Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[silkstone]

Correlation does not imply causation.

It doesn't, that's why there is so much more to research than looking at a graph. However, the data presented can be used to eliminate options or debunk theories.
A graph of CO2 emissions vs. temperature change means that we can not say (from looking at the data) that emissions don't drive climate change, nothing more.

For example, the driving force behind climate change is solar activity can be dis-proven by looking at the data.

No debate? Where have you been? It's not been proven either way! There is scientific debate on this all the time, and neither side can prove that humans are or are not the cause. You're supposedly a teacher. I would have expected more from someone who is charged with developing a thirst for learning in people, and teaching them not to listen to actors and politicians who have only gotten one-sided facts. I'm disappointed in you. Educators should be those most with a thirst to learn truth, not be fanatics.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. There is no scientific debate on the issue. Show me where you are getting this information.

Correction - What I meant to say is that it is the only theory. It obviously hasn't been proven as theories are never and can never be proven. Even the theory of gravity is unproven. But, everyone here knows that, right?

Edit - And as you correctly pointed out, I am a science teacher. You'd think I'd have to keep up to date on these issues and understand them, wouldn't you?

If you are truly interested in learning. This was released by the WH.

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

Take a look at the FAQ and also pay special attention to "What is and is not debated among climate scientists about climate change?"

Edit 2 - And here's an easier read: http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-joins...ter-senators-reaffirming-scientific-consensus
It should give you an idea as to where the scientific community stands.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Ohhhhh, the WH, yeah, that most liberal of any presidency, including FDR. The same liberals that have pushed so strongly to have only their cherry picked reports scaremongered to the public so as to be able to sell pollution credits to industry that do nothing to reduce pollution. The same people that have propped up so-called green businesses that without serious infusions of government cash would not have been able to sell their shirts if they were free. You're a scary teacher. When things are not proven yet, it is a teacher's responsibility to present both arguments to their students, but you strike me as the type who presents only the liberal agenda to the kids. How do I know you don't? Because you said earlier you had no idea so many people were in denial. That's a biased statement, not an educated one.

As to your assertion of keeping up with things, perhaps you'd like to know that I also have insight into teachers through personal connections, and it's creepy what teacher's don't keep up on. Really, you are not very educated if you see no debate. There is debate everywhere. You just choose to read what is put forth by liberal media and politicians and actors, and call it the truth. A truly educated person would want to investigate things themselves, and WANT to learn all they could. A truly open-minded educator should want to find out where all sides can reach middle ground, not act like a zealot and insist their side is the only one.

 

[silkstone]

Ohhhhh, the WH, yeah, that most liberal of any presidency, including FDR. The same liberals that have pushed so strongly to have only their cherry picked reports scaremongered to the public so as to be able to sell pollution credits to industry that do nothing to reduce pollution. The same people that have propped up so-called green businesses that without serious infusions of government cash would not have been able to sell their shirts if they were free. You're a scary teacher. When things are not proven yet, it is a teacher's responsibility to present both arguments to their students, but you strike me as the type who presents only the liberal agenda to the kids. How do I know you don't? Because you said earlier you had no idea so many people were in denial. That's a biased statement, not an educated one.

As to your assertion of keeping up with things, perhaps you'd like to know that I also have insight into teachers through personal connections, and it's creepy what teacher's don't keep up on. Really, you are not very educated if you see no debate. There is debate everywhere. You just choose to read what is put forth by liberal media and politicians and actors, and call it the truth. A truly educated person would want to investigate things themselves, and WANT to learn all they could. A truly open-minded educator should want to find out where all sides can reach middle ground, not act like a zealot and insist their side is the only one.

There is political debate, no scientific debate. No theory is proven, but I still teach the theory of gravity and Newton's laws.

I also don't teach 'the controversy', am I going to burned on a cross for heresy?

I teach science. Everything is based on scientific evidence and supported by science, not politics, spritual mumbo-jumbo or hearsay. To say that there is debate or even that there are alternate theories would be a plain lie.

Even West-Virgina and Texas finally removed any reference to 'debate' in their text books!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Methane (CH4)

Cyclic changes in Earth’s orbital parameters are evident through 8 glacial cycles. EPICA and Vostok data are in close agreement over the period of the Vostok record (see Graphics). The earliest 4 glacial cycles appear to exhibit less influence of the precessional (22,000-year) component, which involves the time of year when the earth is closest to the sun. Pre-industrial methane fluctuations are between 300 and 800 ppb. Recent Southern Hemisphere concentrations of atmospheric methane are over 1700 ppb, and Northern Hemisphere methane concentrations are over 1800 ppb.

