Debate settler?
Scientists are arguing over details, but are in broad agreement now. The big debate going on in public awareness is political in nature, not scientific. Facts have very little role in a political debate. This will change nothing.
NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) not only managed to lift off today, it also achieved successful separation from its booster stack and got into orbit. Youtube Video The satellite – which will study the absorption of sunlight by carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere – is the third attempt to get a CO2-measuring …
I agree but lets show some data.
I don't know if this website has an axe to grind but here goes anyway.
Make of it what you will. The data is only included to year 2000.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
And for your further reading
http://www.icr.org/article/does-carbon-dioxide-drive-global-warming/
The key point is that the climate goes in a cycle. Far from having pushed the temperature to catastrophic levels, we are just following the natural cycle. If you look carefully at the graph, you will notice that every bust was preceded by a boom and we are right at the end of the latest boom.
In other words, prepare for cold weather.
You are right about the first bit: there are natural cycles. The big problem is that we have recently superimposed a huge man-made increase in CO2 level on top of the naturally cycling level. Have a look at this graph. At first glance it looks like it supports your view that we are nearly at the end of a boom, and therefore cold temperatures will follow soon... except that if you look closely you'll see a one-pixel wide red line in the top right corner spiking up really high: that's where the man-made increase in CO2 happens, and that is why it is reasonable to expect even warmer temperatures.
Ok, past climate data points to natural cycles, but what we're seeing at the moment is a rate of temperature change that is about 100 times faster than these natural cycles. Climate change deniers need to find an explanation for this accelerated rate of change that doesn't involve carbon dioxide. So far they've failed.
"Ok, past climate data points to natural cycles, but what we're seeing at the moment is a rate of temperature change that is about 100 times faster than these natural cycles. Climate change deniers need to find an explanation for this accelerated rate of change that doesn't involve carbon dioxide. So far they've failed."
You know it would be nice to actually discuss facts rather than fiction when you're debating something. The rate of temperature increase has not increased by a factor of 100, yes there was a period from the late 70's to mid 90's where there was a sharp increase in temperature increase, from a cyclic low in the early to mid 70's to the temperatures seen in the 90's. Maybe you're referring to the doctored data that was debunked from the IPCC manipulating data, not sure.
What I know is that there has been a temperature increase since the 1950's and the IPCC had to adjust their forecasts because real temperature increases were significantly less than what they had been forecasting.
The other thing to keep in mind is that as CO2 levels increase, the impact to temperature decreases on a logarithmic scale. So I'm not convinced that this satellite will end any debate, but I'm hoping we can get things in real terms instead of the current crisis mode alarmist forecasts.
here's a site to back up my statements, check it out. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/
"Scientists are arguing over details, but are in broad agreement now. The big debate going on in public awareness is political in nature, not scientific. Facts have very little role in a political debate. This will change nothing."
I don't know you so don't take this personally but there is clearly a misconceived idea of the definitions of "Science" and "Fact" at play here. It would be very hard indeed to 'scientifically prove' anything in this realm. Also, consensus opinion is a red herring that should not really be mentioned in any serious debate on the subject as it is wholly irrelevant.
Yes we now know Man Made Global Warming is a complete scam intended to keep the funding going for the weak minded "spread sheet scientists" that endlessly sit and think up ever more dire predictions to recite to the lap dog agitprop press.
FYI: Does not matter how much CO2 there is in atmosphere for the most potent greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR"
Has anyone told the flat-earthers of the following experiment?
- Fly around the world TWICE, at right angles to each other (once to the west, once to the south). Start from say Nairobi, Kenya (which is practically on the Equator). The two paths should cross exactly once other than in Nairobi, and on a globe that point can be predicted. It will also be exactly halfway. I tried plotting it out on a plate and found I could not achieve the halfway bit on a flat surface without twists and turns and should be noticeable on a plane because the normal procedure for a turn is to roll AND yaw (meaning to not notice the turn would require a magical force that can turn you without you noticing it, not even with your biological gyroscopes). Then there's the matter of the TWO pole flyovers on the southbound trip, one of which occurs AFTER the intersection (which on a flat earth would require going INSIDE the first flight path, preventing access to the edge).
...nobody seems to be considering the possible case that
climate change is happening (as it has many times in the past)
it is being driven by changes in CO2 levels
these changes are NOT man made
we still need to develope strategies to deal with them.
Hopefully the measurements will cover this also.
We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. In huge amounts. This is not something that's in doubt, we are burning stuff and producing CO2.
