07-22-2008, 10:24 AM
"And I will say, if you don't understand or except the fact that the sun controls the climate, you are a fool. The sun controls everything."
Well, I take "exception" to that statement, I'm afraid.
I'm sure there are scientists you can find that will suggest, still, that the science concerning cigarettes in poorly understood, and that because there is yet doubt, there's no reason why you shouldn't hand one to a 5 year old kid.
I'm sure as well there are scientists who doubt the link between overeating and obesity, as there's doubt about where the natural healthy state of the human body should be--why not carry 60% body fat? It's just a value judgment anyway.
It's very fashionable at the moment, and marketable, to publish semi-scientific documents contesting global heating in general. In fact, of best sellers on the topic, certainly the contrary voices get more readership at the moment.
I wonder why? Perhaps because the truth can get bent a long ways without breaking by the gentle pressure of wishes. As well, the complexity of the theory and the ramifications of the global heating that is now unquestionably occurring is simply beyond Newsweek magazine, or other popular bumper sticker interpretations.
Pertinent fact 1:
The last time there was(yes, it has happened before) the cumulative sum amalgam of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and especially the last time CO2 levels were as high are they are today, surface levels of the ocean were 100 meters higher, and tropical palms and alligators lived at the poles. In this, the Cretaceous period of 100 million years ago. Ocean surface temperatures in the Gulf Stream may have been as high a 105 degrees and were by and large dead zones.
Pertinent fact 2: Of course, massive extinctions were coincidental with this period. Even in spite of the fact that the earth in this period had perhaps 4 times the amount of tree cover it does to day, still 10s of millions of years were necessary to re-regulate the earth back to its normal cooler state.
Pertinent fact 3: This period of extreme heat was not triggered by solar radiation, but by greenhouse gas in totality. The sun was perhaps 2 percent cooler in the period. The cause of the event appears to be a magmatic eruption in the central Atlantic that flowed into a large reserve of methyl cathrates. Once this methane was released, the run-away events that we see in action today followed, and as well a rapid change to a much higher equilibrium state of temperature. These run-away events are identical today: rapid melting of ice at the poles, the melting and rapid decomposition of permafrost, with spoilage and still increased emmission of C02 and methane, and as we're just now starting to see, destabilization of cathrate deposits due to abnormally high ocean temperatures.
There is really no sensible argument with this data. The above is well documented, and is simple geological history.
So, what for today?
Certainly, the consensus of opinion has been for at least the last 40 years that global warming was the issue. The "new ice age" counter talk stems mostly not from peer reviewed data, but from an article in Popular Science magazine. A recent audit of peer reviewed articles concerning global warming vs global cooling revealed that global warming has been the consensus opinion among climate scientists by a factor of 10 to 1 during that period.
Certainly as well, in the Northern Hemisphere at least, for the last 60 years, global temperatures have been inexplicably cool, by nearly 2 degrees, due to the large amount of particulate matter from coal, diesel and other burning in the atmosphere. Pan evaporation studies from all over the world document this "global dimming" phenomenon almost beyond reasonable doubt. Once we start cleaning up our act, and our emissions, we will see a sudden spike in temperatures throughout the N. Hemisphere.
The current large climate models that run today are capable of retrocasting world climate for at least a 1000 years with near 100 percent accuracy at a 1km resolution. There is good reason to suspect that if you run them forwards, their results are pretty fair guesses.
I would suggest that it is worth while to put a solid deeper read into the issue than aping what one or another expert interprets from the data. Of course, I am not dogmatic nor deliberately ill informed. Still, it is utterly unfair to suggest that there isn't a major consensus of opinion concerning the current state of affairs in climate science or that there isn't overwhelming supporting data strongly suggesting that A) the earth is warming rapidly and B) human activity is the primary causal element.
Reference available to any and all assertions, if you want. Honestly, I've been restraining myself from commenting, because it's arguing about old old news, and as I really feel a complete waste of my time. My goal here is to meet and bring together informed, well-read people who are capable of studying data and making judgments on that data for themselves.
Personally, I haven't read nor care what Al Gore thinks, and by and large feel that he's a poor spokesman for the cause anyhow.
As well, please let's not be insulting in insinuating that some of us or all of us require spoon feeding by the popular media to form our ideas about reality and the world. Some of us are capable of doing, and indeed do that work for ourselves.