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.

Methane = 3.27 fold increase
Carbon dioxide = 1.7 fold increase

Methane is about 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a green house gas.

Which number is more alarming?


Moreover, the best theory for the phenomena of the Bermuda Triangle is massive methane releases (can rapidly sink ships and cause radial engines to fail). Most of these occurred in the 20th century where warming is well documented and human CO2 emissions were nothing like today. If we're in an ice age now (albeit minor one), we're heading for the opposite of it now. I'm not so sure humanity can do anything to stop these massive CH4 releases. On top of that, we know less about the ocean floor than we do about the moon.

 

[silkstone]

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Methane (CH4)


800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Methane = 3.27 fold increase
Carbon dioxide = 1.7 fold increase

Which number is more alarming?

Carbon dioxide?
1.8 ppmv for CH4 vs. 386 ppmv for CO2

1.8 ppmv of CH4 is roughly equivalent to 38 ppmv of CO2.

Edit - Some more handkerchief math.

CO2 up by ~90 ppm
CH4 up by roughly 1.3 ppm (equivalent to 27 ppm CO2)

CO2 seems to be the bigger problem.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Wow, the level of brainwashing is unreal, to deny that scientists cannot agree on whether mankind has caused global warming. Unbelievable. Two groups, each funded by their politically diametric groups, its no wonder. At least I can see that for what it is and acknowledge it.

Unsubbing, because I've learned in my life that fanatics believe one thing, and will never acknowledge that their view may jave some holes. It's impossible to have a learned discussion with them.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Carbon dioxide?
1.8 ppmv for CH4 vs. 386 ppmv for CO2

1.8 ppmv of CH4 is roughly equivalent to 38 ppmv of CO2.

That's what is getting the research grants because it is a hot phrase but, correlation does not imply causation.

You're forgetting the component where CH4 releases can cause the temperature to jump quite rapidly (in global terms anyway) which causes glaciers and the ice caps to release CO2. Even if we shut down everything that emits CO2, that CH4 will still be released which keeps CO2 rates climbing, just not as fast. Not only that, but the heating caused by CO2 + CH4 causes permafrost to melt releasing even more CH4. CH4 acts as the trigger which determines how much CO2 is released.

 

[SK-1]

There is no debate in the scientific community about the fact that humans affect the climate.

Maybe you missed this... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

 

[silkstone]

Maybe you missed this... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Nope - It was written by the same guy who backs creationism over evolution. He also believes that asbestos and 2nd hand smoke is harmless. He actually seems to be against science in general.

Here's some information on the writer's beliefs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker#Views_on_science

Wow, the level of brainwashing is unreal, to deny that scientists cannot agree on whether mankind has caused global warming. Unbelievable. Two groups, each funded by their politically diametric groups, its no wonder. At least I can see that for what it is and acknowledge it.

Unsubbing, because I've learned in my life that fanatics believe one thing, and will never acknowledge that their view may jave some holes. It's impossible to have a learned discussion with them.

Support your statements with science. That's all I ask. I have shown you where that the scientific community explicitly state that there is no debate on climate change (apart from a few smaller niggling details). Did you even read them?
The only other argument here is that the scientific community is corrupt. It'll take be too long to write a full counter to this, but this article outlines where the money for climate research actually goes: http://arstechnica.com/science/2012...iven-reveal-ignorance-of-how-science-is-done/

I believe in Ohm's law, does that also make me a fanatic?

 

[SK-1]

He also believes that asbestos and 2nd hand smoke is harmless. He actually seems to be against science in general.

He was referring to White asbestos...relatively harmless white asbestos. Sorry my good man. Nice try. Typical of the warmest strategy though.
Paint anyone that dares to disagree as crazy. Way to fill the pews of your church!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Human-related CH4 releases are going to start going up rapidly as natural gas replaces oil and coal. The infrastructure alone is expected to vent 2.7% ± 0.6% to the atmosphere simply as a function of working. As already pointed out, a little CH4 goes a long way.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html (citing Department of Energy sources)
Humanity is blamed for 15% of new CO2 emissions but 36% of new CH4 emissions since preindustrialization. Humanity can have a huge impact on CH4 because it naturally is only found in trace amounts. The permafrost and ocean releases can also have a profound impact for the same reason.

There are some pictures lower down on that page that show what I'm talking about. Compare CFCs, to CH4, to CO2. Nitrogen is another potential factor that is grossly understated but it isn't where near as potent as CH4.

