Global Warming - Where to get info?

[lehighguy]

I don't know a thing about global warming. I don't even know if its true or not. According to my parents scientist (whatever that is suppose to mean) warned them about global cooling not too long ago. And it seems like everyday there is a new scare (remember killer bees).

I don't know where to find some credible analysis of this. I don't have the scientific background to do it myself. And I don't trust anything produced by a political or lobbyist group.

Where could I find information?

[wacki]

This is a painful thread to read, but all the posts that were made by Zeno, Nicky G, lastchance and I are good.

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/show...rue#Post1747293 (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=politics&Number=17472 93&Searchpage=1&Main=1737650&Words=vostok+wacki&to pic=&Search=true#Post1747293)


Also

http://128.42.10.107/media/Smalley_OEF_20031101_300k.wmv
http://smalley.rice.edu/
www.pbs.org/strangedays (http://www.pbs.org/strangedays)


http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2084/3way8fp.png

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg



Sorry for being brief, but i've done this a million times in the past and it gets old. I need to make a website.

[wacki]

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

* Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year
1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and
290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level
observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice
cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from
peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago,
but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [Schimel 94,
p 44-45] [White]

* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history
from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47].

* The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions.
Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils
must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source [Melillo,
p 454] [Schimel 94, p 47, 55] [Schimel 95, p 79] [Siegenthaler].

* Most "new" CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements
in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind
by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time.
The ppmv-amount of the lag at a given time has increased according
to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. [Schimel 94, p 43]
[Siegenthaler]

* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon
13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in
the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends
fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible
with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the
ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs.

* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly
1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life
of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere
by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher,
p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago.
Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the
`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.

* The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon,
almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain
less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors
of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in
photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom)
[Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and
ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257]
[C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2
source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic
carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is
heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the
ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher,
p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause
a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]

* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly
1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life
of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere
by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N . Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago.
Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the
`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to that chart, carbon levels increased by something like 15% over the quoted timespan. That should lead to a drop of over 10% if the increase in CO2 is purely due to terrestial sources, right?

[ QUOTE ]

* The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon,
almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain
less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors
of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in
photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom)
[Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and
ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257]
[C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2
source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic
carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is
heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the
ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher,
p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause
a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure this argument makes any sense. Surely this fact pattern suggests that the increase in CO2 is not due to the release of dissolved oceanic CO2. But that doesn't rule out any other oceanic sources as the source of the new carbon.

Just to clarify, I don't doubt the existence of man-made global warming, but I'm skeptical about some of the arguments people trot out.

[wacki]

To the OP:
http://cohesion.rice.edu/NaturalSciences/Smalley/emplibrary/120204%20MRS%20Boston.pdf

I haven't read this but it's a transcript of one of his video's which means it's most likely good.

to bobman:

[ QUOTE ]

According to that chart, carbon levels increased by something like 15% over the quoted timespan. That should lead to a drop of over 10% if the increase in CO2 is purely due to terrestial sources, right?

[/ QUOTE ]


I see your point. The woman that did the research is not a specialist in the field. I used her text since it was simple and easy to understand and I am familiar with many of her sources that I know are reliable. I should probably just stick to citing Nature and Science directly and if people can't follow along .... well what can you do.

As for the percentages not lining up, well they won't line up. Mellilo's work shows a slight temperature increase will cause carbon that was previously trapped in natural sinks to be released into the atmosphere. Small changes have big effects but I'm not even sure that explains the difference.

Although I admit the differences are larger than expected which means I will have to review the material. I'll probably have to review the sampling method/location since it talked about getting carbon from the tree rings. For all I know the sampling method may be the only explanation. Or maybe she just had bad info. I'm pretty sure the C12/C14 data checks out though. I've seen it a million times in papers and stuff.

Great, this is going to take me a while to fact check this. Time I don't have......

Thanks for pointing it out though bobman.

[Felix_Nietsche]

.....You will have to wade through a lot of trash before you find the diamonds. Global warming and COOLING has occurred for MILLIONS of years. The whole debate is whether mankind is causing the recent trend of global warming or is it natural warming.

Most scientist now realized the DOOMSDAY scenario of Man-Caused-Global warming is a myth. People like Michael Mann who published his hockey stick model has been exposed for ALTERING HIS DATA to support his hypothesis that man is responsible for global warming. Here are some decent links:

Stars do not live forever....even ours. One day our sun will be a White Dwarf. Here is a link that our sun may be burning hotter. By they way the man-causes global warming crowd has NEVER explored the possibility that our sun might be burner hotter in their hypotheses. They assume the automobile is the villian and write papers to support their pre-conceived ideas.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

Mars has seasons just like the earth but Mars icecaps are melting at an alarming rate and it is not because of the changing seasons. This would support that our sun is burner hotter and therefore warming all the planets in our solar system.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/watchtheskies/8aug_mars_melting.html

Michael Mann (aka Mr Fraud) published his hockey stick Man-Causes global warming paper. The only problem was two Canadien mathemeticians found that his used creative math to back up his results. Also Mann refused to release his mystery "algorythms" which would allow others to check his work fully. This is hilarious! In real scientific publications you have to publish a methodolgy section (just like in you Biology lab papers) so that any scientists in the world can read your paper and be able to replicate your results. Michael Mann refuses to release this algorythms. LOL! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Yes, I'm experiencing joy at Mr Mann's exposure as a fraud. The sad thing is he is just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of PhDs have made entire careers off govt grants publishing their man-causes-global warming rubish.
http://winnetou.lcd.lu/physique/global/hockey_stick/hockeystick01.html

Greenhouse gases:
Without green house gases there would not be life on earth. The biggest greenhouse gases are water vapor and CO2. The other greenhouse gases exist in such small quantities that I think they are a waste of time even to discuss.

