logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Global Warming and Weather Events 2, Differentiating GW from the Background
TedN5
post Sep 19 2007, 10:49 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



In August of 2005 I opened a similar topic thusly:

QUOTE
There are lots of lines of evidence offered for global warming. Chief among these are long term ground level temperature measurements showing a warming world which have now been supported by the reanalysis of satellite measurements of troposheric temperatures. More recently analysis of the measurements of sea temperatures over time at different depths has added robustness to the evidence. Also important are global atmospheric circulation models and linked ocean circulation models that reliably produce these temperature changes when fed information on the rising levels of green house gases. There are other lines of evidence as well. However, it is fairly obvious that public will not take GW seriously enough to make life style and financial sacrifices until it is clear that GW is impacting their lives directly.

Determining whether extreme weather events are related to GW is made difficult by wide variation in natural weather events. For instance, the number of tropical cyclones in a given region, of which hurricanes are a subgroup, tend to change in 30 year cycles but remain stable in number year to year globally. Experts can detect no increase in their frequency. Other extreme weather events like droughts, record high temperatures, record high minimum temperatures, record rain falls, and the like suffer from similar difficulties of analysis. Nevertheless, some scientists are proposing that looking at the trends of these events or, in the case of tropical cyclones, trends in the total energy of individual storms, can separate the GW impact from background weather noise
See The Original Topic.

Since then the IPCC has issue its 4th assessment report (AR4) raising the confidence level that human civilization is responsible for most of the observed warming. Also, Arctic sea ice appears to be retreating far faster than the IPCC estimated. In addition, several studies show Greenland glaciers flowing into the sea at alarming rates, also something the IPCC failed to evaluate since the studies were so new. Anecdotally, we have also witnessed freakish weather around the world from droughts in Australia and the American Southwest and Southeast to historic flooding in England, India and elsewhere to extreme heat waves in Southern Europe and parts of the US.

Now we have seen 2 category 5 hurricanes make landfall in Central America and a massive typhoon hit China and the season is only 1/2 over. This is the first time since records have been kept that 2 such storms have made landfall in one year and it is only the 4th time multiple category 5 storms have formed in the entire Atlantic Basin! 2005 saw 5 such storms but none made landfall as category 5.

Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?

What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?

This post has been edited by TedN5: Sep 19 2007, 10:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
41 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
BaphometsAdvocat...
post Sep 20 2007, 12:18 AM
Post #2


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,710
Member No.: 5,535
Joined: October-11-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(TedN5 @ Sep 19 2007, 06:49 PM) *
Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?
No. However, I don't deny the Earth is warming. I just don't belive it's my fault.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Sep 19 2007, 06:49 PM) *
What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming
Well I believe the Earth is warming as it would during its normal cycle of warming and cooling.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Sep 19 2007, 06:49 PM) *
Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?
DrudgeReport.com? WeatherUnderground.com? So what?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post Sep 20 2007, 03:02 AM
Post #3


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
(BaphometsAdvocate)
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Sep 19 2007, 06:49 PM)
Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?
DrudgeReport.com? WeatherUnderground.com? So what?


If you were watching the major media, you would know everything about Britney Spears and other meaningless celebrities but very little about the weather events that could be the forerunners of profound changes in our lives. And this says nothing about the US centered bias of corporate media. Both of these storms would have been major news items had they hit the US.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BaphometsAdvocat...
post Sep 20 2007, 12:18 PM
Post #4


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,710
Member No.: 5,535
Joined: October-11-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(TedN5 @ Sep 19 2007, 11:02 PM) *
QUOTE
(BaphometsAdvocate)
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Sep 19 2007, 06:49 PM)
Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?
DrudgeReport.com? WeatherUnderground.com? So what?


If you were watching the major media, you would know everything about Britney Spears and other meaningless celebrities but very little about the weather events that could be the forerunners of profound changes in our lives. And this says nothing about the US centered bias of corporate media. Both of these storms would have been major news items had they hit the US.

Well to be fair to the US MSM weather in other countries really isn't going "sell papers" so to speak to US Citizens. It's out of their realm. Keep in mind that to a lot of the world Global Warming isn't a problem, and if it is there's nothing they can do about it. Hence the low "ratings" number for such news.

