Climate Change

[eamarquardt]

As you may or may not know (and most likely don't care), I'm not entirely convinced that mankind's CO2 emissions are entirely responsible for "climate change". Granted we ought to address CO2 emissions but I kinda think there is more going on than scientists understand.

A friend sent me this article: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm It makes some very interesting points.

I wondered about the veracity of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine so I visited their web site: http://oism.org/

They have one of these:

A Bruker Ion Cyclotron Resonance Fourier Transfrom Mass Spectrometer for Work On Protien Deamidation

No, I am not BS'ing you!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone who has a Bruker Ion Cyclotron Resonance Fourier Transfrom Mass Spectrometer for Work On Protien Deamidation has to be legit. It's a rule.

Rumor has it that they're working to find and purchase a Turbo Entabulator: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=tur ... FORM=VIRE1

Cheers,

Gus

[parnold]

Good link Gus!

[Shadow Catcher]

The conclusion I came some years back is that time will tell, and it is telling.
PBS had a very good program a week or so ago and as one researcher said pointing at the ocean "that will tell".
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/82 ... ysis-finds
This also comes down to the, it is better to do something and not need to than to have needed to and not done anything.

[eamarquardt]

The conclusion I came some years back is that time will tell, and it is telling.
PBS had a very good program a week or so ago and as one researcher said pointing at the ocean "that will tell".
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/82 ... ysis-finds
This also comes down to the, it is better to do something and not need to than to have needed to and not done anything.

There is no doubt that something is going on. There is no doubt that we're not gonna get off this rock. There is no doubt that we're not treating the only home we have very nicely.

But, Greenland was green in the not to distant past. There are a lot of things going on and attributing "climate change" exclusively to the burning of carbon based fuels isn't entirely reasonable. What I found interesting is the correlation between solar radiation and its effects and warming. I also thought the additional plant growth as a result of increased CO2 concentrations interesting. Nature has a way of buffering change to some extent.

Currently there is little alternative to carbon based "fossil" (that I'm not entirely convinced came from dinosaurs and early forrests) fuels. Rather than spending money on half baked technologies I think the money would be better spent on research at this point in time. I'm not sure we're gonna get more efficient wind turbines so putting them up now might be a good idea. Photovoltaic solar panels aren't, IMHO, there yet and only pencil out in a few situations. We gotta get on the stick with fusion.

Cheers,

Gus

[Bear_Rider]

If you look at temperatures on a geologic time scale, they cycle. A sudden (geologically sudden) drop in temperature is followed by a more gradual climb back up, only to repeat again. Both drops and rises are sawtoothed, with many small peaks and valleys.

From what I saw, we are near the end of the latest post ice-cage warming cycle. So break out your long johns.

[Roly Nelson]

Thousands of Greenland ice cores reveal that transtentious seclusions are perpetuating irreversable temperatures that indicate there is definately an ever changing hydro-definious warping of previously assumed global extremes, that lead all educated nonsensical individuals to believe there are definately changes taking place in flastineal areas, as they have for millions of years. Just my two cents.
It makes as much sense as most of the stuff ever heard about Gore's far-fetched theory. Bah hum-bug.
Roly~

[eamarquardt]

Thousands of Greenland ice cores reveal that transtentious seclusions are perpetuating irreversable temperatures that indicate there is definately an ever changing hydro-definious warping of previously assumed global extremes, that lead all educated nonsensical individuals to believe there are definately changes taking place in flastineal areas, as they have for millions of years. Just my two cents.
It makes as much sense as most of the stuff ever heard about Gore's far-fetched theory. Bah hum-bug.
Roly~

Agreed. Who ya gonna believe? A career politician (with a carbon footprint bigger than Sasquatch's) or some bonafide scientists?

De facto, the ice in Antarctica is increasing but the media only reports the opposite. Why?

http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/ ... c-ice.html

Just makes no sense. That said, we're certainly screwing up the earth in a number of other ways.

Someday we'll figure it all out. My point: At this point in time, we don't know what is really going on to an absolute certainty.

Gus

[robfisher]

Here's my question? And it's honest. Why do we see climate change on Mars? Those who would have us believe earth's climate change is all about fossel fuels and hydrocarbons must have an answer about Mars. I just haven't heard one that makes sense.

[Bogo]

Here's my question? And it's honest. Why do we see climate change on Mars? Those who would have us believe earth's climate change is all about fossel fuels and hydrocarbons must have an answer about Mars. I just haven't heard one that makes sense.