So for these changes to be NOT man made, that CO2 would have to be disappearing somewhere without trace, and some other CO2 would have to be appearing from some unknown source in similar amounts, and have only started appearing in the last few years rather than the billions of years Earth has been around.
Yes, it appears that nobody (other than yourself) is considering that possible case.
Odd, that.
"CO2 would have to be disappearing somewhere without trace"
This is quite naive. Adding CO2 in the atmosphere has almost no effect on global temperature because we are already at the 100% level. No more infrared can be absorbed by the atmosphere, no matter the amount of CO2 you add.
"No more infrared can be absorbed by the atmosphere, no matter the amount of CO2 you add."
Correct, but....
...once the infrared hits the planet (ground, ocean, clouds), is absorbed and reemitted at a lower frequency, the CO2 acts as an effective blanket, limiting heat emission back into space.
That's the reason it's known as a greenhouse gas. The same principle applies to glasshouses (near-infrared can penetrate glass, but far-infrared cannot.)
"We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. In huge amounts. This is not something that's in doubt, we are burning stuff and producing CO2."
I have to ask. Is it really, REALLY that huge compared to natural phenomenon such as spontaneous fires and animal respiration? Can someone produce some concrete numbers that compare 150 years of human combustion to natural sources? And what about counter-reactions like photosynthesis? Wouldn't increased CO2 be offset by increased plant activity? Why is the CO2 such that plants, diatoms, and such can't keep up?
> Wouldn't increased CO2 be offset by increased plant activity?
Ever heard of the rainforest ?
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=deforestation+amazon+rainforest&l=1
We have been cutting down "quite" some forests since the middle ages, and been producing more and more CO2 since. Methane is also a big issue, lookup what cattle farts do to the atmosphere. (10 year olds love looking these things up and this forum is full of twats of that age group.)
Lets not argue, though, I do not know if CO2 is causing climate change, hence I cannot tell if man is responsible - I guess nobody can, yet, so stop arguing. Let science advance.
The weird thing is petro-chemical industry is paying a lot of money for lobbying, which to me looks fishy - why would they need to do that ? They caused the current situation where scientists are seeking attention around the globe claiming most contradicting things.
All I wrote does not mean that we can go on forever burning fossil fuel, though. It is obvious we need to find alternate energy sources. Clean energy is energy with 0 effect on the environment, which means it is safe to use and abuse. We also need to make sure we create a loop in resources, re-using Ad vitam æternam. We are thrashing our habitat, which is a bit silly considering we only have one.
I have to ask. Is it really, REALLY that huge compared to natural phenomenon such as spontaneous fires and animal respiration?
Yes, becase spontaneous fires and animal respiration add 0% CO2 to the atmosphere,
The CO2 emitted by burning wood all came from the atmosphere, fixed by photosynthesis.
The CO2 emitted by animal respiration all came from the plants that the animals ate, The plants got the CO2 from the atmosphere.
And what about counter-reactions like photosynthesis? Wouldn't increased CO2 be offset by increased plant activity? Why is the CO2 such that plants, diatoms, and such can't keep up?Because there are other limiting factors. But we know our emissions are partly being taken up by natural sinks (unfortunately including ocean acidification) because we know how much CO2 we are releasing (there is a little known branch of mathematics called "accountancy" that tells us pretty exactly how much fossil fuel is being burnt) and we know how much the atmospheric CO2 is increasing. It turns out the atmospheric increase is about half of our emissions.
All the CO2 we are releasing from fossil fuels were in the atmosphere at one time right? A time when the Earth sustained numerous, enormous, and hungry dinosaurs for millions of years. The CO2 at that time was absorbed and released by the oceans the same way it is now and the oceans did not die but rather flourished. Aren't we simply re-balancing the CO2 levels to an extremely productive geological time? What is the ideal amount of CO2 and the proper global temperature? Sorry, I still have more questions than answers.
All the CO2 we are releasing from fossil fuels were in the atmosphere at one time right? A time when the Earth sustained numerous, enormous, and hungry dinosaurs for millions of years.And very few human beings.
(Actually, to be less flippant, the carboniferous, when the coal beds were laid down, had amphibians, not dinosaurs).
"All the CO2 we are releasing from fossil fuels were in the atmosphere at one time right? A time when the Earth sustained numerous, enormous, and hungry dinosaurs for millions of years"
Long, LONG before dinosaurs. Back when animal life was primitive (amphibians were just getting going) ....... and when the sun's output was only 50-75% of what it is now. Despite the reduced solar input it was still pretty toasty compared to life today(*)
(*) Apart from the obvious polar stuff, pre-ice age deep ocean abyssal plains were quite warm at 18-22C. Now they're down around 3-5C It takes a lot of joules to change that much water by that many degrees.
