CLIMATE RECORD: Using sediment cores taken from Arctic lakes, like Sunday Lake pictured here, scientists have reconstructed a history of continuing climate cooling prior to increased human emissions of greenhouse gases.
Image: Courtesy of Darrell Kaufman, Northern Arizona University
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Based on its long-term orbit, Earth should be heading into an ice age. But instead of continuing to cool—as it had been for at least the past 2,000 years—the Arctic has started to warm. And the reason is humans' impact on the composition of the atmosphere, new research suggests.
To look at this trend, geologist Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University and a consortium of colleagues reconstructed Arctic temperatures decade by decade over the past two millennia by pulling sediment cores from the bottoms of 14 Arctic lakes—backed up by records in tree rings and ice cores.
In warm summers, relatively more sediment is deposited thanks to more meltwater from the glaciers that create these lakes, and the abundance of algae in the sediment layers reveals the length of growing seasons. So, these sediment cores provide a picture of the climate that goes back millennia.
The record they reveal is of a cooling pole. As the Earth has moved slightly further away from the sun due to vagaries in its orbit—it's roughly 600,000 miles further away now than in 1 C.E.—some parts of the Arctic received as much as 6 watts per meter squared less sunlight than in 1 C.E. That, in turn, has led to a cooling rate of roughly 0.2 degrees Celsius per 1,000 years. But at some point in the 20th century, that trend stopped and reversed.
"Orbitally driven summer insolation continued to decrease through the 20th century, implying that summer temperatures should have continued to cool," the researchers wrote this week in the September 4 edition of Science. "Instead, the shift to higher temperatures during the 20th century reversed the millennial scale cooling trend."
In the past decade, summertime Arctic temperatures have been 1.4 degrees Celsius higher on average than would be expected and 1.2 degrees Celsius higher than in 1900. And the Arctic is merely the trendsetter—the northern-most latitudes are among the fastest-warming parts of the globe due to various feedbacks. For example, melting Arctic sea ice exposes more ocean, which in turn absorbs more of the sunlight's warmth and further increases warming.
A graph of the warming trend largely replicates the so-called "hockey stick," a previous reconstruction that showed relatively stable temperatures suddenly spiking upward in recent history. It also accurately reveals the impact of historical climate events like the Little Ice Age, which took place from the 17th to 19th centuries.
Without greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, a true ice age might have been expected as a 21,000-year wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the sun that shifts the intensity of sunlight. That cooling trend wouldn't have reversed naturally for at least another 4,000 years. Yet, despite this decline, Arctic temperatures have soared and the most likely culprit is the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning, forest clearing and other human activity, Kaufmann and his colleagues wrote.
"The most recent 10-year interval (1999–2008) was the warmest of the past 200 decades," they wrote. "Temperatures were about 1.4 degrees C higher than the projected values based on the linear cooling trend and were even more anomalous than previously documented."
Of course, summer temperatures when the warming portion of the wobble cycle peaked roughly 7,500 years ago were at least 0.8 degrees Celsius warmer than 20th-century average temperatures. Nonetheless, this current, countercyclical warming trend will likely continue—potentially exceeding that earlier warming—unless greenhouse gas levels begin to come back down. In the meantime, polar denizens adapted for the cooler climate can blame humanity for a balmier Arctic.
See what we're tweeting about
97 Comments
Add CommentOh come on! Is it silly season again for Climate Alarmists? Since when are climate models accurate enough to make predictions 4000 years into the future?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne question I would like to ask the climate experts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the 12oo's the Vikings had two colonies in Greenland. They survived by fishing and farming (Rye and cabbage).
If the climate is so much warmer today than in the past 4,000 years, how many crops can be grown in Greenland now, and why aren't there more farms on that very large patch of icy land?
This has nothing to do with atmospheric changes or human behavior in any way. It is due to changes in the planets electromanatic field. It is a long running natural cycle that is about to start over again. At least 7 times in the planets history the poles of shift to new location. Thats right. The N & S Poles have not always been over the same position that they are today. The planet is one big magnetic gyro. Like all magnets ever so often they have to be replaced because they become depleted of free electrons. Each time the planet shift to a new polar alignment it begins to spin in the opposite direction as the previous cycle (thats right the sun has not always come up in the east and it won't after the next reset either). Each reset is followed by a global ice age that covers the top and bottom 2/3's of the planets surface, except for a thin band around the new equator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe last polar shift and resulting ice age ended about 15,000 years ago, thus our 12,000 years of visibility of human history despite the fact that we know we've been on the planet for 400,000 yrs plus.
