Global Warming: Are the sun and man both to blame? (1345 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalLabels: ETS_Sociopolitical_Commentary ETS_Essays
Rating: 1.7 on 60 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2005-09-29 16:44:38 EDT
I've heard all the arguments on this and other websites about how global warming has become this giant political debate and how on one side you have the 'Doomsayers' who attribute this warming to anthropogenic or 'manmade' factors (these people tend to be the globally-minded, 'liberals' or 'communists') and on the other side you have the 'Naysayers' (these tend to be the right-wing, conservative, capitalist, economy-minded individuals).
Probably not since the Heliocentric theory of the solar system has a scientific debate carried such repercussions for the society as a whole, thus, one can certainly understand the need conclusively prove, not simply speculate, that the observed warming is anthropogenic, for to reverse the current trend would mean an expensive top to bottom reorganization of infrastructure and society if the warming were somehow human related.
I submit to you, the uber readership, that the reasons for this warming are a combination of factors including, but not limited to, anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.
In order to study something, anything, especially a physical model like the earth, you have to understand the system itself. The earth is a system, not exactly a closed system, but a system nonetheless. In the course of a study, you try to account for all the possible variables so that your study will yield results that can be affirmed through repeated scrutiny.
Here are the basic key factors that can contribute to the planet's overall warming:
**Changes in the Solar Cycle - This includes core temperature, surface temperature, and other solar activity such as sun spots. The sun, while remaining over great periods of time very stable, over shorter periods of decades can fluctuate in its overall output. Does it fluctuate causing effects on global climate? Yes. Can it cause an ice age or a warming period or effect the earth's magnetic poles? Yes. This is a matter of common sense. Can the sun account for the sharp increase in warming and the predictable after effects we see as a result of this warming? Possibly.
There is a good amount of compelling evidence to support a link between the sun's natural cycles and average surface temperature of the earth from 1853 to present. (see fig. 1) But
**Atmospheric Conditions - We are very lucky as human beings to be living on a planet that through the process of the greenhouse effect our climate is kept somewhere between that of Venus (hot/thick atmosphere) and that of Mars (cold/thin atmosphere). This accident in nature we call 'life' is a delicate balance of a great number of chance factors (or designed factors depending on how you choose to see it).
The distance from the sun, the amount of air in the atmosphere, the timing of the spark of life along the earth's evolutionary history, the remoteness of any asteroid belts and the rarity of cosmic impacts, the balance of ice, ocean, and land that helps regulate the climate and keep it from teetering too far one way or the other - all of these conditions are necessary to our survival. Understanding the development and sustainment of life on this planet requires an understanding of them.
The greenhouse effect works by trapping the sun's energy and preventing its escape back into space. The gasses that are known to cause this effect are called 'greenhouse gasses'. One of the most notoriously debated of these is CO2 or carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide occurs on the earth naturally and is not considered or regulated by the United States, at least, as a pollutant. After all, humans expel it, other animals expel it, volcanos expel it, the engines that drive our economies expel it, plants breath it in, it was here long before we ever arrived...why should it be a bad thing? Why should it be regulated? This is a valid question, but one that must be considered carefully, for the consequences of a wrong answer are dire.
Since the 1950s, CO2 sensors on the mountain of Mauna Loa, Hawaii have been tracing and recording the progressive rise in CO2 levels.
+Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. The 1997-1998 increase in the annual growth rate of 2.87 ppmv represets the largest single yearly jump since the Mauna Loa record began in 1958. This represents an average annual increase of 1.4 ppmv per year. This is smaller than the average annual increase at the other stations because of the longer record and inclusion of earlier (smaller) annual increases.
There is little to no debate that this rise in CO2 level is do to human activity - cars, planes, trains, factories, burning of coal for electricity, etc. Much of the evidence to support this hypothesis can be found in the evidence of arctic core samples, anceint tree rings, and other indicators of past CO2 conditions on earth, all of which seem to match up very well over at least the last 1000 years. (see fig. 2)
As you will notice, since the year 1000AD, the CO2 level remains almost constant, as does the climate; however, around the year 1800 or 1820, the start of the industrial revolution, the CO2 levels begin to take a dramatic turn upward. This dramatic swing might be explained away had world volcanic activity taken a 20% increase, but that is not the case - leaving human activity as the only likely culprit.
Not even the advocates of the fossil fuel industry deny that this rise is human related. What they do deny is that it is resulting in global warming. Some of their basis for argument hinges on the sun data that was presented earlier, but still more of it centers around the idea that more CO2 is actually GOOD for the environment, because it stimulates plant growth. They also contend that low regulations on CO2 emissions in industry help the economy and humanity at large down the road of progress by producing cheap sources of electricity and other forms of energy. What these people seem to forget though is that with increased industrialization comes increased population and decreased plantlife overall due to deforestation, therefore CO2 levels will only continue to rise.