I was going to reply that there is a difference in photosynthesising sugars to make energy, and atmospheric CO2. Then I realised that the level of comment was so appalling low that talking science in this arena was a waste of oxygen and would generate too much CO2.
Mines the one with "The science behind climate change" in the pocket.
Kusadasi, Turkey, near the ancient Roman town of Ephesus, once the most important commercial center of the western Anatolia. In the first century BCE, it was the second largest city in the world, with more than 250,000 people living there. As the harbor silted up this Aegean port city was left high and dry five miles inland.
Speaking of which, I once heard of a port town (in Greece, I think) that's no longer a port town because the water's moved several kilometers away. I've never seen a debate over how that happened or even the name of the place. Could someone perhaps elaborate?
This might have something to do with Greece (and Turkey) being positioned right above the bit of the planet where two major tectonic plates are moving towards each other. There are many active faults and earthquakes are common. There are also a number of settlements that are now below sea level for the same reasons.
You need look no further than Rye and Winchelsea in Kent. They were once harbour, fronting right ont he Channel. Even Hastings had a rather good harbour, but in the late 1200s a big storm began the process of filling in the Sussex/Kent coastline. That storm is now considered to be the opening act of the weather shift we now call the Little Ice Age.
The beaches which the romans landed on are a mile or so inland too - the southeast/south coast of england is being filled in by longshore drift - which means something is eroding somewhere else to provide the fill material - ie, where all those villages are falling into the sea 100 miles or so up the coast.
Longshore drift only results in land a metre or so higher than sea level in most cases. It takes plant colonisation and centuries of growth/decay to add more height, in the absence of seismic activity.
And Wellington (NZ) airport is on land that was under sea in 1920. Global warming? No - seismic activity. There are as many places that are now undersea as are now miles from the shore.
Global warming - yes.
Anthropomorphic - maybe.
Can we fix it - possibly.
Will we fix it - unlikely.
Naughtyhorse, it appears you follow the green CAGW religion because of your comment.
I will agree with you that it will settle nothing for the simple reason the warmists will start changing the raw data to something that fits their agenda - just as they are doing with the land temperature data where they go as far as making up complete sets of figures to make the pre 1990 temperatures colder and the post 1990 temperatures higher.
The key is to deny and fight against the status quo changing while you get yours and then when your position becomes untenable in the future blend in with the masses and say you were saying we should do something about climate change all along. Wasn't that the play book on Jim Crow laws and as well recently with gay marriage?
Practical fusion will be a decade or so away for the forseeable future (and there's still that pesky problem of neutron embrittlement to deal with)
On the other hand Molten salt fission reactors are doable with current technology and don't have the same issues with venting nasties if things go wrong that boiling water, graphite moderated or molten metal fission reactors do.
because when "consensus" says that nature's volcanic output is almost irrelevant but one thousandth that output from Humanity is a World-Ender, maybe some numbers might cause some cranial/rectal extraction.
Probably not though. too many careers to be made by finding Human Blame, and too much power to be obtained by Those In Charge by using that fearmongering.
Funny, when it's "terrorists", people see right through it. But when it's "global warming', the same people go into violent defense of the Official Line. Skepticism seems to be biased, everyone used up their supply against Religion, and those who had any left applied it to the Surveillance State, leaving almost none for "Consensus".
"Wrong. Humans produce about 5% of the annual CO2 emisions into the atmosphere."
And that's one reason we can't agree. One side says the contribution is immense (over 50%) while the other says it's insignificant (only 5%), and BOTH sides cite evidence and claim their percentage as fact. How is this possible?
And that's one reason we can't agree. One side says the contribution is immense (over 50%) while the other says it's insignificant (only 5%), and BOTH sides cite evidence and claim their percentage as fact. How is this possible?Neither of those figures is true.
Human emissions are miniscule compared to natural emissions, way less than 1%.
Human emissions are enormous as a percentage of the rise in atmospheric CO2 - about 200%.
How can this be? Because of the carbon cycle. Natural emissions, and about 50% of human emissions are taken up by various carbon sinks (photosynthesis, ocean acidification and so on). The left over 50% of human emissions goes into the atmosphere.
Volcanic activity = consistent. The carbon cycle in nature is already accounting for it and coping. If it changes, we will see if the natural cycle (and animals/plants) cope or change as well (don't cope!).
Human activity = inconsistent. So is nature and the rest of the earth "coping" with our activity? On a local scale, it often does not. Try cutting down the last tree on your island, or shooting the last bird etc. No idea if this is the same on a global scale, with a gas being emitted.