The current temperature increases at both the N. and S acrtic areas is a result of the diminished state of the magnetic field of the planet. We've seen dramatic increases in the amount of solar and cosmic radiation that get through that magnetic field. It will continue to increase until the reset and the next ice age. The magnetic field and not the planets atmosphere is what shield most of this radiation.
The next polar alignment is due is 2012. The further depletion of the magnet field leading up to this, will increase nature disasters in both frequency and intensity leading up to a planetary disaster in 2012 that, as it has at least 3 other times in our history as a species, will wipe out almost all human civilization.
This is all known science by the way and completely supported by the archeological record.
I've noticed that "Scientific American" should change it's name to "Climate Change Chicken Little" as it seems that half the articles are about this! I'd like to see a little more diversity, but then I expect it's because most of the people working at "Scientific American" and those currently running it, are these brainwashed ultra-liberals who have pushed to make this the latest of their weapons to have power over people- it works great too, as they can use it to tell us what kind of cars we can have, when and where we can drive those cars, what kind of food we can eat, what kind of other natural resources we can use. Throw in the coming taxes, fees, etc., that they'll be piling on energy and other resources, and they'll finally be able to turn the vast American middle class into their peasantry that can barely afford to get by and is 100% dependent on the liberal nanny state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd say "Scientific American" is biased, but that's far too weak a word to truly describe them!
Mixing a bit of truth into a load of BS is a favorite tactic of the ill-informed. Yes the magnetic poles do shift around all the time though its a minute amount, yes the Magnetic poles have reversed in the past and will probably again. Evidence has been found of Two magnetic reversals in the distant past, and experts predict another reversal in the near future, as in the next 10,000 years, +- 10,000 years. The physical poles of the earth have NEVER ever shifted. Thats total hogwash and there is no evidence to support that claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay, there are several issues I'm going to address with regards to the comments. First of all, every major climate science organization in the world agrees that the planet is slowly warming up and that most if not all of that is anthropogenic (search 'IPCC Climate Change report'). Second, it can be experimentally shown that CO2 traps infrared radiation because of its atomic structure. Also, it is an obvious fact that human beings have put enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last two centuries. Every gallon of gasoline burned releases about 10 kilograms of CO2, multiply that by hundreds of millions of cars driving trillions of miles over a century, then add in all the fossil fuels that must be burned for electricity generation, and we have a huge increase in atmospheric CO2. To justanothernode: where the hell have you been getting your information? Yes the Earth's magnetic poles have reversed in the past, but everything after that was completely wrong. The pole reversal does not result in/from a reversing of the Earth's rotation (can you even concieve of how much energy it would take to do that?), it does not cause a Snowball Earth or an ice age, and it has happened many more than 7 times. The geological record shows hundreds of reversals in the last hundred million years, and no correlation between them and mass extinctions has been found. The Electromagnetic field blocks cosmic rays and other charged particles, not electromagnetic radiation. Although these particles might contribute a little thermal energy, it would be miniscule compared with sunlight (both incoming and trapped). Although the Earth's magnetic field has weakened in recent centuries, the odds of it making a full reversal in 2012 are extremely remote. If that happens, it will wreak havoc on our current civilization, but for none of the reasons that climate change would (satellites and other systems would become completely confused, leading to other problems). And regarding climate models predicting things 4,000 years in the future: that information comes from measurements of the Earth's orbit and rotation (closer to the sun=hotter, tilted away more of the year=colder). The Earth has an orbit governed by Newton's laws, and it is extremely predictable, even millions of years in the future, because it would take unbelievable force to change it (ex: a star passing into the system). Most people fail to understand that climate is much easier to predict than weather since it is a general pattern, not super specific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay, I'm going to address several issues with brought up in the comments. First of all, every major climate science organization in the world agrees that the Earth is warming and most if not all of that is anthropogenic (search 'IPCC Climate Change report'). Second, the articles in the sixties/seventies that said we were entering an ice age were not in scientific journals, but rather in things like Time. The scientific journals at the time said that, following the pattern, we would be entering an ice age IF HUMANS WEREN'T ADDING CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE AND COUNTERING IT. It was known back then that CO2 traps infrared radiation and therefore warms the planet, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that humans have put absolutely tremendous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. To justanothernode: where on Earth are you getting your information? Yes, the magnetic poles can and have reversed, but everything else was wrong. The reversal does not reverse the Earth's rotation (can you even concieve of how much energy that would require?), and it does not cause a Snowball Earth or even an ice age. Also, the EM field only blocks charged particles, not EM radiation. Although theoretically particle radiation should contribute a little towards atmospheric temperature, it isn't a noticeable effect next to regular sunlight. How can we predict climate 4,000 years in the future? That particular model is based on the Earth's orbit, rotation, and precession of rotation, all things that are known extremely well and can be predicted extremely well, mostly because the Earth is so large that only astronomical phenomena can really change these particular quantities (orbit, rotation, and precession), and we know enough about the solar system to safely say that those properties of the Earth aren't going to change anytime soon. Finally, 'going green' as its called does not drive one into peasantry. Currently green technologies are somewhat more expensive, but given time and investment everything gets cheaper. Even with the extra cost however, people spend way more on frivolous things each year anyway (amount spent on tobacco, gambling, and drinking in the US each year: over $500 billion, yes, that's billion with a 'b'). Rogeregon references natural resources: in America we have huge swaths of desert perfect for solar power, and the Midwest has enough wind potential to power the whole nation. Who provides oil? The Middle East, the same people who are trying to kill us! I don't want my money going there to fund them, do you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" Every gallon of gasoline burned releases about 10 kilograms of CO2,..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUhhhhh, Beavis...