We also can't forget water vapor. From same link above:

I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor.

There are at least three major components to global temperatures and way too much focus is placed on the second one which is a complete disservice to the other two. You know when you're trying to find something but don't see it because it is right in front of you? I get the sense that is the net effect the IPCC had on this field of research (25 years dedicated to CO2). They want to scapegoat CO2 for ill-conceived reasons just like nuclear was scapegoated. We shot ourselves in the foot with the latter; I see no reason why we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot with the former as well.


This is why I checked "not sure" in the poll. There are too many holes to be certain of anything other than basic facts (atmospheric CO2 & CH4 are rising; global average temperature is rising).

 

[LightningJR]

Finally got through all the pages I had missed. I have to say rtw you have lost me once again. You tend to call people fanatics and extremists once they show quantifiable evidence and also questioning their integrity. You have also unsubbed from this thread which only reminds me of a kid rage quitting a game. You sound the most like a bought politician.

This thread has had me thinking but also has not swayed me away from human accelerated global warming.

I look at Ford's posts and are thoroughly perplexed by the numbers, I wish we had a resident PH.D Climate Scientist here to respond to his findings.

I am also not finding the 50/50 deny/agree that was proposed to me anywhere. When there's a debate they have 1 for and 1 against but that's not representative of the full community.

Nice to see silkstone here, a science teacher, he/she is seems to be the most qualified in this area so far, I am interested to continue reading this thread.

 

[rruff]

Ocean carbon release 'ended last Ice Age'
Those same "burps" are happening now. It's due to pressures changing on the ocean floor and it's positive feedback. As large quantities of CH4 are released, they increase atmospheric temperatures which causes ice to melt releasing trapped CO2.

The article states that our oceans are *absorbing* CO2 not "burping" it (or CH4). Nothing about CH4 at all... nothing about never seeing an ice age again.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I blame Google and my reading comprehension. Here's the right path:
Methane clathrate

Specifically:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/old-gas-new-gas/3

Under pressure and low temperature, methane (which normally boils at -161 degrees Celsius) forms a thermodynamically stable association with water. These solids are called methane hydrates, examples of a broader class of structures, the clathrates.

What's stable at one temperature and pressure may not be at another. Under ambient conditions at sea level, methane is a gas, water a liquid. But in the permafrost and deep at sea, the weak hydrogen bonds between water molecules reinforce the still weaker forces between CH4 and H2O to create an aggregate made of a water cage around one or more methane molecules.

Methane hydrates are white solids, less dense than water. They remain on the seafloor only because they are agglomerated with rocks and mud. (There, opportunistic evolution has led a variety of species to use the methane in situ, as a carbon and energy source.) Under the weight of 1,000 meters of ocean, methane hydrate is stable to about 12 degrees, and because the seafloor is colder than that, the ice-like hydrates form spontaneously wherever methane is available. Brought up to the surface the hydrates fall apart to methane and water.

There's documentation of seeing this trapped methane releasing both in permafrost (northern Russia) and on the ocean floor.

 

[silkstone]

Human-related CH4 releases are going to start going up rapidly as natural gas replaces oil and coal. The infrastructure alone is expected to vent 2.7% ± 0.6% to the atmosphere simply as a function of working. As already pointed out, a little CH4 goes a long way.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html (citing Department of Energy sources)
Humanity is blamed for 15% of new CO2 emissions but 36% of new CH4 emissions since preindustrialization. Humanity can have a huge impact on CH4 because it naturally is only found in trace amounts. The permafrost and ocean releases can also have a profound impact for the same reason.

There are some pictures lower down on that page that show what I'm talking about. Compare CFCs, to CH4, to CO2. Nitrogen is another potential factor that is grossly understated but it isn't where near as potent as CH4.

We also can't forget water vapor. From same link above:

There are at least three major components to global temperatures and way too much focus is placed on the second one which is a complete disservice to the other two. You know when you're trying to find something but don't see it because it is right in front of you? I get the sense that is the net effect the IPCC had on this field of research (25 years dedicated to CO2). They want to scapegoat CO2 for ill-conceived reasons just like nuclear was scapegoated. We shot ourselves in the foot with the latter; I see no reason why we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot with the former as well.

This is why I checked "not sure" in the poll. There are too many holes to be certain of anything other than basic facts (atmospheric CO2 & CH4 are rising; global average temperature is rising).

You're right. CH4 is another big concern, but I believe it's more difficult to deal with as it's related to our eating habits and population size.

