Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at The Cato Institute, talks about climate change Saturday at the Steamboat Grand Resort Hotel during the Steamboat Institute's inaugural Freedom Conference.

Photo by Matt Stensland

Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at The Cato Institute, talks about climate change Saturday at the Steamboat Grand Resort Hotel during the Steamboat Institute's inaugural Freedom Conference.

Scientists: Global warming conversation is one-sided

Panel experts say extremists are dominating the climate debate

Advertisement

— Part of the problem with the climate change debate, William Gray said, is that it isn't a debate.

Gray, a professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at Colorado State University, said the conversation has become intensely political and has left no room for dialogue. He and Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, spoke about climate change Saturday morning at the Steamboat Institute's Freedom Conference.

The Freedom Conference is the first for the Steamboat Institute, which supports limited government, lower taxes, free markets, strong national defense, and individual rights and responsibilities.

Gray said the global warming issue has developed into a hoax.

"Scientific objectivity on this topic has long ago been suspended," he said.

That's partly because scientists compete for government grants to do research. The young scientists who don't believe the hype aren't speaking up for fear of not getting funded, Gray said.

The earth is getting slightly warmer, he said, but that pattern is common. Temperatures increased slightly between 1910 and the 1940s, Gray said.

"The globe started cooling, : and the Ice Age people were coming out of the closet, and it changed again," he said. "We have had warming from the middle '70s to around 2000. In the last nine or 10 years, things have been getting slightly cooler."

Gray hypothesized that changes in the circulation of the Atlantic Ocean have created slight warming, rather than carbon dioxide emissions. But he said his theory and others are being ignored as people bemoan a crisis in greenhouse gases.

Those who disagree struggle to be heard, Gray said, adding that the community is being "brainwashed."

"What's happened is, people like Al Gore and all these environmentalists have said, 'I know the answer, I know the answer. I took a course at Harvard and got a 'C' and took another course at Harvard and got a 'C,' and I know what's happening,'" Gray said.

Michaels also said the people making statements about climate change weren't doing their research. The way to win an argument on the topic is to check the facts, he said. Temperatures on Earth are increasing, Michaels said. But it's modest, and little can be done to prevent change, he said.

Michaels displayed a chart showing that carbon emissions have been declining since 2005, which he attributed to an economic slowdown. As carbon emissions have increased, so have human life expectancy and the U.S. gross domestic product, Michaels said.

Other positive changes can be linked to global warming, he said. As the earth warms, the growing season increases. With it comes more vegetation. People think the South American rainforests are disappearing, Michaels said.

"That is the area where the vegetation is increasing the most on the planet," he said, showing satellite images of increases in vegetation across the world.

"This is a horrible thing," Michaels joked. "We really, really, really need to stop this, OK?"

Another concern bandied about is that when the climate warms, more people will die from heat-related incidents. Michaels showed research indicating that fewer people die from heat in warmer cities. Tampa, a warm city with an older population, sees few heat-related deaths, Michaels said.

The public also has misleading information about hurricanes as they relate to global warming, he said. Michaels provided a chart of the frequency of Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes throughout several decades.

"There are a fair number of them right now," he said, "and there were a fairly larger number of them in the western Pacific in the 1950s and 1960s, same in the North Atlantic. That was before global warming."

Gray and Michaels stressed that people need to be skeptical of media reports and informed about the facts. Part of the problem is the news media reporting the line of climate extremists, Gray said.

"That's the story of global warming," Michaels said. "It's a climate of extremes where people don't bother to check the facts. All I suggest you do is check the facts, and you'll win the argument."

Comments

Fred Duckels 5 years ago

Gray said that globle warming skeptics get no funding from the government. Studies that do not toe the line, usually come from private sources and are branded as biased.

0

knee_dropper 5 years ago

So exactly how many peer-reviewed paper's have either Gray or Michael's written on climate change?

0

seeuski 5 years ago

He also said what should have been done was a series of closed to the media debates among equal numbers of scientists on each side of the argument and a final scientific non political analysis could have been properly hammered out for public consumption. Instead the powers to be in government have swayed the argument to favor a pre-specified position by giving grants only to those who agree with those positions. Great for Al Gore but not for the truth. The science they sited showed that the amount of co2 we are responsible for is tiny in comparison to the large factors in nature. Basically saying we haven't the power to change global weather patterns.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

This is all pretty much along the lines of what I've been posting here all along.

We owe it to ourselves to do everything possible to develop alternate energy sources, clean up the environment, and try to do no harm. We don't owe going hungry or cold in the winter to anybody because of political influence.

Anyway, it's about time some prominent experts spoke out and got the facts on the table. Think of all the time, money and energy wasted on this wild goose chase.

This just goes to prove that politicians cannot be trusted. When they are right, it's usually a coincidence.

0

Viper 5 years ago

These scientists would never get funding to study the weather if they didn't invent a crisis.

0

Fred Duckels 5 years ago

kd, I wonder why it changed from global warming to climate change? Do you suppose that dog would no longer hunt? If your boys were right they would not need to change the game.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

It's obvious that the problem for you is too many people. If the population was 1 billion, would you be blaming climate change on them?

What about the dinosaurs? They lived in a warmer world. The continents were in different positions and the ocean currents were obvioiusly different. Plus, what about the Sun? Has its output remained constaint for 160 million years? And what about them Ice Ages in-between? Those are all inconvenient truths as well.

The current climate appears to be really good for human population growth. That's also in an inconvenient truth. Maybe our population increase is a side effect of climate change, eh?

I hope I'm still around 20 years from now to see how this has turned out. The larger planetary, cosmic and orbital factors which truly regulate the amount of heat coming in also vary over time, and once we have 50 years of solar data to peruse along with planetary data we might be able to find some answers. In the meantime, the sky is falling. Duck.

0

Clearsky 5 years ago

If you are burning something, it came from Photosynthesis as did the molecular Oxygen. It took 3.5 billion years for the Earth's atmosphere to reach the surplus O2 that existed as man began to burn things. Today's Photosynthetic organisms cannot keep up with the burning process of man. It will take a few billion years to make the surplus O2 again. Molecular Oxygen is what absorbs ultraviolet energy which excites the electrons to a higher level to form Ozone.,O3. But since it is unstable the O3 releases the difference in energy when the electrons drop to a lower level and the release of energy is violet then eventually blue. As we use up the surplus O2 we have less protection, less Ozone. More DNA damage of plants and animals. (We are using spf of 85 and 100 now. 30 years ago I was using tanning products.) Also The products of combustion CO2, H2O(vapor), NO2, SO2, etc.. are great at absorbing the infrared (heat) portion of the Energy spectrum thus global warming. When plants die they are either burned or metabolized and use up the same amount of O2 they produced in their lifetime. Today's Photosynthetic organisms' contribution to the surplus O2 in our atmosphere is negligible. Wake up people! We are driving toward extinction! Fools, We are.

0

ybul 5 years ago

Yes we do have an effect on the environment. However, the article did not comment on Nitrogen runoff from farms, fish nets, etc..

The Global Warming Alarmist also state the Methane is a problem in the atmosphere. Yet it decomposes and helps to produce Ozone, which is in decline. Maybe, our burning of Methane has caused the Ozone hole.

Who knows, one can only speculate on that. Yes working towards a clean environment is a good goal. However, to blindly blame one factor as the cause is absurd. I think that while one should not ignore what could happen and try to mitigate any potential problems, it might other factors at play. Solar Activity which probably has the most effect on our temps as it has been shown to effect the temps on other planets.

0

Clearsky 5 years ago

Study organic chemistry before stating something that is not. Methane, CH4, absorbs mainly in the infrared region of the Energy Spectrum. 20 times the amount of CO2. Ozone is the result of O2 absorbing ultraviolet and becoming O3(Ozone). As we consume O2, more ultraviolet passes through to the surface of the Earth and is absorbed by the susceptible airborn molecules-exciting the electrons to a higher level and forming oxidizing radicals. O2 is the main ultraviolet absorber in our atmosphere. Use it up and it will take a few billion years to build up again.

0

Clearsky 5 years ago

Extra note- When halogens: fluorine, chlorine, bromine, or iodine absorb Ultraviolet energy, they can react with Methane to form a halogen methane molecule.

0

Fred Duckels 5 years ago

With the impending solar magnetic problem, it looks like a good time to be doing research here, a few more scary articles should prime the pump. When I was young we had a dire warning that all our topsoil was being depleted and we were on the verge of starvation. How about Y2k, consultants and research folks fared well here. I need to come up with something to benefit me, maybe my marketing has not been creative enough.

0

Jeff_Kibler 5 years ago

Halogenated hydrocarbons. Dichloromethane aka methylene chloride is good reason to be picky about your decaf. Regardless, check out the imaging of pentacene from IBM Zurich:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209726/Single-molecule-million-times-smaller-grain-sand-pictured-time.html

http://www.zurich.ibm.com/news/09/pentacene.html

0

knee_dropper 5 years ago

Fred, the game hasn't changed. It's more commonly called climate change because that more accurately represents what's happening. Precipitation amounts and intensities changing as well as warming are happening. If your "boys" could muster up some peer-reviewed papers then that might actually change the game from what it is; sowing the seeds of doubt while not having any credible research of their own.

0

Scott Wedel 5 years ago

Aic, Atmospheric CO2 is measured in parts per million and is currently about 385 ppm. It has been increasing by about 1 ppm per year for at least 50 years. In 1960 it was about 315 ppm.