So a gallon of gas weighs around 6 pounds. Forgive my terrible conversion, but wouldn't 10 kg be somewhere around 22.2 pounds. How does 6 pounds of gas create 22 pounds of CO2?
By the way, I can't wait till 2012...the reversal of orbit is going to be an inconvenience, but it will be cool to see my toilet drain in the opposite direction...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe gentlemen at climate audit had no trouble debunking this stinker of a study:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.climateaudit.org/
Because each carbon atom combines with two oxygen atoms to make a single molecule of carbon dioxide. The atomic weight of carbon is 12, that of oxygen 16. Thus every unit of carbon combines with 2 and 2/3 units of oxygen. 6 units of carbon combine with 16 units of oxygen, to result in 22.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJasbro,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChemically when gasoline (which is basically CH2) is burned, it gives off H2O and CO2, but takes the oxygen from the air, and puts it into a solid form. Because oxygen atoms are a lot more heavy than hydrogen atoms (about 16 times), the 'mass' here recorded in kilograms, goes up a lot from gasoline to CO2. By my rough calculations it's a bit over 3 times the wight which would be about consistent with the values quoted. It's kind of like how when steam is steam it doesn't appear to have any weight but if it condenses into water droplets it appears to have weight again. Or like how if you take a pot and plant a seed and a tree starts to grow the wight of the pot will appear to increase as the apparently 'weightless' (i.e. in gas form) atoms and molecules in the air are converted into organic solids.
There's nothing wrong with saying you don't understand something but take the time to really TRY to find out more about it before you cast a verdict or attempt to make snide implications about it. Otherwise you're gonna simply eat up the misinformation put out by global warming denialists paid by companies like Exon.
the reason it is 22 pounds not 6 is because the carbon in the gas combines with the oxygen in the air. it would be nice if you could just watch the discovery channel or something and figure this out for yourself... Beavis
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause that six pounds is mostly carbon, and carbon dioxide has two oxygens in addition to each carbon, hence the term 'carbon dioxide'. Oxygen has a mass per atom that is (8/7) times the mass of carbon, meaning that every time a mass of carbon is burned it releases a little more than 3 times that mass as CO2. By the way, I'm sorry for two nearly identical paragraphs, I thought the first one wasn't put up so I wrote the second.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOops, that was supposed to be (8/6), not (8/7), my bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientest say, if you can believe them, that the earth tilts 1 degree every 72 years...so about every 26,000 years the earth comes back to its starting point. That will be at the winter soltice of 2012. They also say that the poles will shift. This happens on such a regular base that you can set your watch by it. It is these shifts that allows this planet to be called, "The planet of life." When a life form becomes too destructive, like we have, the earth will replace it with a new intelligent life form. You do not have to take my word for this, just wait three years until the winter soltice of 2012 and make your own conclusion. Scientest believe that the new replacement life form will be 1,000 times smarter than we are, so let's hope that the earth wants to keep us humans in charge here. We are not the first intelligent life form on this planet and we will not be the last. The earth seems to switch between intelligent life forms about every 26,000 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anyone considered the consequences of an ice age? Bring on global warming, burn more fossil fuels, damn it. We lucked in to a good thing. Don't screw with our nature. lol...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt confuses me when people read these articles an announce that the Earth has been through several periods of warming and cooling before. Oh really? Since when was this fact? Oh right, since all of the scientific research of the Earth's previous climate. The very same scientific research that's being done right now indicating an increase in temperature as a result of human activities. How is it that what you learned in a silly 3rd grade text book is cold hard fact, but science being done in real time in peer reviewed journals is a hoax?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich brings me to my next point, anecdotal evidence. Stop using it. Just because your area is nice for the last few years, or is colder for the last few years doesn't mean jack shit for anyone else. It doesn't indicate a larger trend for the planet, it just indicates your experience. Try to imagine somebody else's experience. Try to imagine the African Sahara that's getting hit extremely hard by global warming at the equator. Try to imagine the effect on their rain seasons when all the water is drying up. These don't prove global warming either, but they sure as hell can counter your personal experience. People have different experiences, and citing yours as the most authentic and general is egotistical science, which makes it bad science.