One thing is for certain, we are doing things we were not previously... so the results will be different than what they were before.
"because when "consensus" says that nature's volcanic output is almost irrelevant but one thousandth that output from Humanity is a World-Ender, maybe some numbers might cause some cranial/rectal extraction."
Volcanic output has historically been balanced by carbon fixing. Everything has been pretty much balanced for millions of years.
In the last couple of hundred years, human atmospheric carbon output has massively outpaced the ability of the biosphere to remove it from the atmosphere and THAT is where the problem lies.
The article on this yesterday at 12:44 - all the "deniers" charged into the comments first.
This article posted today at 11:57 - all the "believers" charged in first.
(All times according to RSS feed)
So are we to conclude that on average "deniers" eat their lunch up to 40 minutes later (allowing time to finish eating and wipe hands before attacking a keyboard)? Or do "believers" just not like Tuesdays? Is it all a Government conspiracy to keep the debate going? Or maybe there's something darker?
Enquiring minds (well "mind" singular really as it is probably just mine) want(s) to know!
I believe the phenomenon you're looking for is something I call "rant fatigue". Any politically charged issue that incites people to post long internet rants on the topic eventually wears them out, so they give up trying for a while.
For example: Every so often, I find myself getting my knickers in a knot about feminism and misandry and the injustices visited upon men and so forth. To vent it, I go on an internet rampage, tearing into feminists and their supporters alike, composing and posting long missives concerning fallacies about male privilege, the gender pay gap myth, the hypocrisy of affirmative action, rant, rant, rant.
Then, when I've got it all out of my system, I find myself in a burnt-out state of mind where I simply don't care any more. I get to the point where I could read a blog entry by someone like Andrea Dworkin going on about how all men are rapists and child molesters and should be publicly castrated, and not give two shits about it. As to commenting on it? Fuck it, can't be arsed. Next site.
That mental state is what I call "rant fatigue." I've spent the last day or so ranting to strangers about my pet hate, and I'm too stuffed now to write any more about it.
In your scenario, it appears that the climate "deniers" charged in yesterday and burnt themselves out ranting about the evils of the climate change lobby - so the next day, all suffering from rant fatigue, they left the comments thread to the "believers" first.
That's my take on the subject, anyway.
The fact remains CO2 is not nearly as effective at absorbing infrared (heat) energy as many other gases are. If they want to solve the heating problem they might look elsewhere instead of deliberately trying to prove that man caused it.
Methane, Sulpur Dioxide and Water Vapor are just a few that bear mention.
Computer Models never impressed me. I want to see raw data and I will draw my own conclusions.
Measure the actual temperature of the earth IN THE SAME PLACES, EVERY TIME. And don't "arbitrarily" pick locations where the highest temperatures have ever been recorded, cover the entire Earth with a grid of repeatable measurement locations for the most accuracy. I assume that the satellite uses a form of LIDAR to make the measurements so is the analyzer using a filter to remove any interference from other IR absorbing gases? what is the filter? How was the unit calibrated and with what?
Just because the satellite is from NASA does not make me trust the results. They all have to get funding and be paid so there is a glaring chance they fudge results. It's called "picking points.
Anyone who says "the science is settled" is NOT a scientist. Science is never settled; it always wants to be tested, experimented, learned. Climate alarmists are not scientists; they are political lobbyists who have made up a fictional story, and an even more fictional "concensus," to justify the increased taxation of energy.
"Science is never settled . . ."
Question, then - how do we make any progress whatsoever? At what point can you put your research into practice?
All of us make decisions every day on incomplete information. We have no other option. And before you say it, waiting is a decision in itself.
Your argument is self-defeating.
If science is "never settled" then we must make our choices based on the best information we have. There's not point waiting for more testing and experimenting because it will never settle the question. So what are you proposing that we do?
Can you make a statement of probability and use that to inform your decisions? If so then how?
Option A: we lower CO2 emissions, all the western countries go bust, Islamists invade from all the world's hellholes and impose Sharia law, rape our daughters and then stone them to death for having sex outside of marraige (and yes it does happen - check out the world news).
Option B: we don't go bust, CO2 levels continue to rise and nothing goes wrong with the weather. Nobody has to die a horrible death.
@Fluffy Bunny
Where is the option for CO2 impacting climate ?
The first country to invest heavily in green energy will be the next superpower.
