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


Also

http://128.42.10.107/media/Smalley_O...31101_300k.wmv
http://smalley.rice.edu/
www.pbs.org/strangedays








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 [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.

[/ 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 ?
[/b]

[/ 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/NaturalScie...S%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/scienceastronom...ut_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/...s_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! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 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/glob...eystick01.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.... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] 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 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:



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.