Anthropogenic global warming

[Neal Oldham]

Hi all,

Homework time ...

I've been following the man-made / anthropogenic global warming (AGW)
debate online, and I have to admit that the skeptics seem to be
getting the upper hand.

Unfortunately, the number of claims and counter-claims on the Web has
reached a point of being nearly unnavigable.

So, please respond with your opinion about AGW. Either

1. Global warming is happening, but is not man-made
2. Global warming is happening and is not natural
3. Global warming is not happening

Anecdotal data is good, scientific data is better. :)

Cheers,

Neal.

[Steven Tyree]

My two cents:

 

First, the total number of factors that influence climate is huge.

 

Second, the interrelationships between those factors is enough to overwhelm.  That's why it's impossible to be precise about such things.  You can, however, look for things that have a disproportionate influence.

 

It's a fact that some types of gas molecules in the atmosphere reflect more long wavelength radiation back to earth than others.  This is one of those facts which lends itself to the scientific method.  There's an enormous body of evidence that indicates we understand, qualitatively and quantitatively, how this works.

 

Our atmosphere is principally composed of three gases:  Nitrogen (80%), oxygen (20%), and carbon dioxide (less than 1%).  It so happens that carbon dioxide has a significantly higher "reflective" value than nitrogen and oxygen.  Thus, increased concentrations of carbon dioxide can reflect more heat back toward earth, heat that would otherwise escape into space.  This isn't really news, in fact the first scientist to postulate it did so over 150 years ago.  He also surmised that global temperatures would increase due to the burning of fossil fuels.

 

Is it the only reason for the recognized increase in global temperatures?  In a complex system, there's never only one reason.  It most likely is, however, one of the greatest contributors (if not the greatest contributor).

 

By some estimates, we're burning 400 year's worth of stored solar energy annually through the use of fossil fuels.  That's a whole bunch, folks.

 

Steve

--
Steven R. Tyree
Odyssey Energy Solutions Inc.
IDCLLC
641 Huddleston Rd.
Lascassas, TN 37085
615-286-2716 office
615-427-3050 cell

[Mac Davis]

That’s a good explanation Steve.    As far as I’m concerned this is one of those things that isn’t worth arguing about.   The science is in and we’re mostly to blame.   The only scientists who aren’t persuaded of that are the ones on the payroll of Exxon Mobil and their ilk.    Read in the current issue of the New Yorker the piece on James Hansen, a NASA scientist who’s been on this subject for years.   It’s interesting reading but I wouldn’t bother bringing it up with someone like my stepson and his wife, who think global warming is all a big hoax.   They get their information from Sean Hannity, the ultimate arbiter of truth, so what can you say.
Mac

[Neal Oldham]

It just seems like the skeptics have doubled (or really even tripled) their efforts lately.

I think the peak of public acceptance of AGW was probably Hurricane Katrina.  Since subsequent hurricane seasons haven't produced a really big headline disaster, and since this winter was colder than the previous ones, and since we're in a recession, there's a lot of people grasping at any excuse to do nothing.  I mean, Mac's stepson and wife are probably in the majority.

I believe what Lovelock said:  Ignore local fluctuations in temperature.  Watch the sea levels.  Melting the glaciers requires the sinking of an enormous amount of heat.  Once that process is finished, watch the hell out.

I wonder what would happen if we had a supervolcano detonation which did manage to drop global temperatures.  I'm wondering if the resultant decrease of CO2 solubility in the oceans would cause a mighty outgassing and a subsequent re-heating.

[Mac Davis]

Actually there is one theory I read about a while back which posits that global warming could trigger a new ice age in the northern hemisphere.   I’m not sure I can remember the explanation but it involved the shutting down of the global temperature conveyor belts, particularly the gulf stream.   The warm water sent north cools, sinks to the bottom, and slides back south, taking a very long time to get there.   As the ice caps melt the heavily saline cold water would be diluted with fresh and therefore not sink to the bottom, which would disrupt the whole cycle, plunging Europe, Canada, and the northern US back into an ice age, even though the temperate zones were warmer.   Or something like that.

