RC, there is a statistical corralation with sunspot activity over much of history, not just the mini Ice age, and there IS empirical evidence about the sun lacking sunspots during that time (I feel pitty for the monks who had to look at the sun to keep track of this). You also failed to respond the the threshold effect.
Just a question other than indirect methods is there anyway we can directly change the temperature the north pole? Maybe dump a big ass snow ball or something?
Want to know irony? Global warming is needed to fix the ozone hole in antartica.
Side note: New solar pannels have been invented with 30% efficency, are flexable (ie you can put them in clothes) and also function in infrared wavelengths
ok so can someone explain this to me then since i think im missing it.
During this 9/11 period your saying the temp increased 1 degree, even though not one plane of the normal thousands of daily flights in US Airspace was flying? To me that is a significant less amount of crap going into the atmosphere from planes. So shouldnt by all means the temp go down? So why then did they go up? Because of the increase in military plane operations? but how much more did they really increase, its not like we went to defcon 5 or anything on that day.
Also the Towers themselves burned for 6 months after the attack and on that day were burning like mad and throwing a fuckton of black nasty smoke into the air, say a lot like a volcano. Could that not explain the increase?
Also 100 year trend in the history of the planet is nothing. Im not saying we arent guilty or are guilty Im just saying there is a lot we dont know and still need to know. So for safty turn off your lights when you leave :)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rogue Trader [/i]
[B]ok so can someone explain this to me then since i think im missing it.
During this 9/11 period your saying the temp increased 1 degree, even though not one plane of the normal thousands of daily flights in US Airspace was flying? To me that is a significant less amount of crap going into the atmosphere from planes. So shouldnt by all means the temp go down?[/B][/QUOTE]Contrails act like clouds and prevents all radiation from getting to surface.
You might have noticed few times that cloudy days are always colder than sunny days... and while contrails don't block all light they block enough of it to be noticeable.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]We as humans in the last couple of hundred years account for only 2% of increase of CO2 emissions.[/B][/QUOTE]That "2 percents" seems to be quite big pile.
[i]Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes.
Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.
Actual measurements of subaerial volcanic sulfur dioxide emissions indicate a time-averaged flux of 13 Tg/yr sulfur dioxide from early 1970 to 1997. About 4 Tg come from explosive eruptions and 9 Tg is released by passivedegassing, in an average year. When considering the other sulfur species also present in volcanic emissions, a time-averaged inventory of subaerial volcanic sulfur emissions is 10.4 Tg/yr sulfur.
Volcanoes and other natural processes release approximately 24 Tg of sulfur to the atmosphere each year. Thus, volcanoes are responsible for 43% of the total natural S flux each year. Man's activities add about 79 Tg sulfur to the atmosphere each year. In an average year, volcanoes release only 13% of the sulfur added to the atmosphere compared to anthropogenic sources.[/i]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]But.. it is! It must be! I mean, we humans are all powerful! Surely global warming is all our fault! We should all live like in the dark ages because they were energy efficient then! We must deny ourselves the comforts of the modern world because they will destroy the planet, causing it to blow up just like how it did in Titan AE, with all the glowing and the red and the booms and the big rocks destroying half the moon and blowing up all the little space ships! [/B][/QUOTE]
it doesnt matter what we do, because the Vogons are going to blow up the planet to make way for a hyperspace bypass in just under 40 days anyway.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]
Here I have to stop and say we already have one... ;)
Our star, the Sun (SOL) is a ready made fusion reactor. Solar power is the ultimate efficient use of this reactor for the purposes of electricity. We also have hydro and aero equivalents in the appropriate settings.
[/B][/QUOTE]
No, see i believe you are greatly mistaken, we do have a naturally occuring way to deal with electricity, but it is not our sun, its vastly more efficient, and way more fun, its.. Squirrel Power. No really, stay with me here, we all know that our back yards are infested with the little buggers, but if we harnessed that power, I mean, i've been trying to draw up plans for a nice 500 squirrelpower generator in my back yard, It generates electricity, AND its fun, i mean, Come on, Sitting and watching the microwave spin, or the Dryer tumble, thats great entertainment, but its NOTHING compared to watching 500 of those lil furry buggers running in a giant wheel.
I'm telling you, the Squirrel is our future!