It's more likely that what we see happening right now in every country in the world - from the melting of the glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana, (which it is projected will not exist by the year 2030), to the rapid retreating of the ice caps at the north pole - is actually a combination of both the sun cycle AND a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. This would be the most likely scenario, and would serve to snythesise all the disparate data sets we have available. More study will be necessary to know for sure how all the pieces to this puzzle fit together.
The sun, under its normal cycles from 1000AD to around 1820AD did not cause a significant change in climate, but the addition of elevated CO2 levels, 19% higher CO2 levels since 1958 in fact, has made it easier for our sun's cycles to have an increasingly drastic effect on the surface temperature of the earth and, in effect, our climate.
Sources:
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/solar.htm
http://www.converium.com/3518.asp
+http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/palmer.html
User Reviews
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-10-19 12:30:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And then there was Wilma.
God help us.
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-10-03 08:37:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
plus fucking two
AWESOME
Submitted by SkinnyKenny (user info) at 2005-10-01 15:05:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Heliocentric - Centered about the sun, correct? As opposed to everything revolving around the earth.
This was a good idea:
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-08-25 15:18:37 (#)
Ranking: 2
This was a very informative and interesting post, by the way.
I think uber needs a network of individuals willing to allow people to stay in their homes so we can all do more inexpensive traveling. That would rule.
You've got a place to crash for a night if you ever get to my neck of the woods.
Submitted by Fisher (user info) at 2005-09-30 15:31:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, got your email on my list of things to do. Right now, I'm working on a presentation I have to give soon.
Those were east coast black bears, so yeah... way outside The Grand Tetons.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-30 14:28:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fisher: Yea, email me. That sounds interesting. electrictoothsyndrome.at.gmail.com
Also, there is a post of yours that has a pic of a black bear....where was that pic taken? I think I might have been to that very spot. Is it outside The Grand Tetons?
Submitted by Fisher (user info) at 2005-09-30 14:04:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS -- The research I'm doing doesn't have anything to do with climate change. I'm doing my thesis on an endangered wolf population in the U.S. and because of the high profile of the species I'm not going to go into details. If you're curious enough, I can email some details about what I'm doing... just nothing the Program feels is too sensitive.
Hopefully, you'll bite the bullet sooner than later. I think the non-traditional students tend to be better ones anyway. Just find something that gives you a hard-on. Predator ecology does it for me. If the goal you stated is true and you feel too much of a pussy to go back to school (I'm joking there), check out freelance journalism opportunities. We bump into these guys all the time. They're not pain in the asses like animal planet, discovery, cnn and the likes. These come out with you for a day or two with a notepad, pencil, and a camera. It's a good way to network, however, I don't know how tough it is to get your foot in the door.
As far as the data analysis comment... I just wanted to point out that researchers can be real stickler about the data, especially with the intent of your work. There are workshops set up for graduate students to look at a plethora of data in specific areas that haven't been analyzed. The purpose of these workshops is to get this data analyzed and into the literature as opposed to having more of it lying around. So, if you find similiar things on the internet, have fun with the data!
That Norman fellow seems know more about the subject than I would ever know. I just chase wolves.
later.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-30 13:52:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's pirates that are doing it, dumbass.
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2005-09-30 13:36:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Go here.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/74458
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-30 12:34:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Norman: It sounds like you're in exactly the field I'm feebly trying to cross into here. It's a pleasure to have you around in that case.
The oceans are going to be a difficult if not impossible system to study without modeling software, of which I have none.
As for what you said about Mt. Pinatubo, you're right about the decrease in incoming solar radiation while these particles are still suspended and waiting to fall to the earth or be absorbed by oceans; however, after the radiation-blocking particulates disappear, there should be a period of increased warming as well due to the ejected CO2. Would that not be a fair assessment?
If you don't mind, that is, if it's not too much trouble, and you're interested, I'd like to pick your brain some things. If you use MSN instant messenger, add me and we'll share ideas. I have a lot to learn from people like you, I think, who are in the field. electrictoothsyndrome.at.msn.com
Or if you'd rather email me: electrictoothsyndrome.at.gmail.com
Thanks for your input. Please come back next time I post and let me know how I'm doing. If I'm wrong on things, or if there's something I'm not considering, I'd surely like to know about it. The purpose of what I'm trying to do is as much for my own benefit as it is to inform others.
Thanks again.
Submitted by Norman (user info) at 2005-09-30 11:46:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I usually lurk in the weeds around here, but this post caught my interest. I work in an oceanography group, modelling climate related issues as discussed in this thread. I have some thoughts to share on this.
"A major inquiry, and one of the cornerstones of my upcoming work will be volcanic eruptions and emissions in recorded history and their effect on average global temperature, because this is the only major natural producer of CO2 besides animals and human activity. So its importance in this study cannot be underestimated."
----
Volcanic emissions, such as the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in '91, significantly decreased global average temperature. The suspended particulate reduced the incoming solar insolation. This effect remained in place for a few years after the eruption. Particle thermodynamic interactions are a poorly understood concept at this stage in climate research.
