December 05, 2009
– Comments (13)
How the greenhouse works, the difference between global warming and climate change, why a little CO2 means a lot, the carbon cycle and why speed matters, the relative power of volcanos, how big a deal three gigatons is, and more.
In three parts:
a lot unanswered questions
wonderingmind42 (not 43)
Why does every demonstration I see about this on either side cherry pick so many statistics!
I'd just like to see one video like this that gives all the information at once. Granted a lot of people couldn't understand a lot of it, but it would give someone at least opportunity to make an educated decision.
Oh just make all oil companies and Smelter plants and coal plants put on the filters we all ready make and reduce the air pollution and small particaly by 70% and be done with it. Ech.... Proven fact. Small particles have been proven to cause heart attacks in women. Now we could have clean air and lower health care cost all in one.
Show me any other video like this one and let me know what statistics he cherry picked. If you mean he "cherry picked" information from the majority of the worlds scientific organizations and you disagree with them, you need to convince why you know better and reveal the source of your funding and explain why the data you collected and claim disproves warming is more accurate.
There is no carbon capture and storage.
this is information, not questions.
information such as nature does not have the ability to store as CO2 as quickly as we are releasing it from 3 million year old storage. Information such as greenhouse gases that are less than 1% of the atmosphere maintain the temperature we had, so we understand that our lives depend on the fact that GHG are a small amount of our atmosphere andthe change we are effecting is substantial. Information comparing annual volcanic additions to CO2 are .15 gigatons and man made CO2 is 7.0 gigatons so if you have been told volcanoes are worse you have been misinformed.
Please watch the videos.
Well this off the top of my head and I watched it yesterday, but...
"When I started researching this it was at 0.03% and now it's at 0.04%" That's accurate if you round the number, but it misleads the viewer into thinking there was a 25% increase at that time frame. It actually moved from 0.034% to 0.037% which more like 8.2%. He almost admits as much later in the video but he stated that current CO2 content "is closer to 0.038" Again that's true, it is closer, but it's 0.037%
"We don't know when the ocean will stop being a sponge." Again true. We also don't know if it will stop being a sponge or if it will become an even better sponge. Remember that if temperatures rise, that should increase both algae and phytoplankton population, thus sequestering more Carbon not less. When the entire ocean is full of algae to the point that the ocean's surface is covered, then I would be very worried about that.
He does agree that history shows the ups and downs of climate change over long periods and then promptly puts up a chart with a 50 year time frame saying that "however it's only been going up since 1960! See!" That time frame is pretty meaningless in climate history.
Then he spends a ton of time talking about how much longer it takes to capture the Carbon than to expel it. Which is irrelevent. That has nothing to do with the amount of Carbon going into the atmosphere. If I invented an amazing machine that manufactured Carbon in milliseconds, it would do nothing to help climate change. The only thing that he proved is that we can worry a lot less about Carbon because we are going to run out of it anyway. We can't make it as fast as we burn it.
Last, why not give a small explanation about how much Carbon does it take to warm the globe, say 1 degree? Since the thesis is that Carbon causes global warming, you would think that it would be important to talk about, given that we've talked about a lot of other trivial information. And why not at least mention the other things that effect climate change like sunspots, the Earth's magnetism, ocean currents, etc... He did quickly talk about volcanos at least, but he wrote them off because he used the number for volcanic eruptions over the entire Earth's history as a yearly number to compare to Carbon. Volcanoes don't work like that! Just 1 large volcanic eruption can cause global warming at much faster than his current scale with Carbon for a decade or more depending on the size. There is one volcanic eruption that many scientists believe was so big that it actually caused global cooling and the last Ice Age.
The guy sounds sincere and I really don't think his cherry picking was intentional, but I think he's just repeating cherry picked stats from people researching this that he believes to be smarter.
The guy's a physics teacher, not a climatologist.
Now to be fair, the other side does the same thing! I see nothing but cherry picked stats on their side too!
Given the enormity of the price-tag of the solution though, I would prefer to put the burden of proof on Al Gore's team. Even if they are entirely correct, we can't afford the proposed solution. We will die of taxation well before we will die of climate change.
This is just like everything else, if you really want correct information, you have to do your own DD. Most of the people explaining this or any other topic in front of a microphone to you are lying to you because the have the means and financial incentive to do so!