Be prepared to sort through a lot of politically correct propaganda on global warming written by people with PhDs. It use to be that scientists that had views that disputed the man-causes-global-warming were attacked savagely but thankfully that is now changing. Peer pressure occurs in high school and even in the scientific world.... /images/graemlins/frown.gif My personal view is that with respect to global warming that it is occurring and mankind may be responsible for as much as .0000000001% of it. The other 99999999999.9% of it is beyond our control. In previous posts, I posted links of scientists NOW claiming the doomsday global warming scenarios that were spouted in the 1970s/1980s were "myths". The global warming cult that was spreading their sky-is-falling messages were wrong in the 1970s, 1980s, and they are STILL wrong.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http://www.rppi.org/globalwarmingmyth.shtml

But mankind has a huge ego and many can't except the possibility that we are just spects of dust on the planet earth and at the mercy of mother nature.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You will have to wade through a lot of trash before you find the diamonds.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, you said something I agree with.

To the OP. I highly suggest you ignore Felix Nietsche. If you read that old 2+2 thread you will see why. Lastchance, Zeno, Nicky G, and I spent way too much of our life debunking all of his crap. Also, www.junkscience.com (http://www.junkscience.com) is the most biased and worthless piece of crap website ever made.

[wacki]

In short:

These are the sources you can trust:

Science
Nature
Cell

If it's published there, you can trust it. If it has holes, they will find them and let you know. Those are the 3 best journals on the market IMO.

[Borodog]

As long as we're trotting out graphs:

http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif

Now, to be fair this graph terminates at about 1980, and there is a marked jump in the temperature data above the Solar data in the last 25 years. But the majority of the global warming of the 20th century seems to be related to solar activity, and took place in the first half of the century.

For me, the important question is not really, "Is there global warming?" It's not even, "Is it man made?" The real question is, "So what?" The economic costs over the next century, even under the most unlikely and dire scenarios, associated with individuals simply moving as the climate changes is a tiny fraction of the economic cost associated with crippling world economies in some nebulous, poorly understood attempt to reduce emissions.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
The real question is, "So what?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. I think that is the point that most people miss. Although I think there are some definite holes in the global warming crowd's hypothesis, it really doesnt matter. What matters is whether it is a problem worth "fixing". Many argue that a small increase in the world temperature will have beneficial effects on the global economy. These are the issues that need to be explored.

[Felix_Nietsche]

To the OP. I highly suggest you ignore Felix Nietsche.
************************************************** ******
LOL. I'm glad to see I'm no longer on your 'ignore user' list. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

By the way, will you concede that Michael Mann's failure to include his mathematical 'algorythms' in his infamous hockey stick publication was a MAJOR violation proper scientific research? Surely with your scientific background can not deny that....can you?

[superleeds]

Felix,

you do realise your going to die someday, don't you. What's the point in trying to prolong your life. Why don't you hasten your demise, I mean after all it's gonna happen, right?

[ QUOTE ]
But mankind has a huge ego and many can't except the possibility that we are just spects of dust on the planet earth and at the mercy of mother nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct that many have this inability to see mankind as they really are, but your innane chatterings on this and many other subjects are a help in convincing many.

[mackthefork]

Jesus, that was a little harsh, thank god for the internet eh. If you said that to him IRL he'd probably snap you in two, either that or shoot you. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Regards Mack

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Many argue that a small increase in the world temperature will have beneficial effects on the global economy. These are the issues that need to be explored.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many that say more hurricanes, rising sea levels, and ultra high oil prices are good for the economy too!

Vulturesrow I expect better from you.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Jesus, that was a little harsh, thank god for the internet eh. If you said that to him IRL he'd probably snap you in two, either that or shoot you.
************************************************** *
I don't even know what he is talking about. If you understood his post then kudos to you. I think he was attempting to insult me or wish death upon me. I'm not sure which.

And no I would not shoot someone for saying something like this. I can't take people like this guy seriously. Shooting is reserved for people who would steal my property or try to murder me or my love ones. I'm not as good of shape as I use to so I don't think I could snap him in two. I still remember my jui-jitsu submission holds so I could take him to the ground and make him cry for his "mommy". /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many that say more hurricanes, rising sea levels, and ultra high oil prices are good for the economy too!

[/ QUOTE ]

The link to increased hurricane activity is tenuous at best, rising sea levels are obviously bad, and high oil prices are great for spurring exploration of alternate energy sources.

The fact is that real issue here is what Borodog said, and it gets precious little attention from both sides of this debate.

