Co2 Acquittal

[pmaust]

[/img]

[freeztar]

The evidence is not very convincing. Brrrr.....

 

Indeed, we had quite a bit of snow here in GA, relatively speaking. Obviously the global temperature data from last year is amiss.

:hihi:

[InfiniteNow]

Yeah... Brilliant post. CLEARLY one episode of snow in one generally warm location defeats all statements that GLOBAL yearly AVERAGE temperatures are STEADILY increasing. :xx:

 

 

 

Maybe you should learn about this issue using more than just it's commonly applied label... more than just what the media calls it (global warming), and start looking at the data. You MIGHT just realize that it's actually:

 

 

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

/forums/images/smilies/mad_2.gif

[pmaust]

:lol::phones: Okay, we'll change the name from AGW to AGCC. Regarless of what we call it, it is still like the wind. Honestly, I do not mean to belittle environmental concerns at all. I am just a little less worried than you are. I believe that greed and technology will be a stronger motivation towards conservation than caps or carbon taxes. I hear people on both sides of the political spectrum calling for cleaner energy and energy independence. Hydro fuel cars and even emission free super sonic air travel is in the works. The iPOD certainly has a smaller carbon foot print than a CD player with dozens of CDs times a million people for example. Having reviewed the GRIP data along with other supporting data from around the globe, I am convinced that there was a Medieval Climate Warm Period and that it was warmer than now on average by at least a degree or two. I am also convinced that there was a mini ice age in the 1800's and that we started collecting termperature data right at the end of it so of course we would expect the temperatures to rise. The Mann Hockey Stick has been debunked and so on.

 

What I am essentially saying is that there is still a debate that is reaonable and ongoing. And I am optimistic that technology will assist us in better harmonizing ourselves with the environment by mitigating our impact.

 

And I know you like this place so yes, I did look here ==> RealClimate

 

Here is an interesting article.

 

Tucson Region

UA prof challenges one of central beliefs about global warming

By Eric Schwartz

Arizona Daily Star

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 01.30.2008

 

New information is leading to a controversial shift in thinking on the impact of global warming on ocean circulation, partly due to the work of a UA researcher.

The scientific community has long believed that as global warming continues and large amounts of freshwater ice melt into the ocean, the ocean's circulation will slow.

This would have a catastrophic impact on the environment as vividly, if somewhat overdramatically, portrayed in the film "The Day After Tomorrow."

But a paper published last week in Nature magazine, the result of several studies of past and possible future weather, says that in fact the very opposite is true and ocean circulation will become stronger as the icecaps melt.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," said Joellen Russell, an assistant professor of geosciences at the University of Arizona and co-author of the paper.

She was at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University before coming to the UA two years ago, and spent several years studying and creating models for what weather will be like as global warming continues.

For this study, she and co-author J.R. Toggweiler "pulled all that research together" to conclude that wind pushes the ocean currents and that warming temperatures will increase the speed of these currents.

The westerlies, also known as the trade winds, are the main wind in the middle latitudes of both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Observing that the winds have been migrating toward their respective poles for 40 years, Russell and Toggweiler realized this could be the explanation of how the last ice age ended 18,000 years ago.

"The question of how atmospheric CO2 and the carbon cycle varied during the ice ages is the big mystery in the field," Toggweiler said.

As the westerlies move, the ocean's circulation increases, releasing more carbon dioxide from the deep ocean, leading to more warming and even stronger circulation in a feedback loop strong enough to push Earth out of an ice age.

It also has a local effect.

The westerlies "are how we get water in the winter," said Russell, and with their movement, the weather will go from "occasional winter storms to not very many at all. Our rain will end up in Oregon." This will become more noticeable during the next few decades.

Previous models had placed the path of the westerlies in the wrong spot to begin with, making any predictions erroneous from the start.

"The new model gets it just about right," Russell said.

Early weather models were based on the idea that ocean circulation was based on wind only for the surface and on buoyancy for deeper circulation. So adding freshwater to the ocean as the Earth warms would lead to less movement of ocean. Now, however, oceanographers mostly agree that it is only wind that has a major effect on ocean circulation.

Evidence from the most recent ice age, which reached its coldest 21,000 years ago, shows that the ocean had very little movement and exchange of deep water and surface water until the warming of the Earth about 18,000 years ago. "The evidence is piling up," that those models predicting a weakened ocean circulation in the coming decades are wrong, Russell said.

The increasing speed of the westerlies and their movement toward the poles "should stir the ocean's salty and fresh waters around and minimize the effect of the polar freshening," Toggweiler said.

Still, the idea that the ocean's circulation will increase as the Earth warms is not fully accepted by scientists.

"It's controversial, but it explains what happened in the past and what is happening now," Toggweiler said.

The mounting evidence has won the new theory a lot of converts, Toggweiler said.

"We were lucky to publish first," Russell said.

"This is what science is all about," Toggweiler said. "Looking for where the common wisdom is wrong."

● Contact NASA Space Grant intern Eric Schwartz at 807-8012 or at [email protected].