Oxygen is 20.946% of the atmosphere or 209,460 ppm. So maybe is was like 209,530 in 1960 if the added CO2 all consumed atmospheric CO2.

CO2 is kills people at about 5% (50,000). Coincidentally, if atmospheric CO2 were to approach 5% then there would still be about as much oxygen at sea level as there is currently oxygen at our altitude in SB. So even runaway CO2 levels would not kill us due to a lack of oxygen. The CO2 itself would kill us first.

And yes, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere vary by about 10 ppm as plants absorb CO2 during the growing season and then give it back as they decay. (There is that much more land and plant mass in the northern than the southern hemisphere).

CO2 is not considered a limiting factor in plant growth. So more CO2 is not going to help plants grow. Water, nutrients and sunlight (which includes being in the shade of other plants) are limiting factors. And algae depends upon dissolved gases and thus some of the hottest parts of the oceans are dead zones. So it is most certainly not clear that global warming will result in more plant life.

BTW, CO2 as a heat trapping gas goes back to the 60s. To say that research money flows to greenhouse gas research is like complaining that government research money does not go to researchers claiming smoking does not cause cancer or to researchers that claim evolution is a hoax.

I don't know how Michaels developed his chart showing that CO2 emissions were decreasing. Atmospheric CO2 is clearly still increasing. Other sources using different methods of calculation appear to agree on about 4% annual increase from 2002 to 2006, 3.5% increase in 2007 and 1.7% increase in 2008.

As I stated before, CO2 is clearly a greenhouse and it's atmospheric concentrations are increasing. Just because there is no consensus on exactly how that will change the climate does not mean there is no effect. There is great consensus that there will be an effect which includes warmer global average temperature and rising sea levels.

0

Fred Duckels 5 years ago

kd, Speaking of scientific processes, how did you vote in the last pres election? That is probably the extent of your research. I personally don't know one way or the other, but the conflicts of interest here certainly are of concern. I know more about cap and tax and that is a farce designed to control people, just as I suspect this warming fiasco will do. Have you had your teaspoon of sugar yet today? Are you still two pounds overweight? let's get with it. As soon as I set my timer I'm off to bed and I promise I won't say my prayers.

0

Scott Wedel 5 years ago

Facts: CO2 absorbs infrared. That reduces the amount of infrared that can radiate from the earth's surface into space. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been increasing.

We ignore humankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 at our own peril.

The preferred term is now "climate change" instead of "global warming" because "climate change" is considered to be a more accurate description. Increased heat in the atmosphere is unlikely to be evenly distributed. Some places will probably be much warmer and some places will probably be cooler.

A place like SB could be cooler if warmer atmosphere makes it easier for atmospheric moisture to reach SB and become thundershowers when it reaches the higher mountains.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

All I've got to say about this latest barrage of pseudoscience is that if the oxygen content of the atmosphere was decreasing, we would be noticing the effects in a multitude of measurable ways. Where's the Mauna Kea data on O2?

Clearsky's argument fails on one very important point. The biomass of the Earth which includes photosynthetic organisms is not constant. Warmer climates encourage plant growth and reproduction. If one corn plant gives off a set amount of O2 as a result of photosynthesis, then 1000 corn plants will give off about 1000 times as much oxygen. In the process, they use 1000 times as much CO2 to produce the O2.

It's not a zero sum game. It is possible to drastically increase O2 production by plant propagation, and the only limits are water and CO2. There's plenty of nitrogen around and lots of plants to fix it in the soil. Stopping plant growth is the hard part; standing back and saying, "WOW! Look at them GO!" is the more normal state of affairs in a warm climate.

If there was an O2 shortage, people and animals would be suffering from it right now. Where is the data showing any fluctuation at all in the PP02 in the atmosphere? Inquiring minds want to know!

0

knee_dropper 5 years ago

Yes Fred, the conflicts of interest here certainly are of concern. Certainly with "scientists" like Michael's that receive money from power companies and can't produce any peer-reviewed research that back up what their theories. I wish you luck with the mindset you have that climate change is just some kind of communist scheme to control the masses. If you want to start making assumptions about me, how about this; is your lack of concern about climate change because you probably won't be around to experience it's effects if it worsens? I guess if you value your profits over all else, including the long-term habitability of this planet, then there is nothing to really talk about here.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

One good volcanic eruption and the whole equation changes. Remember "nuclear winter?" How about "asteroid impact?"

We could all be worrying about the equivalent of a balky thermostat on the Titanic. Each of us is limited by our time on Earth, and those of us who have been here longer may tend to have a different perspective than those who are relative newcomers and whipper-snappers.

I was around before the catalytic converter. SMOG was a huge problem in big cities because of automobile exhaust, as was the possibility of lead poisoning (lead was an anti-knock or preignition inhibitor added to gasoline). Those problems were solved by government regulation, at great expense to the consumer (who else?).

"This planet" has ways of dealing with life, as has been demonstrated by the fossil records of numerous mass extinctions in the past.

Personally, I think the worst thing to happen to the environment was the evolution of the thumb. That's right, the opposable grasping thumb that makes it possible to do two things at the same time using two different hands. Whether it's playing the piano or flying a jumbo jet, neither would be possible without the thumb that allowed humans to invent, innovate and manufacture all the objects around us that affect our life on Earth. If the dinosaurs had developed thumbs, we might be digging up fossilized motor vehicles from 65 million years ago. If scientists are right about the extinction event that killed the dinosaurs, then we are no less vulnerable than they were. The only difference is that nothing terribly global has happened lately. The Milky Way galaxy is a big ol' pinball machine and we're just another bumper waiting for the ball to arrive, sooner or later.

The folly in this argument is thinking that we can really do anything about it. 300,000,000 of us are only about 4% of the human population of the Earth. Our choice is to adapt to the changes. We can't stop the changes.

My great grandfather lived through the Civil War. My parents lived through the Great Depression and WW-II. I was old enough to serve in Vietnam but it was over before I was qualified to rain death from the skies. Stuff happens. People adapt or adjust or they die. Our affluence is a result of avoiding a global nuclear war between 1960 and the fall of the Soviet Union. We should be thankful to be where we are, and learn to live with it.

We can't furnish affordable housing, health care, or a cure for H1N1. So, we're worrying about something so vast and tenuous that we can't hope to solve it. In practical terms, global warming is nothing more than a topic for conversation, and the only thing we can realistically change is the subject.

0

JLM 5 years ago

CO2 --- what a bunch of baloney.

We are talking about a gas which makes up a negligible part of our atmosphere and which is essential for photosynthesis as well as maintaining a temperate climate. We have to have CO2 to warm the earth.

Since 1832, we are talking about an increase of 100 PPM (parts per million by volume) while it is acknowledged that historic ice age fluctations over a 100,000 year period are guess what --- up to 100 PPM.

CO2 has the same amospheric impact as a fart on the top of Mt Werner.

This is not even pseudo-science, it is just hysteria. Go plant a tree or some rhutabagas and get over yourself.

Sheesh!

0

Scott Wedel 5 years ago

Aic, The science of climate change is NOT that "global average temp is warmer which must be the result of human activity and best guess of that is CO2"

The science is that the physics of CO2, methane and so on are that their presence in the lower atmosphere reduces the amount of heat (infrared radiation) that escapes to space.

That scientists going back to the 50s started to see from their calculations that manmade activities that were increasing the atmospheric concentration of these gases could start to have noticeable effects upon earth's climate.

Over time, using better and better computers, and more sophisticated models, they kept getting results showing that it doesn't take that much to cause climate change.

And when observed data started matching projections then a lot more people took notice.

Climate change is not something simply made up. There are all sorts of reasons to think it is credible and that we are seeing changes in climate due to human activity. The dogma lies with those that proclaim there is no climate change and then go looking for some flaw in their perception of the science of climate change.

0

Scott Mandia 5 years ago

(cont.)

AIC, you seem to like proof. So do I.

In your next post would you please show proof of what IS causing the unprecedented modern day global warming?

Keep in mind that if your answer is not greenhouse gas emissions from humans you just won yourself the next Nobel in science.

Good luck.

0

Fred Duckels 5 years ago

kd, If Michaels does any research the money will come from the private sector, how can we get good research if the administration only funds one side of the argument? I find the argument irrelevant since we need to go away from oil and carbon fuels for other reasons. Ignoring nuclear in favor of solar and wind tells me we are going to tamp down our consumption, as these alternatives are relatively minor solutions that have too much downside. They also are the key to controlling the masses. Too much nuclear energy provides us entirely too much freedom. The cap and trade fiasco will place the chosen winners on the path to easy street. That is why many are lined up to cooperate, Al Gore is first in line. You are right I will not be around to suffer the consequences, but I don't let profit affect my thinking. If I did I would not spend time commenting.

0

Scott Wedel 5 years ago

Fred, There is no serious argument about climate change. The physics of more atmospheric CO2 that captures more infrared radiation is so straightforward that there is nothing to scientifically debate regarding the lower atmosphere being warmer as CO2 concentrations increase.

There is plenty to argue regarding how that affects the climate.

The idea that climate change is irrelevant because there have been variations in CO2 and we have had ice ages and other climate variations might be reasonable if we were nomadic tribesmen that move as the seasons change.

