Is Global Warming hot?

Pythagorean

Gold Member
4,129
248
jimmie said:
Oh yeah, the report also said the debate is over as to whether or not global warming is anthropogenic; it is.
I don't think 60 minutes is qualified to make a scientific assertion like that. Firstly, they represent one network that makes it's money from selling ratings (and their funders are only interested in ratings to sell products). And two, they represent one country, the USA, who's politicians already hold a confusing stance on global warming. The politicians are tied into the media and oil companies.

Also, just because a paper or two gets published in a scientific journal, doesn't always mean it's an accurate portrait of all the events and their dependencies.

From my laymen point of view, I think the 'hockey stick' authors are just as questionable as Mann (who's journal article supported the anthropological connection). They made a rebuttle to Mann's statistics, but without understanding the complexity of the math, myself, I have to be suspicious of the authors of the hockey stick article because the primary author is tied to oil companies, and the secondary author is tied to economics. I always hear economic majors practicing arguing about global warming, claiming that reduction of fossil fuel levels is uneconomically realistic, which isn't really the argument at hand, but it implies to me that both oil companies and economists are threatened if the antrhopological connection is true.

I don't think anybody can really judge yet. We're talking about international collaboration of a crapload of data in different languages, with possible errors all over. Now that it's such a big deal (and since the politicians are pushing their sides of the issue so much) I'm seeing so much disagreement that I don't think anyone really knows what's really going on.

They just have a lot of data and assumptions, so they can (each of them) pick at the data and connect it to their assumptions. I think we need mroe time for this one.
 
147
0
I think we need mroe time for this one.
Uhh...the 60 Minutes report was based upon research that included core samples from the arctic and antarctic that provide data from the past 650,000 years.

I don't think anybody can really judge yet.
What do you think is required, aside from more time, for anybody to accurately judge the global warming issue?
 

Mk

1,963
3
A skeptical mind, and one that is untampered with by politicians, oil companies, environmentalists, or fear provided by news reports. One that is tampered with by straight, unpoliticized, scientific evidence.

I don't think anybody can really judge yet. We're talking about international collaboration of a crapload of data in different languages, with possible errors all over. Now that it's such a big deal (and since the politicians are pushing their sides of the issue so much) I'm seeing so much disagreement that I don't think anyone really knows what's really going on.
Not only that, but the data is touched to death. By "touch," I mean tamper. The data is manipulated and changed. Data is thrown out like crazy. Adjustments for such things as the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI), are crude, and unreliable.

A radiometic dating technique determined an odd date for the time a mastadon lived, and it was thrown out.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=127240
 
Last edited:
147
0
Ok, forget all data.

What about the archive of pictures of various glaciers, snow packs, the arctic, the antarctic, and Greenland that clearly show how the snow and ice have visibly and rapidly melted over the last 50 years?
 
50
9
Not sure how true it is, but i heard that the glacier in Iceland (i think) is growing and not melting.
 
50
9
If that glacier in Iceland is getting larger then does that mean that part of the world is getting colder?

Sounds abit simple to me but global warming as a term should refer to the whole planet and if the glacier in Iceland is getting larger then iceland is not warming, maybe we should find out why Iceland is an exception.

This is assuming that i did hear correctly about the Iceland glacier, if not just ignore me.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,544
1,660
I don't think 60 minutes is qualified to make a scientific assertion like that.
Now that's an understatment. :rolleyes: Actually, AFAIK, no media organization is qualified to make any credible assertion about anything scientific. :grumpy:

Anyway, as to Global Warming and its cause(s), and whether or not there is an anthropogenic cause - I'm still undecided, because I have not seen a clean and clear presentation of all the data and analyses. Clearly there seems to be a correlation with some variables, such as the quantity of CO2. On the other hand as Andre has pointed out, moisture (H2O) also absorbs thermal radiation.

What are other possible causes?

Geological activity - lots of thermal energy within the earth. Pros, cons?

Solar activity - is the sun producing more heat than say 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago? Pros, cons? Couldn't one simply measure the solar photon flux and measure the energy incident upon the earth? Or perhaps look at the various emission lines to see if there is a shift in the temperature of the photosphere?

Changes in the atmoshphere? Have there been changes in the Earth's atmosphere that have reduced the Earth's albedo or reflectance of solar flux?

Changes to the Earth's surface? Well here we have destruction of the temperate and tropical forests, which could increase the earth's surface termperature by virtue of absorption of the solar photon flux (UV and visible light) thus heating up and storing the energy which is then released more slowly, and in the infrared spectrum, which is more readily absorbed by the atmosphere. The reflectance of the earth's surface (ground) has certainly changed over the last century or two. In addition, there is more dust in the atmosphere from soot from combustion, fine sandy dust from deserts, and grime from human activity. Solution here would be to replenish the forests.