And finally climateaudit.org. If you get your "debunking" news from a single guy reading papers and saying what's wrong with the data, I'd be very careful. The peer review process is set up to try to ensure good science. That is just one guy hurting a lot of people by questioning original research. If he would like to organize some research that might help disprove global warming, he's more than welcome to. And if it gets through the peer reviewed process, then it will be the FIRST peer-reviewed journal article to go against man-made global warming. But that probably won't happen.
I am deeply embarrassed for most of you posting on this blog. Not all. You know who you are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"How does 6 pounds of gas create 22 pounds of CO2?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause each pound of carbon in the gasoline reacts with 2.7 pounds of oxygen to produce 3.7 pounds of CO2.
"How does 6 pounds of gas create 22 pounds of CO2?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause each pound of carbon in the gasoline reacts with 2.7 pounds of oxygen to produce 3.7 pounds of CO2.
jasbro - if I remember my school chemistry correctly, the atomic weight of C is 12 and O is 16, so 6 lbs of C turns into 6*(12+16+16)/(12*2.2) = 10 kg of CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is not to say that Darrell Kaufman's findings are anything but a gross short-term one-eyed misinterpretation of long-term data.
" " Every gallon of gasoline burned releases about 10 kilograms of CO2,..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUhhhhh, Beavis...
So a gallon of gas weighs around 6 pounds. Forgive my terrible conversion, but wouldn't 10 kg be somewhere around 22.2 pounds. How does 6 pounds of gas create 22 pounds of CO2?"
Uhhhhhh Butthead...
The Environmental Protection Agency starts with a guess for how many grams of carbon are in each gallon of gas. First, they determine how much carbon is in each particular kind of gasoline, and then they come up with a weighted average based on consumption levels for each variety. Using this method, they estimate that a gallon of gas contains, on average, 2,421 grams of carbon. That's enough to make 8,877 grams of CO2. They multiply that number by 0.99 to account for the carbon that doesn't react fully with the oxygen. Their result: 8,788 grams, or about 19.4 pounds.
Toilets drain in the direction of the jets .......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this study has drawn the correct conclusions, and I doubt it has, it is very fortunate that we are in the age of fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe sky in Beijing & man-made climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It confuses me when people read these articles an announce that the Earth has been through several periods of warming and cooling before. Oh really? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally. No one is saying man kind didn't help this time. But the earth has been changing it's climate since it was formed. Do you honestly think the earth always has a stable climate? Of course you don't.
We know there have been ice ages as well as hot periods. It's par for the course. I'll tell you what though, I'll take warming over an ice age any day, no matter what is responsible for it. Yes, people will suffer either way. Don't blame me for how I would prefer to suffer.
Anyway, I'm sure no one is certain what we are facing. Looks to me like we went from "global warming" to "climate change" in pretty short order. A warming trend could cause a backlash that sends us into the next ice age. We don't really have a clue.
The thing to remember about science is that you shouldn't "believe" anything. If it isn't a cold hard fact, it's just speculation, no matter how many peers review it. Pretty stupid to believe speculation of ANY sort. If it's a fact, then belief is redundant and not required. We are pretty low on cold hard facts, and have an embarrassing abundance of speculation. Yes, the climate is changing and we are helping. That's about all that we can say with any certainty. Were it not for the fact that we have to base our actions on speculation in lieu of clean facts, it would be a joke. As it is, it's a damn comedy of errors.
Language: English (change)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It confuses me when people read these articles an announce that the Earth has been through several periods of warming and cooling before. Oh really? "
Really. No one is saying man kind didn't help this time. But really, the earth has been changing it's climate since it was formed. Do you honestly think the earth always has a stable climate? Of course you don't.
