets say that 10 units of energy enter the system after surface emission. 5 escape back to space. 5 heat the atmosphere (a). 2 of those are transferred and stored in the ocean (b) (it's a big deep thing, lots of room). Of the 3, some heats surface (c), some stays to heat atmosphere.

Although it might take more to heat the ocean to the same level as the atmosphere, it heats nonetheless. a, b, and c will all warm. However, what you show is that the air will heat fastest.

Indeed, the observations (1960ish to 2003) show that whilst on average we are talking about 0.6'Cish for the surface, it is currently 0.1'C for the ocean (to 700m). As expected really with it's ability to transport heat to the deep. Moreover, the same can be said of the arctic - the extensive warming in that region is a model prediction. The climate system is very dynamic, so energy is tranferred between the atmosphere and oceans consistently (e.g., evaporated water vapour condensing to form rain transfers energy). But the prediction would be that the long-term trend will be heat collecting in the ocean.



Can't remember which paper that comes from, but it clearly shows the direction of energy (i.e., heating surface).

Of course, it's all a bit more complicated, for example, for any ice melted that leaves behind a darker area of surface to better absorb solar radiation, resulting in more energy absorbed in that ocean/surface.

Also, just to clarify, the 'greenhouse effect' is the result of longwave (IR) radiation, not UV. Solar radiation comes (of many bands) into the atmosphere, some reflected etc at surface or on its way. The remainder absorbed at the surface. This is eventually emitted at longer wavelengths (IR) and is open to the effects of greenhouse gases. As you note, not really a blanket or greenhouse, more an increase of optical thickness (imagine a pinball machine with increasing pins - more likely to rebound ball back to ground and harder to reach space).

Anyway, the latent heat stuff is a fair enough argument as to why ice will be around for quite a while, not so much to show that GHGs altering radiative balance could not alter ocean temp/melt ice.

reply to post by melatonin
Hello, mel. Thank you for the congratulations (yes, I voted for Obama), but I suggest you hold such until we see if I made the correct choice. After all, I thought Bush was the correct choice 8 years ago.

Two objects in direct contact will attempt to transfer heat energy to equalize the temperature between them, with the rate of transfer depending on the amount of heat insulation exhibited by the objects. Thus, warm air in contact with a colder object (water or ice) will lose heat to that object and the object will gain such heat, raising its temperature until it matches the temperature of the air. My point was that the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of a specific volume of water would initially show a temperature increase in the atmosphere of approximately 4 times as much (assuming an equal volume of air). Ice will not melt until it meets two conditions: the temperature of the ice must be raised to the melting point, and enough heat energy to overcome the latent heat of fusion is added after that.

The ocean is indeed a heat sink, due primarily to this high specific heat capacity. And while it is a huge heat sink, so is the atmosphere huge. No doubt should we somehow be denied the effect of this heat sink, weather changes would be quite spectacular. In your example, of the 5 heat units absorbed, 4 would be eventually absorbed into this heat sink, while only one would remain in the atmosphere. The time lag required for conduction of heat is the reason the atmospheric temperatures vary wider than the ocean, as you stated.

Indeed, the observations (1960ish to 2003) show that whilst on average we are talking about 0.6'Cish for the surface, it is currently 0.1'C for the ocean (to 700m).

So, according to these figures, the ice which is melting must have been within 0.1°C of the melting point. Now, impurities in water do lower that melting point below the famous 0°C, but in an area where temperatures are routinely -25°C, it would appear to me that it is considerably colder than the melting point of the ice. The temperature anomalies of the atmosphere cannot account for sufficient temperature increases in the ice to cause melting, especially when that 1:4 temperature versus heat ratio is considered, and certainly not when more heat would be required to change the phase of the ice into water.. The temperature increases below the ice, in the ocean in isolated pockets, can account for that, as the amount of heat energy contained is greater and thus more able to supply enough to overcome the latent heat of fusion I spoke of.

Oh, and to be truly precise, while I believe you are correct on the average temperatures, higher anomalies are reported in the Arctic area. Still, they are not sufficient to account for atmospheric-based heat transfer melting ice.

Of course, it's all a bit more complicated, for example, for any ice melted that leaves behind a darker area of surface to better absorb solar radiation, resulting in more energy absorbed in that ocean/surface.

