Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

What they won't tell you about global warming

Old 03-22-06, 08:31 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,976
What they won't tell you about global warming

Here are articles about two studies published in scientific journals just in the last week:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...solar-warming/

March 21, 2006
Solar Warming?
Filed under: Climate Forcings, Solar —

Just when you were starting to believe that variations in the amount of energy coming from the sun weren’t responsible for much of the observed surface warming during the past 20 years, comes along a paper in Geophysical Research Letters from two researchers at Duke University, Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West, that concludes otherwise:

We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted.

Scafetta and West arrive at their conclusions after applying a mathematical scheme that allows the cycles in solar variations to explain the cycles in temperature variations. They find this empirical method far superior to theoretical (i.e. climate models) methods because empirical methods take advantage of real behavior while theoretical methods are just that—theories—which very likely do not capture all of the real-world intricacies relating solar energy to climate processes.

The authors summarize:

The sun played a dominant role in climate change in the early past, as several empirical studies would suggest, and is still playing a significant, even if not a predominant role, during the last decades. The impact of solar variation on climate seems significantly stronger than predicted by some energy balance models…The significant discrepancy between empirical and theoretical model estimates might arise because the secular TSI [total solar irradiance] proxy reconstructions are disputed and/or because the empirical evidence deriving from the deconstruction of the surface temperature is deceptive for reasons unknown to us. Alternatively, the models might be inadequate because of the difficulty of modeling climate in general and a lack of knowledge of climate sensitivity to solar variations in particular. In fact, theoretical models usually acknowledge as solar forcing only the direct TSI forcing while empirical estimates would include all direct and indirect climate effects induced by solar variation. These solar effects might be embedded in several climate forcings because, for example, a TSI increase might indirectly induce a change in the chemistry of the atmosphere by increasing and modulating its greenhouse gas (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration because of the warmer ocean, reduce the earth albedo by melting the glaciers and change the cloud cover patterns. In particular, the models might be inadequate: (a) in their parameterizations of climate feedbacks and atmosphere-ocean coupling; (b) in their neglect of indirect response by the stratosphere and of possible additional climate effects linked to solar magnetic field, UV radiation, solar flares and cosmic ray intensity modulations; (c) there might be other possible natural amplification mechanisms deriving from internal modes of climate variability which are not included in the models. All the above mechanisms would be automatically considered and indirectly included in the phenomenological approach presented herein.

The bigger the observed solar impact, the smaller the observed human impact. The smaller the human impact, the less sensitive the climate is to greenhouse gas emissions. The less sensitive the climate is to greenhouse gas emissions, the less the impact greenhouse changes (and greenhouse gas emissions restrictions) will have in the future.

Reference:

Scafetta, N., and B. J. West, 2006. Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 1029/2005GL025539.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...926b2a04d8&p=1

Cosmic rays set climate change on Earth, expert says
Scientist challenges greenhouse-gas theory

Tom Spears, Ottawa Citizen; CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, March 16, 2006

OTTAWA - Stars, not greenhouse gases, are heating up the Earth.

So says prominent University of Ottawa science professor Jan Veizer.

He knows challenging the accepted climate-change theory may lead to a nasty fight.

It's a politically and economically loaded topic. Yet, he is speaking out about his published research. "Look, maybe I'm wrong," he said. "But I'm saying, at least let's look at this and discuss it.

"Every one of these things (parts of his theory) has its problems. But so does every other model" of how Earth's climate behaves.

Veizer says high-energy rays from distant parts of space are smashing into our atmosphere in ways that make our planet go through warm and cool cycles.

Cosmic rays are hitting us all the time -- a well-known fact. What's new is that researchers are asking what cosmic rays do to our world and its weather.

- Last year, the British science journal Proceedings of the Royal Society published a theory that cosmic rays "unambiguously" form clouds and affect our climate.

- Florida Tech and the University of Florida are jointly investigating whether cosmic rays are the trigger that makes a charged thundercloud let rip with lightning.

- In 2003, scientists from NASA and the University of Kansas suggested that cosmic rays "influence cloud formation, can affect climate and harm live organisms directly via increase of radiation dose," an effect they claim to trace over millions of years of fossil history.

Veizer has published his theory in Geoscience Canada, the journal of the Geological Association of Canada. The article is called Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle.

In his paper, he concludes: "Empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers."

The idea is that cosmic rays hit gas molecules in the atmosphere and form the nucleus of what becomes a water vapour droplet. These in turn form clouds, reflecting some of the sun's energy back to space and cooling the Earth.

Yet the numbers of cosmic rays vary.

When there are more cosmic rays the Earth is colder. When there are fewer cosmic rays the Earth is warmer.