[Steven Tyree]

Anybody seen a good qualitative and quantitative analysis of climate factors, and their breakdown?  That would provide a lot more clarity.  Major factors like greenhouse gases, solar activity, melting polar regions (less heat reflected back to space due to less ice and snow), permafrost melting, etc.  Getting a sense of the major players and their effects would be helpful.

 

And terrifying.

 

Steve

[Neal Oldham]

Actually ... No.  I haven't seen anything I feel confident is a (1) objective, (2) quantitative, and (3) complete analysis.  Therein lies the problem.

[Mac Davis]

Well you have mentioned James Lovelock, who probably has written comprehensively on the subject.   Also one could probably google James Hansen and come up with something like that.   But I wonder: why the doubts about objectivity?    Obviously you could have them about the “skeptics”, ie energy companies and their lackeys, because they have a clear financial motive for sowing doubt.   But what would be the ulterior motive for those issuing warnings about global warming and what is their incentive to not be objective?   No oil company is writing checks to James Lovelock or James Hansen or Al Gore to say what they are saying.    The only thing left to accuse them of would be lack of objectivity due to academic rivalry or something, which would be pretty weak.

[Neal Oldham]

The only thing left to accuse them of would be lack of objectivity due to academic rivalry or something, which would be pretty weak.

I'd say pride and stubbornness is a bigger factor for academics and politicians than it is for industry scientists.  The money is so bad in academia and politics that pride and reputation is really all you have, and once you've staked your reputation to a prediction, you're pretty much married to it.

So, no, I can't take what Gore and Hansen have to say at face value.  Lovelock's model makes sense to my scientific intuition, but that doesn't mean it's right!

[Neal Oldham]

Yes, but you don't even want to think about what's happening to mean temperatures in the middle latitudes in that scenario... scorch-o-rama!  A hypothetical shutdown of thermohaline circulation wouldn't happen until well after we'd reached disaster phase anyway.

[Steven Tyree]

I have thought of an ulterior motive:  An effort to get people off their ass in the face of impending fossil fuel shortages.  Sounds wacky, and yet it's easy to imagine elements in this dialogue who would think that way.  "We need to use less fossil fuels to save the world!" (and conserve a dwindling resource without panicking).  Don't forget, anarchy is the ultimate enemy of any power structure.

[Neal Oldham]

Hm, that's possible.  However it could really blow up in your face if you're trying to use AGW as the threat with the ulterior motive of reducing the impact of peak oil, but no signature disaster materializes.  This is a very real possibility.  So I don't really think that's what the Hansen/Gore crowd is up to.

A more feasible approach would be the reverse one:  Use peak oil as the threat with GHG reduction as the "real" goal.  Since peak oil has even less popular traction than AGW it doesn't seem that there are any significant policy makers thinking this way unfortunately.

[the27man]

>But I wonder: why the doubts about objectivity?

i think it's incredibly difficult to be objective.  even when you're trying your best, something's gonna muck it up because you're seeing the world through the filter you've developed over the course of your life.  the subjective element is what motivates someone to research for the objective elements in the first place.  compound that by the number of people through which given data must be passed, along with their input filters and output filters and personal biases and level of comprehension of the subject.  what data is important, or even what subject is important, changes radically from person to person.  (to quote REO Speedwagon:  the tales grow taller on down the line.)

not to mention general distrust.  how many facts have been updated over the course of our lives?  X is good for you, then X is bad for you.  couple this element with the time most people have to actually research things.  

