PDA

View Full Version : Environment Deniers' Review Supports Scientific Consensus on Global Warming - Right Wing Sad


tiptap
05-20-2011, 04:39 PM
A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians led by global warming “skeptic” Richard Muller launched a project recently to analyze the scientific data on temperature trends. They were apparently fairly certain they’d find evidence to prove that climate change is not happening.

Imagine my surprise to discover that the initial results of their project fully support the scientific consenus.

Actually, I’m not the least bit surprised by the findings. But I am surprised that Muller and his team, financed by far right oil billionaires Charles and David Koch, are being honest about it.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called “the legitimate concerns” of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is “excellent…. We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.” …

Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined.

The Berkeley project’s biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation’s most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases.

Global warming denier Anthony Watts, the hero of the ignorant anti-science right wing, is greatly disappointed in reality. Again.

But conservative critics who had expected Muller’s group to demonstrate a bias among climate scientists reacted with disappointment.

Anthony Watts, a former TV weatherman who runs the skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat.com, wrote that the Berkeley group is releasing results that are not “fully working and debugged yet…. But, post normal science political theater is like that.”

Expect them to now start smearing and attacking their former ally Richard Muller.


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38338_Deniers_Review_Supports_Scientific_Consensus_on_Global_Warming_-_Right_Wing_Sad

Donger
05-20-2011, 04:41 PM
A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians led by global warming “skeptic” Richard Muller launched a project recently to analyze the scientific data on temperature trends. They were apparently fairly certain they’d find evidence to prove that climate change is not happening.

Imagine my surprise to discover that the initial results of their project fully support the scientific consenus.

Actually, I’m not the least bit surprised by the findings. But I am surprised that Muller and his team, financed by far right oil billionaires Charles and David Koch, are being honest about it.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called “the legitimate concerns” of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is “excellent…. We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.” …

Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined.

The Berkeley project’s biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation’s most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases.

Global warming denier Anthony Watts, the hero of the ignorant anti-science right wing, is greatly disappointed in reality. Again.

But conservative critics who had expected Muller’s group to demonstrate a bias among climate scientists reacted with disappointment.

Anthony Watts, a former TV weatherman who runs the skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat.com, wrote that the Berkeley group is releasing results that are not “fully working and debugged yet…. But, post normal science political theater is like that.”

Expect them to now start smearing and attacking their former ally Richard Muller.


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38338_Deniers_Review_Supports_Scientific_Consensus_on_Global_Warming_-_Right_Wing_Sad

LMAO

tiptap
05-20-2011, 04:42 PM
The June issue of Scientific American will have an interview with Dr. Muller. In it he felt the need to testify back in April even though the study wasn't complete because of the importance of the question of whether Global Warming is real or a statistical result of Urban Hot spot bias. The final results will be published within the week.

tiptap
05-20-2011, 04:43 PM
Yes Donger another scientist actually looked at the data and found it has merit.

tiptap
05-20-2011, 04:46 PM
Actually they chose the data sets themselves and analyzed the findings and came to the consensus positions held by Climate Scientists.

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 04:47 PM
No Decline in Polar Bear Population....GlobalWarmicists Sad.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terence-p-jeffrey/2011/05/19/no-decline-polar-bear-population

tiptap
05-20-2011, 04:48 PM
He still hate Gore if that makes you feel better

orange
05-20-2011, 04:48 PM
Experts Heat Up Over Berkeley Lab Scientist's Quest to 'Calm' Climate Change Debate

By LAUREN MORELLO of ClimateWire
Published: April 1, 2011

The scientist heading up a controversial review of land-surface temperature records has a simple goal.

"What I really hope to do is calm the debate" over climate change, said Richard Muller, a physicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST).

But that appears to be a tall order, judging by reaction yesterday to the group's preliminary findings, which drew suspicion from climate skeptics and mainstream climate scientists alike.

