Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,429
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 19, 2008 14:54:32 GMT -5
Sure water vapor is the most important "greenhouse gas" that is responsible for keeping the surface of the earth cozy warm and not like the surface of planets like Venus. But it is a question of residence times for the trace atmospheric gases. Water vapor is recycled fairly rapidly, while carbon dioxide remains for much longer in the atmosphere especially as natural sinks (rain forests, etc) are removed. A build up of man-made gases worsens the situation by putting more water vapor into the atmosphere. Cloud build up is another factor that has to be in the modeling equation. A complex situation made difficult by the increases over the past 150 years by anthropogenic activities. Uncontrolled growth (like in Las Vegas) is not really the way of the future.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 20, 2008 17:47:11 GMT -5
Bando, I will ignore your personal attacks and address your points. With regard to Dr. Singer's quote, I didn't take it out of context. That was the entire quote in the article. Did someone else take it out of context? Perhaps. Neither you nor I know. As for your interpretation of what he meant when he said it: that's a possibility. Fair enough? As for your initial point, I don't agree. The significance of the relationship of CO2 compared to water vapor is that even "dramatic" changes to the CO2 levels are statistically insignificant. Only by disregarding water vapor can you make statistically significant conclusions about CO2 levels. To blanketly dismiss that point denies the very scientific basis that you are presumably using to support emissions control theory. Once again, I am not saying that with certainty there is no global warming. What I am saying is that with certainty we do not know for sure. That being said, like I have said all along, that doesn't mean that we should disregard effiency. Nor does it mean that we shouldn't research alternative and cleaner fuels. You may think you're sounding conciliatory here, but this simply isn't true. The scientific evidence thus far supports the conclusion that global warming is happening and human activity has had a substantial effect on it. While it's possible that evidence could be proffered in the future to change this conclusion, it's not at all true that we don't know either way. You're using the denialist tactic of conflating the standard scientific tendency to make limited claims that leave room for new evidence with "doubt" in general, trying rhetorically to accomplish what you can't scientifically. If you really had any idea how science works, you wouldn't be doing this.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 21, 2008 10:20:46 GMT -5
Bando, you are the one that is trying to tinker with the numbers for your own benefit. Nice try. You are the one saying, "well sure, because of water vapors overwhelming presence, the changes in other gases such as CO2 are so dwarfed as to be scientifically insignificant .... BUT, I think that ..... this that or the other.[/i]
Once again, my position is pretty clear and supported by the facts. I also think my outlook is very reasonable, with regards to exploring and researching alternative/renewable and cleaner burning fuels. You are the one exercising faith in a presumption or prediction of the future. You are the one attempting to interpret data that isn't there yet. WIll you be proven correct in the long run? I don't know. Is it a relistic enough concern to justify taking reasonable precautions until we know more? Absolutely. But do such concerns justify a "sky is falling" attitude and warrant a bunch of governmental beaurocracy to stifle growth? That is where you and I part company.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 21, 2008 16:40:07 GMT -5
Bando (and others), I printed out the entire report so that I could give it more attention over the weekend. Upon further review, it is quite clear that the compiler of the information was 100% convinced as to almost complete lack of impact that man has on so-called global warming. His position is quite effectively supported by scientific information, including but not isolated to the exclusion of water vapor in the analysis. Upon further review of some of the references, it is clear that he is not alone in his positions. In fact many decorated scientists have admitted as much, some even rather reluctantly. If you wish to deny any of the statistics, please do. I have done zero research to confirm any of the charts or tables. If there is any inaccuracy or ambiguity in any of them, please point out such. As for interpretation, there is very little room to argue. It is possible that the tone of Singer's quote did not come through accurately. It seemed to me that he was saying that our impact is so little that even complete adoption of the Kyoto Protocal worldwide would be negligable. I admit that your suggestion is possible. He might have been saying that the restrictions are so slight that it won't make enough of a difference and we in fact, need much more stringent regulations. If so, that certainly didn't come through in the quote. But if that is the case, then I would like someone to illustrate with scientific data, why such stringent regulations are so necessary. That is to say, why we are having such a damaging effect on the earth in the first place. It certainly doesn't come through from any of these numbers.