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
this is the annual anthropogenic carbon budget for 1980 to 1989:
Total CO2 emmissions: 7.1 +/- 1.1 Gt C/yr
This was then distributed into the atmosphere (3.3 +/-0.2 Gt C/yr), oceans (2.0 +/-0.8 Gt C/yr), and through uptake by forset regrowth in the N hemisphere (0.7 +/- 0.2 Gt C/yr).
that means that a total of 1.3 Gt C/yr are being dumped into the system with nowhere to go.
NB, in 1995 the figure for the total CO2 emmissions was revised upwards to 7.7 Gt C/yr
the rate at which CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere is ~0.4% per year, and methane is increasing in concentration faster than that!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]RC thats the sort of boneheaded ostrich attitude that will get us all dead...
[/B][/QUOTE]
He's probably the kind of fundie that can only understand bullets.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
So Vertigo, you agree with SB that anytime someone points up a falicy to your argument that they are a fundie or boneheaded? You clearly also have no understanding of proper debates.
Sorry to break it to you but this thread is about two entirely different things: Global warming/dimming and their effects, and scientific processes unable to provide back any of the evidence of global dimming.
Its one thing to yell and spout stuff saying "The earth rose by 1 degree" and it is another thing to prove that 1 degree above average is really an anomaly outside the bounds of normal earth cyclical oscilations. Hell, two weeks ago the temperature in my state was about ten degrees below average. Does this mean that there was a super excessive amount of particles in the atmosphere? And next week when we hit above average there will be less particles?
Hell, I'd like to know how they can claim that any one degree change over such a short period of time can be positively attributed to anything other then natural cycle. I could claim that the 1 degree increase was becuase of everyone running their TVs 24/7 watching coverage about 9/11 and you know what? I would have as much proof that links my statement to what they are using about the grounding of air planes: Both events coincide with the 1 degree variation of global temperature norms over the last 100 years.
But let me ask you: What is the standard deviation of global temperatures for any given date? I don't have a source to quote, but I'd bet it is higher then 1 degree. Therefore 1 degree, within one standard deviation, is nothing unusual. Now as you expand the deviation over larger periods of time the probability decreases, but it is still there. There is a point which one could say "anomaly" but I highly doubt it is 1 degree over a 1 week period.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B]Contrails act like clouds and prevents all radiation from getting to surface.
You might have noticed few times that cloudy days are always colder than sunny days... and while contrails don't block all light they block enough of it to be noticeable.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes - perhaps. However - cloudy nights are also warmer than clear ones - because clouds trap heat... No one knows the true net effect of the albedo AND insulation. That is why there is questionable strength to the argument that warmer planet = more clouds = back to cooler temps.
That is one thing I liked about "State of Fear" It is a desperate attempt to tell all these people who speak in absolute terms on both sides and who "know all" that NO ONE really knows ANYTHING!
I don't trust scientists who need a crisis to keep their funding - do any of you?
_____________________________
I'd like to defend Mr Crichton for a moment.
From his book state of fear:
"I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor." Page 570
"Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause." Page 569
Those quotes are from the "Author's Message" at the end of the book. There is a reason so many people are desperate to pan this book. He is too honest. I personally feel that it was a very good book.
"I am certain there is too much certainty in this world"
"Everybody has an agenda. Except me."
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Biggles's link gives useful information:
"When compared against the 30-year record, the group found that diurnal temperature ranges on September 11-13, 2001 expanded as much as 3-5 degrees Fahrenheit. That was more than double any random year-to-year variation over that time."
That is much more then 1 a degree change and indicates that it is outside standard deviation by a decent amount. Unfortunately a longer term study would be needed to truely confirm it. More unfortunately there is no way to actually get such a study without some other major catastrophy.
----------------------
SB: Your link does not give sufficient information for a scientificly analyzing it for accuracy. Biggles's link does. Sorry to break it to you but your site is a site that says "this is a problem and here is what we say are the facts" with no reference to actual data, researchers, or the historical information. I just reread it - and I still claim it does not have sufficient information to answer the questions I had asked. The site Biggles posted does.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
SB: Furthermore the BBC FAQ that is linked from your Global Dimming link provides a very different view of the entire global dimming question:
[QUOTE]If the 9/11 contrail evidence suggests warmer nights due to the air travel, isn't that global warming rather than dimming?
The 9/11 study showed that removing contrails resulted in a large increase in the daily temperature range - in other words warmer days and cooler nights. The study does not really provide a clear-cut answer to the question of whether the overall effect of the contrails is a net warming or a net cooling averaged over the whole 24 hours. This question is controversial. But what seems clear is that contrails contribute to a reduction in the amount of daytime solar radiation reaching the surface, and that this has significant effects on temperature.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]Solar power has become 400% cheaper over 20 years...Efficency has increased in similar numbers...[/quote][/b]
No it hasn't. The maximum efficiency we see these days with solar cells is 30%. To use text from a Science News article from April 26, 1986, a maximum efficiency of 27.6% had been reached back then. 2.4% is not a 400% increase in efficiency.