By George, you got that one right. But remember the area we are talking about. In the area of the poles, the solar angle is pretty low, so there is normally little absorption in any case.

Also, just to clarify, the 'greenhouse effect' is the result of longwave (IR) radiation, not UV. Solar radiation comes (of many bands) into the atmosphere, some reflected etc at surface or on its way. The remainder absorbed at the surface. This is eventually emitted at longer wavelengths (IR) and is open to the effects of greenhouse gases. As you note, not really a blanket or greenhouse, more an increase of optical thickness (imagine a pinball machine with increasing pins - more likely to rebound ball back to ground and harder to reach space).

A very good analogy with the pinball machine. But you missed the mark on the UV radiation.

While you are correct that heat energy is in the form of IR radiation, the sole complaint with CO2 as a greenhouse gas is that it absorbs UV radiation and re-emits it as IF radiation (heat). The fact it does this is indeed a fact. But what is ignored in large part is that CO2 only absorbs and re-emits a small fraction of any UV light hitting it, and CO2 is a trace gas, meaning there is very little of it in the atmosphere. 387 ppmv, if memory serves, 0.0387%.

TheRedneck
edit to correct typos

[edit on 10-11-2008 by TheRedneck]

Aye, Obama has potential, just needs to deliver

Originally posted by TheRedneck
My point was that the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of a specific volume of water would initially show a temperature increase in the atmosphere of approximately 4 times as much (assuming an equal volume of air). Ice will not melt until it meets two conditions: the temperature of the ice must be raised to the melting point, and enough heat energy to overcome the latent heat of fusion is added after that.

well, yeah, but the energy is constantly being pumped into the system from outside (i.e., the sun).

If you see it as a closed system, then restricting energy available would result in an equilibrium which may or may not cause change of state.

The ocean is indeed a heat sink, due primarily to this high specific heat capacity. And while it is a huge heat sink, so is the atmosphere huge. No doubt should we somehow be denied the effect of this heat sink, weather changes would be quite spectacular. In your example, of the 5 heat units absorbed, 4 would be eventually absorbed into this heat sink, while only one would remain in the atmosphere. The time lag required for conduction of heat is the reason the atmospheric temperatures vary wider than the ocean, as you stated.

aye, but the oceans hold it much more effectively. it needs to leave the body of the ocean, through the atmosphere, and into space. And then we add the physico-chemical differences you note between atmosphere and ocean.

Thus, the oceans are like a big energy bank. Might take a while to get there, but the energy is collecting, slowly but surely.

So, according to these figures, the ice which is melting must have been within 0.1°C of the melting point. Now, impurities in water do lower that melting point below the famous 0°C, but in an area where temperatures are routinely -25°C, it would appear to me that it is considerably colder than the melting point of the ice. The temperature anomalies of the atmosphere cannot account for sufficient temperature increases in the ice to cause melting, especially when that 1:4 temperature versus heat ratio is considered, and certainly not when more heat would be required to change the phase of the ice into water.. The temperature increases below the ice, in the ocean in isolated pockets, can account for that, as the amount of heat energy contained is greater and thus more able to supply enough to overcome the latent heat of fusion I spoke of.

We're talking about the global average here, of course. There will be large enough variance across the globe. But across the globe, we see what we would expect. Lagging warming in the oceans, much more extensive in specific regions of the atmosphere.

Oh, and to be truly precise, while I believe you are correct on the average temperatures, higher anomalies are reported in the Arctic area. Still, they are not sufficient to account for atmospheric-based heat transfer melting ice.

Aye, as noted, there will be variance across space and time.

Thing is though, the ice is melting. It does it every year easy enough. Given that ice can readily reflect solar radiation (high albedo), much of the melting will be due to heat transfer between regions of the ocean, along with atmospheric effects.

So, if we start from a single year at a particular temp, it warms into summer. Ice melts. but the next year the winter might not form so much ice. Perhaps less/thinner ice c.f. year earlier. In summer this melts. next winter, temps a tad higher again - a bit lower mass of ice. And so on. Given it won't be so consistent a trend at short time scales, but you should get the idea.

By George, you got that one right.

But remember the area we are talking about. In the area of the poles, the solar angle is pretty low, so there is normally little absorption in any case.

heh, shocking, eh?