The next level of people that try persuade you, picked their party first and got almost all of their info from that party. They are just as dangerous. That's why both parties in our country prefer the 2 party system! All they have to do, is to compete to put the best salesmen in front of the microphone. If it was a one party system, it would actually increase the number of competitors, because different groups would oppose each position. In a 2 party system, my party picks one side and your party picks the other. Sheep, (I mean people) join the party that they agree with the most and once they pick a side, it's hard for them to change.
I know I kind of went off on a tangent in the end, but it's an important tangent! If you really want to be an investor, you have to understand this point. In fact if you really want to help your country, you have to understand this point! Do not follow anyone! If you really respect me! Listen to my arguement, but do your own research! I have been thumping my chest saying "Buy Silver, Buy Silver, Buy Silver!" And I'm pretty sure that it will work out for me, but it might not work out for you! I haven't taken the time to figure out whether you live in a country that might try to confiscate it from you. I've looked at the United States and I believe that there is a chance that it happens here and I believe that I have taken precautions to lesson that chance. (Don't email me, I'm not explaining it to anyone!) I didn't look at your age, I looked at mine. I didn't look at your income, I looked at mine. I don't know your debts or responsibilities. I don't really have a big incentive to make you buy silver either, unless I'm a more powerfull speaker than I think I am. I do want to help you sincerely, but the amount of time that I take to do it, is not going to come close to the amount of time that I take to help myself or my family. Where does that leave you? In the same spot that I see other All-Stars reccomending over and over again! Do your own DD! Do it on everything important to you! Even when you agree with someone, do your own DD!
I usually post and the end of my blogs that "I hope this helps." You can't possibly understand how much I mean that statement this time! In the US we live in a relaxed empire, just like Great Britain and Rome before us! We concentrate on our own families with our limited time, because we trust the safety and history of our government's decisions. The minute that our government realizes that trust, elected officials try to make money off of it. Just like Great Britain and Rome before us, we are hitting a point where we can't sustain the fraud of our politicians. If we don't get enough people to realize this quickly, it will put this country into unimaginable poverty. Not only has this country repeated history, we have perfected fraud so well that we take the rest of the globe down more than a few notches along with us.
Believe me, I understand that you are tired when you get home from work, and after dinner and taking care of the kids, you like to unwind and watch a couple of you favorite TV shows before going to bed. But you have to make some time in your week to decide what's important for your family and research it independently. It's a lot easier to agree with someone that has made good decisions before, but past performance, does not equal future performance. These decisons that you make effect your family long term and sometimes over generations and you can't take them lightly! If we as a country do not get more independent thinkers willing to do their own research, we are doomed!
It's up to you unless you take this lightly! Then, it will be up to someone else.
I really, really, honestly and truly hope that this helps!
I understand it was yesterday but i think you are incorrectly describing what is in the videos and I encourage everyone to watch them and search youtube for wonderingman42 and watch, ten minutes at a time the seven hours of video he has made answering responses to questions just like yours.
One example of where you isunderstood him is;
I believe you are referring to the first two minutes of the third video. He shows a chart of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for the last 160,000 years. He points out that during that entire time, volcanos or not, CO2 has never been above 300ppm. He then brings up another short term chart that shows the 300ppm level was cracked in 1950 and has risen steadily up to the 380ppm it is at now. Without the aid of volcanos.
You made a point of taking him to task for pointing out that in the last fifteen years CO2 levels have crossed the 350ppm mark allowing him to round up to .04% instead of down to .03% and he might mislead people into believing that represents a 25% increase durng that time. He did not say it was a 25% increase and he gave you the exact numbers. He did not make you go looking for them yourself and I am happy it was clear, not misleading, to you.
It is a 21% increase from 1950, 300ppm to todays 380ppm.
You also suggested that he should not take an average of CO2 from volcanos over a long time period, but rather use a short time period because you believe that volcanos dump alot of CO2 in a short time frame. In the last 160,000 years they have not dumped enough for CO2 to exceed 300ppm at any time. And volcnos are most definitely not what is happening now.
However if you wish to research a large enough volcano that dumped enough CO2 into the air to cause similar CO2 levels to today please let us know what the temperature increased to so we can be ready and also let us know how mammalian life forms did. Please do not tell me it caused the extinction of dinosaurs because then I would be even more concerned, possibly panicked. I understand that ash from volcanos was supposed to have cooled the earth from the same scientific sources we are doubting on the climate change issue, but if you wish to make the argument, find the research.