We know there have been ice ages as well as hot periods. It's par for the course. I'll tell you what though, I'll take warming over an ice age any day, no matter what is responsible for it. Yes, people will suffer either way. Don't blame me for how I would prefer to suffer.
Anyway, I'm not sure anyone is certain what we are facing. Looks to me like we went from "global warming" to "climate change" in pretty short order. A warming trend could cause a backlash that sends us into the next ice age. We don't really have a clue.
The thing to remember about science is that you shouldn't "believe" anything. If it isn't a cold hard fact, it's just speculation. pretty stupid to believe speculation of ANY sort. If it's a fact, then belief is redundant and not required. We are pretty low on cold hard facts, and have an embarrassing abundance of speculation. Were it not for the fact that we have to base our actions on speculation in lieu of clean facts, it would be a joke. As it is, it's a damn comedy of errors.
We shouldn't "believe" anything? (Is this limited to claims that scientists make?) How is that possible? For example, are you really saying that I should not believe that Earth and the Moon exert forces of attraction on each other? What's the alternative? Believe that they don't? Suspend judgment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan I really have NO beliefs? Of course not.
"If it's a fact, belief is not required"? This makes no sense. It's a fact that 2+2=4. Therefore I should not or don't need to believe that 2+2=4? What would you think of an adult who said that he doesn't believe that 2+2=4?
As to "cold, hard facts," what exactly are they? Aren't "facts" just true claims? I don't know what makes a fact "cold and hard," but if ,say, it's true that currently existing species evolved from other species, many of which are now extinct, then that's a fact.
You seem to think that a lot of science is just "speculation." To be brutally frank, you don't know what you're talking about. Speculation is guessing where one has no evidence. Scientists do speculate. That's what they do when they think up a hypothesis to explain observed data. But they don't claim that their hypothesis is true (or probably true) until they have accumulated evidence for it, usually substantial evidence. And their hypothesis doesn't get accepted by the scientific community until lots of other scientists with the relevant expertise have examined it and evaluated the evidence for and against it. Of course, most scientists are fallibilists. If they accept a hypothesis or explanation or theory, it's provisional - until new evidence refutes or undermines the hypothesis. Scientists don't claim that science provides certainty, but their goal is to provide truth.
The sad joke and comedy of errors is the amount of pure ignorance and error masquerading as truth and wisdom on these posts.
Uhhh, Jasbro...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA CO2 molecule is made when 1 carbon atom from the gas combines with two heavier oxygen atoms from the air, hence the extra pounds.
Thank you fisixisfun for clarifying some common climate misconceptions.
SciAm has become a political pawn. A very disappointed 20 year reader.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is what I said: "It confuses me when people read these articles an announce that the Earth has been through several periods of warming and cooling before. Oh really? Since when was this fact? Oh right, since all of the scientific research of the Earth's previous climate."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi.e. I believe that climate change is happening and that it's being affected by man. Did you guys miss the sarcasm? Did you even read the rest of my comment? I guess I know what it's like being on the other side where nobody is listening. My point was that if you believe the science that's in your text books, but not the science that will be in the text books several years from now, there's a certain amount of inconsistency. Theories on the climate are ever-present. So when people stand up and say, "it was warming before and it will warm/cool regardless of humans," I have to question that kind of logic. The only reason you know about the previous warming and cooling is because there have been countless scientific papers indicating this, the very same scientific papers that are coming out now in favor of global warming/climate change. Just because you read it in a 3rd grade text book doesn't mean that's the only scientific truth.
Thank God we are pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere because I sure don't want another ice age! 1 degree warmer is not enough to worry about since I work 1/2 hour south of where I live and it is generally 1 degree warmer there than where I live. 1 degree is no big deal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is more about politics than science. Liberals don't want America to continue to grow and they are using pseudo-science to bring our country down. Americans are too smart for this bunk!
What has happened to Scientific American?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can remember pouring over them at my great uncle's who worked for NASA when I was a kid.
The stuff they write now is tripe & fluff with a agenda.
Sad.
We shouldn't "believe" anything? (Is this limited to claims that scientists make?) How is that possible? For example, are you really saying that I should not believe that Earth and the Moon exert forces of attraction on each other? What's the alternative? Believe that they don't? Suspend judgment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan I really have NO beliefs? Of course not"
The fact of the matter is that belief is relative and can be measured in degrees. However belief does imply a certain amount of faith: acceptance without eenough evidence to make something a fact. Belief is not required when dealing with fact. The facts are to be conditionally accepted once they are proven facts. That's all that is required. Your belief that they are true or not means nothing. They are or they are not facts. No amount of faith will change that.