"The question is, therefore, 'Where do we have lots of cosmic rays?' "

Most rays come from younger stars, which are clustered at some regions in the galaxy through which our solar system has passed its 4.5-billion-year history.

Our own sun deflects some of these rays away, but the sun's activity grows stronger and weaker. All of these factors can change the number of cosmic rays that hit us.

The Earth's magnetic field also blocks some cosmic rays. Scientists can reconstruct records of that field for the past 200,000 years, and he argues there's an extremely close match between cold times in our climate and times when the magnetic field allowed more cosmic rays to hit us.

Even in recent times he argues that other cosmic factors can affect our climate as plausibly as carbon dioxide, or more so. The warming of Earth in the past 100 years -- about 0.6 degrees Celsius -- matches a time of the sun's growing intensity, he says.


Questioning the fundamentals of climate change -- the theory that man-made gases such as carbon dioxide are building up and warming our climate -- is a fast way to start a nasty, personal fight in the science world.

But Veizer's credentials make it tough to challenge his findings.

The recently retired professor still holds a research chair and supervises grad students and postdoctoral fellows. A native of Bratislava, Veizer left because Russian troops entered Czechoslovakia in 1968. He's been building up honours ever since in the field of geochemistry -- learning about Earth's past by the chemistry preserved in rocks and sediments.

The Royal Society of Canada called him "one of the most creative, innovative and productive geoscientists of our times," and added: "He has generated entirely new concepts that have proven key in our understanding the geochemical history of Earth."

He won the 1992 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize, worth $2.2 million Cdn, representing the German government's highest prize for research in any field. The prize ended up financing his research.

The judges said he "has in front of his eyes the overall picture of the Earth during its entire 4.5 billion years of evolution," and he is "one of the most creative ... geologists of his time."

Yet, for years he held back on his climate doubts. "I was scared," he says.
Now, quite obviously, there has been a particular amount of global warming in the past century or so. Also quite obviously, the more of that fixed amount that can be attributed to causes other than human greenhouse gas emissions (in these cases an increase in solar activity and a decrease in cosmic rays), the less there is that can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions. The skeptics of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis have been insisting all along that only a little of the warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. Thus these (and many other) studies tend to support their position by attributing large chunks of the causes to other sources.

Now, are the conclusions of these studies sound? I don't know. I also don't know if anything the alarmists say is sound. But what I do know is that you will not read the above stories in your local newspaper or see them on 60 Minutes, ABC News or CNN (the first article is published by a skeptical website which would be expected; the second is published by an Ottawa newspaper, I'm sure only because the scientist involved is a a local). Yet the slightest doom and gloom pronounced by every alarmist is shouted from the rooftops. For example, ABC News has been loaded with such stories lately, complete with accompanying editorial comments from the anchors. 60 Minutes has aired two 100% one-sided stories in just the last month that allow dissenters not a single word.

Alarmist-in-chief James Hansen complains (rightly so) that the Bush administration has tried to muzzle him. But where are the complaints that the skeptics have been almost entirely shut out of all the mainstream media?
movielib is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 08:35 AM
  #2  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,128
I'm telling you the Myans were right The sun cycle is all part of their 2012 global destruction prophecy
nemein is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 09:01 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
What the Bush Administration and the GOP has been claiming is that global warming does not exist. Their insistence is entirely politically motivated, and is not backed up by any reputable science.

Now, the causes of global warming may be varied. It may be true that a higher rate of solar energy may be partly responsible -- but again, would that alone have caused the precipitous rise in global temperatures we are seeing today? Probably not. And there may be other mitigating factors -- the destruction of the rain forest and other essential ecosystems, rapid development, and even naturally occuring climate shifts -- but that doesn't mean that we should not take the threat seriously, and that we should not be taking all necessary steps to protect ourselves.

Simply put: there's not a damn thing we can do about the sun. But we can lower our emission rates for greenhouse gasses, and in that way at least begin addressing the issue.
NCMojo is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 09:04 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I thought Bush believed in global warming.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 09:04 AM
  #5  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Simply put: there's not a damn thing we can do about the sun. But we can lower our emission rates for greenhouse gasses, and in that way at least begin addressing the issue.

Hey, it won't change anything but at least we can feel good that were doing something.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 10:42 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,921
I gotta go with Bill O'Reilly on this one. To paraphrase:

"A lot of scientists will tell you that emission rates are a major contributor to global warming, some will tell you they aren't. I don't know, I'm not a scientist. But I do know this: that pumping lots of poisonous gasses into the air is not good. It's bad! Not good!"

Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 10:46 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Originally Posted by Bill O'Reilly
"A lot of scientists will tell you that emission rates are a major contributor to global warming, some will tell you they aren't. I don't know, I'm not a scientist. But I do know this: that pumping lots of poisonous gasses into the air is not good. It's bad! Not good!"


