Science of global warming settled

[White Doors]

That's exactly what was said when Galileo suggested the earth revolves about the sun. That is exactly what was said when Darwin showed that evolution was driven by natural selection. And so on....

Certainly i can agree that the science on anthropogenic global warming is not 100% conclusive, but to suggest it is some global conspiracy or massive fraud is just ridiculous. You sound like an inquisitor.

Andrew

As ridiculous as comparing the relative weight behind the theories of evolution and Global warming?

THAT is ridiculous.

[White Doors]

The evidence of a warming planet goes far beyonf temperature data

wtf? that doesn't even make sense.

As to your other non-sensicle argument 'better to do something even if we are wrong"

That is BS. We are diverting billions of environmental dollars to the GW Jihad that could have been used to cut down on toxic chemicals going into the air and water.. Instead we are concentrating on CO2?

The stuff that we breathe out? There are consequences to the environment of misappropriating our environmental dollars.

[AndrewL]

I guess I might be misreading that - but the sentence seems absurd. No one is talking about a "license to destory". But I think we are talking about how much of our economy should be diverted to "eco-protection". Without an analysis of costs and benefits your statement is meaningless twaddle - if you will pardon me.

The danger is that if we focus too much on global warming and if it is proven to be unrelated to human emissions, we may think it is OK to go ahead with the same old status quo of eroding all the fertile land, cutting down all the forests, scraping all the ocean floors, and so on. We need to switchthe question around - how of the economy should be diverted away from eco-protection. In other words, a long term healthy sustainable economy would be centered around keeping the ecosystem alive and healthy.

The way you formulate the question is just symbolic of the problem.

Andrew

Edited August 14, 2007 by AndrewL

[Bonam]

The issues you mention are independent of global warming, and there are reasons against them unrelated to global warming. Cutting down the forests and scraping the dragnetting the oceans was protected against before global warming was even on the radar, and will continue to be opposed even if global warming drops off the radar again.

[AndrewL]

As ridiculous as comparing the relative weight behind the theories of evolution and Global warming?

THAT is ridiculous.

you mean anthropoegnic global warming. The weight of evidence behind a changing environment is overwhelmingly weighty.

That was not the point anyway. The point is that historically, when someone challenges the received wisdom of the entire culture, i.e., Darwin, Galileo, MLK, etc... they are usually demonized in one way or another by the uneducated masses.

The entire global warming debate has become far too political. There is actual calm, rational, and real science in the background that we should heed quite carefully, given the importance of the issue.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

The issues you mention are independent of global warming, and there are reasons against them unrelated to global warming. Cutting down the forests and scraping the dragnetting the oceans was protected against before global warming was even on the radar, and will continue to be opposed even if global warming drops off the radar again.

They are related issues, absolutely. Why would you think they are not?

Andrew

[AndrewL]

wtf? that doesn't even make sense.

As to your other non-sensicle argument 'better to do something even if we are wrong"

That is BS. We are diverting billions of environmental dollars to the GW Jihad that could have been used to cut down on toxic chemicals going into the air and water.. Instead we are concentrating on CO2?

The stuff that we breathe out? There are consequences to the environment of misappropriating our environmental dollars.

This is just a sad and depressing post by someone who has no grasp of the issue at all. Please, do some reading. Get yourself to the library.

Andrew

[White Doors]

This is just a sad and depressing post by someone who has no grasp of the issue at all. Please, do some reading. Get yourself to the library.

Andrew

Oh.. I get it now..

Me dumb you smart?

thanks for coming out.

Perhaps you could tell us why it is a sad and depressing post?

It is a true and valid post.

One that you should be concerned about if you really DO care about the environment.

ahh... but here is the catch, your narrow ideology prevents you from seeing it and if you do, you have to call it 'dumb' and be on yoru merry way.

What sheer brilliance!

Edited August 14, 2007 by White Doors

[AndrewL]

Perhaps you could tell us why it is a sad and depressing post?

Because you dismiss science as if it is ridiculous. You dismiss the issue off hand. You are not qualified to comment on something you obviously have not taken the time to understand.

Andrew

[noahbody]

The point is that historically, when someone challenges the received wisdom of the entire culture, i.e., Darwin, Galileo, MLK, etc... they are usually demonized in one way or another by the uneducated masses.

This is a true statement. Only in this case, the received wisdom is that global warming is manmade. Anyone who disagrees is demonized as a denier. Darwin challenged religion, just like "deniers" of today.

[Sulaco]

The danger is that if we focus too much on global warming and if it is proven to be unrelated to human emissions, we may think it is OK to go ahead with the same old status quo of eroding all the fertile land, cutting down all the forests, scraping all the ocean floors, and so on. We need to switchthe question around - how of the economy should be diverted away from eco-protection. In other words, a long term healthy sustainable economy would be centered around keeping the ecosystem alive and healthy.

The way you formulate the question is just symbolic of the problem.

Andrew

And this is part of the problem with the environmentalist movement (and many movements) - the tying down to an overblown problem and the resulting investment in that problem even as it becomes irrelevant. The fault is not with the people however, but with those who tied their wagon to global warming in their alarmist crying.

So here you come admonishing us to not forget the other problems - when the only danger of them being forgotten is a result of single-minded politically-driven alarmism.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Sulaco

[White Doors]

Because you dismiss science as if it is ridiculous. You dismiss the issue off hand. You are not qualified to comment on something you obviously have not taken the time to understand.

Andrew

What have I dismissed? Please at least have the courtesy to tell me which words you are putting in my mouth.

[White Doors]

The weight of evidence behind a changing environment is overwhelmingly weighty.

Of course it is. The global climate has always changed and will always continue to change - who disputes that??

Could you be anymore obvious?

[B. Max]

name='AndrewL' date='Aug 14 2007, 12:31 PM' post='243927']

He fixed an errror. He did not change the data set arbitrarily. This is science. That is how scientists work. They make mistakes and they correct them and move on. As opposed to religious ideologues and other fanatics who make mistakes and wait centuries before admitting they

He caused the error in the first place and did noting. He was forced to restore the historical data sets.

The evidence of a warming planet goes far beyonf temperature data

Yes we know, we've been telling you people that for years.

... and the issue of warming is only part of a much larger issue of the destruction of our landbase and the conversion of all bio-mass into human-mass.

The issues are not connected at all.

Even if global warming is one day shown conclusively to be entirely independent of human greenhouse gas emmissions, that should not give us a license to go on destroying the ecological basis for our continued survival.

We are not destroying anything, that is more nonsense. Man made global warming has never been proven. The so called proof has all been junk science misleading information and outright lies.

[GostHacked]

Even if global warming is one day shown conclusively to be entirely independent of human greenhouse gas emmissions, that should not give us a license to go on destroying the ecological basis for our continued survival.

....

We are not destroying anything, that is more nonsense. Man made global warming has never been proven. The so called proof has all been junk science misleading information and outright lies.

Every plant/tree you remove from the eco system affects us humans. They filter out carbon dioxide, that OMG global warming gas and give us oxygen. Also, the more humans on the planet, the more trees we need. Since humans have cleared enough land over the years to create civilization, we are cutting our own throats in the long run.

Brings me to a book called Ringworld by Larry Niven. The race called 'puppeteers' had a global warming issue. In the end no matter what they did, an advanced technological race created one byproduct that outweighed everything else. Heat. yes, heat. Anything we try to do is not 100% energy efficient. Heat is a major byproduct of motion, light, sound. Even cooling something inside a box requires heat to be exchanged to the outside. I think this is really the issue at hand. You always seem to be warmer in the middle of a city than in the middle of a forest.

Just a thought.

[Bonam]

Build giant 200km tall radiators to vent all the excess heat out into space. Easy fix!

[noahbody]

The results of NASA correcting its data is akin to finding no weapons of mass destruction. Will Gore downgrade his alarmism or stay the course?

[sharkman]

Well, the usual hissing from both sides of the issue, but I would like to follow the scientists who came out with this study to watch their funding dry up, their GW colleagues attack them and environazis scare their children.

[shoggoth]

Well, the usual hissing from both sides of the issue, but I would like to follow the scientists who came out with this study to watch their funding dry up, their GW colleagues attack them and environazis scare their children.

You presume their study has any merit. You'll find funding dries up if you produce inferior work, it doesn't have to be some kind of conspiracy.

[sharkman]

And you presume their study has no merit, because of it's findings. Just like those who are attacking them on this board and elsewhere. I won't bother to show you discussions where proof of persecution exists of such scientists, merely because of their findings.

[marcinmoka]

Build giant 200km tall radiators to vent all the excess heat out into space. Easy fix!

You may of been joking, but there is a possibility being thrown around in Alaska of building a virtual "conveyor" to "shoot" excess CO2 into the depth of space, by ionizing it, and based on the magnetic properties of earth, using the poles as a conduit for carbon.

Edited August 17, 2007 by marcinmoka

[Bonam]

Sounds like a very energy intensive process. You would probably end up generating a bunch of heat and emissions in the process of transporting the CO2 to Alaska and then ionizing it. It would be better to develop a system that, once built, consumes little/no further energy to operate, rather than requiring energy for every molecule of CO2. The first thing that comes to mind is a sunshade at L1.

[daniel]

Go ahead and do it. ...we have been told to believe. It is a fraud and it has been proven to be a fraud over and over again.

A precise description of the Iraq War and those WMDs.

[B. Max]

A precise description of the Iraq War and those WMDs.

Of course that's not true, and it's not the subject of this thread.

The cover up continues to be exposed.

Both the Anthony Watts site and the climate audit site have been hacked down recently, most likely by Hansen or by his instruction because they have been exposing the fraud going on at GISS.

http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal+Erupt...article8347.htm

[marcinmoka]

Sounds like a very energy intensive process

On paper, not quite so (a few megawatts), or at least far less than it produces. However, in practicable terms, I won't argue with you. The day any massive scientific infrastructure project is accurately mapped out in advance.....who am I kidding, it will never happen.

His idea starts with the fact that CO2 molecules like to team up with loose electrons, to form CO2 ions. A few percent of the CO2 molecules in the air manage to find such electrons. As a result they become negatively charged.

The second piece of luck is that all over the Earth there is a constant vertical electrical field. The surface and the atmosphere form a giant battery, as the lightning discharges of thunderstorms demonstrate. This field tends to make negatively charged ions, such as those of CO2, drift upward. At first this happens slowly, because collisions with other molecules keep throwing the drifting ions off course. But after a few days they arrive at an altitude, about 125km up, which is so rarefied that an ion can move freely about. This is when the last stage of their one-way trip into space begins: sailing along the magnetic field of the Earth.

High in the polar regions, the lines of magnetic force point almost straight upwards. When a charged particle is in a magnetic field, it tends to travel along that field's lines of force, spiralling as it goes. In the case of a CO2 ion at an altitude of 125km, it spirals round 17 times a second.

However, as it travels upwards, it experiences a weakening field. It must then make fewer turns per second, in obedience to a law of physics called the conservation of magnetic moment (this is similar to the law of conservation of angular momentum that slows a spinning ice dancer down as he spreads his arms). And because it cannot just shed its energy of movement, it is forced to travel faster and faster in the direction of the field. The eventual result is that it is ejected into space.

That, at least, is the theory. And although CO2 is too rare even in today's atmosphere for the phenomenon to be detected by existing satellites, an equivalent ejection of oxygen, a far more abundant gas, can be detected from space. So it seems more than likely that Dr Wong's analysis of what is going on in nature is right. The question is, can CO2 molecules be given an artificial leg-up into space, so that they leave the atmosphere in sufficient numbers to make a difference to climate change? Dr Wong thinks they can.

The leg-up he proposes comes in two stages. First, he has to ionise more CO2. There are many ways this might be done, but for a first experiment Dr Wong proposes zapping dust in the atmosphere with powerful lasers, to release electrons that can then combine with CO2. Having created the ions, he will then nudge those that have drifted upwards to the appropriate height with radio waves of exactly 17 cycles a second, which will give them a nice stock of energy at the beginning of their spiralling phase.

Once they are there, Dr Wong expects the incoming stream of charged particles that cause auroras to deliver the bonus that will make the whole thing work, by dumping some of their energy into the spiralling as well. This should happen through a process called stochastic resonance: the spiralling molecules get preferential treatment, so to speak, because they stand out in what is otherwise an environment of random movements.

So far, Dr Wong has only rough calculations of the energy needs of his scheme, but these suggest that his lasers and radio transmitters, even if powered by fossil-fuel generated electricity, should cause far less CO2 to be put into the atmosphere than they ship out of it. The key to this efficiency is the free energy arriving by stochastic resonance. If the particles do their bit, he thinks that a few dozen megawatts of additional electrical power is all that will be needed to make a dent in the amount of CO2.

May 31st 2007 |

From The Economist print edition