i'm not certain how to articulate this, but we do get conditioned to things, and some things become inherently good or bad depending on our personal experiences with it.  and wrongful equivocation can be more than misleading; it can leave a sour taste in one's mouth for future encounters.  i recall the internal conflict (mild, but a conflict all the same) i had when i was presented with the argument that the Hummer is a "greener" vehicle than the "Prius" due to the long arc of the Prius' effect on the environment once disposal is taken into account.  the Hummer uses a lot of petro to run, but it cost relatively little to build it and recycle it.  the Prius is environmentally unfriendly beyond its fuel consumption, and i've even heard some good arguments about that.  regardless, the Hummer (extravagant, decadent, inefficient, symbol of all that is wrong with cars, grimace-provoking) gets knee-jerked into my "bad" category while the Prius (practical, economical, physical embodiment of our collective aspiration to be kinder to our planet) is obviously "good".  and then i get this news about how it's actually the other way around.  now, i have to go back and question all the other "facts" i've been fed about other things.  

i just want to play my guitar.

 

>   But what would be the ulterior motive for those issuing warnings about global warming and what is their incentive to not be objective?  

i think many people just want to be part of something important, so they latch onto something that they deem important.  and in doing so, they get too close to the struggle to question its validity.  i'm not claiming this to be the impetus for an ulterior motive, but it could definitely sway objectivity, if not for the disseminators then for the congregation.  perhaps they are people who believe what their peers believe because they believe in their peers. 

from a conspiratorial point of view, i think any unifying/dividing cause is good for the "powers that be" in that it keeps the masses chasing a red herring.  if the hoi polloi are up-in-arms in an attempt to deal with an onslaught of symptoms, they'll never have the time nor means to address a disease.  that's what i would do if i were power-hungry and in charge:  keep them busy putting out fires so that they won't have time to deal with me.  (this is just me spitballing.)

right now, in this age of information, there's simply too much of it.  if i need to argue a point to satisfy any position i wish to take, there is information out there to support my stance if i just spend the energy to gather it.  as for any weak spots, i can just give it a healthy dose of argumentum verbosium to keep the nay-sayers on their heals.  

(i read a great passage in a book recently about how once upon a time, when radio news broadcasters had nothing to report, they simply played classical music.  imagine.)

perhaps it's all a good thing.  what would we be if we didn't have something to perpetually worry about and feel the need to overcome?

-micah

[Steven Tyree]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:01 PM, the27man <the2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>But I wonder: why the doubts about objectivity?

>i think it's incredibly difficult to be objective.  even when you're trying your best, something's gonna muck it up because you're seeing the world through the filter you've developed over the course of your life.  the subjective element is what motivates someone to research for the objective elements in the first place.  compound that by the number of people through which given data must be passed, along with their input filters and output filters and personal biases and level of comprehension of the subject.  what data is important, or even what subject is important, changes radically from person to person.  (to quote REO Speedwagon:  the tales grow taller on down the line.)<

 

Technically, objectivity is impossible to attain, since we always have to work from our own point of reference.  We can, however, place ourselves in different points of view, a sort of objective triangulation, and thus reduce the worst of our subjectivity.  The goal is an accurate perception of reality with which to guide our actions.  We're way ahead of, for example, jellyfish in this regard (they'll probably survive us, though.  Do jellyfish have fun?)  It's not hard to improve one's competitive advantage with the pursuit of objectivity.

 

>from a conspiratorial point of view, i think any unifying/dividing cause is good for the "powers that be" in that it keeps the masses chasing a red herring.  if the hoi polloi are up-in-arms in an attempt to deal with an onslaught of symptoms, they'll never have the time nor means to address a disease.  that's what i would do if i were power-hungry and in charge:  keep them busy putting out fires so that they won't have time to deal with me.  (this is just me spitballing.)<

 

This strikes a chord for me.  If everyone is forever chasing down the latest crisis, no one will have time to draw back the curtain and figure out what's really going on.  Spitballing?  I think it's spot on, at least in terms of what we're fed through the media.

 

Not that I'm distrustful or anything...

 

>perhaps it's all a good thing.  what would we be if we didn't have something to perpetually worry about and feel the need to overcome?<

 

Even more focused on chasing pussy, just like our ancestors!

 

Steve