Climate change is a big issue because there are billions of people and trillions of dollars of infrastructure on the planet. We will all be poorer if however much of that needs to be changed or scrapped because it is no longer appropriate for the local climate. For instance, SB could have warmer and drier winters with rainy summers and cease to be a tourist mecca.

Anyway, we can agree that the longer term solution is to go away from fossil fuels. Nuclear should not be ignored because it can provide a huge amount of power. Nuclear is not that cheap and will not give us freedom because it costs so much to build a plant that has a limited lifetime. But modern plants with modern highly redundant sensors and computer monitoring with real time onsite simulation capabilities (so the appropriate response to an emergency is not left upto the guesses of operators) are safe and there is no reason not to be building some.

Wind is actually pretty cheap in the right locations if there are nearby transmission lines.

Cap and trade is not a great solution. But when the congressional republicans remove themselves from participating in the solution and instead say ignorant stuff like CO2 is a harmless gas (and therefore cannot cause climate change???) and so on then do you really expect the Democrats on their own to come up with a financially efficient solution? They took the path of least resistance and gave the store to the biggest CO2 emitters.

0

seeuski 5 years ago

It is too bad that the global warming enthusiasts were not in on the presentations given by the 2 "scientists". The amount of co2 that we are responsible for is less than 4% of the natural occurring factors. By shutting down our economy, we will only succeed in making the minority who believe Al Gore feel good,and we will create the opportunities for foreign countries to prosper as they pick up the slack as is evidenced by the over 2 billion dollars Obama sent to George Soros's off shore drilling company in Brazil. And now we have the British Government releasing a convicted terrorist who killed hundreds of Americans in the Pan Am bombing for a lucrative oil contract with Libya and the White House would have to have been informed of such a thing so they are complicit with the fore knowledge. I am just saying that the little people who argue amongst themselves about GW are pawns in a global corporate conspiracy. Mother Earth will be just fine it is the American people who will suffer. The amount of co2 reduction proposed by the Cap and Tax bill will take us back to the way we lived in 1867. That is when we produced 80% less of the less than 4% co2 than now. I'm out. And another thing, anyone who is a Global Warming believer and still eats meat and drives a car is a hypocrite. Stop it.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

This whole thing really harks back to the days when Hitler decided that the Jews were running the world, and decided to get rid of them to solve the problems. He decided to knock off the retarded people, those with genetic defects, gypsies and others in the process. He invented the Aryan race (literally made it up in his head) to justify getting rid of lesser humans in favor of a Master Race.

He convinced millions of his countrymen to engage in war and genocide based on a made-up story. It was all propaganda, based on a few loose facts. Oops.

Anthropogenic Global warming is all progaganda, based on a few loose facts. The climate may be getting warmer, but if humans can warm it so easily, then we ought to be able to banish winter by doing more of the same. Good luck with that.

I have begun to believe that people who don't have the equivalent of a Masters Degree in chemistry or physics or an appropriate engineering discipline are not qualified to even talk about it. Thermodynamics is the place to START talking about the effects of CO2, and branch out from there.

This whole flap is about a bunch of gullible people believing a bunch of political crap. It's a cult. Whatever is going on with the climate, hardly anyone is capable of explaining it comprehensively because the so-called scientists are so comparmentalized in their own fields.

There was a large body of so-called science that kept African people at a disadvantage based on assumptions about their intelligence and psychology. That's the best example I can give of what this global warming thing sounds like to people who understand the little pieces of what's going on. There's far more prejudice than science at work in this debate, and it's about time that people started realizing it.

0

seeuski 5 years ago

aich, William Gray actually said about the same thing as you, that because he was an oceanography scientist he sees it that the water is responsible for weather pattern changes and that a scientist who studies the sun sees that solar activity is the culprit and so on. And that is why he said a series of 25 scientific panels without any political pressures from either end could work through the science properly. But when people make statements like "the debate is over", or "there is total scientific agreement on the subject" we are getting the Al Gore/Michael Moore effect and that means hold on to your wallets.

0

Scott Mandia 5 years ago

Gray stated: "In the last nine or 10 years, things have been getting slightly cooler.""

Nothing could be further from the truth! I have a detailed Website that shows why people are being mislead that there is global cooling.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_dimming.html

Dr. Gray should know better than to claim that ten years or less data is almost meaningless to the overall climate trend. I think he DOES know better but is telling us what he HOPES is true and not what is ACTUALLY true. He is NOT an expert on climate change and his statements bear that out.

0

Scott Mandia 5 years ago

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/

Historian of science, Naomi Oreskes of UC San Diego, states "Scientific knowledge is the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence, and evaluated according to accepted methodologies. If we feel that a policy question deserves to be informed by scientific knowledge, then we have no choice but to ask, what is the consensus of experts on this matter."

Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is little serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming. The Website above summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change skeptics and denialists.

The only plausible explanation is that today's warming is primarily due to human activities. The increase in greenhouse emissions can easily account for this warming. There is robust evidence for the man-made global warming. There are no other known sources of warming that can explain the observed modern climate change. People that claim there is no warming or that the warming is not caused by humans have offered no credible alternate hypotheses. Yes, these folks make claims but none of the claims has stood up to scientific scrutiny. Because I see/hear much disinformation from well-intentioned folks, I feel it is my duty to try to educate people on this very important matter. Unfortunately, it is an uphill battle because most of the real science is discussed in hard-to-read scientific journals and most of the bad science is easily accessible on Web pages, blogs, and other forms of mass media. Worse, there are political organizations such as The Heartland Institute that present themselves as scientific organizations but these organizations are directly and indirectly funded by the fossil fuel industry and others that stand to lose if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

It is fine to be skeptical, but it is never fine to be a denialist. A skeptic is willing to hear both sides and is honest with his assessment of the information. A denialist blindly accepts everything that supports his opinion and immediately discards everything that does not. Carefully read my Global Warming site with an honest, open mind. Then weigh what I am discussing with what you have heard and where/who you have heard it from.

0

knee_dropper 5 years ago

Yep, thirty + years of climate research has a LOT in common with Nazism and the era of segregation. Thanks for dumning it down so a simpleton like myself can understand what's really going on Aich. It's comments like that that make me wonder just how far out on the fringe some of you other posters are. This isn't just a handful of scientists that are just making their research up for political reasons. On the contrary, the handful of scientist that still dispute climate change seem to be on the outside looking in without anything to show for themselves and are busy trying to politicize science. When they start presenting peer-reviewed research to the public that'll be the day I pay attention to what they have to say.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

Knee-dropper and Scott Mandia,

If either one of you folks had any personal expertise at all in science to call upon to make your conclusions, you would certainly have my attention.

The only thing you have done is quote the sources you agree with. In that sense, you are no different than our much maligned former President George W. Bush who openly stated his belief in a higher power which he believes guides and judges us all. In both cases, it is faith in something unseen that drives the belief, not any hard fact that can show a direct cause and effect.

Weather specialists study the weather. They can hardly predict what's going to happen an hour in advance. They can observe up a storm (tee hee) but can't tell you which trailer park is going to be hit by a tornado until after it happens. Those are hard, cold facts. With freakin' satellites and doppler radar actually watching the progress of a storm, they cannot tell you what it's going to do in the next minute. Tornadoes form and dissipate, but nobody can tell you exactly when and where.

We are all well aware that climate change occurs. The geological and biological records prove it. Nobody can truly explain why such change occurs, and we may have been in a warming cycle, and are now in a cooling cycle, but all of it is based on observation with no ability whatsoever to predict which way it's going. 20 or 30 years ago, there was fear of an oncoming Ice Age. "Hard" science fiction novels by notable authors (such as Niven and Pournelle) warned of man's dabbling in the weather and plunging the Earth into an ice age. The cooling trend was there. Then it reversed. C'est la vie. (That's life).

The real nature of our world is randomness. The mixing of wind and heat and rain and terrain and pressure gradients and every other factor that affects the course and strength of a storm occur randomly and continuously, resulting in an impossible-to-predict result. Chemical reactions are the same way at the molecular and atomic level. The decay of a Uranium atom into Lead is something that we know occurs, but which atom decays and when it decays is completely random. We see gross averages because we cannot measure with enough precision to know exactly what goes on from moment to moment, and so we observe aggregations of uncountable numbers of random events over time and call it a discrete result. Bull$#!+.

And that's how it works with the climate, too.

Einstein thought the Universe was constant, with no beginning or end. His work led to the Big Bang theory. Fred Hoyle thought the same thing, yet, his work also supports the Big Bang theory. The world's greatest authorities on Physics and the Cosmos turned out to be WRONG with respect to the current state of the art. The current theories may be wrong too, but at least people are still looking for the truth instead of relying on what somebody else told them.

(cont)

0

aichempty 5 years ago

(cont)

L'Hospital's Rule will tell you whether a function is convergent or divergent. The problem is coming up with the function that describes the phenomenon your're studying. You might as well try to predict what the stock marker it going to do a year in advance. It's too random with too many complex interractions and too much uncertainly, INCLUDING THE WEATHER.

The Catholic Church demands "proof" of miracles before canonization of a saint. Proof? It's all annecdotal. Spontaneous cures of diseases can happen, and when it happens, some people say it's a miracle. Others say, "Statistically, it had to happen."

I do not argue with evidence of climate change. Some of it can be due to bias in measurements and changes in methods over time. Correlation of higher CO2 with human population growth is there too, but it's a chicken and egg question; which comes first?