You're in the realm of a "butterfly flaps its wings in Japan" and while Global Warming is clearly a topic that's important to you but Britney Spears latest custody battle trumps your concern for a lot of people. Maybe if you can get that very effeminate boy to post a crying video about Global Warming you can get some traction on this smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Sep 20 2007, 03:46 PM
Post #5


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?

Anecdotally? This summer was mild, at least where I live. The mornings are quite brisk these days, even though it is still summer. I wish it were warmer.

The hurricane this season was once again downgraded. The number of storms is down from that catastophic year of 2005. After having 28 storms and 15 hurricanes (seven major) in 2005 (both records) we had only 10 storms last year and only five hurricanes (two major). No hurricane even hit the US last year (despite the "sky is falling" rhetoric of 2005). This year there have been ten storms with three being hurricanes (two major).

What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming?

Considering that even anthropogenic global warming proponents do not directly attribute hurricanes to GW, I guess hurricanes wouldn't be the criteria...

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?

Aside from this being a statistical anomoly, what relevance does the fact that two Cat 5's actually made landfall? As far as whether or not the media is properly reporting the weather (there is an entire channel dedicated to it), how would we know? ph34r.gif

This post has been edited by Amlord: Sep 20 2007, 05:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Sep 20 2007, 05:03 PM
Post #6


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,941
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?

Yup. It's happening faster than I anticipated. No change of view on the cause though - I reckon it's in large part anthropogenic, with maybe some non-anthropogenic change in tandem (and the main cause of anthropogenic change is natural amplification of a relatively small initial human contribution; it gets warmer, you get more water vapour, which is itself a potent greenhouse gas.). My view of the necessary response hasn't changed much either - while we probably ought to try to reduce our carbon dioxide and methane production, what's already underway is out of our hands, so the key action that needs to be taken is adaptation to a warmer wetter climate (most predictions for Northern Hemisphere temperate zones indicate this overall, but aren't much more specific. It might be colder and drier in some places and at some times of year.)

It won't be the end of the world, but it could (and probably will if we assume we don't have to change anything) have dramatic and deleterious consequences for our current civilisation and economy.

Generally though, I don't think ANYONE now denies that the Earth's climate is changing and is generally getting warmer. The only argument remaining is the cause. Forgive my cynicism, but until as recently as a year or two ago, the defendants of the status quo were denying any warming was happening, let alone that it was cause by human action, so I reckon it's only a matter of time before they climb down from that, too.

What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming

Looking out of the window and looking in my wardrobe. The sun is out, and my winter coats are dusty and unused.

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?

I sort of knew that, but only really from reading the BBC Weather News website from time to time. It hasn't been uppermost in any bulletins I've seen, but then I'd be surprised if the flooding in Oxford or Hull this summer led on the


QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 20 2007, 04:46 PM) *
Considering that even anthropomorphic global warming proponents do not directly attribute hurricanes to GW, I guess hurricanes wouldn't be the criteria...


Pfffffft! (= Titters behind hand like an eight year-old) "Anthropomorphic" means "shaped like a man". "Anthropogenic" means "caused by man". Ahh, the benefits of a classical education.... are mostly useless, except at times like this. Thanks for giving me a point, Amlord
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akalae
post Sep 20 2007, 05:39 PM
Post #7


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 222
Member No.: 7,186
Joined: February-6-07

From: Well, it ain't perfect, but there's no place like it.
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?

I'm going to have to go with Julian on this one; the die have been cast. We're no longer searching for proof that global warming exists, simply who to blame for it. My guess is that sooner or later, we'll pin all the blame on mother earth for some obscure meteorological warming phenomenon. I mean, rocks and trees can't sue for libel, or slander, can they?

Now maybe if we stopped pointing fingers between the coal-burning industrialized world of the 1800s, and modern carbon-spewing society, and started on a solution for the problem...

...Nah, that would be too fantastic to even think about.

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?

Storm reporting has been pretty much exhausted in the aftermath of Katrina and the Tsunami of 2004. The American populace can only take so much of a single subject--let's not overtax their delicate minds with any more weather than they can bear.

Oh, and as for Amlord's little slip up, I think he might actually be on to something---anthropomorphic hurricanes.

Imagine, perky little cartoon characters on the telly, saying things like "Hello, I'm hurricane Alberta! I'm a class five hurricane, a direct effect of global warming, and I’ll be ravaging your nation in little over a month! Have a nice day!"