[QUOTE][B]Read the f%#$ing links.[/QUOTE][/B]
How polite of you.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I wonder if people who promote solar panels as the ultimate in clean energy ever consider the amount of bad and nasty chemicals that both go in to and come out of the process of making them.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
I know someone who did a quick calculation about the total power output of covering the entirety of a country the size of egypt with solar panels. Assuming it is a desert climate with minimal clouds, the output was quite high - enough to effectively replace most conventional power production for the US.
Of course...this would be assuming one could somehow GET that many solar cells build and working together...and keep them clean and at full efficiency. All of this is hard to fathom.
What we really need is the nice Asimov idea of orbital power station that collect solar energy and beam it back to Earth.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]I know someone who did a quick calculation about the total power output of covering the entirety of a country the size of egypt with solar panels. Assuming it is a desert climate with minimal clouds, the output was quite high - enough to effectively replace most conventional power production for the US.
Of course...this would be assuming one could somehow GET that many solar cells build and working together...and keep them clean and at full efficiency. All of this is hard to fathom.
What we really need is the nice Asimov idea of orbital power station that collect solar energy and beam it back to Earth.
:) [/B][/QUOTE] Like in sim city 2000 best game EVAR
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Konrad [/i]
[B]No one knows the true net effect of the albedo AND insulation. That is why there is questionable strength to the argument that warmer planet = more clouds = back to cooler temps.
That is one thing I liked about "State of Fear" It is a desperate attempt to tell all these people who speak in absolute terms on both sides and who "know all" that NO ONE really knows ANYTHING!
I don't trust scientists who need a crisis to keep their funding - do any of you?[/B][/QUOTE]But one thing is known well, increasing CO2 concentration retains (much) more heat inside system.
So how that we don't know everything from climate and weather gives permission to keep up disturbing it?
Isn't there saying that if you don't know how something dangerous works you better keep your hands off from it?
And what makes those ones whose "god" is making maximum amount of money/profits credible?
Especially when it's clearly evident they use every possible means for achieving that, like ignoring safety of workers, denying their rights, paying slave wages, destroying environment... even terrorising and killing people!
Comments
:D
"Earth first! We'll deforest the rest of the planets later..."
hah... funny at first thought, but upon contemplation a very accurate and scary look into the mind of the current status quo...
We as humans will consume, it's our nature, but will we replenish and regrow?
Or will we be those lazy GFN pieces of trash that expects someone else to deal with the problems down the line?
What are we telling our children by this?
Hey! I have my Caddy, it's your fucking problem...
What a legacy to give your offspring...
:rolleyes:
Mars should be teraformed, not for our use, but to keep the blood line of majestic coniferous trees alive for the future.
;)
Side note: New solar pannels have been invented with 30% efficency, are flexable (ie you can put them in clothes) and also function in infrared wavelengths
During this 9/11 period your saying the temp increased 1 degree, even though not one plane of the normal thousands of daily flights in US Airspace was flying? To me that is a significant less amount of crap going into the atmosphere from planes. So shouldnt by all means the temp go down? So why then did they go up? Because of the increase in military plane operations? but how much more did they really increase, its not like we went to defcon 5 or anything on that day.
Also the Towers themselves burned for 6 months after the attack and on that day were burning like mad and throwing a fuckton of black nasty smoke into the air, say a lot like a volcano. Could that not explain the increase?
Also 100 year trend in the history of the planet is nothing. Im not saying we arent guilty or are guilty Im just saying there is a lot we dont know and still need to know. So for safty turn off your lights when you leave :)
[B]ok so can someone explain this to me then since i think im missing it.
During this 9/11 period your saying the temp increased 1 degree, even though not one plane of the normal thousands of daily flights in US Airspace was flying? To me that is a significant less amount of crap going into the atmosphere from planes. So shouldnt by all means the temp go down?[/B][/QUOTE]Contrails act like clouds and prevents all radiation from getting to surface.
You might have noticed few times that cloudy days are always colder than sunny days... and while contrails don't block all light they block enough of it to be noticeable.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]We as humans in the last couple of hundred years account for only 2% of increase of CO2 emissions.[/B][/QUOTE]That "2 percents" seems to be quite big pile.