A good scientist does not jump to convenient conclusions. Penzius and Wilson were looking for the source of static on communications circuits when they discovered the background radiation left over from the Big Bang. They had no idea what they had found until its significance was voiced by others. They thought it was from pigeon poop in the antenna they were using. They didn't win the Nobel Prize because they confirmed a result predicted by theory. They won the Nobel Prize because they stumbled across something that turned out to support theories that already existed. Big difference.

I think it was Niels Bohr who figured out how to prove Einstein's E=MC^2 equation by observing the energy given off by the decay of a Uranium atom. The energy given off was related to the reduction in mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. That's quite a long way from "CO2 has gone up and it's warmer, so CO2 must be the cause."

We're not that far way from a time when the Pope was in charge of the workings of the Universe, and the Pope turned out to be wrong. So were all the priests and believers who obeyed the Pope.

Doctors didn't believe that tiny invisible organisms caused infection until it was proven by Pasteur and Lister (father of antiseptic surgery). Open heart surgery was cutting edge stuff (tee hee) in the mid 1950's, and today they can run a catheter up your leg or stick robot arms inside your thorax and fix just about anything that ails you when it comes to heart valves and clogged arteries.

Based on the history of science, it's pretty easy to say that there's a good chance that whatever everyone believes is wrong. Damn, folks, but even the impact craters now readily observable from space for what they are were once thought to be extinct volcanoes. The Iridium in the KT boundary was the first big clue, but at the time, anyone who said the craters were from asteroid impacts was declared crazy.

(cont)

0

aichempty 5 years ago

So, climate change "may" be affected by human activity, but which way? For the good, or bad? We don't know. That's three uncertainties right there, and the fact that laymen want to blame harmful climate change on humans is some kind of guilty wishful thinking. WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER YET. That's the only thing we know for sure.

One of the current "unknowns" in cosmology is the source of "dark energy" which is demonstrably causing the Universe to expand at an increasing rate. Things are moving apart, and are accelerating as they go. This is 100% contrary to everything predicted by Physics, but it appears to be true. Scientists don't know what this mysterious "force" is because they cannot observe the source. Is it a fifth force, heretofore unknown, or maybe something more intuitive and obvious -- simple gravity. My dog in this fight is the idea of distant massive objects (or even a sort of massive "shell" around the visible universe) which are pulling the visible objects away from the center by the force of gravity. Is the missing "dark matter" predicted by the Big Bang theory just stuff out there (like the concentrated mass of neutron stars, or something akin to black holes which cannot be observed because no energy escapes to reveal their existence to our current means of observation?) that has so much gravity it's pulling the visible universe apart from the center? The effect appears to be real, it is directly observable, but it cannot yet be explained by current state-of-the-art science.

Climate change is equally mysterious and the fact is we can see it happening, but we cannot really explain why.

So, Scott, I greatly respect your opinion and the evidence you rely upon, but don't forget that a jury of 12 peers acquitted O. J. Simpson of murder even though "everybody knows he did it." The fact is, it's all a matter of opinion because nobody knows the truth except O. J., and he's not talking.

So, my point in this sermon on reason and doubt is that opinion is not evidence, and the evidence is all circumstantial at this point. It may be true, but it may not. So be honest and admit that you don't know enough about it personally to give a definitive answer. When you can give an answer that positively refutes every argument to the contrary on a scientific basis, I'll believe it. Until then, the jury is out, and your opinion is no better than mine. I just don't bother to put up a website stating the obvious doubts that ethical scientists have about the subject. Why? Because, as you say, it's all wrapped up in scientific gobbledygoop which untrained people cannot understand. If everyone sought the answers based in real scientific research and acknowledged the uncertainties, we'd all be a lot better off, and we'd all still be in the dark because we just don't know.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

(cont)

Just one more thought, and then I'll move on.

Not so long ago, scientists believed that flies arose from maggots which were spontaneously produced by rotting meat. That turned out to be wrong.

Even Fred Hoyle believed that nucleogenesis produced all of the heavy elements (everything more massive than Hydrogen and Helium produced in the Big Bang according to current theories). Nuclear fusion of hydrogen and helium nuclei in stars and in supernova explosions is now thought to be the source of all the heavier elements. Cook enough neutrons and protons and electrons at high enough temperature and pressure and you get Iron, Calcium, Uranium, Sodium, Potassium, etc. They're like atomic tinker toys that can be combined into different configurations which have different chemical and physical properties. The heaviest elements, some of which spontaneously decay into lighter elements almost immediately after they are produced, can be created by smashing atomic particles together at high speed. There are elements known today which were unknown when my CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (1968 edition) was published.

Science has a lot of definitive answers about a lot of things, and they have all been proved by theory, experimentation and observation of the outcomes. The climate change theories all lack that definitive proof, and are currently no more valid than the idea that maggots spontaneously arise from spoiled meat. You must know history as well as science to understand the controversy, and you must seek the truth in observable cause and effect in order to claim "proof."

So, your statement that human activity is the only "plausible" explanation for climate change is a perfect demonstration of the fact that you don't know how much you don't know.

Keep looking, keep seeking the truth, and some day we may know the truth, but remember that the stuff you publish may turn out to be no more valid than the the disproven theory about maggots and spoiled meat. You may be 100% right, but Brother, if you are it's just another coincidence at this point.

0

Scott Mandia 5 years ago

AIC,

Anthropogenic global warming is about as certain as evolution, plate tectonics, HIV causing AIDS, etc. Interestingly, there are well-known scientists, even Nobel winning scientists that refute evolution, HIV as the sauce of AIDS, and plate tectonics.

I am suprised you do not realize that in science there can never be 100% certainty. Even gravity has some problems but everynone thinks that questions is 100% solved.

The data does not lie. The data tells us that modern day global warming is occurring at an unprecedented rate. Each and every argument that denialists pose has been completely shot down.

"Changes in ocean circulation, land surface changes, solar fluctuations, cloud fluctuation, volcanic activity."

NONE of these has been shown with any consensus to be the underlying driver of climate change. Man-made greenhouse gas emissions HAVE been shown with great consensus.

The IPCC 2007 and the Copenhagen 2009 Synthesis Report show that there is a virtual certainty about AGW and the unprecedented nature of AGW. You do not need to take my word for it. These are the experts from around the world. When we stop listening to experts in any field then we might as well stop going to school, stop reading, and stay in our caves.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

Alright, fellers. Time out.

There is a statistical correlation between climate change and human activity. That's ALL.

CO2 and methane do NOT prevent heat from escaping back into space. CO2 and methane retain heat longer than some other substances. They do not generate heat. They only hold it, like a rock left by the campfire that is still warm after the fire has gone out.

The biggest greenhouse gas problem is with methane. Methane is a naturally occurring gas, and is also released spontaneously from petroleum deposits as well as from the guts of cows and termites.

Can we measure atmospheric pressure within 130 parts per million? How about 500 parts per million? What is the atmospheric pressure at sea level compared to 150 years ago? Gasses emitted from the sea bed, petroleum deposits, volcanoes, etc., which was previously sequestered in the Earth's crust would cause an increase in total atmospheric pressure over time. It's the same effect as adding water to a swimming pool, making it a bit deeper, and increasing the pressure on the bottom of the pool. Simple physics. So, is our atmosphere getting thicker along with the higher concentrations of CO2 and methane? A simple increase in atmospheric pressure could account for part of the warming, and it may be too small to measure accurately as a matter of pressure, but the collateral effect of warming due to compression could be a factor.

And trump, the baking soda idea was a joke. Geez. Get a life. It was a ridiculous example that could easily catch on and have millions of school kids copping the baking soda out of the fridge to pour into the river to save the oceans.

Scott, you are telling me what other people say. You are telling me the "compelling" parts of their arguments. You're not doing any of the science yourself, nor asking scientific questions about those arguments, and so I can only assume that's because you are not a scientist.

There are a lot of very smart single-minded buffoons in the scientific fields who have obtained Ph.D. degrees by spouting back conventional wisdom to their dissertation committees. There are lots of people who can find a trend that follows a trend and call it proof. Here's the problem. A sine wave goes up half the time, and down half the time, and the average is zero. Depending on where you observe the wave, and the data you hace, you can find an increase, a decrease, or no change at all. That's the problem with your arguments and those of the scientists you quote. They have found a positive correlation in two sets of data, and called it proof. But what happens when the temperature data starts to drop off and disagree with the atmospheric gas data, as is going on right now. "Oh, that's just a blip in the data. It's a short term effect." Well, a warmer climate may also just be a blip in the data. That's the problem nobody on YOUR side of the argument will admit.

(cont).

0

Scott Mandia 5 years ago

(cont.)

"Changes in ocean circulation, land surface changes, solar fluctuations, cloud fluctuation, volcanic activity."

NONE of these has been shown with any consensus to be the underlying driver of climate change. Man-made greenhouse gas emissions HAVE been shown with great consensus.

The IPCC 2007 and the Copenhagen 2009 Synthesis Report show that there is a virtual certainty about AGW and the unprecedented nature of AGW.

So we are left with three possible conclusions:

1) An overwhelimg majority of climate experts agree on AGW and are honest.

2) An overwhelming majority of climate experts are ignorant about their "expertise". Basically they all have sudden and collective Alzheimer's.

3) They have all agreed to conspire to delude the billions of folks on the planet and just a very small % of them - the denialists - are trying to save us all from this mass hoax.

Hmmm.....