BEST's preliminary results show a warming trend of 0.7 degrees Celsius since 1957. That result, which Muller called "unexpected," is similar to the findings of independent analyses by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K. Hadley Centre.

"The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine temperature trends," Muller told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

That contradicts arguments made by climate skeptics -- including blogger Anthony Watts of "Watts Up With That?" -- who allege that many of the weather stations are located in areas that would bias their observations. A station might be placed in a rural area that is eventually enveloped by development, creating a situation where the urban heat island effect could influence the observations it collects, for example.

A study published last year by researchers at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center found evidence that some weather station temperature data are of poor quality -- but it concluded the problematic data would add a slight bias toward cooling in climate analyses.

Watts -- who Muller called "a hero" for his weather station work -- isn't convinced. And he's not happy about the preliminary analysis by Muller's BEST team, judging by comments he posted on his blog. They include a letter rebutting Muller's testimony, which Watts submitted yesterday to the House Science panel before its hearing had concluded.

Calming effort doesn't reach science bloggers

"There seems a bit of a rush here, as BEST hasn't completed all of their promised data techniques that would be able to remove the different kinds of data biases we've noted," Watts wrote on his blog yesterday. "That was the promise, that is why I signed on (to share my data and collaborate with them). Yet somehow, much of that has been thrown out the window, and they are presenting some results today without the full set of techniques applied."

Watts went on to characterize the BEST study's early findings as "post-normal political theater."

In an interview after the hearing, Muller said Watts' criticism was somewhat perplexing.

"I didn't feel there was a big disagreement there, but he did," Muller said, referring to the Berkeley study's preliminary results and Watts' latest, as-yet-unpublished analysis of weather station data, which he had previously shared with Muller's team.

Meanwhile, climate scientists said they weren't surprised that Muller's group produced a land-surface temperature reconstruction very similar to the records maintained by NOAA, NASA and the Hadley Centre.

"Muller's conclusions are completely in line with many previous results -- from interested amateurs and professionals alike," NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt wrote on a live-blog of the House hearing published by the journal Science. "I doubt very much whether this means that people will stop claiming that there are problems."

Kevin Trenberth, who heads the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate Analysis Section, said he's also not surprised that the BEST results mimic existing temperature reconstructions.

"What they have come up with so far, in a preliminary fashion, seems to agree with the so called 'HadCRU' record from the U.K.," Trenberth said. "I'm not altogether surprised. I think that record has a lot of integrity. It's a very conservative record."

As to the quality of the analysis by Muller and his team, Trenberth said he's reserving judgment.

Koch Foundation and DOE are major funders

"They have not published anything," he said. "They have not put anything out. Nothing has been peer-reviewed. The way in which they are going about it has not been scrutinized. Until those details are available, it's difficult to judge what's been done."

But yesterday wasn't the first time the BEST effort has come under scrutiny. Joe Romm, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, has called into question the study's funders, which include the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation -- which has supported efforts opposing mainstream climate change science.

The Berkeley study effort, overseen by the nonprofit Novim Group, has raised $623,087. Muller said that would be enough fund one and a half years of operations for the study, which started roughly a year ago.

The U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has contributed the largest chunk of cash, $188,587. The Koch foundation contributed another $150,000, and the effort received $100,000 each from the William K. Bowes Jr. Foundation and the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (started by Microsoft founder Bill Gates).

The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation has contributed $50,000, and private individuals have given a total of $14,500.

Raising the cash was slow going, according to Muller, who said it took him about seven months to secure the initial funding from Berkeley Lab. At one point, study team member Art Rosenfeld, a physicist and former California Energy Commissioner, floated the project a loan to pay the salary of its only full-time employee, postdoctoral researcher Robert Rohde.

But a year in, Muller said his team hopes to publish some its results in one to two months. The group hopes to release the information publicly at the same time it submits its work for publication by a peer-reviewed journal.

"We're close to being able to do analyses with 100 percent of the data with corrections put in," Muller said.