[i]Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes.
Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.
Actual measurements of subaerial volcanic sulfur dioxide emissions indicate a time-averaged flux of 13 Tg/yr sulfur dioxide from early 1970 to 1997. About 4 Tg come from explosive eruptions and 9 Tg is released by passivedegassing, in an average year. When considering the other sulfur species also present in volcanic emissions, a time-averaged inventory of subaerial volcanic sulfur emissions is 10.4 Tg/yr sulfur.
Volcanoes and other natural processes release approximately 24 Tg of sulfur to the atmosphere each year. Thus, volcanoes are responsible for 43% of the total natural S flux each year. Man's activities add about 79 Tg sulfur to the atmosphere each year. In an average year, volcanoes release only 13% of the sulfur added to the atmosphere compared to anthropogenic sources.[/i]
[url]http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html[/url]
[B]But.. it is! It must be! I mean, we humans are all powerful! Surely global warming is all our fault! We should all live like in the dark ages because they were energy efficient then! We must deny ourselves the comforts of the modern world because they will destroy the planet, causing it to blow up just like how it did in Titan AE, with all the glowing and the red and the booms and the big rocks destroying half the moon and blowing up all the little space ships! [/B][/QUOTE]
it doesnt matter what we do, because the Vogons are going to blow up the planet to make way for a hyperspace bypass in just under 40 days anyway.
[B]
Here I have to stop and say we already have one... ;)
Our star, the Sun (SOL) is a ready made fusion reactor. Solar power is the ultimate efficient use of this reactor for the purposes of electricity. We also have hydro and aero equivalents in the appropriate settings.
[/B][/QUOTE]
No, see i believe you are greatly mistaken, we do have a naturally occuring way to deal with electricity, but it is not our sun, its vastly more efficient, and way more fun, its.. Squirrel Power. No really, stay with me here, we all know that our back yards are infested with the little buggers, but if we harnessed that power, I mean, i've been trying to draw up plans for a nice 500 squirrelpower generator in my back yard, It generates electricity, AND its fun, i mean, Come on, Sitting and watching the microwave spin, or the Dryer tumble, thats great entertainment, but its NOTHING compared to watching 500 of those lil furry buggers running in a giant wheel.
I'm telling you, the Squirrel is our future!
Total CO2 emmissions: 7.1 +/- 1.1 Gt C/yr
This was then distributed into the atmosphere (3.3 +/-0.2 Gt C/yr), oceans (2.0 +/-0.8 Gt C/yr), and through uptake by forset regrowth in the N hemisphere (0.7 +/- 0.2 Gt C/yr).
that means that a total of 1.3 Gt C/yr are being dumped into the system with nowhere to go.
NB, in 1995 the figure for the total CO2 emmissions was revised upwards to 7.7 Gt C/yr
the rate at which CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere is ~0.4% per year, and methane is increasing in concentration faster than that!
anyone else worried by that?
[B]RC thats the sort of boneheaded ostrich attitude that will get us all dead...
[/B][/QUOTE]
He's probably the kind of fundie that can only understand bullets.
Sorry to break it to you but this thread is about two entirely different things: Global warming/dimming and their effects, and scientific processes unable to provide back any of the evidence of global dimming.
Its one thing to yell and spout stuff saying "The earth rose by 1 degree" and it is another thing to prove that 1 degree above average is really an anomaly outside the bounds of normal earth cyclical oscilations. Hell, two weeks ago the temperature in my state was about ten degrees below average. Does this mean that there was a super excessive amount of particles in the atmosphere? And next week when we hit above average there will be less particles?
Hell, I'd like to know how they can claim that any one degree change over such a short period of time can be positively attributed to anything other then natural cycle. I could claim that the 1 degree increase was becuase of everyone running their TVs 24/7 watching coverage about 9/11 and you know what? I would have as much proof that links my statement to what they are using about the grounding of air planes: Both events coincide with the 1 degree variation of global temperature norms over the last 100 years.
But let me ask you: What is the standard deviation of global temperatures for any given date? I don't have a source to quote, but I'd bet it is higher then 1 degree. Therefore 1 degree, within one standard deviation, is nothing unusual. Now as you expand the deviation over larger periods of time the probability decreases, but it is still there. There is a point which one could say "anomaly" but I highly doubt it is 1 degree over a 1 week period.
[url]http://www.uww.edu/npa/news_releases/story.php?id=354[/url]
Seems I was right about them being more concerned about cloud cover.