Who are you trying to scare ? Are you scared of Islamists ? Really ? Go look up where and why they thrive or why ppl let it happen. Yes, ppl get stoned for out of marriage sex, it is sad. Christians have killed red haired women for centuries as well, so what is your point ? Christians have also killed Muslims and Jews because of their faith, go lookup Al-Andalus. Back then Christians, Jews, and Muslims lived in peace in the Muslim-controlled territories... until the Christian army came along. Jews are also slaughtering Muslims, and depriving the survivors of modern facilities. Ever heard of the holocaust ? Go read some books instead of gobbing what fox news and cnn try to make you believe.
@Fluffy Bunny
Mate, you are absolutely not doing your side any favours with that post. Whether humans are impacting the climate or not, your post shows you controlled by irrational fear rather than rational argument.
Seriously - if we address climate change out daughters will be raped and killed under a repressive Caliphate - is that your message?
And Goat Jam - are you really on-board with this line of reasoning too? Really?
And you guys have the gall to call others "alarmists"?
Just imagine we found that temperature increases were in fact due to external factors outside our control, or say in the future we found ourselves suddenly living at the equivalent of the end of the Permian Era.
Option A would be irrelevant. Option B would be (as it always was) unacceptable. We need a third option, that as far as I can see very few governments or scientists have addressed:
Option C: temperatures rise and we use all our scientific knowledge to adapt to the change, and mitigate the effects on our civilisation.
Option A: We build massive arrays of nuclear missiles that we can maybe shoot into space to possibly destroy inbound meteors but none arrive. We waste so much money that the west becomes bankrupt and Africa slips further back towards the stoneage than they already are with no hope of joining the modern world at all. Meanwhile, Islamists rejoice.
Option B: We choose not to waste massive amounts of money on a futile nuclear anti-meteor arsenal because if a big enough meteor is aimed at us no amount of nuclear missiles will help us anyway.
I'm sorry I think I'll go with Option B.
I do not agree with Option A, it is called investment, it will yield returns far higher than you can imagine. Green energy is the option and it will employ a dozen million ppl in Europe alone in less than 15 years. Once we get the prices down, which will happen if we invest massively, the energy will be both almost free and almost unlimited.
And, you get 4 downvotes (at the time of writing) ? This is a sad place to be, man, really sad.
Call me when completely green energy can generate at least a yottawatt of baseload power without poisoning the environment or breaking the bank in its construction. And no spaceborne tech since that has the problem of getting the energy back to Earth safely.
Prove the former believing majority wrong;
You remaining "believers" don't even know that the lab coats only agreed it "could be" not "will be" yet they are certain the planet is not flat and have been their laughable 95% certain for 32 years that Human CO2 "could" flatten it? Your eagerness to "believe" in this misery is sickening.
Only science not a mob of determined "believers" can tell our children the end is near.
And get up to date;
*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.
*Canada killed Y2Kyoto 2 years ago with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit). What did YOU do about it planet lovers?
*Polar Bears were indigenous to as far south as Minnesota upon settlement but called the Yellow Bear because it retained its summer coat longer but still the same bear.
Unfortunately, most of the carbon dioxide emissions are in the ocean already, so the study seems kind of pointless without knowing which it is. Should the atmosphere be the arbitrary standard and the ocean a prefix, or vice versa? There seems no feasible way to measure either one very accurately. It is like the hype with half a dozen partial bones to portray millions of years of evolution with. Maybe if you simply reduced carbon emissions and saw if the earth temperatures cooled off a bit, it would resolve the issue. Or, perhaps something more sinister is occurring, such as the temperatures on the sun are getting warmer and we're going to be cooked to death in five to ten years while the scientists who really know what is going on don't inform the public.
I'll give you my theory. The sun is getting warmer and going to fry the earth in the coming years, and the people with the shiny lenses big enough to tell the difference are keeping mum about it.The sun is getting warmer, this information is well known, nobody is hiding it. It will indead fry the earth.
The only thing is that it is getting warmer very very slowly from our point of view, over millions of years.
And the warming we're interested in is happening over a rather shorter timeframe.
The phrase “The Butterfly Effect” was coined by experts in Chaos Theory. The term derives from the idea that the flap of a butterfly’s wing off the coast of Africa can ultimately spawn an Atlantic hurricane off the US coast. It has become a shorthand for the kinds of instabilities that occur in complex non-linear systems.
We are surrounded by complex non-linear systems. We rarely see the effects of these instabilities. because we almost always pass through them too quickly for them to build up enough to cause trouble. On occasion, however, conditions stay constant long enough for responses to run out of control. When that happens, we notice—the vibration in our left front tire or a Chernobyl.