What about the culprit, CO2? What else has increased in conjunction with CO2? Well, how about energy generation? Coal, oil and natural gas are burned to produce electricity, in addition to providing thermal process energy. In addition to electricity, thermal energy is generated. Many coal and oil plants use the Rankine (steam) thermodynamic cycle to convert thermal to mechanical energy, however, the Rankine cycle has an efficiency in the range of 33-40%, with higher efficiencies obtained with superheated steam. That means that between 60-67% of the thermal energy is simply 'dumped' directly into the enviroment. The generation of energy has increased along with CO2. And, the Rankine cycle is the cycle used in nuclear power plants. On a positive note, combined cycle plants using aeroderivative gas turbines (~40-45% efficiency) with the exhaused passed through a Rankine (steam) cycle (~30% efficient) can get about 60-62% thermal to mechanical conversion efficiency, so thermal energy is required for a given amount of electrical energy. If energy production is a factor, then increasing nuclear energy generation will NOT solve the problem of GW.

The solution to GW maybe to reduce the production of energy, offset by the use of 'more efficient' processes. Or use more renewable energy sources, e.g. wind and solar.

What are the ramifications of slightly higher temperatures? More energy in the atmosphere can mean more intense weather and catastrophic storms, e.g. hurricanes, tornados, etc. In some cases, more rain means - more flooding - with concommitant increase in insect borne diseases

Warmer weather may produce ares of drought - e.g. in N and S Dakota - which could reduce food production. In the extreme, people will simply have insufficient food resources.

Warmer weather in association with agricultural runoff means increases in certain phyto- and zoo-plankton which proliferate and then subsequently die. Bacteria then proliferate and produce anoxic 'dead zones' in places like the Gulf of Mexico, which has one of the largest dead zones in the world. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) ) This is also a threat to the global food supply.
 

Pythagorean

Gold Member
4,129
248
jimmie said:
Uhh...the 60 Minutes report was based upon research that included core samples from the arctic and antarctic that provide data from the past 650,000 years.



What do you think is required, aside from more time, for anybody to accurately judge the global warming issue?
That's unreliable data. First of all, 650,000 years is a tiny chunk of Earth's lifetime. If you were only studying tide for five hours, you'd think it was flooding, right? A whole tide cycle takes 12 hours, but you'd want to watch it for three or four days to make sure the pattern repeats itself (and there's actually long term variations, even in the tide) and you're not just seeing a biased record of events. Secondly, it's not like people have been measuring temperature for 650,000 years. It's an assumption based on an ice core sample from a particular part of the world. Again, I can't judge because I don't know the tehcnique they use to take data from an ice core, but (once more) I'm not a climatologist! Once there's a concencus between the atmospheric scientists, I might be more willing to accept the verdict. For now, it seems there isn't one.

I can't tell you that particulars of what is required to accurately judge the gblobal warming issue. The Earth is a REALLY complex system, and I am no climatologist, nor do I intend to be. Astronuc's post right above implies a considerable number of tests that seem helpful in demystifying global warming.

I want to be aware of the truth, that's all. Though my gut feeling says "yes, global warming is anthropogenic" my intellect still requires significant satisfaction because a gut feeling isn't enough (unless, of course, I was a detective).
 
Last edited:
4,453
57
Good thinking Pythagorean. Truth isn't always the sincere opinion of the majority.

So if Global warming is about greenhouse effect of CO2 and CO2 is a global signal, then you'd expect a rather even warming of both northern and southern hemisphere.

Remember that the satellite data for the lower atmosphere have been corrected and show more warming than before. Also, you may expect those satellite data to play a major role in the next (fourth) assessment report of the International Panel on Climate Change (FAR IPCC). Consequently those data are widely accepted.

Here are the http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 [Broken], july 2006 has just been entered today.

Let's put that in a graph, checking Northern and Southern Hemisphere.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/lower-troposphere.gif [Broken]

Observe the difference. The northern hemisphere warms about four times as fast as the southern hemisphere. Not nearly as evenly distributed as you would expect from the greenhouse effect.