Therefore any kind of belief in anything is meaningless. Accept facts. Invest no belief in anything that is not a fact. It doesn't mean you have to suspend your opinion based on the evidence at hand. But just remember that it is speculation, not fact. Why would you invest belief in speculation? Why would you need to invest any kind of faith in a fact? You are wasting your time either way.
It means dropping the idea that faith, no matter what kind, is a positive addition to rational thought. It means mentally fighting the cultural pull that says faith is essential. It isn't. It's a waste of time and leads to all kinds of nonsense thinking.
I'd like to make it clear that I love science and I accept facts like 2+2=4. I don't have to "believe them." On the topic of climate and climate change, I have no problem with the observations that have been made. My point is that you can string a series of factual observations together and still come to the wrong conclusion about what is going on when you interpret those facts. We've seen evidence of that in this thread. Also, by no means do we have all the facts, so steadfast conclusions are a bit premature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am willing to say: "I don't know" what the answer is and I'm quite sure no one else does either; despite the fact they jump and down claiming they do.
The climate is changing. Ok. We have something to do with it this time. Ok. In the 1970s some scientists were saying we were headed for an ice age. A couple years ago it was "global warming". Now it's "climate change". Does anyone know with 100 percent certainty what the outcome of all this will be? If they say they do I wouldn't hesitate to call them delusional. I'd like to make it clear that I love science and I accept facts like 2+2=4. I don't have to "believe them." On the topic of climate and climate change, I have no problem with the observations that have been made. My point is that you can string a series of factual observations together and still come to the wrong conclusion about what is going on when you interpret those facts. We've seen evidence of that in this thread. Also, by no means do we have all the facts, so steadfast conclusions are a bit premature.
I am willing to say: "I don't know" what the answer is and I'm quite sure no one else does either; despite the fact they jump and down claiming they do.
The climate is changing. Ok. We have something to do with it this time. Ok. In the 1970s some scientists were saying we were headed for an ice age. A couple years ago it was "global warming". Now it's "climate change". Does anyone know with 100 percent certainty what the outcome of all this will be? If they say they do I wouldn't hesitate to consider them "possibly " delusional.
I see the Global Warming theory as a pretty straightforward science, with data and observations supporting it. I also note that naysayers and opponents are people who score very low on basic scientific education. Having said that, I would like to ask: If faced with two evils, an overheated planet or an Ice Age, wouldn't we pick the Ice Age over the other? I would! In Ice Age I could put on more clothes. What do I do when overheated? Take my skin off? Will civilization survive the heat to keep providing me with AC? I would rather breathe clear cool air; what's the alternative? More pollution from our industry trying to keep us cool? Poisonous gasses from melting permafrosts or from the growing dead zones in our oceans?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the land would remain ice free during the Ice Age. With sunlight remaining the same, we could produce plenty of food for everybody. How are we going to feed ourselves when our crops wilt away?
My friend wrote me from Buenos Aires yesterday. It is mid-winter there, the spring won't start for another three weeks. The temperature was 34C (92F?). Buenos Aires is about as far south as Houston is north.
And regardless of the Global warming, it is much better to spend our money on restructuring our industry to environmentally friendly, than to hand it over to OPECers!