I'm not trying to be difficult in any way. I have said all along that there are certainly very decorated scientists on both sides of this issue. My question to you is why such blind acceptance of those on only one side? As pointed out in the article, one such motivation among the scientists is that justifying the research is what "earns" the grants. Maybe, just maybe that same "greed" which the environmentalists paint the evil capitatlists with is actually working in reverse in this case. Although in fairness, I think we might have a bit at work on each side.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 21, 2008 16:46:43 GMT -5
Sure water vapor is the most important "greenhouse gas" that is responsible for keeping the surface of the earth cozy warm and not like the surface of planets like Venus. But it is a question of residence times for the trace atmospheric gases. Water vapor is recycled fairly rapidly, while carbon dioxide remains for much longer in the atmosphere especially as natural sinks (rain forests, etc) are removed. A build up of man-made gases worsens the situation by putting more water vapor into the atmosphere. Cloud build up is another factor that has to be in the modeling equation. A complex situation made difficult by the increases over the past 150 years by anthropogenic activities. Uncontrolled growth (like in Las Vegas) is not really the way of the future. Here's a question to any of you scientists out there: is the exclusion of water vapor in the equation done for a scientific reason? I understand the political reasons of wanting it in or out of the equation, based on how you want the numbers to turn out. But is there another reason? On one hand, I can see someone saying that we have so little effect on water vapor, that we don't need to bother including it. I also understand the justification that water vapor adjusts so quickly that we don't need to reflect it in the numbers. But either way, if water vapor is excluded, then we can presumably see man-made changes in the other gases. But with water vapor included, those numbers never approach significance. What does anyone think with regard to that particular issue?
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,429
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 22, 2008 14:33:57 GMT -5
"But with water vapor included, those numbers never approach significance. What does anyone think with regard to that particular issue?"
Without water life, as we know it, ceases to exist. The delicate balance of water vapor, sunlight, etc. makes the earth a habitable planet. It is the tossing of man-made pollutants into the equation, where things start to get dicey. So water vapor is a given. The concentration is so high that sometimes it can be considered a constant. In reaction kinetics if one of the participants in the reaction is so high compared to other reactants the high concentration reactant is considered a constant and the equation, for example instead of being second order is now pseudo-first order.
"Absolutely. But do such concerns justify a "sky is falling" attitude and warrant a bunch of governmental beaurocracy (sic) to stifle growth? That is where you and I part company." Since I work or a government bureaucracy (EPA), I see merit in what we do. Sure there are times, when we get annoyed with the red tape, etc., but we have done many good things for the environment. Sure, business have had to change the way they do business, but they have shown to be able to adapt and other jobs were created, and the air we breathe, the water we drink, etc. is better for it. Hey, the Cleveland River is not on fire! And uncontrolled growth - who needs that other than the developers. We experience this all the time in Las Vegas, where our county commissioners allow almost any request from the developers (and some of the commissioners have been caught with their hands in the till.)
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 23, 2008 10:59:00 GMT -5
Nevada, I understand that without water vapor we have no life. That wasn't the point in my question. My point concerned the inclusion or exclusion of the vapor in the equation. Like I suggested, if you want man's effect to be greater then you wouldn't include water in the equation. Similarly, if you wanted to minimize or eliminate man's contributions then you would include water in the equation. My question is whether there is a scientific reason to include it or not? Certainly your suggestion that it is so dominate as to be considered a constant rather than a variable has some merit. But given that's the case, do you think that would suggest the inclusion or exclusion of water vapor? Why or why not?