It strikes me as the best way to communicate the importance of climatology to the general public. shifty.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Sep 20 2007, 06:18 PM
Post #8


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Julian @ Sep 20 2007, 01:03 PM) *
Pfffffft! (= Titters behind hand like an eight year-old) "Anthropomorphic" means "shaped like a man". "Anthropogenic" means "caused by man". Ahh, the benefits of a classical education.... are mostly useless, except at times like this. Thanks for giving me a point, Amlord

ah I fixed that. Thanks for the correction, Jules.

Now, akalae's piling on...that is just uncalled for. smile.gif

QUOTE(Julian @ Sep 20 2007, 01:03 PM) *
What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming
Looking out of the window and looking in my wardrobe. The sun is out, and my winter coats are dusty and unused.


You DO realize that it is still summer, n'est pas? I certainly hope you don't expect to use your winter coat during summer (even if there are only a few more days left) or the preceding months. Maybe the sun doesn't shine during the summers of Great Britain?

Weather reporting has become just as sensationalistic as every other facet of "news" reporting. Watch out for the storms, they are especially vicious this time around (as if storms haven't always been, well, stormy).

Really, we (Americans especially) are so focused on the here and now and how the current situation is so much worse than any other time it becomes ridiculous at times. Take drought for example.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20...n16drought.html If I see another yellow journalist reference to a "Critical Juncture" or some other rubbish I'm going to scream. Do we not remember the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930s? The drought of the 1950s? the 1980s? We compare every time frame to the boom times instead of the norm.

The funny thing I have found is that the drought in the US is attributed to La Nina, which is a lower than average sea surface temperature in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. It causes drought and increased hurricane activity in the Atlantic. Of course, like many weather phonomena, the La Nina-El Nino cycle is poorly understood and the impact of warmer global temperatures is not known.

IPCC's take on it? "We don't know" http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/361.htm
QUOTE
Secondly, will El Niño variability (the amplitude and/or the frequency of temperature swings in the equatorial Pacific) increase or decrease? Attempts to address this question using climate models have again shown conflicting results, varying from slight decreases or little change in amplitude


and "our models need to be improved (note that these same models are the ones they use to predict global climate shifts).
QUOTE
Although there are now better ENSO simulations in global coupled climate models (Chapter 8), further model improvements are needed to simulate a more realistic Pacific climatology and seasonal cycle as well as more realistic ENSO variability (e.g., Noda et al., 1999b). It is likely that such things as increased ocean resolution, atmospheric physics and possibly flux correction can have an important effect on the response of the ENSO in models. Improvements in these areas will be necessary to gain further confidence in climate model projections.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Sep 20 2007, 06:53 PM
Post #9


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Now we have seen 2 category 5 hurricanes make landfall in Central America and a massive typhoon hit China and the season is only 1/2 over. This is the first time since records have been kept that 2 such storms have made landfall in one year and it is only the 4th time multiple category 5 storms have formed in the entire Atlantic Basin! 2005 saw 5 such storms but none made landfall as category 5.

Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?

What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?


The hurricane story is exactly the kind of hyped nonsense that drives me nuts. We actually have fewer hurricanes this year so far than predicted and the only real difference is that 2 of them turned to Cat 5. Nearly all hurricane experts say this year is not caused by global warming – rather the warming of the ocean driven by the poorly understood La Nina-El Nino cycle , is to blame. The temperature of the water in the Gulf hit about 92 F recently.

I will believe this is global warming caused when the models are good enough to do this and when all hurricane experts agree.

The media do the standard job of hyping every story and trying to relate it to GW. Meanwhile we have not seen GW in the last few years despite the fact that China is ramping up their CO2 output at an alarming rate and have now passed the US.

Interestingly we hear little of the PITA claim that animals raised for food emit more greenhouse gasses than all the vehicles in the world. They say backed up by the UN. So the answer is clear – go vegetarian.