Now suppose that it was just increase in sunshine as I posted before. Then you would expect land to be much more sensitive to warming than sea. Now isn't north most land and south most sea?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4,453
57
jimmie said:
Oh yeah, the report also said the debate is over as to whether or not global warming is anthropogenic; it is.
Right, let's find out why it is said that the debate is over:

http://www.ippr.org.uk/ecomm/files/warm_words.pdf

Treating climate change as beyond argument Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective.
I do hope that this triggers some association with 1984 and newspeak designed by the ministery of truth to fight "thoughtcrime"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mk

1,963
3
Astronuc said:
Geological activity - lots of thermal energy within the earth. Pros, cons?
Rock is a very good thermal insulator, but I'm not sure we know that much about activity in the mantle. Some people have suggested the mantle is getting hotter in some places, to cause a global warming.
It seems to me that in the US we have finally reached critical mass. Since to a large extent TV merely feeds people what they want to watch and what they already believe, and since TV execs spend a great deal of money to know what people want, I keep an eye on television programming as a measure of the public pulse. Based on this and other events in the news, I suspect that we have gone over the edge: Whereas previously, in the public mind [on the average] nothing was caused by global warming, now everything will be blamed on global warming. More and more I see direct references to events like Katrina, the droughts and fires in the SW US this winter, melting bergs, the current temperatures in the Western US, rising sea levels etc, all within the context of GW. They never say it directly yet, but always the strong implication is that this is anthropogenic global warming knocking at your door.
I think that is a terrific assessment.

Have you seen the commercial that flashes from one child to another, with each saying "tick", and with each "tick" a little louder than the last, until finally they are yelling at you? TICK! TICK!! TICK!!
Yeah, I thought that was very effective.
 
Last edited:

Mk

1,963
3
Pythagorean said:
Though my gut feeling says "yes, global warming is anthropogenic" my intellect still requires significant satisfaction because a gut feeling isn't enough (unless, of course, I was a detective).
I love Magnum P.I.!!!!! :!!) :smile: :biggrin:
 
147
0
Quote:
I don't think 60 minutes is qualified to make a scientific assertion like that.

Now that's an understatment. Actually, AFAIK, no media organization is qualified to make any credible assertion about anything scientific.
Uhh...the 60 Minutes report was based upon research done by Dr. Robert W. Corell, Chair of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment and Senior Fellow, American Meteorological Society.

60 Minutes was not making the scientific assertion; it was delivering the scientific assertion made from Dr. Corell.

Back in 1987, President Reagan asked Corell to look into climate change. He's been at it ever since.

From a Rolling Stone magazine interview:

Few scientists know as much about how global warming is changing the world as Robert Corell. As chair of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Corell oversaw a five-year study by 300 scientists from fifteen countries who studied the effects of climate change in the Arctic. The conclusion: Greenhouse gases are causing the planet to heat up faster than anyone realizes. "We're talking about the sea level rising at a rate of about a meter every hundred years or so," says Corell -- enough water to swallow a chunk of Florida and more than forty percent of Bangladesh.

The detailed findings -- laid out in a peer-reviewed, 1,200-page report published on October 21st -- provide the most advanced evidence yet of global warming's stark reality. But a year before the study was finished, the Bush administration stalled its progress, shutting down talks designed to come up with specific policy recommendations. "The United States took umbrage to the process, even though they had voted to create it," says Corell, a senior fellow with the American Meteorological Society. "They said the science was not complete." After a series of tense meetings in Greenland, Iceland and Denmark, the administration finally yielded -- endorsing the recommendations at 3 a.m. on the very last day of negotiations.
From 60 Minutes:
"When you look at the American government, which is saying essentially, 'Wait a minute. We need to study this some more. We can't flip our energy use overnight. It would hurt the economy.' When you hear that, what do you think?" Pelley asked.

"Well, what I do then is, I try to tell them exactly what we know scientifically. The science is, I believe, unassailable," says Corell. "I'm not arguing their policy, that's their business, how they deal with policy. But my job is to say, scientifically, shorten that time scale so that if you don't push out the effects of climate change into the long, long distant future. Because even under the best of circumstances, this natural system of a climate will continue to warm the planet for literally hundreds of years, no matter what we do."
 
Last edited:
4,453
57
About the arctic. Perhaps check here and see in an excellent 3d presentation of the refuted hockeystick on page 9 of the executive summary.

After the unanimous rebuttal ofthe MBH methods by the NAS report and the Wegman report, using the hockeystick now would be subject to laws about the use of false information
 

Bystander

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,024
1,025
Geological heating? Crustal heat flows are measured in mW/m2. Heat from human activities? Tens of mW/m2. Insignificant. Temperature record? Inadequate to say anything. Sea level rise? No decent mass balance. Cause and effect relationships among an inconclusive temperature record, decent sea level measurements, nonexistent ground water extraction data, Antarctic and Greenland ice cap volume estimates, and atmospheric CO2 content? "Insufficient data."
 