A striking historical example of this effect is the 1940 collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which can be viewed on the URL below. (There are a number of versions—this was the shortest I could find.) The proximate cause was the weather--a 42 mph wind that remained constant long enough for the resonant response to build to catastrophic levels.
https://archive.org/details/Tacoma-Narrows_Bridge_Collapse
The global climate is the quintessential complex non-linear system of systems. The size and complexity of the whole damps and obscures connections between causes and effects. Even where we understand the connections, we lack the knowledge to calculate the effects accurately.
Even accurate and well sourced data can be "gamed." The data on climate change exhibit cyclic and random variations. Data can be selectively picked from a specific range to support any position. It proves nothing about critical underlying change. .
Credible data from NOAA and Scripps Institute (among others) indicate that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are at 400ppm and increasing at a rate of 2ppm per year or more. The following URL is informative, and points the readers to detailed data measured by NOAA and Scripps. The data speak for themselves.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Measured concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere exceed--by a factor of 1.3--the highest concentrations experienced at any time in the past several hundred of thousands of years. The magnitude of the change and the rate at which it has occurred are unprecedented.
Science has no empirically-validated data upon which to base rational predictions of where this recent excursion is headed . However, there is absolutely nothing in the historical data to lend any credence whatever to a belief that the recent excursion are part of a natural cycle.
The global climate is responding to something. The primary changes in the ecosphere during the last hundred years have been human activities, particularly those based on consumption of fossil fuels. I have yet to see a competing hypothesis as to cause and effect that passes the giggle test.
Unfortunately, this crucial debate is occurring as the integrity of US (and to a great extent, global) science and technology are deteriorating dramatically. Research results tailored to the customers' specifications are available for sale through any number of privately-funded "research" centers or institutes. Some of these are housed in at respected academic institutions. Some do real research. . . in the sense that the data they present is real data, properly referenced and verifiable. These are becoming the exception rather than the rule. The growing number are more virtual than real. Their facts are asserted on the Web, often made up from whole cloth without any verifiable reference. (My personal experience has been that references, when presented, seldom support, and often directly contradict the writers asserted "facts.")
Objective data and the willingness to look at them critically and objectively are hard come by. Without both, discussion of climate change will continue to degenerate into theological argument for the same reason that theological discussion degenerates into theological argument. We are dealing with beliefs not facts; with wishes rather than hard data.
What is critically needed is more of the hard-headed practical realism evident in comments and questions submitted by dan1980 on the initial article today (2 July) preceding this update. .
"The global climate is responding to something"
The closest my layman's mind has gotten to the problem is that there is a giganitic thermonuclear reactor close to the Earth - around 93 million miles. This reactor has several overlapping cycles that can combine to create unusual effects, eg an 11 year sunspot cycle.
The mechanism by which the sun affects the Earth's weather is much more complex than just "it gets brighter". It has to do with complexities such as atomic particles interacting with moisture in the air to form clouds.
One of the recent events is known as the Maunder Minimum and it coincided with (in climate science terms, "caused") what is known as the Little Ice Age. We are now entering a similar event, with a large risk we are also entering another ice age.
How confident is NASA that their historical data is as accurate as their current data and that either set of data is not misread or miscalibrated in some way. The article you cite does not describe HOW they come to their findings (the specific sources of all their data). Did they take oceanic CO2 concentrations into consideration or the idea that melting ice could itself release CO2?
As for the Tacoma-Narrows bridge collapse, we know more now than we knew then. The phenomenon isn't as complicated as you make it out to be. We know describe the phenomenon as "flutter". After an airliner broke up mid-flight due to flutter, we learned more about natural metal flexibility when exposed to steady wind and how this flex can somehow oscillate in a resonant frequency resulting in accelerated metal fatigue. We now design things so as to increase bracing at key points to as to prevent flutter (modern airliners and the replacement Tacoma-Narrows Bridge are both built sturdier to prevent another incident of flutter).
Re: Charles 9.
I am a newbie on this forum, so I don't know whether direct responses to individual comments are considered de rigueur. But in this case, I believe a response to Charles 9 is important to furthering useful debate .
His first: "How confident is NASA that their historical data is as accurate as their current data and that either set of data is not misread or miscalibrated in some way. The article you cite does not describe HOW they come to their findings (the specific sources of all their data)." is spot on the mark.
The legend under the chart heading the site at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ states that the data is, "based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements." It also provides a link to a NOAA site. The NOAA site provides detailed and extensive links on ice core measurements.
Where Charles 9 nails it (at least as I have been able to find on a second review) is that we are left critically short on information. Readers who are not experts in the field are asked to make assumptions that ice core and "those other measurements" are comparable as the chart implies. (The scary prospect, as many of the more pejorative comments imply, is that the subject matter experts may themselves not know. I suspect that they do, and made that assumption.) Charles 9's questioning of that assumption provides high value-added to the discussion.
