Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Global warming out of this world?

108 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

[quote name='thatlookseasy' timestamp='1360726887' post='2133601']

Wait, do you really think that heavier than air particles can't reach the stratosphere?
[/quote]

Sure they can... with volcanoes throwing them up there by force. Hence, the reason why the ozone hole gets bigger after an eruption.

I suppose that is devoid of substance though... stupid science and its useless factoids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='twylyght' timestamp='1360735446' post='2133693']

Sure they can... with volcanoes throwing them up there by force. Hence, the reason why the ozone hole gets bigger after an eruption.

I suppose that is devoid of substance though... stupid science and its useless factoids
[/quote]

The idea that heavier particles will not naturally rise in the atmosphere is based on the assumption that diffusion is the dominant form of atmospheric circulation. Yet diffusion is very slow, and anyone who has been outside on a windy day knows the atmosphere doesnt circulate slowly.

Basic meteorology will tell you that vertical mixing in the atmosphere happens all the time as high and low pressure systems move across earth's surface. Its not like this stuff is a mystery, people collect samples all the time from the upper atmosphere to learn more about atmospheric chemistry. In the case of ozone, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used as coolants at the surface mix with the atmosphere, and eventually reach the stratosphere where they destroy ozone. Its not conjecture, its a well understood mechanism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='thatlookseasy' timestamp='1360737875' post='2133709']


The idea that heavier particles will not naturally rise in the atmosphere is based on the assumption that diffusion is the dominant form of atmospheric circulation. Yet diffusion is very slow, and anyone who has been outside on a windy day knows the atmosphere doesnt circulate slowly.

Basic meteorology will tell you that vertical mixing in the atmosphere happens all the time as high and low pressure systems move across earth's surface. Its not like this stuff is a mystery, people collect samples all the time from the upper atmosphere to learn more about atmospheric chemistry. In the case of ozone, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used as coolants at the surface mix with the atmosphere, and eventually reach the stratosphere where they destroy ozone. Its not conjecture, its a well understood mechanism
[/quote]

Agreed. it is well understood. Volcano erupts. Ozone holes form

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='twylyght' timestamp='1360744245' post='2133718']
Agreed. it is well understood. Volcano erupts. Ozone holes form
[/quote]

Well volcanoes have little to do with the ozone hole and even less to do with atmospheric circulation. The ozone hole was tiny to non-existent prior to the 1980s and has begun to decline as the long lived CFCs slowly dissipate since we stopped using them.

Volcanoes do produce aerosols, which can lead to ozone destruction, but this is typically at mid latitudes and not around the poles where the ozone hole is found. This is why volcanic activity has no effect on the size of the ozone hole.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/p16wRnI.png[/img]

[img]http://www.japanfs.org/en/files/Large_Ozone_Hole_en.jpg[/img]

Volcanoes also do nothing to explain the appearance/ disappearance of the ozone hole every spring and summer in the antarctic. This is because the ozone hole is caused by very cold temperatures forming polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), which are sites for free radical formation for Chlorine containing species. Once the sun returns in the antarctic spring, these chlorine radicals photolyse and destroy ozone.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/ibJi5CX.png[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So, when volcanoes erupt, nothing should happen to the ozone layer... yet... it does.... pesky facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='twylyght' timestamp='1360778945' post='2133978']
So, when volcanoes erupt, nothing should happen to the ozone layer... yet... it does.... pesky facts
[/quote]

Yes, volcanic eruptions can lead to ozone destruction. But they still have little to do with the ozone hole that forms over Antarctica every September and is gone by December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='twylyght' timestamp='1360699139' post='2133141']
I would suggest reading State of Fear by Michael Creighton. His 20 page bibliography from a decade ago does FAR MORE actual research than that picture book by Al Gore that is still touted as indisputable science.


[/quote]

Good book. I read it. It is a cut and paste version of science fiction where you take the stuff you like, throw out or ignore the stuff you don't like, and create a good but fiction story around it.

I wouldn't use that book as a reference on global warming education, but I would recommend it for a good science fiction read.

Here is some good non-fiction reading on the topic if you are interested


[url="http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/index.html"]http://stephenschnei....edu/index.html[/url]
[url="http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp"]http://www.wundergro...ne_skeptics.asp[/url]
[url="http://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/stateoffear.asp?MR=1"]http://www.wundergro...offear.asp?MR=1[/url]
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='teeray' timestamp='1360788331' post='2134092']
Good book. I read it. It is a cut and paste version of science fiction where you take the stuff you like, throw out or ignore the stuff you don't like, and create a good but fiction story around it.