He was referring to White asbestos...relatively harmless white asbestos. Sorry my good man. Nice try. Typical of the warmest strategy though.
Paint anyone that dares to disagree as crazy. Way to fill the pews of your church!

Second hand smoke is also harmless, right? And evolution is a lie?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You're right. CH4 is another big concern, but I believe it's more difficult to deal with as it's related to our eating habits and population size.

Difficulty doesn't minimize importance. XD


I think we should be taking every dollar that would be put into natural gas and instead invest it in nuclear. I do believe the largest consumer of natural gas so far is the electricity industry and what they're doing is replacing coal-fired plants with natural gas turbines because 1) gas is slightly cheaper than coal per MWh and 2) EPA regulations have made new coal plants a non-starter. It is a mistake to consider this "alternative" an alternative at all. They're both bad.

coal/oil is predominantly carbon + oxygen = carbon dioxide
methane is a very lengthy chain that results in methane + oxygen = carbon dioxide + water vapor

We're taking one molecule of the #3 green house gas (methane) and combining it with two oxygen molecules to form one molecule of the #2 green house gas (carbon dioxide) and two molecules of the #1 green house gas (water vapor). This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. We need to leave it in the dirt. Sure we can capture and use methane that is being vented to the atmosphere anyway but no one should be digging up buried reserves of this stuff to burn.

 

[silkstone]

Difficulty doesn't minimize importance. XD


I think we should be taking every dollar that would be put into natural gas and instead invest it in nuclear. I do believe the largest consumer of natural gas so far is the electricity industry and what they're doing is replacing coal-fired plants with natural gas turbines because 1) gas is slightly cheaper than coal per MWh and 2) EPA regulations have made new coal plants a non-starter. It is a mistake to consider this "alternative" an alternative at all. They're both bad.

coal/oil is predominantly carbon + oxygen = carbon dioxide
methane is a very lengthy chain that results in methane + oxygen = carbon dioxide + water vapor

We're taking one molecule of the #3 green house gas (methane) and combining it with two oxygen molecules to form one molecule of the #2 green house gas (carbon dioxide) and two molecules of the #1 green house gas (water vapor). This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. We need to leave it in the dirt. Sure we can capture and use methane that is being vented to the atmosphere anyway but no one should be digging up buried reserves of this stuff to burn.

I agree that nuclear is much better than any fossil fuel, assuming its well planned and managed/maintained. The waste is very worrisome, but there are some very new and cleaner nuclear technologies that governments should be throwing money at.

Regarding CH4, difficulty doesn't make it any less important. However, tackling the easier one first makes sense.
The extraction of natural gas does contribute a large amount of methane into the atmosphere (around the same amount as rice cultivation). However, even when considering that CH4 is about 21-times more potent than CO2, it's still better than coal and oil.

 

[BiggieShady]

I believe in Ohm's law, does that also make me a fanatic?

For someone who doesn't know what the Ohm law is, that even makes you dangerous

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

@silkstone

Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.

Prov. People who are able to do something well can do that thing for a living, while people who are not able to do anything that well make a living by teaching.

From George Bernard Shaw

just to substantiate this a bit.....

my Dad would loved to have been a playwright, ended up being head of the English dept in a notable British private school.
My stepmother was a nuclear physisist, when she retired she worked for free to promote the teaching of physics in schools especially encouraging females.

I dont trust the opinions of media, politicians or teachers.
As we all know, you can spin these things any way you like.

There are too many agencys with too much vested interests to get an unbiased untainted CONCLUSIVE answer, and therein lies the rub........

the cause isnt the problem...........the solution most definitely is.
And yes i have followed and reread all of this thread, it interests me to hear attitudes and opinions from different people, i dont have to agree with any of them.


This shit will affect our kids and their kids, that is the important thing.

When the solution is found someone is gonna make a fortune...


oh and by the way methane is a naturally occurring substance which is regularly released by seismic changes,

http://www.examiner.com/article/fis...hane-releases-on-days-of-intense-earth-wobble

"Earth Farts"

 

[FordGT90Concept]

However, even when considering that CH4 is about 21-times more potent than CO2, it's still better than coal and oil.

I don't know how you figure that. Because energy density (MJ/l) of natural gas is lower than diesel/gasoline, we have to burn a lot of it to get the equivalent energy. The exhaust is more water vapor than carbon-dioxide but that's still an awful lot of two things we need less of, not more. Coal has other particulates that make it much worse than oil unless it has been scrubbed of those emissions (advanced coal facilities). Yes, burning methane is better than venting it but ideally, it just stays where it is.