Sometimes the truth is so simple.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 10:49 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,976
Originally Posted by NCMojo
What the Bush Administration and the GOP has been claiming is that global warming does not exist. Their insistence is entirely politically motivated, and is not backed up by any reputable science.
Actually, the Bush administration has said global warming exists. That is just like the skeptical scientists who do not deny the existence of global warming. The skeptics believe: it's going to be on the low side of the estimates for the next century, if not lower; it's not going to be nearly as destructive as the alarmists claim; only a very small part is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions; therefore, limiting those emissions, which would cost many trillions of dollars (under a century of Kyoto, for example) will do very little to mitigate the warming and the expense will devastate economic growth and technological advancement (which requires money and is just what we need to deal with real problems from warming as they may occur) and hurt the poor countries the most. All those positions are backed up by credible and reputable science (at least as credible and reputable as the alarmists'; I think much more so). Just because the mainstream press ignores it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Now, the causes of global warming may be varied. It may be true that a higher rate of solar energy may be partly responsible -- but again, would that alone have caused the precipitous rise in global temperatures we are seeing today? Probably not. And there may be other mitigating factors -- the destruction of the rain forest and other essential ecosystems, rapid development, and even naturally occuring climate shifts --
The higher rate of solar energy is hardly the only non-anthropogenic cause possible. There have been many others studied including soil (a recent study with a thread here awhile back), volcanos and more sources of methane than those which with we have been acquainted in the past.

but that doesn't mean that we should not take the threat seriously, and that we should not be taking all necessary steps to protect ourselves.
Taking such steps as destroying economies for practically no gain is not a step that should be taken.

Simply put: there's not a damn thing we can do about the sun. But we can lower our emission rates for greenhouse gasses, and in that way at least begin addressing the issue.
See above and hundreds of other posts by me and others on this Forum as well as scientific papers by real, reputable scientists. You'll have to dig some for the latter because it won't be reported on network or cable news or your local paper but thanks to this amazing new invention, the internet, it can be found.
movielib is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 10:50 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,976
Originally Posted by Ky-Fi
I gotta go with Bill O'Reilly on this one. To paraphrase:

"A lot of scientists will tell you that emission rates are a major contributor to global warming, some will tell you they aren't. I don't know, I'm not a scientist. But I do know this: that pumping lots of poisonous gasses into the air is not good. It's bad! Not good!"
CO2 is poisonous?

Originally Posted by Thor Simpson


Sometimes the truth is so simple.
Except when it's not the truth.

Last edited by movielib; 03-22-06 at 10:52 AM.
movielib is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 10:55 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Originally Posted by movielib
CO2 is poisonous?
Except when it's not the truth.
Is CO2 the only emission we're pumping out?

Ever stood behind a line of busses? Ever tried to breathe in LA on a smoggy day?

Last edited by Th0r S1mpson; 03-22-06 at 10:58 AM.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 11:02 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,976
Originally Posted by Thor Simpson
Is CO2 the only emission we're pumping out?
Nope, but it's the major one. And the emissions of truly noxious gases have declined considerably over the last few decades. There are still a few trouble areas such as L.A., some of which has to do with the way geographical characteristics trap the gases for longer periods of time.

O'Reilly's characterization is cute and glib but misleading at best.
movielib is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 11:05 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Originally Posted by movielib
O'Reilly's characterization is cute and glib but misleading at best.
I think his point is simply that, whether these things are causing global warming or not, we should still be trying to reduce them.

I don't see how that's the least bit misleading.

It's only misleading if you try to base a political stance on it... but the whole point is, it's not about politics or global warming theories. It's common sense that we should make efforts not to poison the air that we breathe.

You could have a debate over whether farts cause cancer... but whether they do or not, you probably shouldn't be sniffing any butts.

Last edited by Th0r S1mpson; 03-22-06 at 11:07 AM.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 11:05 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
<img src=http://w3.gorge.net/kvrdave/vicky.jpg>
"Now here's something the other Global Warming scientists won't tell you....."
kvrdave is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 11:18 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,976
Originally Posted by Thor Simpson
I think his point is simply that, whether these things are causing global warming or not, we should still be trying to reduce them.

I don't see how that's the least bit misleading.

It's only misleading if you try to base a political stance on it... but the whole point is, it's not about politics or global warming theories. It's common sense that we should make efforts not to poison the air that we breathe.

You could have a debate over whether farts cause cancer... but whether they do or not, you probably shouldn't be sniffing any butts.
It's certainly misleading unless he is more specific such as you have been.

Tell me that most people do not think of CO2 when they hear the word "emissions."

Tell me that his original quote is not going to be misinterpreted by many.