4,453
57
As I sain on the bottom of the former page, which is the lousiest place to get a post in: The big difference between southern and nothern hemisphere is putting big question marks to the role of greenhouse effect in the warming.

That has also been noticed here.

msuhemdiff.gif
 
147
0
Geological heating? Crustal heat flows are measured in mW/m2. Heat from human activities? Tens of mW/m2. Insignificant. Temperature record? Inadequate to say anything. Sea level rise? No decent mass balance. Cause and effect relationships among an inconclusive temperature record, decent sea level measurements, nonexistent ground water extraction data, Antarctic and Greenland ice cap volume estimates, and atmospheric CO2 content? "Insufficient data."
Bystander, you conclude that heat from human activities is insignificant and [high] temperature records are inadequate, yet maintain that there is "insufficient data" to make a conclusion on global warming.

What other conclusions have you established based upon "insufficient data"?

Perhaps, Bystander, the only global warming data that is insufficient is the amount you currently retain.
 
4,453
57
Anyway when you want searching for the bottom of the debate. That's here.

............My biases: The pronouncements of climate modelers, who don't do experiments, don't make observations, don't even confect theories, but rather [in my opinion] play computer games using huge programs containing dozens of separate components the details of which they may be largely ignorant, don't move me. I am much more impressed by direct evidence: retreating glaciers, longer growing seasons, the migration of species, rising sea level, etc.

I have lived long enough to have seen many doomsday scenarios painted by people who profited by doing so, but which never came to pass. This has made me a skeptic. Perhaps global warming is an example of the old fable about the boy who cried wolf, but this time the doomsayers are, alas, right. Maybe, but I can't help noting that some of the prominent global warmers of today were global coolers of not so long ago. In particular, Steven Schneider, now at Stanford, previously at NCAR, about 30 years ago was sounding the alarm about an imminent ice age. The culprit then was particles belched into the atmosphere by human activities. No matter how the climate changes he can correctly say that he predicted it. No one in the atmospheric science community has been more successful at getting publicity. NCAR used to send my department clippings from newspaper and magazine articles in which NCAR researchers were named. We'd get thick wads of clippings, almost all of which were devoted to Schneider. Perhaps global warming is bad for the rest of us, but for Schneider and others it has been a godsend.

Within the past 10 years or so at least four ... alarming books on the possibility of asteroid collisions with Earth were published. Such collisions, if they were to occur, would be incomparably more disastrous than global warming. I also started to read, again within about the past 10 years, The Coming Plague [published in 1995]. It painted a picture of future plagues so ghastly and sickening that I couldn't continue reading it. The shelves of bookstores groan under the weight of books proclaiming disasters of all sorts. Take your pick of how we all are going to die horrible deaths. Repent!

People who write alarmist books are either trying to make a buck or they have an axe to grind. For example, it is in the best interests of astronomers to scare us so that we'll pressure the government to support astronomy research more generously. The same is true for biology, medicine, atmospheric science [and all sciences]. This does not mean that the alarmists are wrong or even dishonest, merely that in assessing their claims we must always ask about the extent to which they will profit from our believing and acting on them.

When I was a young man I read Famine 1975! by the Paddock brothers, one a foreign service officer, the other a tropical agriculture specialist. This book profoundly affected me. The Paddocks confidently predicted massive famines in 1975, and I believed them. But the famines did not turn out as predicted. And this is just one example among many.

Skeptics about global warming are often painted as hirelings of the oil and automotive industries. Such claims irritate me. I have never earned a nickel as a consequence of my skepticism. Indeed, I have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by it. First, you have to understand how a large research university operates. The professors are expected to obtain research grants, and in the atmospheric sciences these grants come mostly from government agencies.........
 

Bystander

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,024
1,025
jimmie said:
Bystander, you conclude that heat from human activities is insignificant
Do the math.

and [high] temperature records are inadequate, yet maintain that there is "insufficient data" to make a conclusion on global warming.
Learn the physics.

What other conclusions have you established based upon "insufficient data"?
Greenhousers depend upon insufficient data, I do NOT.

Perhaps, Bystander, the only global warming data that is insufficient is the amount you currently retain.
Tell ya' what, sport --- you submit a paper to any journal that's worth the powder to blow it to hell with the kind of thermometry global warming arguments are based upon, and you'll be laughed off the planet. The meteorological record contains station measurements from thermometers accurate to plus or minus 1 K (2 F); these thermometers are placed in "standard" instrument shelters which are recognizable by any chemical engineer as very inefficient heat exchangers (collected radiant energy is transferred to air moving through the enclosures); the dependence of measured temperature on wind speed is NOT accounted for in the record, is 0.3 K to 1 K above true air temperature at 1 m/s, rises as a function of shelter and thermometer emissivities at lower velocities, and drops off at higher velocities. Wind "shadows" around weather stations have increased over the past century with increased population and the associated building and development activities. The global mean temperature is constructed from a "selection" of station records that swaps stations in and out of the average with fewer constraints than the DJIA applies to swapping index stocks --- "bad juju" for any statistician. The temperature record is so thoroughly shot through with errors in method and conservation of method as to be TOTALLY USELESS, therefore, "INCONCLUSIVE for any purposes.
 