I also don't figure out you think CO2 is "easier." Forest fires release CO2 and virtually all animals exhale CO2. It's an inescapable gas. We can only reduce industrialized sources.

oh and by the way methane is a naturally occurring substance which is regularly released by seismic changes,

http://www.examiner.com/article/fis...hane-releases-on-days-of-intense-earth-wobble

"Intense earth wobble" likely causes ocean floor pressures to shift which, in turn, causes that methane hydrate to release. There's a ton of evidence out there (like that one) that methane is running away. It just isn't easy to track because they're very quick events and can happen anywhere on some 60-80% of the Earth.

For all we know, it could be responsible for taking MH370 out of the air too.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

For all we know, it could be responsible for taking MH370 out of the air too.

and the mystery surrounding Bermuda triangle.

 

[silkstone]

Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.

Way to go supporting your arguments, attack the person. You have no knowledge of me personally nor my motivations to get into teaching but, please keep the ignorance coming as that's how arguments are won.

Opinions have nothing to do with it. It's not like scientists sit around in a room brainstorming ideas that sound good and say:
a: "Hey! we can push this down people's throats and make a ton of money!
b: "That's a good idea, but how the hell will we get away with it?
a: "Because .... We're scientists! People will have to believe us. Mwuhahahaha (evil laugh)"

There is actual work that is done. To forgo even reading it, or even worse, claim it doesn't exist, is ignorance of the highest level. Especially when that ignorance drives your argument.

I don't know how you figure that.

The average emissions rates natural gas-fired generation are: 1135 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 0.1 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 1.7 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.

Natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant (than oil).

So far the arguments boil down to:
a) the scientific community are corrupt (biggest scandal since the lunar landings!)
b) The scientific community disagree - Challenge: find how many peer review papers challenge the current model for climate change vs. those that back it.
c) They did some scientific mumbo jumbo to the numbers that I don't understand, so they must be false!
d) How dare you be so arrogant to suggest that humans have any influence on the planet we inhabit!

I'll let all those following the thread come to their own conclusions.

Note: There are other less prominent theories than ones centring on CO2 emissions, but human activity is at the centre of all of them.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The average emissions rates natural gas-fired generation are: 1135 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 0.1 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 1.7 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.

Natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant (than oil).

Half as much carbon oxide and double the water vapor. That's really, really bad as far as green house gas emissions is concerned. Nuclear and coal also produce water vapor in cooling towers and no one really gives a thought. Unlike methane though, coal and nuclear can have an enclosed radiator stopping the water vapor from leaving the facility albeit at a substantially higher construction cost.


Wallace Broecker has a good point about water vapor and that translates to cloud coverage. Here's an interesting read on that topic but there's only 39 years of data (and most of that is human observation--not satellite) available on it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/
In short, cloud coverage has decreased 1.56% in this time and a separate study speculated that a 1-2% increase would cause global cooling and a 1-2% decrease would cause global warming. What's worse is that fossil records can't tell us a whole lot about cloud coverage historically so that 39 years of observations is all we have.


National Science Foundation webcast on the subject (43 minutes long, a minute long intro, 11 minutes of explaination, the rest is journalist questions):
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/clouds/webcast.jsp

Important to note that the type of clouds matter. High altitude, thin clouds act as a greenhouse gas (positive feedback); low altitude, thick clouds act as a mirror (negative feedback).

The best current estimates of cloud feedback on global warming is it will be a moderate positive feedback--but there is a significant amount of uncertainty there. It's possible that, eventually, when we have enough observations to see what really happens, it will turn out to be a negative feedback. But it is also possible that it will turn out an even stronger positive feedback. So it works both directions.

He goes on to say that we need more satellite observations. Long story short, this is where weather prediction weighs into climate predication and, as we all know, weather predication isn't the best.

He also confirms that there is a "tremendous amount of uncertainty" related to CH4 and CO2 escaping the ocean and permafrost.

He says that clouds are responsible for 1/3 ("just a rough number") of the uncertainty with IPCC estimates.

"Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get."

Here's another crucial point: aerosols. Aircraft exhaust doesn't seed big cumulonimbus clouds that cause negative feedback; no, they seed high altitude cirrus clouds that cause positive feedback. As such, aircraft may have a much larger impact on heating the surface of the earth than just through CO2.

 

[metalslaw]

When you watch series like that, you have to remember, they are not entirely objective. The ultimate goal is ratings. That is why it's important to seek out as much boring source data as possible.

I lol'ed because it's so true

 

[W1zzard]

I lol'ed because it's so true

+1, always drill down through the layers of pop sci reports to find the original source