I think in the winter this would be a bigger issue, not so much in the summer. As the ice and glaciers retreat, the albedo alters and more energy is absorbed at the surface - which then gets jiggy with GHGs when emitted as IR.

A very good analogy with the pinball machine. But you missed the mark on the UV radiation.

Nah, honestly. CO2 is a great GHG due to it absorption in the 15 (and others) micrometer region.

It essentially absorbs such energy to do a molecular wobble. IR radiation is just what it needs for this.

The fact it does this is indeed a fact. But what is ignored in large part is that CO2 only absorbs and re-emits a small fraction of any UV light hitting it, and CO2 is a trace gas, meaning there is very little of it in the atmosphere. 387 ppmv

But GHGs being somewhat/effectively transparent to UV is half the game.

They readily allow the energy in to the surface as shortwave and visible, and then like to keep it there when emitted back out from the surface as longwave (i.e. IR/thermal). So, the earth wants to transfer the same amount of energy in, as it does out (ABE: better to say transfer out what comes in, heh) - that is, reach radiative equilibrium, but GHGs alter the balance. They slow energy emission and warm the surface and lower atmosphere. By jove, I think we nailed it!

CO2 can account for between 9-26% of the effect that causes ca. 30K worth of warming of the whole globe. Otherwise, we'd all be living on something a bit chillier. It's a trace gas with big balls that love to wobble.

Add more CO2? Wobbletastic!

[edit on 10-11-2008 by melatonin]

I distictly remember in the late 60's early 70's these self same scientists where screaming that we where entering the next ice age. Grants where appropriated to prove that theory and of course Bilionbs are being spent to prove where all gonna drown when the ice caps melt. i would just like to point out one thing....Greenland even though its like 60% covered in ice now was once almost totaly ice free. It probably will be again!! Then will go back to being covered as the normal change in climactic progress!

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone


I don't remember that but i have read about it.
It also crops up in conversations on sitcoms from that era.

Makes you wonder if they actually have a clue about whats going on.No doubt most change the tune when the politicians give 'em the nod.

reply to post by melatonin

well, yeah, but the energy is constantly being pumped into the system from outside (i.e., the sun).

If you see it as a closed system, then restricting energy available would result in an equilibrium which may or may not cause change of state.

Obviously that big ball of (nuclear) fire in the sky has something to do with our temperature, and that alone means we do not live in a closed system. The real problem with current hysteria on Global Warming is that we tend to ignore too many of the variables in favor of a few.

Thing is though, the ice is melting. It does it every year easy enough. Given that ice can readily reflect solar radiation (high albedo), much of the melting will be due to heat transfer between regions of the ocean, along with atmospheric effects.

In the case of Arctic ice melts, what is frequently ignored is that there are volcanoes erupting under the ocean in these areas. Rarely reported. Greenland was a fertile farmland, free of ice in historical records. Rarely reported. Globally, the average temperature is actually dropping now, after rising slightly for a decade or two. Rarely reported.

Science only works correctly when all observed phenomena are considered.

I think in the winter this would be a bigger issue, not so much in the summer.

Compared to other areas of the globe, it is just as pronounced whether we are talking about winter or summer. The angle of the sun in either case is much less than that of a more tropical or even temperate zone. I assume you are familiar with that little quirk of geometry that says the incident angle has a direct impact on the amount of energy distributed across a certain angle? Water also has this habit of reflecting light energy as well, especially when it stikes at an acute angle.

Just stating that something looks darker is an applicable observation, but it is not a complete one in a scientific sense. In order to have a complete picture, we must look at the situation in its entirety: what radiation is reaching the surface, at what incidence angle, under what intensity,. and what amount is reflected and absorbed, even what happens to absorbed radiation.

Nah, honestly. CO2 is a great GHG due to it absorption in the 15 (and others) micrometer region.

Actually, water vapor has a much more direct impact on temperature regulation overall, and methane gas in the atmosphere, on a volume basis, makes CO2 looks positively harmless. In both categories, total contribution and volumetric contribution, CO2 comes in a not-so-close second.

CO2 can account for between 9-26% of the effect that causes ca. 30K worth of warming of the whole globe. Otherwise, we'd all be living on something a bit chillier.