---
"There is a lot of speculation also about the effect that the desalinization of the ocean from melting ice will have and one of the fears from that is a destabilization of this very conveyor belt you're talking about. The convexion process of the oceans and currents such as the gulf stream could suffer serious disruption or misdirection due to this. I don't know how much hard data there is on the subject, but I suspect that an accurate assessment would require long-term observation of ocean temperatures from all over the world, measurements of the velocity of these currents, and the salt to water ratios of every region. "
---
This meltwater pulse you talk of is a very hotly debated subject. Just this week in a section meeting, a scientist presented results of a hypothetical Greenland icecap melt. The results are heavily dependent on the location in which the fresh water is injected, as Arctic Ocean circulation can export this fresh water through the Bering Strait into the Pacific if enough ice is melted to reverse the pressure gradient through the strait. Overturning in the North Atlantic is shown to decrease significantly with increased CO2 (due to freshening by way of ice melt, and desalinization of incoming water due to increased tropical precipitation) from a modelling perspective.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-30 11:41:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The link below is one I found on the website Silvrwolf linked me to. It's shows a tropical cyclone in a place where it should not be, and never has been in recorded history. If this isn't a sign that something fishy is going on, then I don't know what is. Whether this can be attributed to global warming or controlled human manipulation with HAARP technologies, who knows? But something is certainly amiss.
http://www.metoffice.com/sec2/sec2cyclone/catarina.html
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-30 11:09:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
sheckynecky: Good link. Thanks. There is a lot of speculation also about the effect that the desalinization of the ocean from melting ice will have and one of the fears from that is a destabilization of this very conveyor belt you're talking about. The convexion process of the oceans and currents such as the gulf stream could suffer serious disruption or misdirection due to this. I don't know how much hard data there is on the subject, but I suspect that an accurate assessment would require long-term observation of ocean temperatures from all over the world, measurements of the velocity of these currents, and the salt to water ratios of every region.
From what little I've read on this subject, one of the big concerns is that the entire continent of Europe could experience a very drastic shift in climate, even moreso than other places, because of a disruption in the gulf stream that keeps their climate temperate. The British Isles, for instance, are on a latitude above Toronto, Canada and yet their climate is moderate because of the gulf stream. If recent weather patterns are any signpost of things to come, then there might be serious cause to fear a disruption in this current.
Thanks again for bringing that up. I had already planned on going into it more in posts to come.
Silvrwolf: What the hell is up, man! Long time no speak! Glad to see you're still alive at least. I'll be emailing you so we can keep in touch.
That's an interesting conspiracy theory you got there. Who knows!?!? I posted about HAARP not long ago, so it's interesting you should bring it up: http://www.ubersite.com/m/74830 The technology exists to do some serious weather manipulation, so that's something to keep an eye on, if only to cover that base.
Anyway, it's good to see you around.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-09-30 10:07:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes! I've been waiting for a chance to spring this one for weeks...
All of your answers (snicker snicker) are here: http://www.weatherwars.info
In short, this guy believes that the weather and climate of the planet are on lease and in somewhat complete control by the Russian government (look up: woodpecker grid, energetics, project cloverleaf, HAARP). He thinks the Yakuza (the alleged current lessee) are responsible for the recent hurricanes, too. The ultimate goal is supposedly to stop or slow the North Atlantic thermocline, thus spinning the northern hemisphere into climatic chaos. Interestingly, he cites Hurricane Ophelia's bizarre track off the east coast as a perfect example of weather control, stating it was an experiment to see how precisely "they" could manipulate the storm.
It fits the psychological framework of conspiracy theories like a glove (where's my good buddy, Jimmy when I need him?).
Anywho, since I believe in chaos theory and entanglement, I agree that both human and solar influences are causing the warming of our planet. It's not going to stop until humanity is gone and the planet can start all over again. It was here long before us and will continue to be here long after we're gone. It may be too late to stop the cycle we've had a hand in starting (unless the Russians decide to save the world, of course); we may just have to adapt to the coming climatic revolution. We sure aren't doing enough to change things now.
This was a great post. I don't get to Uber very often anymore, bro. I'm staying busy 7 days a week, but drop me an email or something. It's the only thing I still do regularly online. We should catch up on things. silvrwolf.at.gmail.com
Submitted by sheckynecky (user info) at 2005-09-30 09:58:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
hey, don't forget about the ocean conveyor belt. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Conveyor.asp
Of course we are causing the earth to heat up at an accelerated pace. This is undeniable. We have some ideas about what changes it will cause, but nothing can be stated as an absolute certainty. None of it has ever struck me as an appealing scenario. What can one say really? I could go on. I sometimes am all gung-ho like I can change something, sometimes I just do my own little hermit thing and hope somebody else will do something. Go ecologists! Rah!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-30 09:43:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I find it interesting that most of those who cite fears of people promoting an agenda are the ones that appear to have the biggest agenda politically. I don't want any part of this muck. This is not my aim.
This is not the last post I'll make on this subject and hopefully the next one will address more of the concerns mentioned in reviews here and will include more hard data to support them.
I will say this much. I don't know who you people are reading that are telling you that glaciers all over the world are not shrinking. Put very simply, you're being mislead. Please point me to the source of this information and I'll tell you exactly why it's wrong. For now, suffice it to say that the average ice cover of the globe at large is retreating annually at an alarming rate. I've linked a couple sources here already on this subject, but since there still seem to be questions about it, I'll do more research and include more of it in the next post.
Also, those of you who say the data is skewed because of the sensor's proximity to cities are missing two key points here. First of all, the data used in this post and in most scientific studies is a sampling from around the world in remote locations like Mauna Loa, Hawaii, which not only is relatively high in the troposphere, but is surrounded by ocean which actually ABSORBES CO2. So if anything, the data represented with the red line toward the right on Figure 2 above is an underestimate of the world average. But the level itself is not what's important in this case, it is the amount of increase since records at that location have been kept. 19.4% in under 50 years is pretty alarming if you ask me. Not enough is known about the effects of such a rise in the concentration of a greenhouse gas to take such a wreckless risk.
But that's what I'm trying to do here. I'm wanting to collect all the available data so we can perhaps get a more accurate assessment of the situation to see if there is or is not cause for alarm. Until then, I try to remain as objective as humanly possible with the knowledge I have available.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-09-30 08:24:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Biz,
I don't mean to split hairs. I agree the earth is getting warmer. All I am trying to say is that the environment is always changing and people don't understand it as well as some scientists will lead you to believe.
I think pollution is bad. I don't make this argument to try and say we should relax clean air laws. I just don't like all the outrageous claims about global warming to be touted as fact.
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2005-09-30 08:06:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't really understand how anyone can look at data like this and say "No, global warming is not happening." Obviously human contributions aren't the only factor, but there never is only one factor in any process. If we only look at gases that harm the atmosphere, CO2 is only one of thousands. What about gases with chlorine and other halogens in them, which contribute to free radical generation and break up ozone molecules?
Fun fact: greenhouse gases are called what they are because they change the reflective index of the overall gaseous solution, causing less light and to escape the atmosphere when reflected from the earth's surface. Someone made a point about cities being hotspots. Know why? BECAUSE THERE ARE LARGER CONCENTRATIONS OF THESE GASES THERE.
As for that business of how a small percentage of glaciers are growing: stop trying to find a single piece of stable ground when the overwhelming evidence makes you feel insecure. Law of averages. If 80% of the glaciers shrink and 20% (a generous estimate) grow at roughly equal rates, then we can safely assume that the trend is toward shrinkage. Don't split hairs.
ETS, good job on this post.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-09-30 07:21:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-29 22:01:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks for reading though and being patient with me. I don't claim to be an expert, but I know when something is common sense.
-------------------
ETS I agree with you about the glaciers al very large majority are shrinking, but some are growing.
As far as greenhouse gasses, I think it is a good theory. It most likely is contributing to global warming. But it is far from a fact. I just don't like it being touted as gospel and the cause of all environmental problems.
The green house analogy is a little too simple.
Submitted by Rasta (user info) at 2005-09-30 04:04:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Great subject. Global warming is hogwash. It is an agenda driven money maker.
First lets touch on the warming portion. Look at the data. Most of the moniters used are near cities. Cities are known hotspots and skew the data. It is true we are getting warmer near cities due to lots of concrete, but not a global warming trend. Compare the monitors in remote locations and you see a miniscule increase in temp. On the order of .1 -.2 degrees Fahrenheit over the last decade.
Glaciers and Ice caps melting. More hogwash. They are growing. Part of the natural movement of glaciers will cause calving and portions will be melting as other grow. We have to take the net effect of these issues. Net net they are still growing. Watch where they take measurements, the time of year, and you will see the manipulation of the facts.
Don't ya'll recall just 20 odd years ago we were supposedly going into an ice age.
Here we are a few decades later and the story has gone the other way. Follow the money.
I'll show you how to verify this information. Look at all your source data. Find out who published it and who pays them. Then look at studies done by those no longer beholden to a company, a lobbyist, or their boss and you will see completely different results. Data can be manipulated to mean anything we want. Find those with no agenda and independant. Its sad that our media spits out this pseudo science so flagrantly that after awhile the public believes it. Good luck in your research.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-30 01:43:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2005-09-30 01:25:53 (#)
Ranking: 2
I can point you to some papers on solar variability... probably not this week because it's proposal deadline time again, but if you're interested I'll get to it eventually.
----------------------
Definitely, thanks.
Funny, I know you've read shit like this for a living. This must feel like work for you. Bad work at that. I was in a rush. That's my excuse.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2005-09-30 01:25:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I can point you to some papers on solar variability... probably not this week because it's proposal deadline time again, but if you're interested I'll get to it eventually.
The problem with trying to arrive at *the* answer is that models for the detailed interaction between the solar irradiation of the upper atmosphere (including all the photochemistry networks) are in a pretty primitive state. The same holds, only more so, for attempts to model the impact of the solar wind on the atmosphere-- in large part because of the important role of the Earth's magnetic field... which is quite poorly understood from a theoretical standpoint. It may or may not be highly significant that the magnetic field has been weakening in recent decades.
There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that recent increases in CO2 level are entirely attributable to the same kind of natural processes that were in operation in pre-industrial revolution times; there is also no doubt as to the reality of warmer recent temperatures. But because no one is really sure how strong the coupling is between the external (solar) forcing terms and the atmospheric response, it's very difficult to say exactly how much of the warming is related to human activity, or how it will proceed in the future.
The smart money is on it getting a lot hotter pretty quickly and on controllable factors being a major consideration. Pretty decent Scientific American article on the subject over the summer, I think it was written by an economist but I'm not going into the bathroom to find the magazine right now.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-29 22:01:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-09-29 21:29:36 (#)
Ranking: 2
"I submit to you, the uber readership, that the reasons for this warming are a combination of factors including, but not limited to, anthropogenic greenhouse gasses."
I was torn on the plus two here. You admitted that you don't know 100% what is causing global warming, but you had to mess it up by saying you knew green house gasses were parially responsible.
I will go with the +2 because I know it was a big step for you to admit it may not be 100% green house effect. But the fact is you don't know if green house gasses are a cause at all. It is too complicated, and any scientist who says they know 100% has an agenda. I am not saying air pollution is okay, but using global warming as scare tactic is BS (or at least may be BE we have no proof either way).
And I don't want to nitpick here, but I think you mentioned that glaciers everywhere are getting smaller. Not true, some are getting bigger(a small percentage). This is just another one of facts often swept under the carpet by environmentalists because they want people to be afraid of something tangible and a clear danger like global warming, not the myriad of smaller problems that pollution are proven to cause.
------------------------------
Whoa! Ok, I was with you for most of your review, but there were a couple things that just threw me...
First of all, if you read the whole argument and looked at the data graphs at the bottom so nicely supplied to me by other websites, you'd see that there is almost an undenyable correlation between greenhouse gasses and global warming. That's where the very term 'greenhouse gas' came from. Have you ever stepped into a greenhouse? It's warm. That's where the term comes from. There is no oratory shenannegans there. It is what it is, dude. I don't know how else to say that right now. If you still have trouble with that concept, I'd be more than happy to talk about it one on one: electrictoothsyndrome.at.msn.com
And it's a widely accepted fact that these gasses at least CAN cause global warming...don't believe me? Then you should read that interview with Mr. Palmer, the CEO of that coal company I linked to on the PBS website. Even he heartily admits that greenhouse gasses can cause global warming. That's just the nature of the thing, ya know?
Next, you said that anyone who says that anyone who says they're 100% on global warming (I'm paraphrasing here) has an agenda... You're right on that one. 100% in science is a rare thing. Part of the scientific method itself is the rigorous testing and retesting involved in turning a theory into a law. Again, that's science for ya. Part of its very nature is continuous questioning. It's almost NEVER 100%. And if you're even ASKING for 100%, then you, yourself, probably have an agenda as well.
I'm not into scaring people here, I just think that there is so much to learn in this crazy life, and we can never know everything there is to know, but (not to sound like NBC) the more we know, the better off we are as a people. I think, conversely, there are plenty of examples of the opposite - where people in power want to keep the masses misinformed so they WON'T panic.
On the glaciers, you might be right about SOME glaciers growing, I don't know enough to say for sure on that one, but if you think that glaciers (as a whole) aren't disintegrating, then you're just plain mistaken. http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm#Glaciers
Thanks for reading though and being patient with me. I don't claim to be an expert, but I know when something is common sense.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-09-29 21:29:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"I submit to you, the uber readership, that the reasons for this warming are a combination of factors including, but not limited to, anthropogenic greenhouse gasses."
I was torn on the plus two here. You admitted that you don't know 100% what is causing global warming, but you had to mess it up by saying you knew green house gasses were parially responsible.
I will go with the +2 because I know it was a big step for you to admit it may not be 100% green house effect. But the fact is you don't know if green house gasses are a cause at all. It is too complicated, and any scientist who says they know 100% has an agenda. I am not saying air pollution is okay, but using global warming as scare tactic is BS (or at least may be BE we have no proof either way).
And I don't want to nitpick here, but I think you mentioned that glaciers everywhere are getting smaller. Not true, some are getting bigger(a small percentage). This is just another one of facts often swept under the carpet by environmentalists because they want people to be afraid of something tangible and a clear danger like global warming, not the myriad of smaller problems that pollution are proven to cause.
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2005-09-29 21:15:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
u used lotza big wurds!!!1!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-29 21:02:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tastycat (user info) at 2005-09-29 20:45:14 (#)
Ranking: 2
I love you ETS.
I can't help you much with the science part of things, but I can make graphs and distribution charts, and I can analyse figures.