Now, the BEST team is considering starting a second analysis -- this time, a review of ocean temperature records.

Correction: An earlier version included a quote from Watts' blog that was incorrectly attributed to Watts.


http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/04/01/01climatewire-experts-heat-up-over-berkeley-lab-scientists-q-490.html
Copyright 2011 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

Donger
05-20-2011, 04:49 PM
Yes Donger another scientist actually looked at the data and found it has merit.

I don't know that he's a GW skeptic.

I was laughing at the 2% figure. Surely, as a scientist, you aren't basing any conclusions on a review of 2% of the data, right?

I was also laughing at the "ignorant anti-science right wing" comment.

tiptap
05-20-2011, 04:50 PM
Polar Bear population is a secondary effect and is not linear to the increase in CO 2. So Polar Bear counts are not temperature thermometers.

orange
05-20-2011, 04:50 PM
Actually they chose the data sets themselves and analyzed the findings and came to the consensus positions held by Climate Scientists.

... including Watts' own data.

orange
05-20-2011, 04:51 PM
I don't know that he's a GW skeptic.

I was laughing at the 2% figure. Surely, as a scientist, you aren't basing any conclusions on a review of 2% of the data, right?



He testified about it before Congress. He must have a fair degree of certainty. Sort of like polls.

tiptap
05-20-2011, 04:52 PM
I don't know that he's a GW skeptic.

I was laughing at the 2% figure. Surely, as a scientist, you aren't basing any conclusions on a review of 2% of the data, right?

I was also laughing at the "ignorant anti-science right wing" comment.

Do you do statistical confidence levels?

Donger
05-20-2011, 04:54 PM
Do you do statistical confidence levels?

Since the Earth has warmed and cooled many times before, I wouldn't be surprised if the Earth were warming now. But, if they can prove that the Earth is warming now, how exactly will they determine that humans are the cause of it?

tiptap
05-20-2011, 04:55 PM
By 1st law of thermodynamics. Temperatures don't go up magically. There are measureables and it ain't the sun

Donger
05-20-2011, 04:56 PM
By 1st law of thermodynamics. Temperatures don't go up magically. There are measureables and it ain't the sun

So, when the Earth warmed after the Ice Age, humans were the cause?

mikey23545
05-20-2011, 04:57 PM
Since the Earth has warmed and cooled many times before, I wouldn't be surprised if the Earth were warming now. But, if they can prove that the Earth is warming now, how exactly will they determine that humans are the cause of it?

Heretic!

tiptap
05-20-2011, 04:58 PM
Actually the persistence is related to Agriculture but the initial warming has been explained by orbital sets.

Donger
05-20-2011, 05:00 PM
Actually the persistence is related to Agriculture but the initial warming has been explained by orbital sets.

Okay, so warming has happened previously without significant human influence, right?

How exactly did agriculture by Ice Age humans add to the persistence of the warming, BTW?

tiptap
05-20-2011, 05:00 PM
And again the infra Red Quantum determined spectra for CO 2 interacts with heat radiations. If it increases in the atmosphere it has to absorb more of that radiation. That is Beer's law.

tiptap
05-20-2011, 05:06 PM
Okay, so warming has happened previously without significant human influence, right?

How exactly did agriculture by Ice Age humans add to the persistence of the warming, BTW?

Change in land use. Normally CO 2 would decrease in response to cooler celestial mechanics but the agricultural use added human plant output to keep CO 2 levels from falling. It took the industrial revolution and the spending of ancient carbon sources to raise CO 2 levels. And this is shown by the ratio of C14 to C12 as these are different for plant source and fossil fuel source.

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 05:09 PM
Okay, so warming has happened previously without significant human influence, right?

How exactly did agriculture by Ice Age humans add to the persistence of the warming, BTW?

Friction. Dragging a sharp stick through soil to create a seedbed no doubt increased temperatures. Plus the effort raised CO2 output from said Neanderthal like farmer dude. Then Mrs. Neanderthal farmer dude had to cook the stuff they grew so they had more fires burning longer.