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,429
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 23, 2008 14:53:13 GMT -5
I am sure most of the models, which concern global warming, consider water vapor in one way or the other. If they consider it a constant they still have to put a value in, it is just that they don't make it a variable, if indeed they are using pseudo-kinetics of one type or another. Excluding it would not tell the whole story.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 23, 2008 14:58:54 GMT -5
If you had to summarize the paper that I linked to a page or two back, that would probably be the key. It would read something like this:
"With the inclusion of water vapor, there is zero scientific significance to man's impact on any potential global warming. By excluding water vapor, some models can show a concerning impact on potentially negative affects on the atmosphere, at least in the direction of global warming."
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,429
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 26, 2008 17:44:56 GMT -5
If you had to summarize the paper that I linked to a page or two back, that would probably be the key. It would read something like this: "With the inclusion of water vapor, there is zero scientific significance to man's impact on any potential global warming. By excluding water vapor, some models can show a concerning impact on potentially negative affects on the atmosphere, at least in the direction of global warming." Probably not what I would say. The man made chemicals are a perturbation on the system. You have to view it in that light.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 18, 2009 15:03:03 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Apr 19, 2009 7:44:19 GMT -5
Omigod! There's a negative feedback loop, climate change must not be happening!
Dunno what the "oops!" is for, the Wilkins Ice Bridge didn't just collapse because of gays, abortion, and a 3% increase in the top tax rate.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 19, 2009 8:13:42 GMT -5
Omigod! There's a negative feedback loop, climate change must not be happening! Dunno what the "oops!" is for, the Wilkins Ice Bridge didn't just collapse because of gays, abortion, and a 3% increase in the top tax rate. It collapsed because of our lack of faith. Duh! I think it's directly linked to the Gaston Hall Catastrophe of 2009.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 19, 2009 12:10:34 GMT -5
Man, climate change is happening all the time, yesterday it was 75 in DC but today its only 68. That's a pretty big climate change.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Apr 19, 2009 13:20:48 GMT -5
Weather and climate aren't the same thing.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 19, 2009 13:57:40 GMT -5
Can joke about it all you want but the data keeps increasing indicating the planet is not warming.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Apr 19, 2009 15:14:43 GMT -5
Can joke about it all you want but the data keeps increasing indicating the planet is not warming. You're joking here, right? Ten warmest years on record: Global 10 Warmest Years Mean Global temperature (°C) (anomaly with respect to 1961-1990) 1998 0.52 2005 0.48 2003 0.46 2002 0.46 2004 0.43 2006 0.42 2007(Jan-Nov) 0.41 2001 0.40 (tie) 2008 0.40 (tie) 1997 0.36
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 19, 2009 15:17:52 GMT -5
Can joke about it all you want but the data keeps increasing indicating the planet is not warming. You're joking here, right? [[[GRAPH]]] Ten warmest years on record: Global 10 Warmest Years Mean Global temperature (°C) (anomaly with respect to 1961-1990) 1998 0.52 2005 0.48 2003 0.46 2002 0.46 2004 0.43 2006 0.42 2007(Jan-Nov) 0.41 2001 0.40 (tie) 2008 0.40 (tie) 1997 0.36 Game, set, and match goes to—science. Where's the graph from?
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Apr 19, 2009 16:34:57 GMT -5
Can joke about it all you want but the data keeps increasing indicating the planet is not warming. You're joking here, right? Ten warmest years on record: Global 10 Warmest Years Mean Global temperature (°C) (anomaly with respect to 1961-1990) 1998 0.52 2005 0.48 2003 0.46 2002 0.46 2004 0.43 2006 0.42 2007(Jan-Nov) 0.41 2001 0.40 (tie) 2008 0.40 (tie) 1997 0.36 Wow... it seems to go up quickly from the mid-1950s... was there something that people started to buy and use during that time around the world that emitted CO2? Wonder what it could be....
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 19, 2009 17:01:02 GMT -5
My recommendation for folks who do not believe in global warming - keep your air conditioner off this summer.
|
|