Well, I take "exception" to that statement, I'm afraid.
I'm sure there are scientists you can find that will suggest, still, that the science concerning cigarettes in poorly understood, and that because there is yet doubt, there's no reason why you shouldn't hand one to a 5 year old kid.
I'm sure as well there are scientists who doubt the link between overeating and obesity, as there's doubt about where the natural healthy state of the human body should be--why not carry 60% body fat? It's just a value judgment anyway.
It's very fashionable at the moment, and marketable, to publish semi-scientific documents contesting global heating in general. In fact, of best sellers on the topic, certainly the contrary voices get more readership at the moment.
I wonder why? Perhaps because the truth can get bent a long ways without breaking by the gentle pressure of wishes. As well, the complexity of the theory and the ramifications of the global heating that is now unquestionably occurring is simply beyond Newsweek magazine, or other popular bumper sticker interpretations.
Pertinent fact 1:
The last time there was(yes, it has happened before) the cumulative sum amalgam of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and especially the last time CO2 levels were as high are they are today, surface levels of the ocean were 100 meters higher, and tropical palms and alligators lived at the poles. In this, the Cretaceous period of 100 million years ago. Ocean surface temperatures in the Gulf Stream may have been as high a 105 degrees and were by and large dead zones.
Pertinent fact 2: Of course, massive extinctions were coincidental with this period. Even in spite of the fact that the earth in this period had perhaps 4 times the amount of tree cover it does to day, still 10s of millions of years were necessary to re-regulate the earth back to its normal cooler state.
Pertinent fact 3: This period of extreme heat was not triggered by solar radiation, but by greenhouse gas in totality. The sun was perhaps 2 percent cooler in the period. The cause of the event appears to be a magmatic eruption in the central Atlantic that flowed into a large reserve of methyl cathrates. Once this methane was released, the run-away events that we see in action today followed, and as well a rapid change to a much higher equilibrium state of temperature. These run-away events are identical today: rapid melting of ice at the poles, the melting and rapid decomposition of permafrost, with spoilage and still increased emmission of C02 and methane, and as we're just now starting to see, destabilization of cathrate deposits due to abnormally high ocean temperatures.
There is really no sensible argument with this data. The above is well documented, and is simple geological history.
So, what for today?
Certainly, the consensus of opinion has been for at least the last 40 years that global warming was the issue. The "new ice age" counter talk stems mostly not from peer reviewed data, but from an article in Popular Science magazine. A recent audit of peer reviewed articles concerning global warming vs global cooling revealed that global warming has been the consensus opinion among climate scientists by a factor of 10 to 1 during that period.
Certainly as well, in the Northern Hemisphere at least, for the last 60 years, global temperatures have been inexplicably cool, by nearly 2 degrees, due to the large amount of particulate matter from coal, diesel and other burning in the atmosphere. Pan evaporation studies from all over the world document this "global dimming" phenomenon almost beyond reasonable doubt. Once we start cleaning up our act, and our emissions, we will see a sudden spike in temperatures throughout the N. Hemisphere.
The current large climate models that run today are capable of retrocasting world climate for at least a 1000 years with near 100 percent accuracy at a 1km resolution. There is good reason to suspect that if you run them forwards, their results are pretty fair guesses.
I would suggest that it is worth while to put a solid deeper read into the issue than aping what one or another expert interprets from the data. Of course, I am not dogmatic nor deliberately ill informed. Still, it is utterly unfair to suggest that there isn't a major consensus of opinion concerning the current state of affairs in climate science or that there isn't overwhelming supporting data strongly suggesting that A) the earth is warming rapidly and B) human activity is the primary causal element.
Reference available to any and all assertions, if you want. Honestly, I've been restraining myself from commenting, because it's arguing about old old news, and as I really feel a complete waste of my time. My goal here is to meet and bring together informed, well-read people who are capable of studying data and making judgments on that data for themselves.
Personally, I haven't read nor care what Al Gore thinks, and by and large feel that he's a poor spokesman for the cause anyhow.
As well, please let's not be insulting in insinuating that some of us or all of us require spoon feeding by the popular media to form our ideas about reality and the world. Some of us are capable of doing, and indeed do that work for ourselves.