"You could exchange your “regular” car for a hybrid Toyota Prius and, by doing so, prevent about 1 ton of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year, but according to the University of Chicago, being vegan is more effective in the fight against global warming; a vegan prevents approximately 1.5 fewer tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year than a meat-eater does.4 The math is simple: You could spend more than $20,000 on a Prius and still emit 50 percent more carbon dioxide than you would if you just gave up eating meat and other animal products.
Methane: The billions of chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows who are crammed into factory farms each year in the U.S. produce enormous amounts of methane, both during digestion and from the acres of cesspools filled with feces that they excrete. Scientists report that every pound of methane is more than 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide is at trapping heat in our atmosphere.5 The Environmental Protection Agency shows that animal agriculture is the single largest source of methane emissions in the U.S.6
Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide. According to the U.N., the meat, egg, and dairy industries account for a staggering 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions.7 "



http://www.goveg.com/environment-globalwarming.asp

This post has been edited by Ted: Sep 20 2007, 06:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post Sep 20 2007, 09:01 PM
Post #10


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



This topic has been side tracked from my original intention. I was looking for reaction to the multitude of unusual and record extreme weather events around the world. The number of recent hurricanes that have reached category 5 are only one example of this. (For others see This Summary with Links andThis). I am well aware of the scientific debate that continues regarding the influence of global warming on hurricane frequency and intensity and even started an earlier topic on that very controversy (but can't seem to find it in the archive). If you want to look at the pattern of category 5 storms. (See this Wikipedia Article.)

QUOTE
Only four times — in the 1960, 1961, 2005 and 2007 hurricane seasons — have multiple Category 5 hurricanes formed. Only in 2005 have more than two category 5 storms formed, and only in 2007 has more than one made landfall at category 5 strength.


After the IPCC's review of the scientific literature reported in the AR4 that the majority of recent warming was caused by human activity to a 90% confidence level (many participating scientists argued for a 95% level), I find statements like Julian's that warming is part of a natural phenomena surprising. Even Bush's scientific adviser has moved beyond this. (See this Article). I also found the reference to NOAAs downgrading the 2007 season surprising since the last thing I saw still called for an above normal year. (See NOAA.)

The la Nina/el Nino/ENSO argument is a non starter since everyone accepts the influence of the cycle on the frequency of hurricanes in the Atlantic. The cycle itself, however, is probably influenced by GW. Some even argue that in the long run, GW will increase the frequency and intensity of el Nino events reducing the number of Atlantic hurricanes while increasing all the negative effects of that part of the cycle.

As for Ted's animals argument, it is totally extraneous to this topic. But, yes, Methane and NO2 are important greenhouse gases and, yes, animal production does produce significant quantities of both and the reduction of these sources also need to be part of the solution. However, it is important to keep in mind that both gases remain in the atmosphere for a far more limited time than CO2. The last I checked, the amount of Methane appeared to have stabilized. The real fear hear is that rising temperatures might caused a run away feedback from methane release from hydrates and peat bogs. And, yes, Ted I drive a Prius and I also eat very little red meat. I do eat a lot of chicken but mostly from home grown free ranging chickens. This, however, is a health decision not a GW one but it may be one we need to explore as part of the solution.

This post has been edited by TedN5: Sep 20 2007, 11:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Sep 21 2007, 02:01 AM
Post #11


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
As for Ted's animals argument, it is totally extraneous to this topic. But, yes, Methane and NO2 are important greenhouse gases.

Only extraneous because we find it inconvenient to deal with it – like the burning of wood and garbage in most of the world (not covered by IPCC) – it is of course mush easier to blame everything on CO2 and then let the largest producer of same off the hook – smart?


As for you links on “record” weather events they are classis hype and some of the worst crap I have seen to date – did you even read them.

Lets start by defining “record” – to me this means more than any time in history for an event – agreed?

So this from your story:

In July in southern China, the worst flooding in decades – NO “record” there.

While in Texas, more than a foot of rain fell in less than a day – Houston has had as much as 30” in a day – NO record.

The more stories about floods and heat not even claiming to be “record” anything.

At the end of July, Britain's weather office announced that the summer of 2007 was the wettest in that country's recorded history – 1 “record” here.

the UN reported the first half of 2007 was marked by a significant increase in weather extremes around the world – ya ok but compared to what? Not a “record”.

By Aug. 16, the heatwave had visited triple-digit temperatures for 10 consecutive days on the southern US, killing at least 33 people – No record – it gets hot in the South every year. By the way nice and cool here in the North East.

Meanwhile a new round of severe winds and intense rainstorms cut power to hundreds of thousands of people in the midwestern US – wow.


So what we have here is some dope gathering every “weather” stories from around the world and we are to believe this is caused by “Global Warming”. Ya right.

Even if we were certain there is GW that will continue to try to blame every extreme weather event on it is so stupid it is not worth discussing.

More than anything else this kind of crap imo turns off the average citizen.


QUOTE
And, yes, Ted I drive a Prius and I also eat very little red meat. I do eat a lot of chicken but mostly from home grown free ranging chickens. This, however, is a health decision not a GW one but it may be one we need to explore as part of the solution.


Me too for the red meat (I eat none). I don’t drive a Prius but my house has 3 times the insulation of the typicall house.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post Sep 24 2007, 07:29 PM
Post #12


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Ted, you missed the point. The articles I referenced were designed to show the juxtaposition in time of extreme weather events, not just records. However, several records were included. The one and only tropical cyclone to strike in Arabian Sea and record land temperatures in January and April.

QUOTE
Cyclone Gonu, the first documented cyclone in the Arabian Sea, landed in Oman on June 6 with maximum sustained winds of nearly 148km/h, affecting more than 20,000 people.


QUOTE
The world this year has ­suffered record-breaking weather extremes in almost every continent, the United Nations World Meteorological Organisation has warned, with global land temperatures reaching their highest levels since records began in 1800.


QUOTE
The WMO said global land surface temperatures in 2007 were 1.89°C warmer than average for January, and 1.37°C warmer than average for April. It tracked an alarming incidence of unusually adverse weather from Europe and Asia to Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.



QUOTE
(Ted)
Only extraneous because we find it inconvenient to deal with it – like the burning of wood and garbage in most of the world (not covered by IPCC) – it is of course mush easier to blame everything on CO2 and then let the largest producer of same off the hook – smart


To pretend that the IPCC and climate scientists ignore Methane and N2O is simply false. A few years ago, Jim Hansen, one of the most alarmed scientists, even proposed concentrating on Methane and carbon black reduction as a way to buy time to address CO2. Take a look at the table on page 142 of Chpt. 1 of the AR4. (See Table).

....................................................................Radiative Forcing
...............................Change Since.......................................Change Since
Species.........2005....................1998..............2005 (W m–2).....1998 (%)

CO2...........379 ± 0.65 ppm......+13 ppm........ 1.66...................+13
CH4..........1,774 ± 1.8 ppb.......+11 ppb...........0.48......................-
N2O.............319 ± 0.12 ppb......+5 ppb...........0.16...................+11

Portions of tables are hard to copy but I think you can see that CO2 is the major forcing agent and the one whose concentration has increased most in recent years. However, that said, the accompanying discussion makes clear that paleoclimate records indicate a CH4(Methane) atmospheric concentration of from 400 to 700 ppb so that the 1,774 ppb level is from 2 to 4 times normal and up 30% over the last 25 years. Consequently, CH4 forcing over historical norms may be as high as 0.36 W/m2 sincne the beginning of major agriculture endeavors. On the other hand, historical levels of CO2 were already at 280 ppm and have only increased by about 1/4 of the current level so a straight line attribution of forcing would indicate a forcing of about 0.415 W/m2 over pre-industrial forcing. So Methane concentrations are a major contributor of GW thus far but apparently not a growing contributor.

While most of the sources of Methane are biological based, meat production is only one such source. The AR4 discussion surrounding the referenced table says,

QUOTE
the sources are mostly biogenic
and include wetlands, rice agriculture, biomass burning and
ruminant animals. Methane is also emitted by various industrial
sources including fossil fuel mining and distribution.


This post has been edited by TedN5: Sep 24 2007, 07:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Sep 24 2007, 08:22 PM
Post #13


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Ted, you missed the point. The articles I referenced were designed to show the juxtaposition in time of extreme weather events, not just records. However, several records were included. The one and only tropical cyclone to strike in Arabian Sea and record land temperatures in January and April


No you missed my point – which is that there are ALWAYS extreme “weather events” and always have been. And the nature of “records” is that they occationally get broken. So if you can show (you cannot) that there are far more “weather events” in the past 10 years than the previous 50 I will listen more.

So we will always have "record-breaking weather extremes in almost every continent".

Just the fact that any idiot tries to blame the recent hurricanes on GW turns me off immediately as I have heard every real expert say 50 times they are NOT related.