Get with the program Donger

tiptap
05-20-2011, 05:13 PM
How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?; March 2005; Scientific American Magazine; by William F. Ruddiman; 8 Page(s)

The scientific consensus that human actions first began to have a warming effect on the earth's climate within the past century has become part of the public perception as well. With the advent of coal-burning factories and power plants, industrial societies began releasing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the air. Later, motor vehicles added to such emissions. In this scenario, those of us who have lived during the industrial era are responsible not only for the gas buildup in the atmosphere but also for at least part of the accompanying global warming trend. Now, though, it seems our ancient agrarian ancestors may have begun adding these gases to the atmosphere many millennia ago, thereby altering the earth's climate long before anyone thought.

New evidence suggests that concentrations of CO2 started rising about 8,000 years ago, even though natural trends indicate they should have been dropping. Some 3,000 years later the same thing happened to methane, another heat-trapping gas. The consequences of these surprising rises have been profound. Without them, current temperatures in northern parts of North America and Europe would be cooler by three to four degrees Celsius--enough to make agriculture difficult. In addition, an incipient ice age--marked by the appearance of small ice caps--would probably have begun several thousand years ago in parts of northeastern Canada. Instead the earth's climate has remained relatively warm and stable in recent millennia.

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 05:17 PM
Okay, so warming has happened previously without significant human influence, right?

How exactly did agriculture by Ice Age humans add to the persistence of the warming, BTW?

Tillage also speeds up organic matter degrading to its constituent components. That would generate CO2 in the process of breaking down and would increase bacterial activity in the soil, again increasing CO2 output. Tis a tangled web we weave.

tiptap
05-20-2011, 05:18 PM
Okay, so warming has happened previously without significant human influence, right?

How exactly did agriculture by Ice Age humans add to the persistence of the warming, BTW?

I concede that the earth has been warmer. We are technically in an interglacial period within an Ice Age. Happening every 200 million years. It is the contrary and speed of warming against this trend that is evidence of something new, like man and his actions.

tiptap
05-20-2011, 05:20 PM
Tillage also speeds up organic matter degrading to its constituent components. That would generate CO2 in the process of breaking down and would increase bacterial activity in the soil, again increasing CO2 output. Tis a tangled web we weave.

Add cattle and increase numbers to add methane. There numbers increase with man's.

mikey23545
05-20-2011, 05:20 PM
Change in land use. Normally CO 2 would decrease in response to cooler celestial mechanics but the agricultural use added human plant output to keep CO 2 levels from falling.

You're saying that the small number of humans alive after the ice age, with their primitive attempts at agriculture, actually altered the atmosphere of the entire planet?

I think you're a lying, disingenuous shill.

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 05:22 PM
Add cattle and increase numbers to add methane. There numbers increase with man's.

When did prehistoric man begin increasing livestock numbers exactly?

vailpass
05-20-2011, 05:24 PM
And the world still doesn't care....

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 05:24 PM
You're saying that the small number of humans alive after the ice age, with their primitive attempts at agriculture, actually altered the atmosphere of the entire planet?

I think you're a lying, disingenuous shill.


You come across as a closed minded narrow thinking twat. Neandrafeedlots were everywhere.

Donger
05-20-2011, 05:27 PM
Change in land use. Normally CO 2 would decrease in response to cooler celestial mechanics but the agricultural use added human plant output to keep CO 2 levels from falling. It took the industrial revolution and the spending of ancient carbon sources to raise CO 2 levels. And this is shown by the ratio of C14 to C12 as these are different for plant source and fossil fuel source.

Wait, the Industrial Revolution? That happened somewhat after the Ice Age, right?

You aren't trying to correlate the warming that humans influenced to help end the Ice Age to the Industrial Revolution, are you?