Climate change denialists are primarily scientifically illiterate, politically-motivated hacks. They have not a clue about the actual science and have not taken the time to develop even the most basic understanding of the scientific case for anthropogenic climate change. They should be ignored. The real debate at this point in time is about severity and what sorts of mitigating policies are reasonable. Obviously, concerns about climate have to be weighed against other important concerns, such as poverty in developing nations and economic stability in developed nations. Gasoline is an excellent source of energy and has done as much as any other technology to improve the standard of living of millions of human beings in the developed world. It's wise not to forget this, while at the same time acknowledging the reality of anthropogenic climate change and the pressing need to develop strategies for dealing with it. Last point on terminology: denialists do a lot of complaining about the use of the term 'climate change' as opposed to 'global warming'. These are distinct but related concepts. 'Global warming' is still used to describe the increase in global average temperatures - it has not been abandoned for political reasons, as denialists suggest. 'Climate change' is a more general term which includes effects other than temperature increases, such as the melting of ice-sheets and the intensification of hurricanes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate change denialists are primarily scientifically illiterate, politically-motivated hacks. They have not a clue about the actual science and have not taken the time to develop even the most basic understanding of the scientific case for anthropogenic climate change. They should be ignored. The real debate at this point in time is about severity and what sorts of mitigating policies are reasonable. Obviously, concerns about climate have to be weighed against important concerns, such as poverty in developing nations and economic stability in developed nations. Gasoline is an excellent source of energy and has done as much as any other technology to improve the standard of living of millions of human beings in the developed world. It's wise not to forget this, while at the same time acknowledging the reality of anthropogenic climate change and the pressing need to develop strategies for dealing with it. Last point on terminology: denialists do a lot of complaining about the use of the term 'climate change' as opposed to 'global warming'. These are distinct but related concepts. 'Global warming' is still used to describe the increase in global average temperatures - it has not been abandoned for political reasons, as denialists suggest. 'Climate change' is a more general term which includes effects other than temperature increases, such as the melting of ice-sheets and the intensification of hurricanes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat question!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjasbro-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a really basic chemistry thing. You ADD oxygen from the air to the carbon in the gasoline - this usually referred to as burning ;). In fact, begin CO2 - we would have two atoms of oxygen for atom of carbon in the gasoline. A regular oxygen atom has an atomic weight of 16, a regular carbon atom has an atomic weight of 12. So that's 32 + 12 or a ratio of 44/12= 3.67. Gasoline isn't pure carbon (about 87%)... And it weighs about 6.3 pounds, so if we get nearly complete burning - we get 5.5 x 3.7 = 20.1 pounds of CO2 (approximately).
jasbro-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a really basic chemistry thing. You ADD oxygen from the air to the carbon in the gasoline - this usually referred to as burning ;). In fact, begin CO2 - we would have two atoms of oxygen for atom of carbon in the gasoline. A regular oxygen atom has an atomic weight of 16, a regular carbon atom has an atomic weight of 12. So that's 32 + 12 or a ratio of 44/12= 3.67. Gasoline isn't pure carbon (about 87%)... And it weighs about 6.3 pounds, so if we get nearly complete burning - we get 5.5 x 3.7 = 20.1 pounds of CO2 (approximately).
It's a real necessity for us to not only pay more attention,but also take more actions to reduce the global warming ! Yes ,that's it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfloyd at 07:44 PM on 09/07/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Climate change denialists are primarily scientifically illiterate, politically-motivated hacks. They have not a clue about the actual science and have not taken the time to develop even the most basic understanding of the scientific case for anthropogenic climate change. They should be ignored. The real debate at this point in time is about severity and what sorts of mitigating policies are reasonable. “
Right. First we have to get a clue as to what is going to happen. Contrary to popular belief there are several scenarios that could play out.
“Obviously, concerns about climate have to be weighed against important concerns, such as poverty in developing nations and economic stability in developed nations. Gasoline is an excellent source of energy and has done as much as any other technology to improve the standard of living of millions of human beings in the developed world. It's wise not to forget this, while at the same time acknowledging the reality of anthropogenic climate change and the pressing need to develop strategies for dealing with it.”
Only when developed countries find real sources of practical alternatives and the technology is cheep enough for the third world to use, will developing countries stop using oil products. Of course usable oil is running out. Some estimates say within 20 years, some say 50. The west hasn’t done anything to really stop the use, exploration or exploitation of oil. We bail out car companies and I have yet to see any real “green” initiatives from them; just half hearted attempts to appease us with hybrids that are useless without their gas engines. It’s probably already too late to positively change the course of climate change anyway. The only chance we might have to feel a little less guilty would be if we all stopped using oil right now. That ain’t gonna happen. We will use it till it runs out. Perhaps it would be better to start working toward being prepared for the absence of affordable oil instead of worrying about what we can do to stop climate change.
It’s changing, but into what? And what triggers we have not yet included in our models because we don’t know about them yet, will play out in this?
“Last point on terminology: denialists do a lot of complaining about the use of the term 'climate change' as opposed to 'global warming'. These are distinct but related concepts. 'Global warming' is still used to describe the increase in global average temperatures - it has not been abandoned for political reasons, as denialists suggest. 'Climate change' is a more general term which includes effects other than temperature increases, such as the melting of ice-sheets and the intensification of hurricanes.”
Well, I mentioned the fact that we developed distinct terminology to make the point that we really do not have a handle on this and that we discovered that it is a little more complex than just global warming. This just confuses the general public and makes them more sceptical of the whole thing. Canada, for example, had a particularly cold and wet summer. This just makes people think maybe scientists don’t know what they are talking about. The media does a very bad job of explaining why we change terminology for different aspects of the phenomenon. Certain models that have been proposed suggest that the climate change taking place may well trigger an ice age. Others suggest a run away green house effect that floods out massive tracts of land and where rain fall and ground water virtually disappear from some regions. Intensified storms are probably the least of our worries. Again, my point being that we just don’t know the outcome yet. All we know for sure is that the climate seems to be changing, and that very likely our oil use is causing or helping to intensify it.