[ QUOTE ]
Vulturesrow I expect better from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? I have a very open mind about the whole global warming issue. Ive read quite a bit on it, including just about every link you have ever provided in this forum. But I am not convinced. I'll try to do better for you though Wacki /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Olof]

[ QUOTE ]

There are many that say more hurricanes, rising sea levels, and ultra high oil prices are good for the economy too!

[/ QUOTE ]

This might be a stupid question, but wouldn't a warmer climate lead to less energy consumption? It seems like warmer winters in North America, Western Europe and Japan etc would decrease the need for oil.

[Felix_Nietsche]

........millions of years ago there were no thermometers or people to measure the earth’s temperature. So global climate scientists have had to ESTIMATE what the temperatures were using a variety of techniques. There is no way to know how accurate these techniques are. We can’t travel back in time to check the accuracy. If a technique is even 1 degree off, it can trash the research that it is based on.

In Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” research he estimated the temperatures by studying growth rings from trees. Many people question the accuracy of this method and the fact he refuses to release his mathematically algorithms has fueled suspicions that his tree-ring thermometers may not have been very accurate and rather than admit he wasted a lot of time a money he used creative mathematics to get the results he wanted. In the working world, people will sometimes do unethical things to keep their jobs. Salespeople will lie to make a sale, people will blame others for their mistakes, etc… Just because a person has a PhD does not exempt them from human nature.

With regard to CO2 levels, this data was calculated from samples they got from glaciers. Their techniques to get these were quite clever. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

You will find the people that believe mankind is causing the current warming trend can get QUITE EMOTIONAL if you disagree with them. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[wacki]

I'm going to try very hard not to fall in the bottomless pit of fighting you. There is more than enough evidence in the archives that you will grab any piece of trash you can and go to extreme lengths to debunk the idea that humans changing the atmosphere. You are a troll, and one that is getting better and better at trolling the more I debunk your claims.

[ QUOTE ]
With regard to CO2 levels, this data was calculated from samples they got from glaciers. Their techniques to get these were quite clever.

[/ QUOTE ]

?? are you saying the airpockets trapped in glaciers aren't any good?

Also, the CO2/temp data is from Ethridge et al. 2001, Keeling and Whorf 2002. The temperature data is from Jones et al. 1998, Peterson and Vose 1997. This graph is pulled from smalley's website. You know this. In the past you have brought up scientists I do not reference and use them to attack me. We've been over this before. You know this graph is not from Michael Mann yet time and time again you bring up his name. I should do an archive search to prove what a troll you are. Although, you have brou

Time is short, and I don't have enough to deal with this thread properly.....

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The real question is, "So what?" The economic costs over the next century, even under the most unlikely and dire scenarios, associated with individuals simply moving as the climate changes is a tiny fraction of the economic cost associated with crippling world economies in some nebulous, poorly understood attempt to reduce emissions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how you look at emissions. For people who don't care large portions of florida may end up underwater one day, the only thing I have to say is look at our energy needs. Look at china, look at the oil supplies. Look at the cost projections. I mean, the cost of ITER, when compared to the entire energy industry is insignificant. That would provide cheap and clean energy within our lifetime. Then there is the arguement that we wouldn't be throwing billions of dollars at the middle east. I'm sure even vulturesrow can agree cutting our need on foreign oil would be massively +EV just for terrorist, economical, and homesland security reasons. Hell the cost of the second Iraq war was an order of magnitude larger than ITER.

Look, I'm not saying that we have to make sacrifices. I'm saying we should think long term, we should think about our kids, and we aren't. The cost of energy issue alone should be more than enough reason to. The energy I'm talking about will be cheap. Once you realize the energy problem, that alone should be enough to convince you. Then you should add in the factors or terrorism, economics of expensive/cheap energy, advantages of extra technology fueling our economy, etc then it becomes a no brainer.

Ugh... I've said all this before dozens of times. Not going to do it again. an endless trap.

[Felix_Nietsche]

?? are you saying the airpockets trapped in glaciers aren't any good?
***********************************************
Clever = Compliment
No one can say this data is 100% accurate without traveling back in time but I do admire the methodology they used to get this data. Therefore I said it was clever. This data is probably the most accurate measurements we will ever get on past CO2 levels. Whether these are accurate enough to base research on is something that no one can be 100% certain. It is better than nothing.


In the past you have brought up scientists I do not reference and use them to attack me.
************************************************** **
I have never attacked you but I have attacked your arguments.
Now you, on the other hand, get very emotional on this subject and call me a troll. You may not believe me but it is possible to disagree without name calling.


We've been over this before. You know this graph is not from Michael Mann yet time and time again you bring up his name.
************************************************** ****
I'm attacking Michael Mann as being a fraud. I have not research the sources you cited so I can not comment on them. I have not made any references to your graphs in this post. I cite Mann's research because I think there are a lot of global warming scientist who are purposely ignoring proper scientific methods to publish papers to get more research money. I think Michael Mann's scam is just the tip of the iceberg. If the data is such a slam-dunk that people are causing global warming then people like Michael Mann should not have to resort to shady methods to support their hypotheses.