Donger
05-20-2011, 05:31 PM
Huh, didn't know that humans existed back then (or had really gassy cattle):

Well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which glacial ice sheets reached the equator, possibly being ended by the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by volcanoes.

stevieray
05-20-2011, 05:41 PM
right wing sad?

not only does this completely invalidate this thread as partisan, it provides a good chuckle.

:thumb:

tiptap
05-20-2011, 05:45 PM
Wait, the Industrial Revolution? That happened somewhat after the Ice Age, right?

You aren't trying to correlate the warming that humans influenced to help end the Ice Age to the Industrial Revolution, are you?

No I shouldn't have meshed this in proximity in my statement as they are separated by thousands of years and neither brought upon the start of the present interglacial period.

tiptap
05-20-2011, 05:47 PM
right wing sad?

not only does this completely invalidate this thread as partisan, it provides a good chuckle.

:thumb:
The Republicans invited him to testify. And they were at least disappointed when he told them the rise in temperatures is not an artifact and is supported by their study initiated to show that it was an artifact of Urban Heat.

tiptap
05-20-2011, 05:59 PM
Let me state up front that while I find the argument for neolithic influence to be interesting and worth pursuing I don't know that it has been demonstrated to the degree that present CO 2 increase can be tied to human burning of fossil fuels. There are arguments, good ones, that would see this long interglacial period as still as result of Celestial events alone but within that there is no support for rising temperatures that we are seeing presently.

stevieray
05-20-2011, 06:16 PM
The Republicans invited him to testify. And they were at least disappointed when he told them the rise in temperatures is not an artifact and is supported by their study initiated to show that it was an artifact of Urban Heat.Sorry, I just think it's funny that some people think that after millions of years, a century of using something that comes from the Earth is going to bring it to its knees.

IMO, it's like a rollercoaster, we're just along for the ride.

notorious
05-20-2011, 06:38 PM
Very few people are arguing the fact that there is a warming trend.




They are arguing that people are/are not the cause.

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 06:56 PM
Republicans actually cause global warming. We, like the Masonic Order, are everywhere.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-20-2011, 07:16 PM
And the world still doesn't care....

but we could see the earth warm up to 1 degree fahrenheit over the next 50 years this could cause life to be more abundant. We should pay a carbon tax to offset this problem.

mlyonsd
05-20-2011, 08:19 PM
Very few people are arguing the fact that there is a warming trend.




They are arguing that people are/are not the cause.

This.

For the 143rd time I'll ask the question.

My ground was covered up during the last ice age. Rocks pop up during every spring thaw. They are piled up along every fence row. Done so by farmers for several generations.

Global warming is such a big deal for me now why?

petegz28
05-21-2011, 06:52 AM
By 1st law of thermodynamics. Temperatures don't go up magically. There are measureables and it ain't the sun

I'm going to take a small amount of disagreement with this statement.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2011, 07:47 AM
I'm going to take a small amount of disagreement with this statement.

Harry Potter would own your ass.

tiptap
05-21-2011, 07:56 AM
What disagreement. The sun. Of course the sun is the source for the original heat put on earth. But the sun's output has not been increasing with the increase in temperatures over the last 20 years. The amount of sunlight hitting the ground has decreased over the last 50 years. That seems contradictory. Solar output hasn't dropped significantly but it hasn't increased either. Yet temperatures rise and solar energy hitting the ground has gone down. That seems to be a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

However fossil fuels burning don't only put CO 2 into the air that warms the atmosphere by the Green House Effect. Burning coal especially puts Sulfates, particulate matter, into the atmosphere that reflects solar light before it hits the ground. So fossil fuel burning explains both the decrease in solar flux hitting the ground, evidenced by direct electronic measurements and Water Replacement Studies over a hundred years and the increase in temperature by CO 2 increase attributable to Fossil Fuels by the Carbon Isotope ratio that is different for CO 2 from plants than from fossil fuel production of CO 2.

tiptap
05-21-2011, 07:59 AM
Harry Potter would own your ass.

Stick with magic thinking since your science reasoning is suspect.

tiptap
05-21-2011, 08:22 AM
This.