The IPCC 2007 Reports (specifically IPCC WGI) show incredible amounts of evidence. The IPCC site is: http://www.ipcc.ch/ These reports are very technical so I suggest reading the IPCC WGI FAQ which is located at: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf and then read the Climate Congress Synthesis Report at: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport/

Scientists are not the policy-makers or we would have been dealing with the problem years ago. The point I am making (and many others) is that the general public isn't getting the message and because of this, they are not demanding action from their elected officials.

Unfortunately, the public (and many elected officials) are not reading the scientists' journals where most of this data is found. Instead, they follow "science" on mass media which tends to make it appear as though there is a real debate about global warming and its causes. Journalists are trained to "give both sides of the story" even if the sides are not 50/50. With global warming the sides are about 97% to 3% for scientists that agree humans are causing global warming and the efffects may be catastrophic. Therefore, 97% of the news coverage should show this but it does not.

My site is fairly easy to read so take some time and read what I have there. Do so with an open mind and then decide for yourself. I make no money from the site nor do I have any financial support for taking the side of the scientific consensus. It is my job to report the data.

0

trump_suit 5 years ago

Come on Aich, tell him about your baking soda idea..... He might also help with the Unified Theory thing if you ask nice.

This presentation by Mr Michaels is so like the scientists that debunked the dangers of smoking. If you do not think that human activity is changing the planet take a close look at any satellite picture of our air and water resources. When viewed from space it is clear (actually very mucky) that human activity is changing our air and water.

The conservative right( read oil profits) will have us believe that all is well and that it will cost us dearly to clean up our activities. What they mean by this is that we will put the oil and coal companies out of business if we are successful at creating another energy industry.

I don't mean to imply that we should ride our bikes to work or quit burning coal, but it is long past due for us to find alternative sources of energy that we can produce here at home in an enviromentally friendly way. It wil take 50-100 years to accomplish this feat so the time to get started is already here..

Your children are waiting and hoping. The writing is on the wall if you choose to listen and learn. Will you go the way of the dinosaurs or are you capable of learning new tricks?

0

aichempty 5 years ago

I know that man has changed the planet. I am aware of all the observable effects. The thing I have not seen is a thermodynamic analysis of the atmospheric gas composition which proves that the observed increase in temperatures is a result of the greenhouse effect. It could be. But nobody has come forward with the smoking gun. Heat in, time, and heat out are the things nobody publishes papers about. There's been no work I've seen that proves our current atmospheric composition results in a net heat gain at the surface over time. Show me that one, based on thermodynamic analysis, documenting that the temperature change due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a measurable part of the problem (and compare it with methane) and then you'll start to have credibility.

It's a very simple thing. I suspect that we don't have the instrumentation to measure the change in temperature caused by a 130 PPM change in CO2 concentration in a given volume of gas. Lacking this ability, people are drawing on annecdotal data and statistical correlation to blame CO2 and us evil humans for the temperature increase.

Any student of mechanical engineering has probably solved the problem of an iron bar stuck in a block of ice with a blowtorch heating the other end, and had to compute the temperature at some point in-between. That's the analysis I'm talking about as a starting point. It's a first-principles issues.

Show me the results on that one, and we'll take it from there.

Just as there is a statistical correlation between vaccinations and autism in children, but no proven cause and effect, there is probably also a statistical correlation between drug use by the parents and autism in children. The difference is that we don't have the data to analyze on the parents' drug use.

Many things in nature tend to be correlated and clustered, but that doesn't mean there is a direct relationship among them. Until atmospheric science gets past this idea as "proof" we're never going to know the answer.

0

Scott Wedel 5 years ago

Aic, Climate change is NOT about seeing warming and then looking for a reason. The calculations PREDATE observations of average global temp increasing.

I don't know what calculation you say you need. There are so many of them that are so easy to find that I don't see why you haven't found them. If you can describe the specific calculation that you want then I'll find it for you.

The big debate over calculations is not that there are greenhouse gases. Actually, it was established in the 1800s that the atmosphere heated the planet because black body calculations showed that the earth would be 40 degrees C colder if there was no atmosphere.

Simple and global circulation (big and complex) models agree that more manmade greenhouse gases will raise the temp in the short term.

The debate is over all of the various complexities (warmer water holds less dissolved gas, how temp affect humidity, dynamics of clouds and so on). And thus the models do not agree on the various feedback effects and so the projected temp increase over 50 and 100 years can range from 2C to 7C.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

Scott,

Here it is.

What is the net heat gain in the the atmosphere resulting from 280 PPM of CO2 versus 150 PPM of CO2?

The calculation must consider Solar flux (heat coming in), radiation (heat going out) and the time involved in the heating and cooling of the CO2.

To simply it, what is the net heat gain in 1,000,000 cubic meters of air at sea level at 280 PPM versus 150 PPM if they were sitting side-by-side, with equal exposure to the sun, equal shade and time to cool, over a period of a year? The difference in heat retained will translate into a temperature differential between the two volumes of air in degress F or C, you can pick.

Oh, and then do it again with dry air versus atmospheric air, and see what you get? You get the fact that 130 PPM of CO2 is overshadowed by the water in the air and becomes negligible. Between water and methane, CO2 has no measurable impact because of fluctuating humidity that makes a much greater difference in a large volume of air.

0

knee_dropper 5 years ago

Nice theory aich, have you created the modeling that came up with that theory or did you pull it out of thin air? Who do you think I will believe the vast majority of climate scientists that have been researching and publishing peer-reviewed papers on climate change, or some poster that thinks he/she has it all figured out that CO2 concentrations don't really matter? IMO, comparing climate scientists motives with those of nazis and segregationists probably doesn't help your cause, but it helps me understand where your opinion's coming from.

0

Scott Mandia 5 years ago

The radiative forcing of CO2 from human activities between 1750 and 2005 is approximately 1.7 Watts per sq. meter with an error bar of approximately .1 W/m2. During this time CO2 increased about 100 ppm. For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 values have ranged between 190 ppm and 300 ppm and are now approaching 390 ppm. The CO2 increase between 1750 and 2005 is almost exclusively caused by human emissions (IPCC, 2007). All of this data is well established and, of course, the CO2 concentration is rising every year and therefore so is the radiative forcing.

Water vapor is NOT a forcing mechanism because it has a resident time of approximately ten days. It IS however a positive feedback triggered by warming because as temperatures rise the saturation vapor pressure of water increases. That means that more water vapor is present in warmer air at the same average global RH. Water vapor is a very important greenhouse gas and it will increase the warming caused by CO2. It is NOT, however, a forcing mechanism for climate change so your argument is moot.

By volume (rounded), the gas concentration of air includes 78% nitrogen (N2) and 21% oxygen (O2) with the remaining made up of gases including argon (1%), water vapor (0-1%), carbon dioxide (.04%), and other trace gases. The greenhouse effect from natural greenhouse gas concentrations prior to the Industrial Revolution has kept the Earth's surface about 33 oC warmer than with an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases. Although greenhouse gas concentrations appear to be small, their effect is certainly not.

There is a common misconception that the concentration levels of carbon dioxide are so small that they could not possibly be causing global warming. As mentioned previously, the natural greenhouse effect (from gas concentrations before the Industrial Revolution) has kept the Earth's surface about 33 oC warmer than with an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases. Pre-Industrial Revolution CO2 levels ranged between 190 ppm and 300 ppm. Today they are rapidly approaching 400 ppm. Because levels of carbon dioxide are well above natural levels, it should not be hard to see how these increases could cause temperatures to rise at least a few oC. 2 degrees C increase would have catastrophic consequences. The 0.7 C rise is already causing serious problems, especially to ecosystems.

To see the radiative forcing values of various components please look at: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/radiative_forcing.gif

Of interest is that changes in solar irradiance betwen 1750 and 2005 accounts for only .1 to .4 W/m2 which is dwarfed by greenhouse gas emissions.

0

Scott Mandia 5 years ago

BTW, I am a meteorologist and am very well-read on this subject. I am not a climate scientist actively working in the field but I have never claimed to be. My site is pretty clear - I am telling the public what the EXPERTS are saying about global warming and its causes. As I have stated before, most of these experts are not speaking to the public but are speaking in the standard scientific vehicle: peer-reviewed journals. It is for precisely that reason people like you are misinformed. You are obviously intelligent but now you need to try to be objective and use common sense, logic, and a sense of probability.

I am still waiting for you to reply to my question so that you may pick up your Nobel.

I am done here. I hope I was able to enlighten some of you on this very important matter.

0

Scott Wedel 5 years ago

Aic, I am not able to personally perform those particular calculations.

I note that your proposed calculations would be expected to provide incorrect results because water vapor is critical. Yes, the overall effect of CO2 can be minor (just a few degrees) because the calculations need to show about 40C of heating to get from calculated earth temp without atmosphere to current temps. So even a minor change that shows global heating from 40C to 42C predicts huge climate change.

Those types of calculations (one dimensional column of air) were first performed a hundred years ago. Even then they realized that humidity was critical because water vapor also traps heat and humidity is dependent upon temp. So any increase in temp from CO2 is amplified by the additional water vapor. One of the challenges throughout the years has been to develop models that accurately predict water vapor.

And yes, methane is also an important greenhouse gas. It is currently at 1.7 ppm while CO2 is 383 ppm so CO2 is not irrelevant.