QUOTE
CH4(Methane) atmospheric concentration of from 400 to 700 ppb so that the 1,774 ppb level is from 2 to 4 times normal and up 30% over the last 25 years. Consequently, CH4 forcing over historical norms may be as high as 0.36 W/m2 sincne the beginning of major agriculture endeavors. On the other hand, historical levels of CO2 were already at 280 ppm and have only increased by about 1/4 of the current level so a straight line attribution of forcing would indicate a forcing of about 0.415 W/m2 over pre-industrial forcing. So Methane concentrations are a major contributor of GW thus far but apparently not a growing contributor.


Thus it would seem that even though methane is not now increasing it well may be the primary “gas” if there is one to blame since its concentration is “2 to 4 times normal and up 30% over the last 25 years”

So we need to identify the real drives and the real mechanism of GW before we decide to deal with it by wasting 400 billion a year.

And I will say it again – if China & India are not going to reduce in line with the rest of the world (they won’t) we are wasting our time. And any US president who signs up for an idiotic “treaty” that leaves the major “offenders” out of the equation should be impeached. Even Clinton was not stupid enough to do this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post Sep 29 2007, 02:09 AM
Post #14


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
(Ted)
Thus it would seem that even though methane is not now increasing it well may be the primary “gas” if there is one to blame since its concentration is “2 to 4 times normal and up 30% over the last 25 years”

So we need to identify the real drives and the real mechanism of GW before we decide to deal with it by wasting 400 billion a year.


No, Ted, Methane has always been the subject of climate scientists researching forcing factors in global warming and remains so. The figures I cited that you endorsed were extrapolation of IPCC figures. You can't dismiss the major long term threat represented by increasing levels of long lived CO2 in the atmosphere by pointing at the significant role that historically high but stable levels of the shorter lived Methane is playing. Each one makes the other one worse as do Carbon Blacks and other minor greenhouse gases.

Perhaps I am too pesimistic about peoples willingness to change. Look at the results of this this Yale Opinion Survey.

QUOTE
Sixty-two percent of respondents to a national survey believe that life on earth will continue without major disruptions only if society takes immediate and drastic action to reduce global warming.


Further, 68 percent of Americans support a new international treaty requiring the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050 according to the survey conducted by Yale University, Gallup and the ClearVision Institute. By comparison, the Kyoto Protocol would require the United States to cut its emissions 7 percent by the year 2012.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Sep 29 2007, 02:47 AM
Post #15


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
No, Ted, Methane has always been the subject of climate scientists researching forcing factors in global warming and remains so. The figures I cited that you endorsed were extrapolation of IPCC figures. You can't dismiss the major long term threat represented by increasing levels of long lived CO2 in the atmosphere by pointing at the significant role that historically high but stable levels of the shorter lived Methane is playing



And why is that? Since methane has risen so much faster than CO2 why dismiss it as not being capable of being THE driving force?

QUOTE
Perhaps I am too pesimistic about peoples willingness to change. Look at the results of this this Yale Opinion Survey



Ya right – Yale

Try this one
"Americans generally agree that the earth is getting warmer, but there is less consensus about the cause of global warming or what should be done about it. Roughly four-in-ten (41%) believe human activity such as burning fossil fuels is causing global warming, but just as many say either that warming has been caused by natural patterns in the earth's environment (21%), or that there is no solid evidence of global warming (20%

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=280


Certainly the Gore scare move has had an effect. The fact that it was a gross overstatement in most statistics was missed by most.

“Public agrees global warming exists, but divided over seriousness of problem
A majority of Americans agree with most scientists that the Earth is getting warmer, but they are divided over the seriousness of the problem, according to surveys conducted by Jon Krosnick, professor of communication and of political science. Their uncertainty is based on a belief—shared by two-thirds of the population—that scientists themselves disagree about global warming.
"Americans are very much on the same wavelength with the scientific community about the basics of the issue," Krosnick said. "But they lack certainty" about how bad the problem really is http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...u-pag021307.php


Only the latest Bush proposal has a chance to salvage anything from the disaster of Kyoto. The idea that the US should lead the way and reduce CO2 at a cost of 400 billion a year and tens of thousands of jobs a year while China and India go right on expanding their output without limit is so stupid that it not worth talking about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post Oct 3 2007, 09:09 PM
Post #16


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
(Ted)
Certainly the Gore scare move has had an effect. The fact that it was a gross overstatement in most statistics was missed by most.