For the 143rd time I'll ask the question.

My ground was covered up during the last ice age. Rocks pop up during every spring thaw. They are piled up along every fence row. Done so by farmers for several generations.

Global warming is such a big deal for me now why?

This is a fair question. How quickly would a Climatic Rise of 2 degrees effect anyone personally. Wouldn't we all be happier with a little more warmth and a less prospect of an Ice Glaciers returning to Iowa? Will the second part of that sentence is yes. In some ways restricting the return of Glacial advance is good. The question is are we overdoing it and turning the thermostat so high so that there are adverse consequences.

The June Issue of Scientific American has a map of the adverse effect on Western US. if temperatures go up on average 2 degrees. The deserts will expand. Southern Missouri will be like West Texas. The Wheat belt will be lost. These are the conservative estimates, the optimistic estimates. The scientists haven't tried to overstate the case.

That still leaves the question as to how fast this 2 degrees of change will be. That is a trickier question.

Brock
05-21-2011, 08:33 AM
Ha ha, of course. Every place will either be deserts or oceans!

Jaric
05-21-2011, 08:42 AM
Global warming denier Anthony Watts, the hero of the ignorant anti-science right wing, is greatly disappointed in reality. Again.
I'll be honest, when I'm reading something, and I see stuff like this, I pretty much ignore whatever the author wrote previously because I question his motives.

You can make your point without resorting to insulting those who disagree with you. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical about things, that's how science works.

Ugly Duck
05-21-2011, 09:15 AM
I was also laughing at the "ignorant anti-science right wing" comment.

Its OK... lots of us laugh at the ignorant anti-science right wing.

notorious
05-21-2011, 09:18 AM
Not trying to stir shit up, but has anyone refuted the "One volcanic eruption puts out more climate changing ingredients than the history of humanity" statement?



I did a research paper on it 15 years ago, and the evidence was pretty strong. Has any new information come to light?

notorious
05-21-2011, 09:22 AM
Just found a possible answer, if their measurements are reliable:



http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html


Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?




At HVO, for instance, we are often asked about the influence of volcanic gas emissions on the atmosphere and whether these emissions dwarf those from human activity. Anyone who has stood downwind of Kilauea's vents, and sometimes even people who live in Honolulu, 250 miles away, know first-hand how these emissions can affect air quality and life on the regional scale. It's a fact that Kilauea has been releasing more than twice the amount of noxious sulfur dioxide gas (SO2) as the single dirtiest power plant on the U.S. mainland.

So it's also understandable that, with the emerging report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IGCC), some people want to understand how volcanoes might factor into the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations-specifically carbon dioxide (CO2)-that is being reported worldwide. The changes in global CO2 concentration during the past 600,000 years have mimicked the changes in global temperature. And, after all, volcanoes are awesome natural forces that release lots of carbon dioxide (CO2) right? Could volcanoes be a significant global-warming villain?

For numerous reasons, volcanologists have been interested in CO2 release from volcanoes for years and have been working to improve estimates on the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere and oceans by volcanic processes.

Carbon dioxide is released when magma rises from the depths of the Earth on its way to the surface. Our studies here at Kilauea show that the eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day. Actively erupting volcanoes release much more CO2 than sleeping ones do.

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

A short time ago (geologically speaking) the question "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?" would have been answered differently. Volcanoes would have tipped the scale. Now, human presence, activity, and the resultant production of CO2, through the burning of fossil fuels, have all climbed at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady.

Volcanoes are still awesome, even though they don't produce CO2 at a rate that swamps the human signature, contributing to global warming. In fact, spectacular eruptions like that of Mount Pinatubo are demonstrated to contribute to global cooling through the injection of solar energy reflecting ash and other small particles.

There is now agreement at the top government level of the Earth's most prolific fossil fuel CO2 producer-the United States-that we need to reduce our dependence on oil in order to confront the challenge of global warming. As we work toward that goal, let's look forward to the day when volcanologists will give a different answer to the question "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?"