Also, I can build websites, if you decide to go that route I offer my services for free.
connor.collins.at.gmail.com
--------------------------------------
I'll surely keep that in mind. Thanks a lot for the offer.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-29 21:00:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What's worse as far as the educational aspect is concerned...I'm 27 years old and not getting any younger.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-29 20:59:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Fisher (user info) at 2005-09-29 20:27:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
"I don't exactly have the means or the equipment to go collect my own data"
-Sure you do. www.nsf.gov
There's plenty of places that you can submit proposals to get funding. Only problem is that you have to have credentials because you'll be competing with others. The sad thing is that there is in fact preferential treatment of applicants. Well known universities and labs are more likely to get funding than small less reputable univeristies and labs. Ditto for the publication processes.
My advice is to take some course work at the local university if you have a BS/BA and do a mSc. in an area you would like to make a difference. Doesn't matter what your undergrad. was in. Hell, I knew a girl who got a master's in alleopathy of invasive plant species and her undergrad. was the clarinet. Now she's going to an Ivy League school to get he Ph.D. in botany.
"but I don't see a reason I can't analyze everyone else's."
-You would be opening a can of worms right there. What to piss somebody off. Say that to them.
"I've done it enough with baseball statistics, can't be that much different. :D"
-One of the reasons baseball was so great to follow as a kid. But, this isn't baseball. In the area of looking at climate, weather, or anything large it is impossible to conduct experimental studies, which are by far the easiest to statistically analyze... and to get at cause and effect. It's all observational/correlative work. In my opinion, the most difficult to analyze. I work with a large predator and most of my work is observation/correlative because it's almost impossible to have a good experimental set ups like you can for small short-lived insects and vertebrates. So, it takes years to sit and wait and then to go through what you have and make sense out of choas.
I'll be keeping an eye out for your posts! Have fun.
-----------------------------
First of all, my 'undergrad' is in HSD...and in 'high school diploma'. I have too many disparate interests to focus on one course of study or serious career right now, although I'm slowly coming to terms with the fact that I'm going to have to bite the bullet and play the game. Look at my posts and you'll get an idea what I mean. Music, art, philosophy, writing (fiction/poetry/technical), science... I get in a mode or a period where I'll just move from one area to another. I understand it is limiting not to have ever gone to a university, but there you have it. This is the beauty of life...all the credentials in the world can't make you any smarter, but they sure can make you richer both in open doors and funding.
As for the comment I made about analyzing everyone else's data, I was referring to published data on climatology-related websites such as http://www.noaa.com. The internet is actually a treasure trove of hard data on just about any subject you like. Verifying data might be a little more difficult, but generally speaking, one can still do enough research on the net to find out how all data is collected. I wouldn't dream of referencing someone's work without citation. That's just ignoble as far as I'm concerned.
As for the data analysis portion, I fully expect any work in climatology to be correlative and highly theoretical in nature, but the point of my personal quest is to try to fill a gap in the study itself and its relation and publicity to the average layperson. In other words, I want to take what is out there, synthesize it cohesively, and present it in such a way that the average layperson, regardless of political affiliation can understand and appreciate it for its impartiality.
If you don't mind my asking...what's the large predator? Humans? ;)
No seriously. Whatcha onto? Anything you can discuss in this forum?
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2005-09-29 20:49:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Tastycat (user info) at 2005-09-29 20:45:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I love you ETS.
I can't help you much with the science part of things, but I can make graphs and distribution charts, and I can analyse figures.
Also, I can build websites, if you decide to go that route I offer my services for free.
connor.collins.at.gmail.com
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2005-09-29 20:42:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
excellent read
Submitted by Fisher (user info) at 2005-09-29 20:27:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"I don't exactly have the means or the equipment to go collect my own data"
-Sure you do. www.nsf.gov
There's plenty of places that you can submit proposals to get funding. Only problem is that you have to have credentials because you'll be competing with others. The sad thing is that there is in fact preferential treatment of applicants. Well known universities and labs are more likely to get funding than small less reputable univeristies and labs. Ditto for the publication processes.
My advice is to take some course work at the local university if you have a BS/BA and do a mSc. in an area you would like to make a difference. Doesn't matter what your undergrad. was in. Hell, I knew a girl who got a master's in alleopathy of invasive plant species and her undergrad. was the clarinet. Now she's going to an Ivy League school to get he Ph.D. in botany.
"but I don't see a reason I can't analyze everyone else's."
-You would be opening a can of worms right there. What to piss somebody off. Say that to them.
"I've done it enough with baseball statistics, can't be that much different. :D"
-One of the reasons baseball was so great to follow as a kid. But, this isn't baseball. In the area of looking at climate, weather, or anything large it is impossible to conduct experimental studies, which are by far the easiest to statistically analyze... and to get at cause and effect. It's all observational/correlative work. In my opinion, the most difficult to analyze. I work with a large predator and most of my work is observation/correlative because it's almost impossible to have a good experimental set ups like you can for small short-lived insects and vertebrates. So, it takes years to sit and wait and then to go through what you have and make sense out of choas.