Looks like changes in albedo. Basically the surface of Mars is getting darker so more light is being absorbed than before.
http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/pdf ... e05718.pdf
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070402/ ... 402-5.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070402/ ... 402-7.html

[angib]

Is it common knowledge in the US that it is the only developed country of the world in which climate change deniers are taken seriously at government level? As far as I can see all other countries' governments listened to their relevant scientists who said there wasn't a question any more.

[jstrubberg]

If we caused global climate change, why has the current rise in global temperature been going on since the late Middle Ages? As in almost 300 years before the industrial revolution and well over 400 years before the invention of the automobile?

Take apologism, add badly skewed short term data and the result is poor science tailored to support an agenda. The truth is that we know embarrassingly little about the global climate an darn near nothing about what drives climate change.


NASA seems to be in denial. Shame on them for actually investigating claims about CO2 as a driver of global temperatures...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... -alarmism/

Maybe now we can stop with the CO2 scapegoating and work on clean air and water issues.

[Bogo]

I also thought the additional plant growth as a result of increased CO2 concentrations interesting.

Most plants are nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium limited in the environment. Take any study that mentions greater plant growth due to CO2 with a big grain of salt. Very few plants see increased growth under natural conditions plus more CO2, poison ivy being a notable exception. All the studies I've read so far that show increased growth due to CO2 had unnaturally high amounts of all other nutrients available. That just isn't the case in nature. PS: A farm field is NOT a natural condition. Farm fields are modified by the application of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sometimes other nutrients.

Nature has a way of buffering change to some extent.

And what happens when the buffering limits are exceeded? There is research that is suggesting we are already putting out much more CO2 than nature can buffer, and have been for many years.

Currently there is little alternative to carbon based "fossil" (that I'm not entirely convinced came from dinosaurs and early forrests) fuels. Rather than spending money on half baked technologies I think the money would be better spent on research at this point in time. I'm not sure we're gonna get more efficient wind turbines so putting them up now might be a good idea.

Wind turbines are very efficient now, and need to be built now. Every watt of productrion they produce is that much less fossil fuels needed to be burned, and thus that much less CO2 produced. What we need NOW is a huge expansion in the electrical grid. There is more wind energy available in the USA than the whole world uses. The problem is getting the energy from where it is produced to where it is needed.

Photovoltaic solar panels aren't, IMHO, there yet and only pencil out in a few situations.

The production of solar cells now takes a fraction of the energy it did just a couple decades ago. That is part of the reason Solindra was at an economic disadvantage. Their plant was a generation behind on the energy use curve. New solar cell process equipment being installed in new plants now uses less than half the energy the equipment Solindra plant used. Solar is there when it comes to overall energy use during it's life cycle. Improvements will be made, but there is no reason not to put it in now other than initial cost.

We gotta get on the stick with fusion.

Fusion power is 25 to 50 years out... Reagan cut funding for fusion research drastically. We'd be 20 years closer now if that hadn't happened. Reagan also cut lots of other research on alternative energy solutions.

De facto, the ice in Antarctica is increasing but the media only reports the opposite. Why?

http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/ ... c-ice.html

Just makes no sense. That said, we're certainly screwing up the earth in a number of other ways.

While the article mentions the ice area this year is above average, it doesn't mention that it is still under the average of the peak highs. They do mention mass, but then only talk of area as if it equates to mass, nice diversion. There has been a noticeable thinning of the water supported ice in both the ice shelves, and sea ice. There has also been a noticeable thinning of the ice in the glaciers that feed the ice shelves, and the areas they drain ice from. The overall mass of the ice in Antarctica is decreasing. This is despite the fact that it is snowing more down there. I don't have direct links today, but most of this I read up on over at Science Daily.

Want some scary numbers on global warming?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... h-20120719
Only 16 years of burning fossil fuels like we have been and we are past the point of no return. Pay attention to what is said on how much there is still under ground, the valuation of the fossil fuel companies and the likelihood of how much of what under ground will be burnt. We're in for a whole lot of hurt climate wise.

[Bogo]

Is it common knowledge in the US that it is the only developed country of the world in which climate change deniers are taken seriously at government level? As far as I can see all other countries' governments listened to their relevant scientists who said there wasn't a question any more.

I'd bet it has allot to do with who has been spending the most on campaigns and political ads...

[Bogo]

If we caused global climate change, why has the current rise in global temperature been going on since the late Middle Ages? As in almost 300 years before the industrial revolution and well over 400 years before the invention of the automobile?