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chief Henry
05-21-2011, 09:33 AM
Uh oh, we better shut down all the auto factories right now. Man made global warming IS GOING TO KILL US ALL. Those dam cars and trucks and the those dam people that make them should be the scorn of the earth....those poor union memebers will be toast now. The dem party will be hurting for election contributions for sure.


I love man made Global Warming....the side effects will hurt the liberal left.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2011, 03:48 PM
Volcano in Iceland blew today. OMG we will die.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-21-2011, 08:27 PM
Dem der right wingerz is headin' fo' da hillz! dey all skeered i tell ya!

Mr. Kotter
05-22-2011, 12:04 AM
Dang it, it's May 22nd, the doom-sayers were "off".....just sayin'...heh. LMAO

AustinChief
05-22-2011, 05:09 PM
What disagreement. The sun. Of course the sun is the source for the original heat put on earth. But the sun's output has not been increasing with the increase in temperatures over the last 20 years. The amount of sunlight hitting the ground has decreased over the last 50 years. That seems contradictory. Solar output hasn't dropped significantly but it hasn't increased either. Yet temperatures rise and solar energy hitting the ground has gone down. That seems to be a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

However fossil fuels burning don't only put CO 2 into the air that warms the atmosphere by the Green House Effect. Burning coal especially puts Sulfates, particulate matter, into the atmosphere that reflects solar light before it hits the ground. So fossil fuel burning explains both the decrease in solar flux hitting the ground, evidenced by direct electronic measurements and Water Replacement Studies over a hundred years and the increase in temperature by CO 2 increase attributable to Fossil Fuels by the Carbon Isotope ratio that is different for CO 2 from plants than from fossil fuel production of CO 2.

Not according to quite a few studies done at JPL. Although it's not as simple as [sun's output] = [global temperature].

mlyonsd
05-22-2011, 05:20 PM
This is a fair question. How quickly would a Climatic Rise of 2 degrees effect anyone personally. Wouldn't we all be happier with a little more warmth and a less prospect of an Ice Glaciers returning to Iowa? Will the second part of that sentence is yes. In some ways restricting the return of Glacial advance is good. The question is are we overdoing it and turning the thermostat so high so that there are adverse consequences.

The June Issue of Scientific American has a map of the adverse effect on Western US. if temperatures go up on average 2 degrees. The deserts will expand. Southern Missouri will be like West Texas. The Wheat belt will be lost. These are the conservative estimates, the optimistic estimates. The scientists haven't tried to overstate the case.

That still leaves the question as to how fast this 2 degrees of change will be. That is a trickier question.
Thanks to someone that finally attempts to answer my question. Props.

The idea the world will end is at least put to rest, especially if it didn't happen yesterday.

Now the question is whether or not Southern Missouri turns into Cowboy fans is accurate. Someone should ask them if they would miss the ice storms.

tiptap
05-23-2011, 08:29 AM
Not according to quite a few studies done at JPL. Although it's not as simple as [sun's output] = [global temperature].

Listen carefully, my first statement was the sun is the source for heat, temperature on earth. And there is a cyclical process that temperatures follow related to solar output like sunspots. But on top of that cyclical sine wave function, is a linear rise in temperature that is not accounted for by solar activity. Try sin(x) + a(x) on a graphical calculator. And the rise in temperatures above cyclical movement is clear over the last 20 years. Don't stop looking at 1980 include the temperatures to the present.

This linear rise comes from using the initial heat from the sun by capturing and throwing half of it back toward the earth instead of escaping into space. And this is due to the Greenhouse Gases. About half comes from water vapor. But water vapor is miniscule in lots of places such as deserts and cold areas like the Antarctic. Yes there is snow there, falling solid water, but little vapor gas. CO 2 is much more represented throughout all of the lower atmosphere and is the second biggest contributor to Greenhouse Effect.