Ah, you have hit on one of my favorite points. Thank you!

Would the 'catastrophe' be any less catastrophic to society should the average global temperature fall by 5°C as opposed to rising by 5°C? I would say so, since our food supply depends on agriculture, which in turn depends on growing seasons. Shorten the growing seasons and you lessen the amount of food available.

Add into that line of thought how well our government has succeeded in other areas. The DMV, the FBI/CIA, Welfare, regulation of our own currency, protection of our own borders, International affairs, the judicial system, our roads and infrastructure... I could go on, but I am sure you get the idea. Now, just imagine, we also give them the thermostat of the planet! Yeah, scary isn't it?

The warmest year on record in recent history was 1998, ten years ago. That was a single-year spike, but since then the averaged data shows a slowing of the warming trend and now indicates a slight cooling trend. All this is happening without CO2 regulations in effect. So would the prudent action be to wait and watch and see exactly what CO2 contributions cause overall? If I am right and they self-correct, we have saved all of the worry and economic distress caused by some silly carbon taxation scheme. If i am wrong, and we continue to see evidence of warming, even if such is catastrophic, we have technology now to literally rip CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it as carbon. In short, we can fix it quickly.

I prefer to believe that as long as we have a way to remove CO2, and as long as it is not dangerous to human, animal, or plant life directly, perhaps we should watch and wait until we are sure there is a problem that requires our involvement. That just seems a much better and safer approach than a public demonizing of a harmless trace gas required for life to exist and a taxation scheme that benefits those in power.

TheRedneck

The problem with the climate change debate, is that it started with a large amount of gloom and doom, shouted loudly from the pulpit by several high profile persons with charts and graphs showing how CO2 was the evil culprit, and the only way to save the planet was a global carbon tax.
They all refused to comment on how greenhouse gasses on Earth managed to heat up all the other planets in the solar system, or how simple planting of greenery could solve the whole thing naturally.
No, the only way to "save the children" was to send money.

Climate change is a natural part of this planets existence----ask the dinosaurs, or the wooly mammoths.

I might even argue that we are heading into a short ice age again, as in many times in history past. The trigger IMHO, will be an increasing amount of methane from melting permafrost raising the global temperature just enough to increase evaporation to the point that major snowfall doesn't completely melt the following spring and summer.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Obviously that big ball of (nuclear) fire in the sky has something to do with our temperature, and that alone means we do not live in a closed system. The real problem with current hysteria on Global Warming is that we tend to ignore too many of the variables in favor of a few.

Aye, the earth is about an open system as you can get. I'm not sure we could include solar activity in the 'ignore too many variables' category, could apply to some though (e.g., land use).

In the case of Arctic ice melts, what is frequently ignored is that there are volcanoes erupting under the ocean in these areas. Rarely reported. Greenland was a fertile farmland, free of ice in historical records. Rarely reported. Globally, the average temperature is actually dropping now, after rising slightly for a decade or two. Rarely reported.

Heh, and the whole earth was a big rock void of life billions of years ago.

Volcanoes - OK, if you think it's relevant, but that doesn't negate the effect of GHGs.

Greenland - yeah, natural variations happen

Current temps - yeah, natural variations happen.

None of these negate the well-established effects of GHGs.

Science only works correctly when all observed phenomena are considered.

Aye, and so we ignore the evidence we have on the possibility of other evidence finally showing itself. Dolittle and Delay.

Compared to other areas of the globe, it is just as pronounced whether we are talking about winter or summer. The angle of the sun in either case is much less than that of a more tropical or even temperate zone. I assume you are familiar with that little quirk of geometry that says the incident angle has a direct impact on the amount of energy distributed across a certain angle? Water also has this habit of reflecting light energy as well, especially when it stikes at an acute angle.

It would still change the albedo. No matter what angle of incidence. It would have an effect in both winter and summer but, of course, the sun sometimes doesn't bother to show its face for long periods during an arctic winter.

Just stating that something looks darker is an applicable observation, but it is not a complete one in a scientific sense. In order to have a complete picture, we must look at the situation in its entirety: what radiation is reaching the surface, at what incidence angle, under what intensity,. and what amount is reflected and absorbed, even what happens to absorbed radiation.

I can see this post is essentially going down the route of 'we don't know it all, therefore fowgeddabowtit'.

It doesn't take much thinking to see that reducing the area of a reflective surface is very likely to enable greater absorption. If the reflective surface is at the equator, it will be a greater effect, but there will still be an effect in the arctic. Given, as you noted earlier, energy will be required to enable this, so will perhaps subtract from any albedo change.

Actually, water vapor has a much more direct impact on temperature regulation overall, and methane gas in the atmosphere, on a volume basis, makes CO2 looks positively harmless. In both categories, total contribution and volumetric contribution, CO2 comes in a not-so-close second.

I'm gobsmacked. Nice moves.

Ah, you have hit on one of my favorite points. Thank you!

You're welcome.

Would the 'catastrophe' be any less catastrophic to society should the average global temperature fall by 5°C as opposed to rising by 5°C? I would say so, since our food supply depends on agriculture, which in turn depends on growing seasons. Shorten the growing seasons and you lessen the amount of food available.

Dunno, could be a PhD in that.

The warmest year on record in recent history was 1998, ten years ago. That was a single-year spike, but since then the averaged data shows a slowing of the warming trend and now indicates a slight cooling trend.

Yet, we have had the 11 hottest ever recorded years in the last 13.

1998 was the peak of an El Nino period. We have just this year come out of a La Nina period.

One tends to result in an upwards blip, the other in a downwards blip.

All this is happening without CO2 regulations in effect. So would the prudent action be to wait and watch and see exactly what CO2 contributions cause overall? If I am right and they self-correct, we have saved all of the worry and economic distress caused by some silly carbon taxation scheme. If i am wrong, and we continue to see evidence of warming, even if such is catastrophic, we have technology now to literally rip CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it as carbon. In short, we can fix it quickly.

As you note, we need to take as much as we possibly can into account. Yet you want to ignore natural variations to make an argument based on short timescales using a cherrypicked starting point.

I prefer to believe that as long as we have a way to remove CO2, and as long as it is not dangerous to human, animal, or plant life directly, perhaps we should watch and wait until we are sure there is a problem that requires our involvement. That just seems a much better and safer approach than a public demonizing of a harmless trace gas required for life to exist and a taxation scheme that benefits those in power.

TheRedneck

Are those the same sort of people in power who spent the last 8 years in the US on an anti-science crusade? Gagging scientists and using the Luntz memo to play the 'No problem' and 'Dolittle and Delay' game?

[edit on 11-11-2008 by melatonin]

Just think about it for a minute all the new energy sources are owned by the very people who put Obama in office,watch the change it will be federal mandate that we switch to these modes of power,guess the Democrats want to get rich now,after Bush and Co had their windfall from oil,never ends does it

reply to post by melatonin

Yet, we have had the 11 hottest ever recorded years in the last 13.

Which can be disputed.

Oops; 2006 Not “The Hottest Year Ever”

Remember in January when the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its good friends in media trumpeted that 2006 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States?

NOAA based that finding – which allegedly capped a nine-year warming streak “unprecedented in the historical record” – on the daily temperature data that its National Climatic Data Center gathers from about 1,221 mostly rural weather observation stations around the country....

Anthony Watts of Chico, Calif., suspects NOAA temperature readings are not all they’re cracked up to be.

As the former TV meteorologist explains on his sophisticated,newly hatched website surfacestations.org,he has set out to do what big-time armchair-climate modelers like Hansen and no one else has ever done – physically quality-check each weather station to see if it’s being operated properly.

To assure accuracy,stations (essentially older thermometers in little four-legged wooden sheds or digital thermometers mounted on poles) should be 100 feet from buildings,not placed on hot concrete,etc.

But as photos on Watts’ site show,the station in Forest Grove,Ore.stands 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent.In Roseburg,Ore.it’s on a rooftop near an AC unit.In Tahoe,Calif.it’s next to a drum where trash is burned.

globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com...

Related link.
surfacestations.org...




[edit on 11-11-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Hi,and thanks for the informative posts.

Not exactly true. This shows that one spot on the globe is warming, and not necessarily from the atmosphere. This is how things get so confused.

A good observation,one that usually gets ignored.

reply to post by melatonin

Aye, the earth is about an open system as you can get. I'm not sure we could include solar activity in the 'ignore too many variables' category, could apply to some though (e.g., land use).

Total agreement. I didn't mean to imply that solar is one of those ignored variables, so I apologize for my poor wording.

Heh, and the whole earth was a big rock void of life billions of years ago.

Probably because it didn't have enough CO2...

None of these negate the well-established effects of GHGs.

I never said they would negate the effects. My point is that each of these may be more or less responsible for phenomena observed, and could be so in either a reinforcing or a correcting way. We need more research into the way climatology works instead of public hysteria.

Aye, and so we ignore the evidence we have on the possibility of other evidence finally showing itself. Dolittle and Delay.

Not ignore, as that would be as foolish as removing all the CO2 from the air. But as long as there is evidence that other forces are at work, it is prudent to examine those forces as well. Thus far, the entire hysteria seems to be built around CO2 concentrations, as though that is the only thing that could ever be responsible for a global average temperature increase/decrease.

Not quite sure what 'Dolittle and Delay' refers to, as your link before gives me a 'Page Not Found'. I think I can guess from the context, however.

It would still change the albedo. No matter what angle of incidence. It would have an effect in both winter and summer but, of course, the sun sometimes doesn't bother to show its face for long periods during an arctic winter.

It would indeed change the amount the amount of solar radiation absorbed/refracted, but in an area which would normally have the least amount of absorption on the planet overall in any case, due to the low angle of incidence.

This is a good example of what I have been trying to say. The amount of radiation absorbed by the ocean above the Arctic Circle is the result of more than the amount of ice on the ground. There are other contributing variables, and by ignoring those, you reach a specious conclusion at best.

I can see this post is essentially going down the route of 'we don't know it all, therefore fowgeddabowtit'.

Nah, not going there at all. There's a difference between forgetting about an effect and using it to create public hysteria.

It doesn't take much thinking to see that reducing the area of a reflective surface is very likely to enable greater absorption. If the reflective surface is at the equator, it will be a greater effect, but there will still be an effect in the arctic. Given, as you noted earlier, energy will be required to enable this, so will perhaps subtract from any albedo change.

Which means that the effect of melting ice will be minimized, although not completely countered. Still not enough to account for melting of huge ice sheets, if you bother to run the calculations.

Dunno, could be a PhD in that.

Feel free to run with it. I have greater interests in other technology at the moment, and little desire for a piece of paper other than my quad pad. That's for the young, and both my children have other directions.

Yet, we have had the 11 hottest ever recorded years in the last 13.

1998 was the peak of an El Nino period. We have just this year come out of a La Nina period.

One tends to result in an upwards blip, the other in a downwards blip.

We also have been adding huge sections of concrete, which definitely absorbs solar radiation (and is even used in some solar heat collectors for this very purpose). We have been deforestating huge areas of the planet and converting them to farmland (or in some cases, concrete jungles). Yet no one has mentioned those possibilities. Why?

As you note, we need to take as much as we possibly can into account. Yet you want to ignore natural variations to make an argument based on short timescales using a cherrypicked starting point.

Actually, that is precisely what Global Warming doomsayers are doing. You're holding your copy of the guest list upside down.

What I want is a collective, reasonable approach to the problem. Firstly, is there a problem? If there is, how serious is the problem? How long do we have to correct the problem? What are the variables involved in the problem? How can we correct the problem in the easiest, most efficient manner in the time allotted by our investigation?

Instead, we apparently have a slightly different approach: Might there be a problem? If so, how fast can we convince people we have to fix the problem? How much money can we make fixing the problem?

Are those the same sort of people in power who spent the last 8 years in the US on an anti-science crusade? Gagging scientists and using the Luntz memo to play the 'No problem' and 'Dolittle and Delay' game?

No, these are the people who are attempting to use a public scare manufactured to provide revenue in order to make a nice tidy profit. Al Gore comes to mind, as do the executives in control of the oil companies and alternative fuel companies. Let's face it, if I came to you and told you there was an invisible evil around you that would kill everyone in the vicinity, but I could cure you of this if you paid me big bucks, what would your response be? No doubt I would find myself lying on a sidewalk flat on my back. As I should, in that situation. So why, when a similar line is used on you by someone else, do you believe them completely?

TheRedneck