I wouldn't use that book as a reference on global warming education, but I would recommend it for a good science fiction read.

Here is some good non-fiction reading on the topic if you are interested


[url="http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/index.html"]http://stephenschnei....edu/index.html[/url]
[url="http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp"]http://www.wundergro...ne_skeptics.asp[/url]
[url="http://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/stateoffear.asp?MR=1"]http://www.wundergro...offear.asp?MR=1[/url]
[url="http://www.ipcc.ch/"]http://www.ipcc.ch/[/url]
[/quote]

Let's assume the East Angola incident never happened and that all Global Climate science was working for actual truth. How good of a job have they been doing? If we were to take the predictions of just a decade ago and look at how they panned out, how well did they do?

Is anyone actually still thinking in the face of this track record that the alarmists know as much as they claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

this time last year i was on a cargo ship in the middle of the pacific ocean bound for new zealand writing a book. there were four other passengers on board - two ex navy vietnam vets, an elderly french man, and a scientist from the university of washington conducting research on the oxygen levels of the ocean at various latitudinal points, a data set gathered multiple times annually and added to a vast collection of data that is interpreted to track patterns of temperature warming.

i'm pretty sure that guy was paid off to fudge his data, as is every other university-employed scientist who would otherwise put a desire to find facts in place of some grand conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='twylyght' timestamp='1360797614' post='2134245']

Let's assume the East Angola incident never happened and that all Global Climate science was working for actual truth. How good of a job have they been doing? If we were to take the predictions of just a decade ago and look at how they panned out, how well did they do?

Is anyone actually still thinking in the face of this track record that the alarmists know as much as they claim?
[/quote]

Its very difficult to model global temperature trends because there are so many factors involved and so much variation from year to year. I freely admit that current models predicting sea level rise and temperature fluctuations are speculative at best, and they are even less accurate making predictions at the local level.

For example, most models assumed an even sea level rise globally, yet new information shows it is rising faster on the northern east coast than the SE US. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/341723/description/East_Coast_faces_faster_sea_level_rise

But imo its silly to dismiss overwhelming scientific evidence because a few people have overstated the immediate danger posed by global warming. Humans may only contribute a fraction of the global CO2 flux each year, but we have added a major source of CO2 without adding any significant sinks. The result has been a steady, accelerating rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution which isnt going to magically stop unless we do something about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='thatlookseasy' timestamp='1360801933' post='2134296']

Its very difficult to model global temperature trends because there are so many factors involved and so much variation from year to year. I freely admit that current models predicting sea level rise and temperature fluctuations are speculative at best, and they are even less accurate making predictions at the local level.

For example, most models assumed an even sea level rise globally, yet new information shows it is rising faster on the northern east coast than the SE US. [url="http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/341723/description/East_Coast_faces_faster_sea_level_rise"]http://www.sciencene..._sea_level_rise[/url]

But imo its silly to dismiss overwhelming scientific evidence because a few people have overstated the immediate danger posed by global warming. Humans may only contribute a fraction of the global CO2 flux each year, but we have added a major source of CO2 without adding any significant sinks. The result has been a steady, accelerating rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution which isnt going to magically stop unless we do something about it
[/quote]

I agree that it is a daunting task to perform predictive analyses for global climate. There is no disputing the physics of how greenhouse gases work in a controlled environment. There is no reasonable disputing the warming trend of the planet. There can be no reasonable dispute over the urban effect of creating hot spots for local climate.

What can be reasonably asked is where do [i]people [/i]actually fit on the scale how global climate is affected. It stands to reason that if the earth has undergone several cooling and warming cycles for its duration of existence (as our best scientific guesses can fathom), then the mechanisms for these cycles pre-dating humanity are well-established. Moreover, if we are emerging from an ice age, then it also stands to reason that the pattern indicates that the earth would be warming anyway. The evidence suggests that we are still before the mid-point of the upswing in temperature to its expected peak.

We cannot sweep the failures of our understanding aside to assume a new arrogance of understanding when it hasn't been properly tested. If anything, one should want to assure proof of understanding before waging a fool's fortunes. This becomes even worse when the fortunes we wage are not our own. Hence, I don't think that the questions that I ask are unreasonable.

I appreciate the civil discourse that we can have now. I come off as a pure dick to a lot of people on this board, but I give respect to those that deserve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='PhillyB' timestamp='1360612322' post='2132180']
[img]http://cecaust.com.au/images/front/Global_Warming.png[/img]
[/quote]

See http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm and other links on that page for responses to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites