Author Topic: Decrease in sea ice a 'cyclical' event  (Read 19032 times)

Racehorse

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 829
Re: Decrease in sea ice a 'cyclical' event
« Reply #75 on: September 10, 2008, 06:36:57 AM »
I'm not curious about the consensus of climatologists because I believe consensus determines the science or what is fact. I'm curious about the consensus (again, of real climatologists) because I don't have the time or resources to study the mountains of evidence for myself. They are the experts on the subject.

I think global warming a basically a hoax with stronger origins in politics than in science, but I haven't seen the actual data myself. If a majority of climate experts believed global climate change to be a reality, I'd be less skeptical, but I haven't seen that actually documented anywhere. All I've seen is a lot of talk of consensus by those with a political agenda.

It pains me t admit this, but the "concensus" is in favor of AGW.

Yes, it does appear that way. I haven't decided where I stand on this yet, but there are obviously well informed opinions on both sides.

Either way, it doesn't matter much to me. I'm not going to change my behavior regardless of which side is right. I do my best to not pollute/litter, etc. but I'm not going to blow thousands on a hybrid or pay for carbon offsets (total scam) to ease my conscience. Even if man is causing the warming/cooling/climate change, it will only get better if everyone changes their behavior. And that will just never happen. So I'm not going to crap my pants every time it's hot outside.

Okay, so the earth might be ruined if we all continue on this path, but you shouldn't do your part because you think no one else will?

That is a picture perfect scenario for why a law should be passed.  Seriously.

This is one of those examples that people give in economics to prove that the free market doesn't always work-because competition gives rise to the collective action problem, as outlined in textbook format above.

So you're going to get laws passed in China? And India? And Africa? Come on. You're living in a dream world if you think that ANY government has the power to solve this. If (and it's still an if in my book) global warming is caused by man, passing laws won't help. Any laws that would actually help would cripple the economies of the countries that enacted them. Governments tend to get unstable when no one has a job.

Also, did you miss the part in my post where I said that I'm all for doing reasonable things to help the environment? I'm just not going to bankrupt myself to do things that in the end don't really help anyway.

I understand the externalities argument from economics, but we don't have a global government to deal with the global externalities.

Also, just what constitutes "doing my part" with global warming? Driving a Prius is a joke. The batteries alone do more harm to the environment than any decrease in CO2. Carbon offsets are a total scam. Please tell me exactly what I can do. I already drive as little as possible. I guess the real question is why should I do my part when no one has even told me what my part is?

richyoung

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,242
  • bring a big gun
Re: Decrease in sea ice a 'cyclical' event
« Reply #76 on: September 10, 2008, 06:58:32 AM »
From the Daily Tech science blog -

"

A graph showing agreement of model predictions with data from both the Earth and Mars


http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7494_large_miskolczi_07.JPG


A simplified view of the new equations governing the greenhouse effectNew derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher.  He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.
That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well.  "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states.  Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

NASA refused to release the results.  Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple.  "Money", he tells DailyTech.  Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research.  Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate.  My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated.  It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past.  The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.


However, not everyone is convinced.  Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible".  Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is  an extremely good fit with observational results.  For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible."
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't...

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,846
Re: Decrease in sea ice a 'cyclical' event
« Reply #77 on: September 10, 2008, 07:03:13 AM »
Quote
That is a picture perfect scenario for why a law should be passed.
Please, please, stay the hell out of politics.  We have too many in there now that has the same ideas as you do.  Get a job digging ditches or driving a cab to realize that life is NOT a utopian dream.

Okay, I think there's a big gulf between "Everyone else is wrecking the planet, so I will too!"  and "living wage" type schemes.

One constitutes trying to prevent knowingly poisoning the food, water, and air supply for all of humanity, and the other is socialism.

I'm truly shocked that it is controversial to say that efforts should be taken to stop people from wrecking the planet, if indeed it is proven that their activity is harmful.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,846
Re: Decrease in sea ice a 'cyclical' event
« Reply #78 on: September 10, 2008, 07:09:57 AM »

So you're going to get laws passed in China? And India? And Africa? Come on. You're living in a dream world if you think that ANY government has the power to solve this. If (and it's still an if in my book) global warming is caused by man, passing laws won't help. Any laws that would actually help would cripple the economies of the countries that enacted them. Governments tend to get unstable when no one has a job.

Also, did you miss the part in my post where I said that I'm all for doing reasonable things to help the environment? I'm just not going to bankrupt myself to do things that in the end don't really help anyway.

I understand the externalities argument from economics, but we don't have a global government to deal with the global externalities.

Also, just what constitutes "doing my part" with global warming? Driving a Prius is a joke. The batteries alone do more harm to the environment than any decrease in CO2. Carbon offsets are a total scam. Please tell me exactly what I can do. I already drive as little as possible. I guess the real question is why should I do my part when no one has even told me what my part is?

By this same logic, trying to stop terrorism is futile, because you can't enforce any rules in other countries.  Of course there are means to enforce a rule when one country is doing harm to another-so that's not really an issue.  The only issue is the marginal effectiveness of those means, and it turns out that most countries in the world have been willing to sign on to environmental protection schemes.

You now appear to be saying that you can't think of anything to do to stop damaging the planet; that's very different from your first post, wherein you said very explicitly that you would not do it even if you could.

Maybe a better question is:  Why am I so unwilling to consider that I might have a part in this, and why am I so committed to doing something I think might be harmful just because other people do it too?
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Racehorse

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 829
Re: Decrease in sea ice a 'cyclical' event
« Reply #79 on: September 10, 2008, 07:42:00 AM »
By this same logic, trying to stop terrorism is futile, because you can't enforce any rules in other countries.  Of course there are means to enforce a rule when one country is doing harm to another-so that's not really an issue.  The only issue is the marginal effectiveness of those means, and it turns out that most countries in the world have been willing to sign on to environmental protection schemes.

The means to enforce a rule are really only military. The UN, EU, and other global governing bodies are basically impotent. Countries that don't want to obey what they say just don't. With terrorism, military force is a lot easier to justify than with global warming. You say that most countries have been willing to sign on to environmental protection schemes. Really? Seems to me like China and India, two of the biggest offenders in terms of CO2 were noticeably unwilling to sign on. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

You now appear to be saying that you can't think of anything to do to stop damaging the planet; that's very different from your first post, wherein you said very explicitly that you would not do it even if you could.

It's only different from the first post because you didn't read the first post. This is what I said, with emphasis:

Quote
I do my best to not pollute/litter, etc. but I'm not going to blow thousands on a hybrid or pay for carbon offsets (total scam) to ease my conscience.

Maybe a better question is:  Why am I so unwilling to consider that I might have a part in this, and why am I so committed to doing something I think might be harmful just because other people do it too?

Maybe a better question is: Why don't I read posts carefully before I offer up invalid criticisms of the poster?

I never said that I don't care about the environment and that I don't try to do my part. In fact, I said the exact opposite. What I did say is that I don't know what else I can do and that I don't see a point in stressing out about it when 1) I'm not convinced that global warming is caused by man's activities (I'm also not convinced that it's not) and 2) The only steps that have been offered for me to do "My Part" are a ridiculous waste of time and money.


Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Decrease in sea ice a 'cyclical' event
« Reply #80 on: September 10, 2008, 07:45:33 AM »
Maybe a better question is:  Why am I so unwilling to consider that I might have a part in this, and why am I so committed to doing something I think might be harmful just because other people do it too?
Have you read any of racehorse's posts here?  Obviously not.  He has considered very thoroughly and extensively whether he might have a part in this.  By all appearances, he's given more consideration to it than anyone else here.  How can you suggest that he's unwilling to consider it?

But hey, let's all consider it now.  Consider it this way.  Before we go down the road of mandating injurious solutions to the "problem" of AGW, we need to determine if there is in fact a problem.  There are some basic questions that need to be answered first:

Is the planet actually warming?

Is the warming caused by man?

Are there any natural processes that outweigh or counteract the influences of man?

Is the warming harmful?

Would the proposed anti-AGW solutions actually solve the problem?

Would AGW be more or less harmful to society than the AGW solution?

Until ALL of those questions can be answered definitively, it's foolish to shoot ourselves in the foot implementing these anti-AGW solutions. 

Desertdog

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,360
Re: Decrease in sea ice a 'cyclical' event
« Reply #81 on: September 10, 2008, 11:13:14 AM »
Quote
However, not everyone is convinced.  Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible".
My ideas of negative feedback of AG are actually simple.
CO2 increase - Plants grow larger and faster, thus using more CO2 and reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Temperature rise - evaporsting more moisture from the earths surface causing more clouds shading the earth, cooling it.  Also causing more rain which cools the earth.

richyoung

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,242
  • bring a big gun
Re: Decrease in sea ice a 'cyclical' event
« Reply #82 on: September 10, 2008, 12:35:18 PM »
Quote
However, not everyone is convinced.  Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible".
My ideas of negative feedback of AG are actually simple.
CO2 increase - Plants grow larger and faster, thus using more CO2 and reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Thats kind of how those massive coal deposits formed in the first place....

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't...