|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
What models are you looking at? (Reply to this comment)
by antastic
The climate models I've looked at make the assumption that the increased humidity and clouds due to warming will not via albedo reflect the sun's incoming visible light and prevent it from reaching the earth's surface where it will be converted to heat energy and IR. If they factored in this physical reality, there would be a cooling process to offset the warming process. Even if there is a corollary between carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures, it does not prove that A caused B, because B could have caused A. Warmer temperatures in the oceans caused carbon dioxide increases.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php
Further, before there was plant life, the atmosphere was mostly carbon dioxide. Where did it all go? It was absorbed by the oceans (another variable missing in most climate models). Carbon dioxide has higher density than air and sinks--making it a poor candidate for a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is less dense than air and absorbs more IR wavelengths--making it a better candidate. But greenhouse gases cut both ways or defy the laws of physics. There is nothing in physics that requires that water vapor, for example, cannot reduce the amount of solar energy trying to reach the earth's surface. Another variable that seems to missing is ice-age cycles and sun spot activities:
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=13834&t=Scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age
Well executed essay, by the way.
Take care.
|
Sep 03 '08
5:59 pm PDT
|
|
You must identify this as Editorial, not factual. (Reply to this comment)
by howardjuneau
You have some legitimate data, but this, in fact, is just an editorial rife with factual errors. The one which is the most glaring and distant from the truth is this one:
"..to lead to a level of 600 ppm, double the "natural" level by the year 2100."
Suggesting that 300 ppm/CO2 is the "natural" level is completely inaccurate
There is no 'magic number' which is the "natural level" because by definition ,the natural level of CO2 it is always changing.However, using paleoclimatology CO2 data for comparison, we can begin to suggest averages. 300ppm is CO2 defficient. All green plants suffocate and die at 250ppm or less. horticulturalists at Yale feel that plants evolved and are at their most efficient(photosynthesis/growth rate) at about 600ppm.This is why greenhouses must suplement CO2 during daylight hours.Presently, there is just enough atmospheric CO2 for plants to survive.300ppm is certainly not an ideal level.
During the entire history of earth, there was only one other period in which CO2 levels were so low and that was the Carbiniferous .It was during that period that the majority of the planets coal was formed,thereby locking up the majority of carbon.The rest of the history has seen CO2 levels from 600 to 7000( late pre-Cambrian:Glacial period).The average (natural) concentration appears to be 800-1200ppm.
You also mention rising sea levels as being linked to CO2, and that is a rapidly weakening hypothesis.A recent report by theCenter for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets in conjuntion with thw National Science Foundation, American GeophysicalUnion and NASA suggests that a recently discovered area under Green land in which the earths crust is thin (a "hotspot" in which magmas heat warms the surface if the earth) is doing most of the melting.The warmth not only directly melts the ice but lubricates the ice sheet, accelerating its seaward rate of travel.
In addition, NASA and NOAA have released a report stating that the cloud cover over the Arctic in the summer of 2006 was far less than the previous few years. This allowed far more sunlight to reach the ice sheet, accelerating the melt by heating the ice,air and surrounding seawater.CO2 was not a factor particularly.
Finally, you mentioned a one degree rise in temperature. However, it is well known that the SO2 relaeased from the 1991 Pinatubo eruption is credited with lowering average temperatures by .6C. So any suposed temperature rise must have that .6 subtracted to accurately reflect true temperatures. Bear in mind that in the paleoclimactic timeline, we are only recently coming out of an ice age and the planet has had , for the majority of the time, a temperate/ tropical climate. Even since the continents have been at or close to their present locations, this has been the case.The poles were ice free for most of time ( Antarctica had forrests (evidencd by fossilized pollen), Greenland was covered in rainforest and England had palm trees.) As well, Florida and much of the midwestern US are only relatively recently above sea level. I have been told that the IPCC does not compare data older than the history of humans as humans have not had to contend with sea levels rising drastically. This, too, is false as evidenced by a huge city that has been discovered 200 miles of the coast of India.The inhabitants would probably argue with that falsehood.
None of what is occuring is unprecedented. And it is unlikely that CO2 has much affect on any of it.
I close by reminding you that Al Gore is founder and CEO of the largest "Carbon Credit" trading firm, General Investment Management, and as such stands to continue to profit greatly by villanizing Carbon, one of the most primary and vital "building block" elements in every living being on Earth.Something to keep in mind when wondering why he refused to sign the very "Carbon Conservation Contract" he encourages eveyone else to sign. Perhaps Carbon doesn't actually worry him so much. It is critical when dealing with any hypothesis to always consider the source.