The Tacoma narrows bridge observations answers a question I posed to myself--whether it was clear why I had included the example--whether I needed to expand an already over-long post, or delete the example entirely. Will try to correct that below.
Charles 9 is again correct in stating that we have learned a great deal. Once we have observed the phenomenon In a given system, the engineering fixes are relatively simple and straightforward. But, modeling the dynamic response of a complex non-linear system to external stimuli to predict such instabilities in advance with any precision is a formidable--in some cases virtually impossible-- computational challenge. The best we can do is approximate. That's why we still fly test planes.
The mathematical equations characterizing the dynamic response that tore the Tacoma Narrows bridge apart are extremely complex. But compared to weather global climate change the input conditions and the fix were in fact conceptually simple. The resonance was the result of a steady state wind of around 42 MPH blowing from the right direction causing the roadbed to flutter like a giant ribbon. The solution? Make the ribbon stiffer and tie it down better.
In the case of weather things are very different. Even where we have extensive empirical data, like for Atlantic hurricanes in the US, different models predict paths that are literally all over the map. On a global scale we (collectively) are not sure what inputs are driving the behaviors we observe. Our models are just that, models for which we have little or no empirical validation. Granting that global climate change is occurring, we have no way to predict whether we are headed toward a new steady-state operating point, of whether things are starting to run out of control.
With bridges and airplanes (and buildings and smokestacks, and Chernobyl) we have the empirical engineering knowledge to fix things. In the case of weather, we do not have the foggiest notion of where to begin if a fix is needed. Regardless of what side one takes the discussion is better for kinds of critical observations Charles 9 offers.
Thanks.
One old man's observations, for what they're worth.
the only problem is data can be changed lets look at noaa's temp readings for the last what 20 yrs .. cough cough ...
if the prez wants high co2 he'll get it is it harmfull .. come on now does that really matter ????
tell me in 2020 that it's still warming ... with a 2-3 month summer and a 8 month winter ..
So after three attempts we finally have a CO2 tracker in space. I hope this critter can determine the amount of CO2 that three Delta2 rockets added to the atmosphere by burning thousands of pounds of solid and liquid fuel. Oh well, it's all in the name of "science". Wouldn't it be neat if after all this, they find out that "man-made" CO2 pollution isn't a big thing? Think that would be spread across the front pages of any newspapers? Not. It will also be interesting to see what methodology they use to eliminate from their results the CO2 produced naturally by such things as volcanic activity .
It happened very, very quietly. It happened without any fanfare whatsoever. It happened in the dead of night under the cover of darkness. It happened without a single word being mentioned. It had to be discovered. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present."
How can one tell whether a CO2 molecule is man-made, volcanic emissions or swamp gas? Good luck with that, remember who NASA gets their funding from - in fact follow the money to the scientist as well. Remember when Obama told NASA administrator Charles Bolden that his highest priority should be "to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering." and I thought NASA was about space - who knew.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/07/nasas_muslim_outreach_106214.html#ixzz36Pt5Ezj8
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
Volcanic eruptions tend to leave a calling card. One big one is high-altitude particulate emissions (from the ash). Particulates are heavier than air and so will tend to sink pretty soon after being flung up. This also precludes manmade sources of particulates such as heavy industry because they lack the force to get that high up. Therefore, a rise in CO2 accompanied by a rise in high-altitude particulates is a pretty sure sign a volcano was behind it.
Meanwhile, back on Earth, elevated CO2 and temperature are causing stunning increases in vegetative growth and hence carbon sequestration, see, e.g: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/news/release/reviving-red-spruce (the fact that so-called "scientists" are surprised by this and looking for the cause beggars belief: perhaps somebody should explain to them why people build greenhouses and commercial growers pump CO2 into them).
I doubt that the new satellite will settle anything. We are having way too much fun arguing and castigating each other. And anyway, does this satellite see into the past or the future? I thought not, so even scientifically it won't settle anything. NASA just likes to hype what it is doing so as to continue getting funding.
Let's talk about controlling the climate the same way we control the climate in our house. Whether it was man made, out of our control, part of a cycle, not part of a cycle, the beginning of a Mars attack, or a figment of our perception, we all would like to live comfortably.
Why is there an argument?
Radiation coming off of japan is sooooo much more of a concern than co2.. The whole northern hemisphere is going to be lost in ten years if it's not contained. It's just burning into the earth at this point with nothing to stop it. Carbon is nothing compared to hot particals of radio active materials. If anything the carbon is going to mix with the radiation and become eradiated as well.