“Public agrees global warming exists, but divided over seriousness of problem
A majority of Americans agree with most scientists that the Earth is getting warmer, but they are divided over the seriousness of the problem, according to surveys conducted by Jon Krosnick, professor of communication and of political science. Their uncertainty is based on a belief—shared by two-thirds of the population—that scientists themselves disagree about global warming.
"Americans are very much on the same wavelength with the scientific community about the basics of the issue," Krosnick said. "But they lack certainty" about how bad the problem really is http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...u-pag021307.php


I know you like to take pot shots at Gore but you will have to demonstrate his inaccuracy not just proclaim it. Please cite at least one established climate scientists that is not part of the usual stable of "deniers" who seriously disputes his movie. You probably had pieces like this William J. Broad piece in the NYT in mind. However, his own article is full of a lot more distortions than Gore's documentary. Real Climate reviewed this distortion of the science here and included the following statement.

QUOTE
Unfortunately, neither Easterbrook's inaccuracies nor Vranes oversold certainties are mentioned. We reviewed the movie ourselves, looking hard for such 'inaccuracies', and could only find one minor area (the explanation of the complex relationship between the global surface temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations over glacial/interglacial cycles) where justified criticism might be levied (and here, the accusation was only that Gore simplified a complicated relationship, something that is arguably unavoidable in a movie intended for mass popular consumption).


A link to the Real Climate review of Gore's presentation is included in their review of Broad's article (for those who desire an accurate assessment of Gore's conformity to the science). As for the difference in the opinion polls, the one your cite conforms to my take on the confusion of the public, an effect that the deliberate misinformation campaign is designed to produce. I cited the Yale poll because it was different than my expectation and, therefore, encouraging. I would point out, however, that it was conducted more than a year after the one you cited.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 4 2007, 03:13 AM
Post #17


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
I know you like to take pot shots at Gore but you will have to demonstrate his inaccuracy not just proclaim it. Please cite at least one established climate scientists that is not part of the usual stable of "deniers" who seriously disputes his movie. You probably had pieces like this William J. Broad piece in the NYT in mind. However, his own article is full of a lot more distortions than Gore's documentary. Real Climate reviewed this distortion of the science here and included the following statement



Ya right – one scientist BUT NOTnot part of the usual stable of "deniers" who seriously disputes his movie”

Give me a break sir. The way to dismiss people is drop them in your convenient category and dismiss what they say? Pure crap.

Now you show me one statistic predicted by Gore we are even close to or will be. He used the very worst case scenarios cherry picked from every climate model he could locate and then some. And as his stupid predictions start not happening he will fade away – and good riddance.


http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archi...Case-Study.html

“There is a rising chorus of concern, extending even to "moderate" scientists with no political axe to grind, over the former US vice-president's tactics and advocacy.
The nub of their concern is a belief that he has over-egged his case. That, in trying to sell to the public the dangers of complacency in combating global warming, he is guilty of a number of convenient untruths or distortions.
Even a top adviser to Mr Gore, the environmental scientist James Hansen, admits the former vice-president's work may hold "imperfections" and "technical flaws".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/sci...3722471286.html


And you continue to elude the real question – and that is even if Gore is right why would the US spend 400 billion a year for Kyoto when it is CLEAR that without China and Inda it will mean nothing????

Got an answer TedN5???
Didn’t think so.

This post has been edited by Ted: Oct 4 2007, 03:14 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ataal
post Oct 4 2007, 08:03 PM
Post #18


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 354
Member No.: 674
Joined: April-17-03

From: Phoenix, Arizona
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



Although this appears to be a battle of the Teds cool.gif , I thought I'd chime in here.

I just watched a global warming debate, which can be seen on youtube and Michael Crichton's website(which also has a transcript).

Although good points were made on both sides, one of them hit home for me.

Global temperatures have been changing since the beginning of the Earth's birth. Humans have adapted by migrating and using such technologies as irrigation and dams. So, why is it a "crisis" now? Poor planning. We've built cities all over the world on coastlines, not knowing there was a chance that someday the ocean levels would rise. We've created country borders, not knowing that someday we might need to migrate people out of those regions. Our own infrastructure is the real cause of the "crisis". Temperatures are going to rise and fall whether we pump CO2 into the atmosphere or not, the only difference is how fast, and even that seems to be up for debate still. Some scientists say we are in our "optimal" temperature right now, but for every one of them, there's another that says a few degrees hotter could open up millions of acres of land for farming...gosh, it's a good thing we don't have any world hunger going on.....