Because that is soon after when we started using coal for heating and cooking in large amounts. Coal has been in use by man as a fuel for thousands of years. A reasonable brief and very incomplete history of it's use is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Early_uses_as_fuel

[eamarquardt]

I also thought the additional plant growth as a result of increased CO2 concentrations interesting.

Most plants are nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium limited in the environment. Take any study that mentions greater plant growth due to CO2 with a big grain of salt. Very few plants see increased growth under natural conditions plus more CO2, poison ivy being a notable exception. All the studies I've read so far that show increased growth due to CO2 had unnaturally high amounts of all other nutrients available. That just isn't the case in nature. PS: A farm field is NOT a natural condition. Farm fields are modified by the application of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sometimes other nutrients.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/forests-in-the-eastern-united-states-are-growing-faster-than-they-have-in-the-past-225-years/

Nature has a way of buffering change to some extent.

And what happens when the buffering limits are exceeded? There is research that is suggesting we are already putting out much more CO2 than nature can buffer, and have been for many years.

I'm not suggesting that we've not passed the limit of the earth's ability to buffer the changes.

Currently there is little alternative to carbon based "fossil" (that I'm not entirely convinced came from dinosaurs and early forrests) fuels. Rather than spending money on half baked technologies I think the money would be better spent on research at this point in time. I'm not sure we're gonna get more efficient wind turbines so putting them up now might be a good idea.

Wind turbines are very efficient now, and need to be built now. Every watt of productrion they produce is that much less fossil fuels needed to be burned, and thus that much less CO2 produced. What we need NOW is a huge expansion in the electrical grid. There is more wind energy available in the USA than the whole world uses. The problem is getting the energy from where it is produced to where it is needed.I agree, put more in now.

Photovoltaic solar panels aren't, IMHO, there yet and only pencil out in a few situations.

The production of solar cells now takes a fraction of the energy it did just a couple decades ago. That is part of the reason Solindra was at an economic disadvantage. Their plant was a generation behind on the energy use curve. New solar cell process equipment being installed in new plants now uses less than half the energy the equipment Solindra plant used. Solar is there when it comes to overall energy use during it's life cycle. Improvements will be made, but there is no reason not to put it in now other than initial cost.

Disagree. Current solar panels are 20% efficient. If we spent the money on research that Obama has blown on his "green investments" I think we'd be better off. See:

http://minesmagazine.com/6836/

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/pre ... -failures/

We gotta get on the stick with fusion.

Fusion power is 25 to 50 years out... Reagan cut funding for fusion research drastically. We'd be 20 years closer now if that hadn't happened. Reagan also cut lots of other research on alternative energy solutions.

Well, lets not spend any more on "half baked" technologies and get on with basic research at an accelerated pace. There's some interesting stuff going on in Arizona re diesel from algae.

De facto, the ice in Antarctica is increasing but the media only reports the opposite. Why?

http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/ ... c-ice.html

Just makes no sense. That said, we're certainly screwing up the earth in a number of other ways.

While the article mentions the ice area this year is above average, it doesn't mention that it is still under the average of the peak highs. They do mention mass, but then only talk of area as if it equates to mass, nice diversion. There has been a noticeable thinning of the water supported ice in both the ice shelves, and sea ice. There has also been a noticeable thinning of the ice in the glaciers that feed the ice shelves, and the areas they drain ice from. The overall mass of the ice in Antarctica is decreasing. This is despite the fact that it is snowing more down there. I don't have direct links today, but most of this I read up on over at Science Daily.

Yer right. Sea ice (frozen sea water) is generally increasing and freshwater ice (glacial ice) is decreasing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -wind.html

Want some scary numbers on global warming?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... h-20120719
Only 16 years of burning fossil fuels like we have been and we are past the point of no return. Pay attention to what is said on how much there is still under ground, the valuation of the fossil fuel companies and the likelihood of how much of what under ground will be burnt. We're in for a whole lot of hurt climate wise.

Don't misunderstand my position. We're not being nice to the only home we have and we're not getting off this rock, IMHO. There is just a lot of conflicting information. There are reports that muscles are having trouble reproducing as their shells aren't forming as they should due to the increased acidity of the oceans (CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 (carbonic acid).

I agree we're on the Titanic and it's gonna be hard to change course as we're not pushing as hard as we should on research and new technologies.

My major point in the original post is that the media isn't presenting a clear picture and integrating all of what we know. More dramatics than a balanced picture.