 

 

 

Yeah... Brilliant post. CLEARLY one episode of snow in one generally warm location defeats all statements that GLOBAL yearly AVERAGE temperatures are STEADILY increasing. :cheer:

 

 

 

Maybe you should learn about this issue using more than just it's commonly applied label... more than just what the media calls it (global warming), and start looking at the data. You MIGHT just realize that it's actually:

 

 

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

/forums/images/smilies/mad_2.gif

[freeztar]

:lol::phones: Okay, we'll change the name from AGW to AGCC. Regarless of what we call it, it is still like the wind. Honestly, I do not mean to belittle environmental concerns at all. I am just a little less worried than you are. I believe that greed and technology will be a stronger motivation towards conservation than caps or carbon taxes. I hear people on both sides of the political spectrum calling for cleaner energy and energy independence. Hydro fuel cars and even emission free super sonic air travel is in the works. The iPOD certainly has a smaller carbon foot print than a CD player with dozens of CDs times a million people for example. Having reviewed the GRIP data along with other supporting data from around the globe, I am convinced that there was a Medieval Climate Warm Period and that it was warmer than now on average by at least a degree or two. I am also convinced that there was a mini ice age in the 1800's and that we started collecting termperature data right at the end of it so of course we would expect the temperatures to rise. The Mann Hockey Stick has been debunked and so on.

 

Have you reviewed the IPCC data? What does any of the above have to do with CO₂?

 

What I am essentially saying is that there is still a debate that is reaonable and ongoing. And I am optimistic that technology will assist us in better harmonizing ourselves with the environment by mitigating our impact.

Mitigation or abandonment, I'm all for it!

 

And I know you like this place so yes, I did look here ==> RealClimate

Ok...and....

[pmaust]

Have you reviewed the IPCC data? What does any of the above have to do with CO₂?

 

Yes I have looked it over. But it isn't reasonable to use the IPCC data or conclusions proposed in the IPCC reports as proof of itself. It needs to be contrasted with other out side sources. And clearly the IPCC has been wrong before.

 

Mitigation or abandonment, I'm all for it!

 

Meaning what?

 

Ok...and....

 

Contrast of two views. RealClimate is a strong advocate for a particluar point of view and there is nothing wrong with that. But you have to take it for what it is. There are other points of view and I like hearing both sides of a debate.

[freeztar]

Yes I have looked it over. But it isn't reasonable to use the IPCC data or conclusions proposed in the IPCC reports as proof of itself.

 

I agree. The reason the IPCC data is quoted so much is because the reports are based on peer-reviewed data. The sheer volume of the data they use is a good indicator of the validity of their assessments.

 

It needs to be contrasted with other out side sources.

 

Here's a quote from wiki:

The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena.

 

So you see, the IPCC uses outside sources, as long as they are peer-reviewed. If they didn't, they would have nothing to say.

 

And clearly the IPCC has been wrong before.

The IPCC reports are based on scientific knowledge available at that time. As new studies change variables in models or make other predictions, the assessments vary as well.

To quote Carl Sagan: "There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right."

 

Skeptico: The appeal to science was wrong before

 

Meaning what?

Meaning I'm all for mitigating or abandoning our impacts. (eg coal burning)

 

Contrast of two views. RealClimate is a strong advocate for a particluar point of view and there is nothing wrong with that. But you have to take it for what it is.

 

I agree, but do not forget that the point of view they take is the same view the vast majority of scientists take.

 

There are other points of view and I like hearing both sides of a debate. :phones:

 

I do too.

[freeztar]

The ESA's Envisat has detected elevated CO2 from anthropogenic emmissions.

 

Using data from the SCIAMACHY instrument aboard ESA's Envisat environmental satellite, scientists have for the first time detected regionally elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide – the most important greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming – originating from manmade emissions.

 

More than 30 billion tonnes of extra carbon dioxide (CO2) is released into the atmosphere annually by human activities, mainly through the burning of fossil fuels.

 

ESA - Observing the Earth - Envisat makes first ever observation of regionally elevated CO2 from manmade emissions

[Michaelangelica]

:steering:

[Pyrotex]

Thanks for th reply. Can you provide some specific examples of his false arguments?...

Yes, I think I can, now.

 

We have accumulated vast amounts of very accurate data about the contents of our atmosphere and the average temperatures over a good portion of the couple of 100,000 years. Much of this was collected by careful analysis of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, where individual years can be counted in the core samples, and the bubbles contain actual samples of the atmosphere.

 

The accounts from Greeland and Antarctica agree in precise detail. What they tell us is this: the average temperatures follow the average percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere in almost lockstep, over the entire duration of our data; and the percentage of CO2 has, in all that time, never been as great as it is RIGHT NOW.

 

The conclusion is unavoidable.

[LaurieAG]

Well put Pyro,

 

The accounts from Greeland and Antarctica agree in precise detail. What they tell us is this: the average temperatures follow the average percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere in almost lockstep, over the entire duration of our data; and the percentage of CO2 has, in all that time, never been as great as it is RIGHT NOW.

 

The conclusion is unavoidable.

 

And any global emissions trading system that does not include the developing world will not change the current trend either.

 

Shipping jobs and pollution generation to developing countries will only be accelerated by their omission from a global emissions trading system along with the increase in atmospheric CO2.

 

I would go as far as saying that any global solution to atmospheric emissions control that does not include the developing world is just a cynical political exercise made at the expense of the wellbeing of our entire planet.