That sort of "look at these results" when the premise is incorrect is exactly the sort of pseudo scientific reasoning that the cigarette manufacturers used to claim for decades that smoking did not cause cancer.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

33 degrees Centigrade is 91.4 degrees F. If your information is correct, then without greenhouse gas we would be living on a frozen world. I've seen 136 F in Death Valley in the middle of summer, meaning that at 91.4 degrees lower the maximum summertime temperatures would be around 45 degrees. The balmy South which hovers around 90 to 100 degrees on summer days would be stuck between 0 and 10 degrees F.

You're going to have to define "radiative forcing" for me before we can continue. I am not familiar with that term.

I found the following link which claims that the average solar radiation per square metre of the Earth's surface is 342 W/m^2. http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solrad.html

If this value is equivalent to "radiative forcing" then 1.7 W/m^2 is approximately .005 of the total, or five one-thousandths, or five parts in one thousand, of the energy arriving in sunlight. So, you need to define the term for me and relate it to the 342 W/m^2 arriving by sunlight so we can continue the debate.

Also, please explain the significance of 1.7 W/m^2 "radiative forcing" from CO2 compared to the radiative forcing due to the other gasses in the atmosphere, as you pointed out above.

There seems to be an implied assumption that since CO2 is increasing in concentration currently, it will continue at the same rate forever. This is not likely. As I have posted before on this forum, if you plot the human population versus CO2 content of the atmosphere over the past 150 years, the human population goes up much faster (exponentially) than the CO2, which shows a basically linear growth rate. This says to me that we'd have to double the population again to around 14 billion to add another 150 ppm of CO2, and we cannot support 14 million people. This data also indicates that, even with rampant industrialization and exponential population growth, the incremental increases in CO2 lag way behind what one would expect if CO2 accumulated on a per-capita basis.

The upshot of the data for CO2 in PPM versus human population over the years is that the rate of CO2 increase is not directly related to population increase. The marginal increase in CO2 appears to be decreasing with increasing population, indicating that something else is going on. So, are plants reacting to the increased levels of CO2 and soaking it up, or is it going somewhere else besides into the air, or is it really not directly related to the human population increase at all? This is one of the reasons I tend to believe that the increases in population and CO2 are positively correlated, but not highly correlated. If there was a direct link between CO2 in ppm and human population, there should be at least four times more CO2 now than there was 150 years ago, because there are at least four times more people now than there were 150 years ago.

0

knee_dropper 5 years ago

Aich, may be the reason why CO2 is lagging behind population growth is because most of the world has not become industrialized yet. China and India are just getting started, what do you think will happen to their CO2 output when they reach a level of consumption that we are at today?

0

Scott Wedel 5 years ago

From Widipedia: In climate science, radiative forcing is (loosely) defined as the change in net irradiance at the tropopause. "Net irradiance" is the difference between the incoming radiation energy and the outgoing radiation energy in a given climate system and is thus measured in Watts per square meter.

As for climate without atmosphere and greenhouse gases, it would be hot during the day and much colder at night. So it would still be 100+ in Death Valley during the day, but would really plummet at night. It'd be much closer to Mars.

And from the geological record, it is pretty clear the earth has been quite a bit warmer and quite a bit cooler. So we have no reason to believe that regardless of what we add to the atmosphere that the climate will remain unchanged.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

Knee dropper,

All of those people eat. They burn fuel to cook food. The more primitive the society, the more wasteful the fuel consumption and the more CO2 that gets generated. Plus, consider the burning of forests to clear land . . .

The lag is not "slight." The gap between CO2 growth and population growth is so large that no statistical correlation can be claimed. Both are still on a positive slope, but population growth has a much steeper slope which increases over time (exponentially for now) while CO2 is pretty much a straight line from 150 years ago to today. The statistical correlation of linear CO2 growth over time is very high (over .9) and is undeniable. Its relationship to human population growth is the place where the prediction breaks down. CO2 is just not keeping up with the population.

Scott,

With the amount of water on Earth versus Mars, ice cover would reflect a lot more incoming sunlight during the day. We'd have the "snowball Earth" which has apparently occurred in the past. Lack of CO2 and methane could be the tippers on that global disaster.

So, 1.7 W/m^2 due to man-made CO2 is a tiny bit of energy compared to the 342 W/m^2 from sunlight. We still need more direct information on the relative contributions of CO2 versus the other greenhouse gases (including water) to get a handle on how severe the CO2 part of the issue really is.

So, while I don't disagree with the Mauna Kea data and I acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, calling upon the United States to haul the burden of reducing an insignificant and almost negligible contributor to the problem is the hang-up. The more we learn about this and understand the underlying physics of CO2 versus other gases, the more apparent it becomes that we're looking for our car keys under the streetlight because the light is better, even though we lost them somewhere in the dark.

Can the global temperature increase be attributed to 1.7 W/m^2 due to CO2? Let's see that calculation, please.

0

knee_dropper 5 years ago

Not to get bogged down in needless details, but you claim"All of those people eat. They burn fuel to cook food. The more primitive the society, the more wasteful the fuel consumption and the more CO2 that gets generated." Yeah a family living in a mud hut cooking their food over a wood fire produces more CO2 than a family living in a large house heated by a gas furnace, has electronics running all day, flies to Steamboat on jets during the winter and drives to soccer practice in a Suburban; give me a break. Maybe they'd be more wasteful if they were running their Wii, plasma screen and DVR off of a wood-powered generator in their mud shack.

BTW, you still haven't answered Scott M's question. For someone that seems to enjoy talking down to most of us that don't have the apparent high level of education in science that you do, your understanding of climate science seems to be a little shallow. Refuting the findings that he cited with how significant you THINK it is not very scientific, until you begin to back up your theory with work to prove it, no? Or are you basing your theories on other's work that you haven't acknowledged yet?

0

trump_suit 5 years ago

According to another Aich'ism CO2 production is like pushing a car uphill. I am sure Aich will correct me if I have misquoted him here). What this means is that human activity has to produce more and more CO2 to keep the levels already in place due to natural reduction processes.

According to the CDIAC, this analyis is completely flawed as the following link discusses.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/ocean.lifetime.doc

The basic premise of these discussions is that the environment has achieved balance in this equation and that all the CO2 we are generating will continue to accumulate for 100's of years without some intervention in the way of CO2 reduction.

0

trump_suit 5 years ago

So, the bottom line is this:

We have models and predictions from the 80's and 90's that show certain events will happen if CO2 levels hit xxx PPM.

Now in 2009 and looking forward we are seeing those models predictions began to come true.

I would say that the preponderance of the evidence leads us to believe that Human activity is causing CO2 levels to rise. This in turn is leading to an increase in the Global average temperature. If you live in Steamboat or Siberia this might not matter much, but if you live in Miami or Bangladesh you may have a different opinion.

What will happen to our economy if we experience a 3 Meter rise in sea levels? These are serious questions with serious consequences. Doesn't it make just a little sense to invest in alternative technologies today so that we will have choices 50 years from now?

There is simply no way for us to stop the CO2 emissions in our lifetimes, the technologies needed are immature and expensive. If we do nothing and listen to our "Drill baby drill" friends our children and grandchildren may find themselves in a world that looks more like 1850 than 2050.

It is time to get serious about new energy solutions!

0

aichempty 5 years ago

I have not answered Scott's question because I don't have the answers. The fact is, nobody has the answers. I'm trying to decipher the myth from the science from the statistical models to the detailed physical models that consider things like heat transfer, sunlight, seasons, ground cover and all the rest.

I'm only doing what I am encouraging all of you to do. Learn what's really going on and then take steps to solve the real problem instead of the ones that are not valid.

Peer review is fine. Global climate change crosses lots of scientific boundaries, however, and there is no single "peer" group that has congnizance over all of the facts.

I will only say for now, until someone is forthcoming with the calculations I asked for, that we don't see any major university laboratories coming out with definitive positions on the problem. What does Johns Hopkins have to say about it? Duke? Georgia Tech? MIT? Those are the opinions that appear to be missing.

Either nobody is funding the major universities, or people don't want to hear what the major universities have to say, or the major universities are turning down the money because they know it's a political issue and not one of scientific merit worth ruining a reputation over.

I don't have a position on this either way, except that we need to know the whole truth without the political spin. What's wrong with that? If there is conclusive scientific proof, then the statistical models, the physical models, and the observations made in the real world should all agree. There should be no controversy. That's the point I'm trying to get to, and if people can't come up with the numbers to prove all three views of the climate change picture with respect to CO2 and our society's role in it, we should not penalize ourselves just because we happen to be ahead of the rest of the world as a technological society.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

Oh, okay, I went back and read Scott's question. Here's my answer.

CO2 is a tiny part of the greenhouse gas picture. Water is number one, and methane is way ahead of CO2. You haven't come back with the numbers on radiative forcing regarding water vapor, methane, and the other gasses in the atmosphere. I think that's because everyone could see that water vapor and methane far overshadow the contribution of CO2. So let's see 'em. What do any of us have to lose?

This may be like someone who drowned in a swimming pool, and blaming the death on the last inch of water at the surface instead of the whole pool. Draining off that top inch might not make any difference at all in the long run, and that's what we need to know.

Knee dropper,

Here's something for you to consider. In a world of 7 billion, our country of 300 million is only 4% of the population. If you do the math and divide 7 billion by 300 million you'll see that there are 23 other humans in the world for every American. Lots of them live in industrial societies, consume fossil fuel, burn wood for heat and cooking, etc. I'm going to pick my 23 from the rich Germans who drive big BMWs over 100 mph on the autobahn every day. You can have the mud-hutters if you want them, but I think that 23 people who need to cook over open fires, can probably give one American a run for his money. That's my opinion. Where are your numbers?