Until then I am going to go with the best peer reviewed information available and the burden or review is on you.
As you suggested I have spent considerable time researching the subject of global warming. The conclusion I reached is that it is real and CO2 caused.
For the last twenty years I have been a mechanic by trade. I do not now, and never have, worked for the Gov't. if you doubt me visit the "buying and maintaining a car" board in the TMF boards link and read my posts and decide for yourself if I might actually be a mechanic, not a Gov't propagandist.
I'm sorry Chris. I believe the climatologists are telling you the truth. Many posts have made a big deal about the monetary debt being left to the younger generations. Far more worrisome is when the climate debt you have been left comes due.
Ten years ago I believed thatt would be after my lifetime. I no longer do.
I'm truly sorry I did not begin paying attention sooner.
"That's why both parties in our country prefer the 2 party system! All they have to do, is to compete to put the best salesmen in front of the microphone. If it was a one party system, it would actually increase the number of competitors, because different groups would oppose each position"
I think it's too clever by half. Having seen what a one-party system looks like, I feel that a two-party system is 2^20 times better than a one-party system, even when the two parties are 100% identical.
I agree with zloj...
Serious question for the warmers... Why is Mars warming?
I have read many reasons why it is getting so much warmer there, but none of them involve humans. Stupid green women and their hairspray.
Serious answer? Who gives a crap.
Mars can warm for whatever reason it wants to. Notably our atmosphere, is 100x thicker than Mars' atmosphere. Yet Mars has 95% CO2 in its atmosphere, we have 1% GHG's. A person would think that if GHG warming theory was correct the temps of the two planets would be similar, Mars a little cooler. Turns out they are similar. Mars surface temps range from -178 degrees to 1 degree. Farenheit.
Our planet is warming because of the almost 25% increase in CO2 in our atmosphere since the beginning of the century. The possibility that something else is causing the warming exists, but it is a very small possibility.
As Chris says there is also a slim chance that algea will sprout up and save us.
That is good news. Unfortunately it is already known news, sort of.
If you watched the videos, wonderingmind42 shows that we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than nature can remove, hence the increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. It has long been understood that we are emitting 7 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere more than we expected could be absorbed by the ocean and land. It is also known that 2 gigatons of that 7 are not showing up in the atmosphere and are going somewhere else, so we know there are two gigatons worth of carbon sinks that we have not discovered, and 5 more that are needed. Discovering faster rates of aspen tree growth helps explain some of it, but the article does not give a number for how much CO2 fifity years of accelerated growth will absorb. However the moeny is well spent in that we have learned it might be best to plant aspen if the reason is to absorb CO2.
I would also like to point out that this study depends on previous CO2 measurements to be correct, despite David in Qatars contentions that they are not. Also this study is Gov't funded causing David to presume it is not trustworthy. I am ok with it though, there almost has to be some effects of increasing CO2 on plant life, positive for some, negative for others.
Unfortunately the aspen have been absorbing CO2 and growing at an accelreated rate and it is not enough.
From your link: (I put in the bold)
"It's a change hiding right in front of us," says Cole, a biologist at UMM. "Aspens respond to all sorts of things we had to account for -- water, genetics and other factors -- but the strong response to carbon dioxide surprised all of us."
The study measured the growth rates of 919 trees from Wisconsin forests dominated by aspen and birch. Trees ranging in age from 5 to 76 years old were sampled and subjected to tree-ring analysis. Comparing the tree-ring data, a measure of annual tree growth, with records of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the researchers were able to correlate increased rates of growth with changes in the chemistry of the air.
The surprising increase in growth rates for the trees sampled in the study is coupled, the authors note, with moist conditions. By contrast, aspen in the western United States do not seem to grow as fast as those in the American Midwest, most likely due to recent extended periods of drought. Also, while the researchers found that aspen grow much faster in response to elevated carbon dioxide, similar effects have not been observed in other trees species, notably oak and pine.
Findings from the new study, the authors note, could augur revisions of the estimates of how much carbon northern temperate northern forests can sequester.
"Forests will continue to be important to soak up anthropogenic carbon dioxide," says Waller. "But we can't conclude that aspen forests are going to soak up excess carbon dioxide. This is going to plateau."
"Aspens are already doing their best to mitigate our inputs," agrees Cole. "The existing trees are going to max out in a couple of decades."
The new study was funded by the National Science Foundation and UMM.