My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Eclipse Now]

It's not just that the USA needs to act first to set the Global Warming example, it's the fact that the USA is importing so much oil now at such high prices that it will be bankrupt as a result if it doesn't learn how to become more energy independent. A big move to local renewable energy will guarantee energy independence, local jobs, economic growth, and security. As far as I know, no one has ever invaded another country for their wind or solar resources!

See the Pickens Plan (wiki). When an oil king starts spending $58 million promoting wind, you know change is in the air.

[freeztar]

MOD NOTE: It seems that we've drifted far off-topic. Questor, if you would like to start a thread in the Social Science forum about the immigrant discussion, then I will move over relavent posts from this thread. Otherwise, let's stick to the topic of this thread.

Moderation note: Several posts from this thread discussing illegal immigration have been moved to a new thread, Population and US immigration policy, because they were only distantly related to the thread’s subject of global warming

Now, back on topic...

Has anyone ever heard of dimethylsulfide (DMS)? Scientists are still unclear as to exactly how this gas is regulated in the environment. It seems quite important as this chemical quickly releases sulfur into the atmosphere which acts as a cloud seed, thus providing increased albedo.

Here's a great article on this little known climate influencer:
WHOI : Oceanus : DMS: The Climate Gas You've Never Heard Of

[Little Bang]

With our luck freez the rise in water temperatures will probably kill the algae that produce the DMS.

[freeztar]

Well, for our sake, I hope you're wrong little B.

I found it interesting that algae now play two known roles in regulating climate. They absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and also create these cloud seeders. Maybe once more is known about DMS, people will again consider the iron fertilization scheme.

[freeztar]

For those interested, the US Climate Change Science office just released a document that analyzes the different climate models and how well they represent changes. It's a hefty read and I haven't dug into it yet, but it looks like a good report.

Final Report, CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.1: Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

For those interested, the US Climate Change Science office just released a document that analyzes the different climate models and how well they represent changes. It's a hefty read and I haven't dug into it yet, but it looks like a good report.

Final Report, CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.1: Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations

Some tidbits from the Executive Summary section:

More important, Chapter 4 includes an extensive discussion about radiative forcing of climate change and climate sensitivity. The response of
global mean temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide remains a useful measure of climate sensitivity. The equilibrium response—the response
expected after waiting long enough (many hundreds of years) for the system to reequilibrate—is the most commonly quoted measure. Remaining consistent for three decades, the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity obtained from models is roughly consistent with estimates from observations of recent and past climates. The canonical threefold range of uncertainty, 1.5 to 4.5°C, has
evolved very slowly. The lower limit has been nearly unchanged over time, with very few recent models below 2°. Difficulties in simulating Earth’s clouds and their response to climate change are the fundamental reasons preventing
a reduction in this range in model-generated climate sensitivity.
...
Climate model simulation of precipitation has improved over time but is still problematic. Correlation between models and observations is 50
to 60% for seasonal means on scales of a few hundred kilometers. Comparing simulated and observed latitude-longitude precipitation maps reveals similarity of magnitudes and patterns in most regions of the globe, with the most striking disagreements occurring in the tropics. In most models, the appearance of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone of cloudiness and rainfall
in the equatorial Pacific is distorted, and rainfall in the Amazon Basin is substantially underestimated. These errors may prove consequential
for a number of model predictions, such as forest uptake of atmospheric CO2.

This seems in line with many of my objections to the modeling, as well as this specific case still under study: >> UAHuntsville News

I'm sure we'll get it right in time.

[Moontanman]

Moderation note: Responses to this post have been moved to “Fossils show Antarctica much warmer and wetter 14.1 million years ago”, because they’re not about questioning whether global warming is occurring, but about new scientific data.

Hey guys, has anyone read the report of the fossils that show Antarctica to have been much warmer and wetter 14.1 million years ago? It cooled down very fast and stayed that way. Does this have any bearing on the theory that the global set point should be colder rather than warmer?

[Little Bang]

Has anyone read this?

Ocean 'dead zones' becoming global problem - CNN.com

[SKBTE]

Moyself is delluding themself.

Yes, the natrual environment RECYCLES 120-150 billion tons (Gt) of CO2 each year into and out of the atmosphere to/from the plants and oceans. The key word is RECYCLES. Human activities, predominently the burning os fossil fuels ADDS more new CO2 into the siytem then there was in the past. Without humans, natural systems are in balance and have maintained an equilibrium balance of atmospheric carbon content vs Biosphere carbon content for many, many hundreds of thousands of years. The wrench that humans throw into the works in the past 150-160 years by burning 300 million year old fossil carbon and emitting 6-8 billion tons per year of previously not present CO2 into the atmosphere does have an effect.

Since humans have been ADDing fossil carbon based CO2 into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil carboin fuels, like coal, oil, and natural gas, starting in earnest circa 1850, the concentration of CO2 has risen steadily from about ~250 ppm (parts per million) to 384 ppm in 2007.

There is a formula for how increases in CO2 effect global average temperatures. This formula has correctly predicted global annual average temperatures and the rise in global annual average temperatures, since when records of both CO2 concentration and temperature have been measured. It will accurately predict temperatures changes comensurate with atmospheric CO2 concentration in the future as well.

The formula is ...

delta F (change in Fahrenheit temp) = 5.73 * ln (C/C0)

5.73 times the natrual log of the ratio of current CO2 concentration (C) over past concentration (C0).

This is a smooth, continuous function which only accounts for changes in CO2 concentration. There are other factors, though, effects from other green hous gases (GHG), etc., which can and do effect changes in global anuual average temperature, but by far the concentration of CO2 is the most prominent effect.

Non-human natural processes HAVE NOT increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations at an equivalent rate to present human processes in at least 20,000 years, perhaps longer. Non-human processes DO NOT currently increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by ~35% every century.
Only humans do that.

There is very little doubt about the validity of the Theory of Anthopogenic Global Warming (AGW) in the late second millenium AD. THousands of qualified climate scientists have heloed to develop this theory and they have independently supported one anothers work.

There are but a handful of public nay-sayers in the world, like Dr. Gray from Colorado. He does have a political agenda and he lacks the CV to actually say anything meaningful about climate. Most of the thousands qualified, experienced, and vetted climate scientists that contributed to the findings of the IPCC do not have any political agenda and they do certainly have the qualifications and data to back up everything they say.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

Hi everybody,

I consider myself to be a life-long environmentalist. I have, in my own small ways, worked against aerosols, acid rain, general pollution, and of late Co2/Global Warming.

As a dad and a science-oriented person, I have always been able to logically explain scientific things to my kids. I have explained how optics work via experiments, illustrated Darwinian evolution via fossil records, I've mixed my baking soda and vinegar a dozen times.

To the point, I have not been able to explain man-made global warming to my eldest, 10 year old daughter. I simply can't find a shred of basic evidence that shows that carbon dioxide levels have any effect on how warm our planet is. I'm getting a little desperate.

So, what am I missing?

Here are some resources that might help
Most adults don't "get" it, so I can understand kids having problems
Making Climate Hot (K-12 Education Outreach Program)

Truth and Consequences: Teaching Global Warming Doesn't Have to Spell 'Doom' | Edutopia

Edutopia's Green Teacher's Resources | Edutopia

These sites were just posted on the
biochar-climatechange@yahoogroups.com,
Forum, you might like to join in?
Bio char/ Terra preta gives me hope we can solve this problem