0

knee_dropper 5 years ago

Aich, Scott's question was:

In your next post would you please show proof of what IS causing the unprecedented modern day global warming?

Thanks for your opinion again since you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary of what has been posted for you thus far. If methane and water vapor far outshadow the effect of CO2 as you allege, then what are the numbers? Nice analogy for those of us that don't hold a masters in physics. Here's a link to CO2 emmisions per capita per country. Germans produce about 1/2 of what Americans do per capita; 23 "mud-hutters" might equal one American in terms of CO2 output. Note where rapidly industrializing countries such as India and China are on that graph.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capita

0

aichempty 5 years ago

Knee dropper,

Okay, here it is. The SUN is causing global warming. Greenhouse gasses are trapping more heat and warming the climate (at least that's how the data looked until recently).

My question is, compared to methane, water vapor and all the rest, is the man-made CO2 enough to account for the warming by itself? Tweaking the smallest component of greenhouse gas content may not have any effect that would make a difference. If CO2 is responsible for 1/10 of a degree C, is that a reason to destroy our economy trying to limit it?

I think it's easy to show that a warmer climate leads to more natural methane production from biological sources. More organisms giving the stuff off would certainly seem to be a part of the equation. The system may be out of control already if methane is the real culprit, and CO2 may just be along for the ride.

So, how 'bout them methane and water numbers? Could we solve this whole thing by banning the watering of lawns for a couple of months to reduce evaporation? Or, should we be planting more green stuff to absorb CO2?

I am not trying to refute that CO2 is part of the problem. I just want to see the numbers on all of it so that it can be viewed in perspective. Again, separating this issue from politics is required to get to the real problem, and a solution, if there is one.

I just read the paper on the CDIAC link and you have missed an important point. The paper assumes a constant rate of reduction of carbon from the atmosphere. There is no reason to assume that rate is constant. It does not address increased plant growth and longer growing seasons resulting from a warmer climate.

Nice try. Try again.

You've got to read the papers and consider all the assumptions as well as all the the variables. This paper only addresses one set of assumptions and gives an example based on the then (1997) current state. I think the fact that CO2 has increased as slowly as it has over the past 12 years would indicate that the rate of removal from the atmosphere has also increased.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

Scott Wedel,

I overlooked something in one of your previous posts.

Methane holds a lot more heat than CO2. Water holds more heat than either of them. So, the ppm in the atmosphere is not as important as the heat holding characteristics of the gas. That's why it's dangerous to look at a single factor without knowing everything that's involved.

Our real danger is to become engaged in draconian measures to reduce CO2 at the peril of our econonmy and security while the rest of the world ignores it. We cannot do it alone. Whether we should even try is the other issue.

Anti-American and anti-capitalist propaganda designed to damage our economy is the biggest danger we face. When people start doing things that are going to cost billions of consumer dollars and millions of jobs in this country, we owe it to ourselves to be real damned sure we're doing the right thing. When we worry about what kind of world our children will grow up in, we also need to worry about a world where they will be safe and free. We cannot head down a road that's going to result in the deaths of millions and destruction of our coastlines, but we also cannot head down a road into poverty and weakness over something that cannot be explained in detail, and addressed directly with methods that are guaranteed to work.

There's an asteroid out there named something like Apophis which is destined to have a close encounter with Earth in the year 2800 or so. As the world's leading space-faring nation, maybe we ought to be worrying about that problem and leave CO2 to India and China where torrential rains, etc., seem to be having a negative effect on their populations and economies. Maybe China can get into the solar cell business and turn them out cheaply enough for us to reduce our CO2 emissions that way. What's wrong with a win-win?

0

JLM 5 years ago

How can any serious person expect to be engaged in a rational discussion about global warming when nuclear energy is not even given a seat at the table?

Right now nuclear energy as a simple replacement for sources of energy which pollute or which may or may not contribute to global warming --- imagined or real --- is a two hand dunk shot.

It is a can't miss proposition.

The absence of serious consideration of nuclear energy as a replacement technology colors and exposes the silliness of the entire global warming debate.

0

canyonwind 5 years ago

It is very hard for me to take these people seriously, they are a very simple bunch and for some reason they have a problem questioning authority. They treat global warming like it is a religion and if you question there leader Al Gore you will burn in hell. Another odd thing about them is there seems to be more believers per capita in places like California, Oregon and Washington than there is here in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. They also seem to enjoy living in big cities like LA Seattle or Portland just look at the number of Prius,s next time you find your self on the West Coast vs here in Steamboat.
This past winter while driving skiers from DIA to the boat I was informed that due to global warming Colorado only had around 75 ski seasons left. While trying not to laugh I did learn that she spent the past few months at NYU but a student of Law not Meteorology. I did ask why she did not question such a stupid statement from a Professor and she just never though it could propaganda let alone a total lie or at least a bunch of California nonsense.
But the worst thing about this debate or lack there of is the brain dead politicians that bring up a subject they know nothing about; Today while watching the news cover the fires out west, congresswomen Linda Sanchez (D) CA was blaming global warming for the big fires in Calif and somehow she came up with this idea that global warming was also causing a drought and lightning too. People in political life need to keep it simple and avoid topics that it is clear they know nothing about. They are also doing it with the health care debate but at least our neighbors in Wyoming have a DR in their Senate so at least he can walk the talk unlike the rest of them

0

aichempty 4 years, 12 months ago

Interestingly, the California fires have been blamed on arson, or at least human origin.

Also, see Jimmy Westlake's article on the sun in today's paper. THe latest sunspot cycle has not behaved as expected, and after a period of warming due to high levels of sunspot activity which peaked in 2001-2002, we are now two years past the predicted minimum and the sunspots have not come back. Westlake writes about the "Maunder Minimum" which led to the "Little Ice Age" and raises the issue that if the current trend continues, we're in for a period of global cooling unseen in hundreds of years.

If the solar minimum continues until 2012, I think some people are going to be in big trouble election wise.

And has anybody noticed how quiet the hurricane season has been for the past couple of years?

All this attention to the climate and public awareness is a good thing. Everyone should know what's going on, and we already have a method to educate them; television weather reports. A comprehensive report on the climate, a treatment of ALL the greenhouse gasses and their contribution to warming, and the status of the Sun should be a regular part of environmental reporting.

When the AIDS epidemic was brand new, there was a lot of effort to educate the public on its dangers and possible methods of transmission. Testing of donated blood and tissue became routine. Drugs were developed to stop the progression of the disease. A similar level-headed and comprehensive program of education on environmental issues untainted by political or profit motives is the thing we need. Mostly, for every "point" that is stated as fact, there needs to be an evaluation of how the facts add up. This "the sky is falling" approach in the media and political arenas is irresponsible, and what we need is the simple truth, including "we don't know" when that's the truth.

0

Jonathan Casson 4 years, 12 months ago

Canyon-

Where did you do YOUR research on the issue? Please provide some facts to back up your statements about where "believers" live and what they drive. Where did you get your degree in meteorology and/or climatology? How are you so much more of an expert than the NYU student you mock?

0

Clearsky 4 years, 12 months ago

The great thing about a chemical equation is ,there is no argument. Photosynthesis and the combustion equation is the same chemical equation. If you are burning something it came from Photosynthesis and so did the O2. The dead zones in our Oceans are a prime example of what is happening. As soon as Phytoplankton produce O2 and the carbon based food, the other organisms reverse the process through metabolism and the result is a zone devoid of O2. The Earth is pretty much a closed system. To get things off the planet we have to fly them off . Water is 3/4 th the payload on each mission to the space station. It is so simple and yet everyone turns a blind eye to our future. We will be extinct very soon unless we stop burning now. Even the process of renewable energy will produce O2 but then consume it again when we release the energy. The surplus O2 in our atmosphere took 3.5 BILLION YEARS to produce. Now do you see?

0

aichempty 4 years, 12 months ago

Clearsky,

The Earth gains mass every day from meteors entering the atmosphere. There's a theory that much of the water on Earth came from comets. I have even witnessed a cometary body (obviously a small one) entering and creating a huge vapor cloud. It looked exactly like the vapor cloud created by the Challenger explosion, less the "horns" created by the solid rocket boosters, and I reported it to the FAA, thinking it may have been a rocket explosion or other man-made phenomenon.

You are also ignoring the fact that carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas which is being given off by volcanic and geothermal sources constantly. There are natural sources of carbonated water -- they bottle the stuff and sell it in Europe.

You are also ignoring the fact that photosynthetic organisms are not limited in numbers or total biomass by anything except the supply of CO2.

Try taking your equation and estimating the amount of oxygen available in the supply of CO2 in the atmosphere which could be produced by photosynthesis.

At 14.7 PSI at sea level, the partial pressure of O2 is around 2.9 PSI. The minimum PPO2 required to support human respiration at "sea level" alveolar saturation is around 1.7 PSI. So, we'd have to see a reduction of oxygen on the order of about 42% before normal people would be affected. Interestingly, in this area, Hahn's Peak is around 10,000 feet above sea level, and that's the point where supplemental oxygen is required in aircraft to maintain "normal" saturation levels in human blood.