You'll get a greater radiation dose flying from Heathrow to Tokyo than you'd get in a year at Fukushima, unless you go swimming in the pools, in which case it'll only take 6 months exposure.
At this point the only reason that radiation levels are above legal limits is because they were dropped by 90% a few days after the hydrogen explosions that took the roofs off.
The carbon will hang around a lot longer.
I tend to trust publicly-funded government sources more than privately-funded “think tanks” and “research” centers. But, nothing should be taken at face value. We need to examine data critically and make informed judgments.
Not an easy task in an age where “perception is reality” and for sale—even from prestigious institutions that once could have been reliably accepted as authoritative. There are no hard and fast rules, but what follows are some personal guidelines developed over a half century of doing R&D and technology assessments:
Grandma was right. If something looks too good to be true, it is. If something smells off, throw it out.
Consider the source. Data from established large institutions and companies with reputations to lose tend to be more reliable than data from anonymous web sites. Similarly data from folks with academic training, knowledge, and experience in the field are generally better than non-expert opinions (although not always).
Always ask Cui bono? What benefit does the source get from the conclusions likely to follow from the data presented. (Benefit takes many forms: profit, prestige, approval/acceptance of peers, or simply the perverse joy of getting away with deception.)
Tone and Context. Data provided as support of what comes across as raving lunacy may in fact be good data. But, the probability is too low; life is too short. It smells. Toss it out.
Can the data be verified? And, if so, do the references cited actually support the data presented? Checking the references is a lot of work, but necessary. My experience has been that very frequently cited refs actually contradict what the writer has asserted.
Finally, to what extent do credible sources agree on data? Consensus on data doesn't ensure that it's right. But, on balance agreement among genuine experts with few direct vested interests is more reliable than the rants of individuals with axes to grind.
One old man’s advice, for what it's worth.
That's why I've come to the conclusion that THE best supporting evidence comes not from an independent source but a HOSTILE source. This is because hostile sources are inherently biased against you. If even THAT can't keep the results turning your way, then you must have something pretty serious on your plate.
"That's why I've come to the conclusion that THE best supporting evidence comes not from an independent source but a HOSTILE source"
In that case you'll be happy to know that several of the scientific skeptics changed their tune after looking at all the data.
The problem is that things will be ignored until it's too late to do anything. It's already too late to stop ocean level rises even if carbon output was switched off overnight, but plans should be afoot to encourage people to move and to head off pending wars over access to fresh water.
NASA is being conservative, seriously.
The odds are a lot higher that bad climate shit will happen in the next 100 years than it not happening - those holes opening up in siberian permafrost may well be the first tranche of methane burps which would cause far more rapid warming than any models currently in use.
It provides pictures.
If you can provide a picture of enormous concentrations of CO2 over London and none over the Lake District (which, while not untouched by man, is far more sparsely populated than the Capital), that starts to corroborate the idea that there's SOMETHING happening that's not covered by nature. And provides a picture. Not a maths-y hockey stick graph or anything open for interpretation, just some pretty pictures representing Absolute CO2 Concentration values- overlaid on satellite photos to make them more accessible.
Accessible pictures are a good way of getting an idea across.
'course, if it shows a massive increase in the middle of the ocean, away from any known construction, that would be interesting!
Tornados come out of the Jet Stream, and do you know what goes into the Jet Stream, about 80,000 tons of carbon soot per hour from commercial Air craft. Checkout, The Watchers Jetstream Change. Read the Comments, what they don't want you to know, or Presscore, Steering Hurricane Irene. Time for people to take Action.
NASA has a joint project with Japan, I believe:
Feb 3, 2009 - Uploaded by Kowch737
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency confirmed that the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite "IBUKI
IBUKI (GOSAT) - YouTube
Video for japan gosat► 6:29► 6:29
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x3JVYvOgi8
Uploaded on Feb 2, 2009
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency confirmed that the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite "IBUKI" (GOSAT) is now ready for the initial functional verification operation after shifting its attitude control system to the regular mode.
Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT ... - Fujitsu
http://www.fujitsu.com/downloads/MAG/vol44-4/paper03.pdf
by VM Yokomizo - 2008
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is an independent ... systems, the ground systems for GOSAT, as well as the systems, computers and.
If I read the word "Boffins" one more time here on The Register, I'm going to scream! Could the writers maybe be a little more specific, and a little less lazy, when describing the specialists to whom they refer? Although the term may seem charmingly British, we Yanks think a boffin is something that maybe should be eaten with butter.