If you have a longer quote which puts the original in a reasonable context, I'd like to see it.

Last edited by movielib; 03-22-06 at 11:22 AM.
movielib is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 11:31 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,921
Originally Posted by movielib

If you have a longer quote which puts the original in a reasonable context, I'd like to see it.
Disclaimer here---that wasn't even an original quote from O'Reilly, it was just my paraphrasing of what I remembered him saying.

And yes, what I took from it, as Thor also did, is just the idea that extremists who denigrate ANY type of emission controls or environmental protection out of ideological rigidity or complete subservience to corporate profits (and there are indeed many of these people) are not really playing with a full deck. I don't think O'Reilly was really directing his attack at elements of the scientific community whose research has led them to conclude human activity does not have a major effect on global warming.
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 11:34 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,726
Originally Posted by NCMojo
Simply put: there's not a damn thing we can do about the sun. But we can lower our emission rates for greenhouse gasses, and in that way at least begin addressing the issue.
Yeah really. I don't get the vociferous opposition to reducing emissions. Err on the side of caution - when it comes to THE EARTH - is not a bad policy.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 11:36 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Originally Posted by CRM114
Yeah really. I don't get the vociferous opposition to reducing emissions. Err on the side of caution - when it comes to THE EARTH - is not a bad policy.

we know you care by your choice of car
al_bundy is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 11:41 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,726
Originally Posted by al_bundy
we know you care by your choice of car
I don't care. But I wouldn't care if the federal government would mandate autos that emitted less either. What I DO care about are multinational corporations crying about profits. Its relentless. BTW, does my V6 pump more toxins in the air than an auto with a V6? I doubt there is more than a marginal difference.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 12:14 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
 
raven56706's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Back in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 21,624
cant wait for the michael moore movie blaming god for global warming
raven56706 is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 01:15 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East County
Posts: 33,140
Al Gore and his movie/presentation, "An Inconvenient Truth", beg to differ - it's not the sun! It's us!!!!




Last edited by B.A.; 03-22-06 at 01:22 PM.
B.A. is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 01:26 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,043
Originally Posted by Ky-Fi
I gotta go with Bill O'Reilly on this one. To paraphrase:

"A lot of scientists will tell you that emission rates are a major contributor to global warming, some will tell you they aren't. I don't know, I'm not a scientist. But I do know this: that pumping lots of poisonous gasses into the air is not good. It's bad! Not good!"

The major emission that contributes to global warming is CO2. That is poisonous above 5% (really, it is suffocating, not poisonous, but dead is dead). 4% is a permited OSHA dose for an 8 hour work day (which occurs because it is pumped into greenhouses to encourage plant growth). To put 4% in perspective, it is 40,000 ppm. The global concentration of CO2 is about 380 ppm. So it is not poisonous to animal life and plants would prefer more (to them, it is as essential as oxygen to us).

Now the poisonous emissions like CO, HC, NOx are noxious at such low levels that we can't pump out enough to cause much global warming without killing ourselves from the exposure.

So pumping lots of poisonous gas IS bad, but completely disconnected from pumping the major greenhouse gas.
OldDude is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 01:36 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,921
Dand, I knew I should have kept my distance from any math/science debates.

Clint: "A man's got to know his limitations....."

Seriously, thanks for the concise explanation, OldDude.
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 01:45 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,976
Originally Posted by CRM114
Yeah really. I don't get the vociferous opposition to reducing emissions. Err on the side of caution - when it comes to THE EARTH - is not a bad policy.
No matter how high the cost and how little the benefit?
movielib is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 02:46 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,726
Originally Posted by movielib
No matter how high the cost and how little the benefit?
The problem is that you have to rely on corporate estimates of cost. Corporations always will play up any reduction in revenue. We already know that corporations will sell out their own country to make the shareholders happy.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 03-22-06, 02:49 PM
  #25  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Didn't see this coming...at all!!

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...ERM.xml&rpc=22

Ozone hits sperm count as well as lungs: study

LONDON (Reuters) - Smog is not just bad for the lungs. It can hit a man's sperm count too, a Californian study revealed on Wednesday.

The University of Southern California looked at the sperm counts of 48 men who donated at least 10 times in two years to a Los Angeles sperm bank.

Using air pollution measurements from the area where each man lived, Rebecca Sokol's team estimated how much pollutant they were exposed to in the days leading up to each donation.

The team, from the University's Keck School of Medicine, found that ozone formed in smoggy air was the only pollutant that appeared to be linked to decreased sperm production. Carbon monoxide seemed to have no effect.

Ozone cannot reach the testicles directly but Sokol, whose findings were published in The New Scientist magazine, said it may cause an inflammatory response or produce toxic substances in the blood that damage sperm.
Myster X is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.