[B]Contrails act like clouds and prevents all radiation from getting to surface.
You might have noticed few times that cloudy days are always colder than sunny days... and while contrails don't block all light they block enough of it to be noticeable.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes - perhaps. However - cloudy nights are also warmer than clear ones - because clouds trap heat... No one knows the true net effect of the albedo AND insulation. That is why there is questionable strength to the argument that warmer planet = more clouds = back to cooler temps.
That is one thing I liked about "State of Fear" It is a desperate attempt to tell all these people who speak in absolute terms on both sides and who "know all" that NO ONE really knows ANYTHING!
I don't trust scientists who need a crisis to keep their funding - do any of you?
_____________________________
I'd like to defend Mr Crichton for a moment.
From his book state of fear:
"I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor." Page 570
"Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause." Page 569
Those quotes are from the "Author's Message" at the end of the book. There is a reason so many people are desperate to pan this book. He is too honest. I personally feel that it was a very good book.
"I am certain there is too much certainty in this world"
"Everybody has an agenda. Except me."
"When compared against the 30-year record, the group found that diurnal temperature ranges on September 11-13, 2001 expanded as much as 3-5 degrees Fahrenheit. That was more than double any random year-to-year variation over that time."
That is much more then 1 a degree change and indicates that it is outside standard deviation by a decent amount. Unfortunately a longer term study would be needed to truely confirm it. More unfortunately there is no way to actually get such a study without some other major catastrophy.
----------------------
SB: Your link does not give sufficient information for a scientificly analyzing it for accuracy. Biggles's link does. Sorry to break it to you but your site is a site that says "this is a problem and here is what we say are the facts" with no reference to actual data, researchers, or the historical information. I just reread it - and I still claim it does not have sufficient information to answer the questions I had asked. The site Biggles posted does.
[QUOTE]If the 9/11 contrail evidence suggests warmer nights due to the air travel, isn't that global warming rather than dimming?
The 9/11 study showed that removing contrails resulted in a large increase in the daily temperature range - in other words warmer days and cooler nights. The study does not really provide a clear-cut answer to the question of whether the overall effect of the contrails is a net warming or a net cooling averaged over the whole 24 hours. This question is controversial. But what seems clear is that contrails contribute to a reduction in the amount of daytime solar radiation reaching the surface, and that this has significant effects on temperature.[/QUOTE]
[B]Solar power has become 400% cheaper over 20 years...Efficency has increased in similar numbers...[/quote][/b]
No it hasn't. The maximum efficiency we see these days with solar cells is 30%. To use text from a Science News article from April 26, 1986, a maximum efficiency of 27.6% had been reached back then. 2.4% is not a 400% increase in efficiency.
[QUOTE][B]Read the f%#$ing links.[/QUOTE][/B]
How polite of you.
Of course...this would be assuming one could somehow GET that many solar cells build and working together...and keep them clean and at full efficiency. All of this is hard to fathom.
What we really need is the nice Asimov idea of orbital power station that collect solar energy and beam it back to Earth.
:)
[B]I know someone who did a quick calculation about the total power output of covering the entirety of a country the size of egypt with solar panels. Assuming it is a desert climate with minimal clouds, the output was quite high - enough to effectively replace most conventional power production for the US.
Of course...this would be assuming one could somehow GET that many solar cells build and working together...and keep them clean and at full efficiency. All of this is hard to fathom.
What we really need is the nice Asimov idea of orbital power station that collect solar energy and beam it back to Earth.
:) [/B][/QUOTE] Like in sim city 2000 best game EVAR
[B]No one knows the true net effect of the albedo AND insulation. That is why there is questionable strength to the argument that warmer planet = more clouds = back to cooler temps.
That is one thing I liked about "State of Fear" It is a desperate attempt to tell all these people who speak in absolute terms on both sides and who "know all" that NO ONE really knows ANYTHING!
I don't trust scientists who need a crisis to keep their funding - do any of you?[/B][/QUOTE]But one thing is known well, increasing CO2 concentration retains (much) more heat inside system.
So how that we don't know everything from climate and weather gives permission to keep up disturbing it?
Isn't there saying that if you don't know how something dangerous works you better keep your hands off from it?
And what makes those ones whose "god" is making maximum amount of money/profits credible?
Especially when it's clearly evident they use every possible means for achieving that, like ignoring safety of workers, denying their rights, paying slave wages, destroying environment... even terrorising and killing people!