So, in my opinion, are humans the cause of this crisis? Yes, but not for the reasons most people think.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post Oct 7 2007, 08:14 PM
Post #19


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
(Ted)
“There is a rising chorus of concern, extending even to "moderate" scientists with no political axe to grind, over the former US vice-president's tactics and advocacy.
The nub of their concern is a belief that he has over-egged his case. That, in trying to sell to the public the dangers of complacency in combating global warming, he is guilty of a number of convenient untruths or distortions.
Even a top adviser to Mr Gore, the environmental scientist James Hansen, admits the former vice-president's work may hold "imperfections" and "technical flaws".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/sci...3722471286.html


It is revealing that you referenced a rehash of the same William Brod piece I posted with an accompanying climate scientist critique without any reasonable explanation. It is also noteworthy that the main scientist cited in this article is Don Easterbrook, a retired professor not an active researcher. While not part of the "stable of deniers," Easterbrook is a definite outlier among climate scientists and does not accept anthropogenic global warming even though the IPCC endorsed it, after a careful review of all scientific research, to be the cause of recent GW to a confidence level greater than 90%. Perhaps a lay critique of the William Broad piece will be more comprehensible. (See The Daily Howler)

Robert Carter, a professor at James Cook University, on the other hand, is part of "the stable." See(Wikipedia).

QUOTE
Carter is a prominent global warming skeptic and has consistently opposed the consensus view on global warming [1]. A March 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald noted that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." [2]


QUOTE
Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [5], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, an organization set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

Carter featured in the debate following the Australian showing of The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary [6].


And, no Ted, I won't discuss China, India, Kyoto, nor self proclaimed $400 billion dollars expenses. We have gone back and forth on these issues numerous times in other global warming topics. If you want to discuss them again, start a new topic. The CH4/N2O/CO2 diversion was quite enough. This topic was set up to discuss the recent rash of unusual weather events and whether they changed or influenced anyone's opinion about the seriousness of global warming's influence on extreme weather.

In keeping with that purpose, here is the latest on summer melting of aortic sea ice. (See Melville Island).

QUOTE
The rapid meltdown is pushing the upper end of the climate experts’ projections, he said, noting that new research shows that change in the Arctic could happen abruptly. In other words, the worst case scenarios and beyond may come to pass. They may even be on their way right now.


(See also Nature).

QUOTE
"I'm shocked daily, looking at the maps," said Marika Holland, sea-ice researcher at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, earlier this month. "Where it's going to bottom out, I wouldn't hazard a guess."


This post has been edited by TedN5: Oct 8 2007, 03:41 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Oct 8 2007, 12:36 AM
Post #20


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?

How do you take two years, or even one hundred years of information about a rock that is billions of years old and even begin to try to make a prediction of what is going to happen over the next 100 years? That would be like me taking your temperature right now and it being 98.9 degrees F, and telling you that in 139 days, you will die of a car accident. The time frame that is being used is ridiculous to predict the future climate of this planet. In addition, how accurate was the climate being recorded on all seven continents in 1800? What technology was being used? Moreover, how accurate were the satellites being used 50 years ago to measure the climate temperatures? Keep in mind the computers in your car are more advanced than the computers used in the first space craft used by NASA.

What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming

None, the Earth is warming, and since the entire earth is warming, that would also be described as Global Warming. The debate isn't about the existence of GW, but the cause and furthermore, is there anything we should or even could do to change it? I don't think there is on either account.

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?

How many questions do we need to answer here, or can we just make one answer for them all? With all of the hype of Clooney crashing his bike, Brittany losing her kids and Pitt nominating Clooney for president, do you think the general public has the attention span to listen about another storm? Do you think storms are new to the climate? I have noticed that many of the 'record highs' were previously set in the early 1900's. Does this mean the climate cooled for a period of time and has begun warming again? Also, with all the reporting that the recent highs are higher than average doesn't really mean anything. Averages are just that-averages. An average is a number that represents many numbers combined. Some of those numbers are higher than the average, some are lower than the average. More likely than not, this year the number will fall either above average or below. I know in my area, we have had many days below average as well as many days above.

This post has been edited by scubatim: Oct 8 2007, 12:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

41 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: October 17th, 2018 - 02:44 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.