And we are adding CO 2 at 10 times the mass as what is being produced by all of the volcanoes all over the world each minute or day or year. It doesn't matter what unit it is at 10 times the rate. Proved by measurements and that it is from fossil fuels by the isotope ratios.

AustinChief
05-23-2011, 05:40 PM
Listen carefully,
I don't need to or even care to "listen carefully"... I am just stating that at least one study done by scientists at JPL concluded that variances in solar activity (over a fairly substantial time span) are far and away more a factor than CO2 levels in regards to global warming.

I am perfectly willing to admit that CO2 levels could have an effect on global temperatures... but I have seen a number of studies that place greenhouse gases so far down the list of factors that they are almost negligible.

My personal belief is that we need more AND better scientific study.. right now we don't even have a clue as to how much we don't know on the subject. Compared to any REAL science.. climate studies, climatology, meteorology, etc etc need to mature a long long way before people try to use them to make solid predictions...

Brock
05-23-2011, 05:46 PM
You can do whatever you want to make yourself feel like you're fixing the "problem", just be aware that if it costs me money or inconveniences me to the slightest degree, the answer is NO.

bowener
05-23-2011, 05:48 PM
LMAO

LMAO

tiptap
05-24-2011, 07:12 AM
I don't need to or even care to "listen carefully"... I am just stating that at least one study done by scientists at JPL concluded that variances in solar activity (over a fairly substantial time span) are far and away more a factor than CO2 levels in regards to global warming.

I am perfectly willing to admit that CO2 levels could have an effect on global temperatures... but I have seen a number of studies that place greenhouse gases so far down the list of factors that they are almost negligible.

My personal belief is that we need more AND better scientific study.. right now we don't even have a clue as to how much we don't know on the subject. Compared to any REAL science.. climate studies, climatology, meteorology, etc etc need to mature a long long way before people try to use them to make solid predictions...

I didn't mean to lecture you. But to be fair you should at least point to the JPL studies. I do not find them. I do find places on the internet where people post part of the Solar Spectrum from JPL data that purports to show strong correlations in temperatures and that part of spectrum. But the ones I see only go to 1980 and the reason is that the linear increase is clear after 1980 in the non correlation of those same readings of the sun and temperatures.

Amnorix
05-24-2011, 07:25 AM
Sorry, I just think it's funny that some people think that after millions of years, a century of using something that comes from the Earth is going to bring it to its knees.

IMO, it's like a rollercoaster, we're just along for the ride.


Earth won't be brought to its knees. Whatever we do it will keep on spinning. The relevant question is whether we will cause such changes to the Earth's atmosphere etc. so as to render it less hospitable to OUR existence here.

And there is no doubt that we absolutely CAN do that if we want. Fire off every nuclear weapon in the world's arsenal and we don't bring Earth to its knees, but we sure would do a number on our own existence on the planet (and that of many of the other inhabitants of the planet).

None of this answers the question of whether climate change is occurring, of course, or if it is, whether that is the result of CO2 output, etc. But those are at least the questions for which we need to know the answers.

Chiefshrink
05-24-2011, 07:47 AM
Hey, "if" and that is a "BIG IF" Obama gets re-elected he is going to need a helluva alot more tax dollars to complete his 'transformation' of America(a la Destruction of Free Capitalistic America). Cap and trade went "dead in the water" awhile back so now the Marxist Dems need to revive the "propaganda". Whoops! I mean conversation and that is what you a seeing with all this "GW BULLSH**!!!! by the MSMarxist Media.

BigChiefFan
05-24-2011, 08:06 AM
If they really gave two shits, they would have worked day and night to fix the fiasco in Japan, but that isn't even a story now. Quit letting the bullies take our lunch money. Stand up.

tiptap
05-24-2011, 12:47 PM
What is the capitalistic solution to the hidden costs of dumping CO 2 into the atmosphere? Are we to accept it has to be catastrophic like a 1929 or 2008 depression except seen in large climate shifts? If the science is right what is the correct capitalistic solution? Is it only hindsight?