I'll be keeping an eye out for your posts! Have fun.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-29 19:55:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't know, I've done more reading of science-related material in my time than of fiction and the like. I don't exactly have the means or the equipment to go collect my own data, but I don't see a reason I can't analyze everyone else's. I've done it enough with baseball statistics, can't be that much different. :D
Submitted by Fisher (user info) at 2005-09-29 19:40:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, but once you start going through those journals you'll find out how much of that shit is greek. So, people aspire to do and actually have a career doing what you are trying to do... be the middle man and break it down into laymen terms.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-29 19:37:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fisher: thanks dude! That will be very helpful when the time comes. I appreciate that.
Oh, and you're right about the global network of scientists that work on this sort of thing and the seeming ludicrousness of trying to do it alone, but those guys take coffee breaks, I take PCP breaks...different culture. ;)
Submitted by Fisher (user info) at 2005-09-29 19:24:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
People have careers in this field and establish multidisciplinarian collaborative networks to do this. What you are saying is that you're going to attempt to do this by researching some online sources. Good luck!
I'm in the wildlife biology field and one good online database to get peered-reviewed scientific journals is the Web of Science. It also falls under some ISI name.
http://www.isinet.com/products/citation/wos/
Hope it's useful.
Submitted by ahumblefool (user info) at 2005-09-29 19:23:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:57:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks Stabby. Any suggestions you guys have, or any inquiries you'd like to see analysed from an objective, purely scientific standpoint, please post them here because these are just the sorts of concerns I would like to address.
The various effects on CO2 levels will be comparatively analysed with all the data I can scrounge up. Everything from data on rainforests to ocean absorbtion to the average human's lifetime CO2 exhalation will be taken into account. A major inquiry, and one of the cornerstones of my upcoming work will be volcanic eruptions and emissions in recorded history and their effect on average global temperature, because this is the only major natural producer of CO2 besides animals and human activity. So its importance in this study cannot be underestimated.
My hope is that, armed with all this information, I might be able to make some calculations that give us all some idea on how much each event or variable effects the overall climate change.
This is going to be very difficult if not impossible to fully accomplish on my own with only the information available on the internet, but I'm gonna give it my best shot. Plus, I have FilthyAssistant who has agreed to assist me in making the database and models for the data. I'm not a trained scientist, so a lot of this will be by trial and error, but I am always open to anyone's suggestions or contructive criticism.
I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't think it was important for all of us, and I hope that by doing it others will come to think so too.
Basically what it amounts to is I hate my current job and I'm tired of sitting on my hands on these issues, debating them with close friends and internet folks without the kind of knowledge that only comes with taking a hands-on approach to things.
____________________________________________________
Because you are actually doing something about it, go kick some ass.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:57:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks Stabby. Any suggestions you guys have, or any inquiries you'd like to see analysed from an objective, purely scientific standpoint, please post them here because these are just the sorts of concerns I would like to address.
The various effects on CO2 levels will be comparatively analysed with all the data I can scrounge up. Everything from data on rainforests to ocean absorbtion to the average human's lifetime CO2 exhalation will be taken into account. A major inquiry, and one of the cornerstones of my upcoming work will be volcanic eruptions and emissions in recorded history and their effect on average global temperature, because this is the only major natural producer of CO2 besides animals and human activity. So its importance in this study cannot be underestimated.
My hope is that, armed with all this information, I might be able to make some calculations that give us all some idea on how much each event or variable effects the overall climate change.
This is going to be very difficult if not impossible to fully accomplish on my own with only the information available on the internet, but I'm gonna give it my best shot. Plus, I have FilthyAssistant who has agreed to assist me in making the database and models for the data. I'm not a trained scientist, so a lot of this will be by trial and error, but I am always open to anyone's suggestions or contructive criticism.
I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't think it was important for all of us, and I hope that by doing it others will come to think so too.
Basically what it amounts to is I hate my current job and I'm tired of sitting on my hands on these issues, debating them with close friends and internet folks without the kind of knowledge that only comes with taking a hands-on approach to things.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:50:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
George Bush doesn't care about black people.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:39:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I blame the black people because W told me it was them.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:36:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I blame the Irish.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:36:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh...don't forget the space "SHIELD"
http://www.androidworld.com/prod60.htm
and manufactured clouds
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-1734536,00.html
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:34:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Er..that was the comment directed at Kindred I was talking about.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:33:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for your last comment.
Thinking smartly is good, and it appears as if this is what you are doing. Don't leave out details and appear as if you lean one way or not...or you will be dismissed quickly without looking at this from all angles. In all reality, you will find things to fit both sides (Man & mother nature) as to why the globe is warming up. Don't dismiss anything... I would personally like to know how many coal plants polluting has an effect Vs. cutting down the rain forests...which is a big concern of my own. Also, the emissions from cars Vs. coal plants, etc. And then all the other misc. theories from the oceans ability to act as a carbon sink or not (there are varying opinions on this as well it seems).
Good luck.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:27:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:17:34 (#)
Ranking: 1
We will now kill 4 billion people on the earth (South America can kiss its ass goodbye for burning down the rainforests), ban cars, and get some police to go around cracking skulls of people who use Air Conditioners or hair spray cans.