*Full reference list available upon email request.
|
Jan 27 '08
4:19 pm PST
|
|
Re: Much of Florida, anyway, gavia! (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Thank you Alex--an unexpected compliment from an unexpected source. MUCH appreciated!
You say: ---government has to stop discouraging business and technology from developing the real answers of which you believe them capable.
I think you and many others make a serious mistake in that view. What government (and industry) is doing is trying to assure an "adequate" supply of energy from existing technology and infrastructure while also working at developing alternatives that will take a while---in order to avoid an economic calamity that would surely be brought about by any abrubt carbon withdrawal program. THAT's what we fear from Gore and company---
In NO way is that "---discouraging---developing the real answers--" as liberals like to maintain.
The latest report on the melting of Arctic summer ice should be alarming someone in this country.
There's little doubt that Artic ice is receding---but LOTS of doubt about whether it has ANYTHING to do with anthropomorphic CO2 in the atmosphere. Plenty of evidence that it's just the normal global climate cycle.
Progress on this would be greatly accelerated if we could quit treating it as a political issue---and give up on half-vast solutions. It's the main point of my essay.
Thanks for looking in, Alex---always a pleasure!
Gavia
|
Oct 11 '05
7:16 pm PDT
|
|
Much of Florida, anyway, gavia! (Reply to this comment)
by macresarf1
You are fundamentally right there, but if the Kyoto Accords are "non-answer," government has to stop discouraging business and technology from developing the the real answers of which you believe them capable.
The latest report on the melting of Arctic summer ice should be alarming someone in this country. I'm afraid a lot of Americans will not pay attention until they have to wade through the kitchen to the fridge.
Fine essay.
Alex --Macresarf1
|
Sep 29 '05
11:43 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Interesting essay. (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Hi again, scmrak---just wanted to apologize for misspelling your "handle" in my previous comment---
Gavia
|
Sep 15 '05
4:12 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Interesting essay. (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Hi scmrk, and thanks for your comments!
The "inundation" of Florida is one of those things I've seen many times by the prophets of doom on this subject---but of course you're right that it's not quite true. But also right that the impacts of a 15 foot rise in MSL would be extreme, even if a lot of Florida would remain above water! Thanks for those clarifications.
I remain unconvinced by your oft-stated argument that left to its own devices the private sector will step forward to develop sources of fuel to replace fossil fuels in time to reverse any effects of anthropogenic carbon.
The "market" is a powerful force for getting the "right" things out of corporate R&D, and much government-sponsored research is an utter waste, in my experience. When alternate energy becomes more profitable than carbon-based energy it will happen. There is a great deal of government funded research in alternate energy and carbon sequestration, and my point is that the focus should be on reason and balance---not on demonizing those with different opinions and ideas.
Review history, if you will: did private industry develop the jet aircraft (in Germany, of course)?
Yes---but initially for defense applications--with much funding from government.
---rocketry (ditto)?
Still not much commercial market or private demand for rocketry.
--computers?
Got some initial impetus from Navy-sponsored development during WW II, but took off when IBM saw the commercial possibilities.
---the internet (it's based on DARPA, the first letter of which stands for "Defense")?
Many good ideas have their origins in defense research, often cited as one of the fringe benefits of defense spending.
--or were those directly funded if not completely controlled by government funds?
I'm not opposed to reasonable levels of government-funded research, even though it's often VERY poorly spent. Market demand is always the critical factor that brings good ideas into common use. My ideal for how research results happen is the development of the transistor at Bell Labs, and their complete sharing of what they learned with all of the electronics industry.
Relying on private industry is one of those half-vast ideas---
Trying to politicize the subject strikes me as half-vast. Relying on deceit, as do many politicians and social scientists (sic) is definitly half-vast. It's a scientific matter that should not be politically partisan---IMO.
If and when a new power source does arise---it will come from moneys funded by carbon taxes in jurisdictions like the ECU and/or Japan, not because of good ol' Yankee ingenuity.
Maybe something helpful will come about because of funds from carbon taxes, and maybe from the ECU or Japan---but I think the breakthrough will come from something not even yet thought about. But I'm convinced that politico-economic kluges like Kyoto would do more harm than good.
It's a serious matter, to be sure, and should be taken more seriously than it is. But without panic or doomsday reactions, and without demonizing those who have differing views of the science.
Gavia
|
Sep 15 '05
11:30 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Interesting essay. (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
The highest point in Florida is 345 feet above MSL - it's up on the Alabama state line. The mean elevation of the state is 100 feet.
A more demonstrative example would be to point out that a large percentage of US residents - of world residents, in fact - lives within about 20 feet of MSL. On the US east coast, much of the Boston-Washington corridor would be inundated by such a rise in sea level; Miami would be history. Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland (OR) and the Bay Area would be reduced to island archipelagos. The White House and the Washington Monument lie right around 20 feet above MSL, the Capitol and Supreme Court have a whopping 50-55 feet of elevation.
I remain unconvinced by your oft-stated argument that left to its own devices the private sector will step forward to develop sources of fuel to replace fossil fuels in time to reverse any effects of anthropogenic carbon. Review history, if you will: did private industry develop the jet aircraft (in Germany, of course)? rocketry (ditto)? computers? the internet (it's based on DARPA, the first letter of which stands for "Defense")? or were those directly funded if not completely controlled by government funds?
Relying on private industry is one of those half-vast ideas, if you ask me. If and when a new power source does arise - barring a happy accident in some laboratory somewhere on the scale of the probably apochryphal tale of Fleming and penicillin - it will come from moneys funded by carbon taxes in jurisdictions like the ECU and/or Japan, not because of good ol' Yankee ingenuity. And our citizens think we're kissing the buttocks of the Saudis now...
TTFN,
R
|
Sep 14 '05
10:03 am PDT
|
|
Re: Interesting essay. (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Hi Asofono, and thanks for your comment.
Is the highest elevation in Florida less than several feet?
I may have misled---My understanding is it would take 15 feet to completley inundate Florida, which coorespond to considerably more than doubling the CO2 level.
Gavia
|
Sep 13 '05
10:32 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Conservation (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Hi Duane, and thanks for your comment. I'll respond to a couple of points.
--I am intensely disappointed that our elected officials have not started to address this disturbing situation.
The original national energy strategy had substantial investment in alternatite energy development, carbon sequestration, and conservation/efficiency improvement. Not sure how this wound up in the version that finally passed, but I know it had lots of "pork.!
Poor countries, like many of those within Africa and Asia use little energy in comparison to the industrialized countries and poor people within the industrialized countries use less energy than their wealthier countrymen.
As those nations develop economically their energy use is increasing much more rapidly than in the U.S., and that's the main reason oil prices are increasing---increase in worldwide demand, with no increase in supply.
---until a suitable energy alternative is developed, a system of rationing is needed---
Not politically feasible, IMHO---
It is not fair that some well off people drive large SUV’s that get 10 mpg, while middle and lower class families drive cars that get better gas mileage or take public transportation.
Need to persuade people to be more energy efficient. The rising prices will push it in that direction. The more productive people (the "well-off") will always have more alternatives than the less productive ("--middle and lower class--")
--Regarding---global warming---I do think it is being very much overblown.
I think so too---
I suggest you read Michael Creighton’s latest novel “A State of Fear”.
It's on my list--always enjoy the Creigton novels, and this is the only one I haven't read---
I enjoyed and applaud your essay. Good work.
Thanks very much!
Gavia
|
Sep 13 '05
10:27 pm PDT
|
|
Interesting essay. (Reply to this comment)
by asafono
Melting of the polar ice caps will increase the sea level by several feet, changing every coastline in the world, and completely inundating the state of Florida, for example.
Is the highest elevation in Florida less than several feet?
I agree that sea level change can wipe out thousands (or millions) of square miles shoreline.
|
Sep 12 '05
11:16 am PDT
|
|
Conservation (Reply to this comment)
by daumco
I tend to agree with your assertion that the government needs to institute fossil fuel conservation but I think we're at a point where we need to go further. I am intensely disappointed that our elected officials have not started to address this disturbing situation. Fuel consumption boils down to a state of economic wherewithal. Poor countries, like many of those within Africa and Asia use little energy in comparison to the industrialized countries and poor people within the industrialized countries use less energy than their wealthier countrymen.
It seems incumbent, under the current circumstances in which we find ourselves, that until a suitable energy alternative is developed, a system of rationing is needed for the remaining worldwide fossil fuel supply. It is not fair that some well off people drive large SUV’s that get 10 mpg, while middle and lower class families drive cars that get better gas mileage or take public transportation.
Regarding the basis of your global warming, although I don’t totally dispute the problem, I do think it is being very much overblown. I suggest you read Michael Creighton’s latest novel “A State of Fear”. It is a novel but it is based on scientific data and has an extensive bibliography.
Looking at the positive side of our thirst for petroleum and other fossil fuel products, when they are finally used up the Co2 problem should dissipate.
I enjoyed and applaud your essay. Good work.
Regards, Duane
|
Sep 10 '05
7:38 am PDT
|
|
|
|