Bystander

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,024
1,025
Pythagorean said:
(snip)Again, I can't judge because I don't know the tehcnique they use to take data from an ice core, but (once more) I'm not a climatologist!(snip)
I can't tell you that particulars of what is required to accurately judge the gblobal warming issue. (snip)
You got a physics degree? You are a climatologist; mass, length, time, temperature, amount of substance, current, luminous intensity, little Newtonian physics, conservation laws, some QM, thermo, and you're there.
 

Mk

1,963
3
Bystander said:
Do the math.

Learn the physics.

Greenhousers depend upon insufficient data, I do NOT.
Bystander, I know it is too much to say, but you could have been nicer. :redface:

Bystander said:
The meteorological record contains station measurements from thermometers accurate to plus or minus 1 K (2 F); these thermometers are placed in "standard" instrument shelters which are recognizable by any chemical engineer as very inefficient heat exchangers (collected radiant energy is transferred to air moving through the enclosures); the dependence of measured temperature on wind speed is NOT accounted for in the record, is 0.3 K to 1 K above true air temperature at 1 m/s, rises as a function of shelter and thermometer emissivities at lower velocities, and drops off at higher velocities. Wind "shadows" around weather stations have increased over the past century with increased population and the associated building and development activities. The global mean temperature is constructed from a "selection" of station records that swaps stations in and out of the average with fewer constraints than the DJIA applies to swapping index stocks --- "bad juju" for any statistician.
Wow. :bugeye:
 

Bystander

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,024
1,025
Mk said:
Bystander, I know it is too much to say, but you could have been nicer. :redface: (snip)
"Nicer" is reserved for people who conduct themselves to deserve "nicer." "Subtle" hints to those who feel that AGHGW is a problem and who have degrees, training, or other background in the physical sciences that they apply the degrees, training, and background to the problem don't seem to have had any effect the previous hundred or so times the topic has come up on the forums --- the "blunt object applied to the side of the head" becomes necessary. Lousy science with a polysyllabic name (climatology) is still lousy science when it ignores long established measurement methods and physical principles; people with degrees in physical sciences who cannot recognize lousy science need to "resign" their degrees and take up door-to-door canvassing for the democrats.

--- and, yes, I realize, Mk, that it's not you who asked for less than "nicer" response.
 

Pythagorean

Gold Member
4,129
248
Bystander said:
You got a physics degree? You are a climatologist; mass, length, time, temperature, amount of substance, current, luminous intensity, little Newtonian physics, conservation laws, some QM, thermo, and you're there.
I'm on my third year towards a physics degree. My biggest issue with the global warming issue is conceptualizing the math that describes what people are describing in words. I've looked over Mann's article. I see what looks like a probability distribution function, but still, I don't understandand it enought o judge whether it works.

If you're ignorant of the way the earth systems work (just by not studying them) you could be ignoring important factors. Seriously, I don't even know how the climatologists can come up with a prediction without having sensors placed every cubed meter all around the world, taking data in sync.

How can you measure something that could be all over the world in different densities? How do you know you're not missing a huge chunk that's unusually concentrated somewhere? How do you know there's not a system of earth that condensates and hides greenhouse gasses but then later releases them? The data still seems blind to me

Unfortunately, it's become a big political event too, which plunges even more blatant assertions (propaganda) into the situation.

the oil companies and economists clearly don't like the implications of global warming, and the alarmists don't want to lose their research, their prestige, or their name (or, ultimately, their funding).

Who do you trust? Someone said theirselves earlier, but you'd be a fool to think you're the only one clean of idealism. You could as easly fall into a subvonscious vacuum of decision while looking over the data, yourself. We need concensus from thorough thinkers, not good arguments from people who are in still in high school debate class.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
173
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Global Warming
Frequently Asked Questions

...Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?


...Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

...The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates. [continued]
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q10

Take it from the experts or choose to use do-it-yourself science.
 
Last edited:
147
0
I don't see any input regarding the data from Dr. Corell and his study.

Dr. Corell says his data of global warming is unassailable, and I believe him.

Would anyone like to debunk Dr. Corell's data?
 
Last edited:

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top