---------------------
In your half-sarcasm, you raise some good points, Stabby. It's not going to be easy to change the world to where it needs to be, but we've gotta understand that the flip side if we DON'T do something about this issue on a very tangible and active level, then we're going to see a continued increase in both property damage and loss of life from other things such as hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts, food shortages, and the human violence that seems to accompany these types of disasters.
I will be posting more on these issues in the future, and hopefully will be able to correlate all this information together into something synthetic and cohesive.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:22:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Kindred (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:58:43 (#)
Ranking: 2
well written and researched. Please do keep posting any new data you come across. Well played.
------------------------------
Yea, I woke up the other day and decided I want to get to tthe bottom of this issue. Who knows, I might even write a book. I am just tired of this issue being made into a political one. It should be about facts, not spin. I know that's difficult to do, but I'm going to do my best to present all sides fairly.
Thanks for reading, make a hybrid car your next vehicle, and encourage nuclear power over coal. (You have to understand that I grew up in the coal belt of Kentucky and most of my own family are coal miners, so that should illustrate that my agenda is anything but politically motivated.)
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:17:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
We will now kill 4 billion people on the earth (South America can kiss its ass goodbye for burning down the rainforests), ban cars, and get some police to go around cracking skulls of people who use Air Conditioners or hair spray cans.
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:09:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
you are surprisingly worldly
Submitted by Kindred (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:58:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
well written and researched. Please do keep posting any new data you come across. Well played.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:36:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:07:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
Far more knowledgeable people have given me this lecture.
----------------------------
If they gave you this same lecture, then I don't see how them being any more or less knowledgable makes a hill of beans' difference.
The more important question is: what do YOU think about it?
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:26:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Once my plan for global domination comes to fruition and I can travel the waterways of the world by floating around on the bloated gondola-like corpses of my coworkers, it will cease to be a problem.
Submitted by ahumblefool (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:24:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:04:39 (#)
Ranking: 2
And, ahumblefool... You're exactly right. That's what you "believe". But ETS is the one that showed well researched arguments. ETS made far more sense in what he was saying. Do you really have any logical reason behind what you believe in the first place?
_______________________________________
I am not disagreeing with the research, and I am not a huge supporter of us continuing to help the process of our extermination along, hell I have kids. The fact is, and science does show, that this planet has been in constant change. It has flipped over at least twice from studies on the magnetic structures in the rock strata, hit by asteroids, flooded, froze, burned, etc. It is in constant flux and we are along for the ride. There really is no denying what the research shows, but, even if we were solar powered, nano-technology, fusion; we would still not control the global changes that are occurring constantly. Yes, we are helping to make them occur faster, but they would more than likely occur naturally, just not as fast. Do I have scientific studies to back that, only the 5 billion years of change so far as recorded by scientists in the field.
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:07:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Far more knowledgeable people have given me this lecture.
Submitted by jack11058 (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:04:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
well written. i think you make some good points.
either way, i believe we humans and the earth in general will be ok, one way or another. either global warming will get worse to the point were folks do something about it (at the cost of some coastal cities) and it gets better, or the natural cycle of things will shift back towards the cold.
i prefer to have faith that human ingenuity will dig us out of the mess if we are truly in one.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:04:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And, ahumblefool... You're exactly right. That's what you "believe". But ETS is the one that showed well researched arguments. ETS made far more sense in what he was saying. Do you really have any logical reason behind what you believe in the first place?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:03:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2005-09-29 16:59:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
Sucks for us, eh? Sounds to me like humanity is screwed, and people making money off of global warming inducing energy don't seem to care enough as long as they're making their money.
I mean, seriously. If it was something that HAD to be done, humanity could always resort to solar power.
-------------------------------
Right now, with what we have available, the best option would be to use hybrid technology for our automobiles and nuclear and hydroelectric power for our electricity production.
Solar power is not cost effective. That's one thing the fossil fuel CEOs are right about.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:00:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-09-29 16:52:12 (#)
Ranking: 2
are you not familiar with the Maunder minimum and the mini ice-age believed to be associated with it?
---------------------------------
No I am not. Please link me.
I am going to be conducting my own independent research into global warming and its visible effects for a while. I intend to publish whatever findings here, and am thinking of setting up a website to objectively assess all available data from everything from sun spots to hurricanes and tornados to ice caps and volcanos.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2005-09-29 16:59:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sucks for us, eh? Sounds to me like humanity is screwed, and people making money off of global warming inducing energy don't seem to care enough as long as they're making their money.
I mean, seriously. If it was something that HAD to be done, humanity could always resort to solar power.
Submitted by ahumblefool (user info) at 2005-09-29 16:57:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I believe the earth cycles. I am not an apocalyptic person, I do not believe that the end is nigh, what I do believe is that over the 5 billion years this planet has been around, it has changed a lot. It will continue to change, with or without us. We are not unlike the dinosaurs, they had their time and then were removed, and we are having ours; who's to say that this planet is not ready to find new tenants?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-09-29 16:52:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
are you not familiar with the Maunder minimum and the mini ice-age believed to be associated with it?
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-09-29 16:50:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
no. bush made the world hotter.
it's all his fault.