So, let's see your data on O2 levels in the atmosphere to support your point. When people at Hahn's Peak Village and Steamboat Lake start passing out from lack of oxygen, they will be the local canaries in the mine to prove your point.

The 3.5 billion years to produce the O2 in our atmosphere was a result of starting from zero O2. The number of organisms producing O2 from CO2 also had to increase over that time to make it all happen, before they killed themselves by producing toxic levels of O2.

So, I think you're just enjoying the argument, and are baiting me with your posts. Your chemical equation is more or less accurate (discounting randomness a the molecular level) in the macro sense, but you are ignoring the variables required to make up a valid model of the envirnoment surrounding the equation.

We had an extinction event several thousand years ago where mammoths died and were frozen soon enough to preserve some of them until today in glaciers. Large animals requiring more oxygen would obviously be the first victims of an event that radically reduced O2 content. People obvioiusly survived, as did other smaller animals. Since we have live elephants and whales on Earth today, wouldn't that indicate that "something" rapidly replenished the oxygen supply in a lot less than 3.5 billions years?

0

JLM 4 years, 12 months ago

In all of this hysteria, nobody has really answered the question as to WHERE exactly you take the Earth's temperature or which combination of readings sums to the appropriate average.

What is agreed upon is that the "change" is approximately 1.4F over almost 100 years.

This becomes very important for a number of reasons including:

There is no apparent consensus on where to take temperatures.

There is a suspect level of measurement reliability and accuracy with readings going back over 100 years. Thermometers were not calibrated and readings themselves are suspect.

The development of urban environment has created micro-climates as development has created huge thermal heat sinks (absorbers and retainers of heat energy such as buildings, roads, parking lots, parking garages, etc) which retain thermal energy and thereby create accelerated subsequent heat transfer because the built environment does not cool during the nights. This is the old --- "it's warmer in the city" --- issue. Once heating occurs, the next day is warmer than the previous day because the heat sinks accelerate heating.

The warmer in the city phenomenom is further exacerbated by the Earth's skin friction --- created by buildings --- which prevents the dissipation of thermal storage because the breeze cannot penetrate the built environment as it once did.

In spite of all of this, observers simply ignore the reality that the temperature trends in rural areas simply do not mirror the current hysteria lending credence to the notion that micro-climates are simply not connected to global trends.

0

Clearsky 4 years, 12 months ago

All these arguments and yet there is an ignorance of the fact that as we burn Photosynthetic generated fuels that we are consuming the very same amount of O2 the Photosynthetic processes produced. It took 3.5 BILLION years for the Earth's atmosphere to reach the O2 level as when man began burning "fossil" fuels. If you understand Quantum mechanics then you could understand that O2 absorbs ultraviolet energy and is able to form Ozone which can also continue absorbing ultraviolet energy to protect susceptible lifeforms on Earth from damage to its DNA. To think that today's Photosynthetic organisms can keep up with our burning is ludicrous and yet the arguments go elsewhere. Put yourself in the largest sealed dome with all the Photosynthetic organisms you can muster and you will do OK until you turn on your car or burn some fuel. Biosphere 2 showed us that. SPF 100 today. The heat won't kill us, the damage to just about every living things' DNA will. Hard shell insects will survive till the food runs out.

0

seeuski 4 years, 12 months ago

Great post Canyon. We are aware of what the Government is up to especially as it relates to the new green jobs czar, Van Jones, who is an avowed Communist and has made some of the most frightening promises in the last few months. Using the AGW argument as an emotional hammer to gain power and a push for this green job movement. Not any different from the health care debate as a moral obligation and now the President to push his agenda to our school children which closely resembles the Sarah Silverman schlep for Obama program last summer. Van Jones is threatening the complete overhaul of the energy system and farming system. He claims that white people have been poisoning the foods that are farmed and delivered to the minority communities. He claims that any green job program that doesn't include inner city incarcerated youths is not social justice. Google search the guy and spend the time to hear it in his own words and voice.

0

knee_dropper 4 years, 12 months ago

JLM, would you provide a link to the data to back up your assertion that the temp in rural areas in not changing? I guess the arctic sea ice melting out, the break up of the Larsen ice shelf and the retreat of the vast majority of the Earth's glaciers don't qualify as global trends. As I've mentioned before, when I start seeing evidence provided by the scientists that are on the other side of the climate change debate is the day I will take them more seriously. The majority of climate scientists have done the research and modeling that shows a strong link between CO2 and climate change, the other side presents some what-if scenarios, some interesting theories, but a has a lack of research and the peer-reviewed publications to back up their theories.

0

canyonwind 4 years, 12 months ago

J C I lived and worked in Seattle and the Bay Areas and global warming is taken far more serious in Seattle than let's say Kansas City a city of similar size. Around a year ago the city was considering all new taxi's to be a hybrid even though the city has cleaner air that any US city of it's size. So yes there is a regional factor. And yes when someone from out of town say's we will have no ski season in 75 years is is funny, the average temp would have to go up 15- 20 degress in that time period. And that is nonsense. Over the last 100 years the average temp has went up by 1.4 degree but started cooling in the late 1990's.
Aichempty, yes I know the fires were man made but it was funny watching the Congresswomen go off the deep end. It was on MSNBC and replayed on the other cable news networks. Anyway some of these "believers" are doing more harm than good with their "dooms day comments" and green energy would advance faster without their input:)

0

canyonwind 4 years, 12 months ago

Seeuski I have called both Bennett and Udall about HR 2454, the staffers were unsure of their position at time the house bill passed. That bill would cost millions of jobs, trillions in extra energy cost and many lives would be lost due to the projected energy cost.
Van Jones the "Green Jobs Czar" is a full blown Communist, a former member of STORM an East Bay hardcore community organizer group that was involved in the 92 LA Rodney King riots where many died, the 1998 Seattle WTO riots where millions of $$$ in property damage done. His group also likes to spread lies about one group of people in hopes of the other group turning on them. He tried to do that with California farm workers and farm owners. Van Jones is very evil and a hater and bigot.
Van Jones is not the only communist the new FCC Czar is one and there are a few more one guy by the name of Sunstine comes to mine, but what I don't understand is why only KGAB 650 AM, FOX and CNN the only outfits covering this guy. The Steamboat Pilot and Today, 9 NEWS and the Denver Post online have had nothing about this guy. You think some new reporter would be all over this just to get his or her name out there. For some reason people are scared to say anything bad about Obama or his Czars. This President is just as dopy as our last one so no one should fear the guy.

0

aichempty 4 years, 12 months ago

Clearsky,

You need to watch the educational channels a bit more.

Photosynthetic organisms produced enough oxygen to rust the iron out of the primoridal oceans and produce the iron ore found in sedimentary strata.

The O2 that was produced came from -- TADAA! -- CO2.

Show us the data that proves O2 concentration in PPM by volume is decreasing as CO2 increases. That's how to prove your point.

The Earth is not a closed system. Even if it was, it is not operating "at capacity." The biodome example fails miserably because -- TADAA! -- the amount of atmosphere in the dome was nowhere near the amount of atmosphere outside.

The oceans also hold oxygen, and are a vast reservoir of the stuff adjusted by osmosis as the concentrations vary from air to sea.

Before O2 depletion became a problem in the ozone layer, people would be dead from suffocation.

So where's the data? Why don't we have people dropping dead from lack of oxygen? Because it's not a factor and you have missed a decimal point somewhere in your logic.

0

seeuski 4 years, 12 months ago

Van Jones has also signed the 9/11 Truther petition that says our own Government was in on the 9/11 attacks. But you are wrong about Obama being dopey, he is not, he is following his stated agenda for fundamental change that he announced 5 days before the election but we are only now understanding fully what he meant by fundamental. This country is in for a rocky ride at this rate. Americans are starting to see this move towards Hugo Chavez style socialism that is quietly occurring behind our backs. Van Jones is also a board member of the Apollo Alliance which wrote the stimulus bill for Congress, 1500 pages worth, and was available so soon after Obama took office. Nothing that size ever is written so fast by Congress. I am starting to understand why IG Gerald Walpin was fired by Obama after he uncovered the $800,000 theft of stimulus money by Kevin Johnson, Mayor of Sacramento, CA and friend of Obama.

Hope this opens.

0

Clearsky 4 years, 12 months ago

O2 absorbs ultraviolet energy and becomes O3(ozone).This process protects susceptable living things from DNA damage. As we use up the O2 there is less quantity in our atmosphere. We are using up both products of 3.5 billion years of Photosynthesis-the carbon based fuels and the O2 that was produced. There is no way around it. To produce a surplus O2 amount will take a few billion years of Photosynthesis and the burying of the organic mass so that it will not have contact to the O2 produced. We can still survive with lower amounts of O2 but DNA damage will occur in plants and animals from the excessive UV energy passing through the diminishing O2 atmosphere.

AIch read up on Quantum mechanics..etc. You seem to be grasping straws to support your opinion.

0

aichempty 4 years, 12 months ago

Clearsky,

Okay, you're right. We're running out of oxygen. See ya on the other side.

0

JLM 4 years, 12 months ago

In 10 years we will laugh at the notion and prospect of global warming. Hard and heartily. We will probably be debating global cooling.

Al Gore will be enshrined as one of the all time charlatans --- even by Southern Democratic political standards. He will be a two bagger --- slimy policitian and clown prince of global warming hysteria.

The only difference between John Edwards and Al Gore is that John Edwards is infinetely more industrious in making a fool of himself. But Al will prove to be a quick closer.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.