Jano_M at 01:37 PM on 09/07/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“I see the Global Warming theory as a pretty straightforward science, with data and observations supporting it. I also note that naysayers and opponents are people who score very low on basic scientific education. Having said that, I would like to ask: If faced with two evils, an overheated planet or an Ice Age, wouldn't we pick the Ice Age over the other? I would! In Ice Age I could put on more clothes. What do I do when overheated? Take my skin off? Will civilization survive the heat to keep providing me with AC? I would rather breathe clear cool air; what's the alternative? More pollution from our industry trying to keep us cool? Poisonous gasses from melting permafrosts or from the growing dead zones in our oceans?
Most of the land would remain ice free during the Ice Age.”
1500–3000 m of permafrost across the northern hemisphere for several thousand years will make it very unlikely that cities in northern Europe, Russia, Canada, and part of the northern US will be able to feed themselves. Last time it reached down to the Missouri and Ohio Rivers. (numbers taken from periods during the last age) One disaster is as good as another. Do you know how many people live in the permafrost right now? Have you ever wondered why ? Only so many people can live on blubber. If the prairie provinces of Canada are covered you can expect to pay a hundred dollars or more for a loaf of bread, if you can get any at all. In the last ice age equatorial regions were hotter and much drier partly because the Oyashio Current shut down. They won’t be able produce the volumes of food needed to feed the world. They can hardly feed themselves now. Many will die no matter what happens. I would prefer to die warm.
“With sunlight remaining the same, we could produce plenty of food for everybody. “
Not likely. Lol…
“How are we going to feed ourselves when our crops wilt away? My friend wrote me from Buenos Aires yesterday. It is mid-winter there, the spring won't start for another three weeks. The temperature was 34C (92F?). Buenos Aires is about as far south as Houston is north. “
And eastern Canada had much cooler and wetter weather this year. Where are my palm trees? I want to be able to grow palm trees in my back yard.
And regardless of the Global warming, it is much better to spend our money on restructuring our industry to environmentally friendly, than to hand it over to OPECers!
Probably already too late to avoid suffering. But we better find alternatives before oil runs out, regardless what happens to the climate. Do you have any idea what a catastrophe that will bring with it if we aren‘t ready for it? The country will shut down. Farmers won’t be able to produce food. You can forget about waging war. We are screwed no matter what we do unless we can replace oil completely, and fast. Do you think the governments of the world have the will to do what needs to be done? I’m just a little sceptical about that.
The only thing you can count on is change. We better love it, we’re going to get it.
Slomofly,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisduring the last Ice Age Sahara was a flowering garden. Astronauts could clearly see ancient riverbeds there from the space shuttle. At 9 milion square miles it by far exceeds the arable land in Canada and Nothern USA that would be covered with ice. Add to this all great deserts that encircle the Earth, from Saudi Arabia through KaraKum and Kyzyl Kum to the deserts in Southwest USA and Mexico, and we will have a great net gain in arable land. The transition may not happen without wars; let's hope we will sort it out. I vote for Ice Age. Let's stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere right now!
P.S. We have room in Texas enough to resettle all Canadian's here :)
Correction: 9 milion square kilometers; Canadians;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJano_M
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisduring the last Ice Age Sahara was a flowering garden. Astronauts could clearly see ancient riverbeds there from the space shuttle."
Well let's be fair and accurate here. The Sahara was, as I stated, larger, and as dry as it is now during the last ice age. It wasn't until the ice age was over that it became lush again due to low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets which brought more rain until the ice sheets were gone and the monsoon stopped going that far north. This was a period between 8000 and 6000 BC. By around 4000 BC the monsoons had subsided to where it goes now and the Sahara was back to desert again.
"At 9 million square miles it by far exceeds the arable land in Canada and Northern USA that would be covered with ice. Add to this all great deserts that encircle the Earth, from Saudi Arabia through KaraKum and Kyzyl Kum to the deserts in Southwest USA and Mexico, and we will have a great net gain in arable land."
Again, during the last ice age the south was drier than it is now. We would likely have to use massive amounts of energy and water we wouldn't have to reclaim even a fraction of that land.
"The transition may not happen without wars; let's hope we will sort it out."
We will have to resort back to 1800 style warfare. lol... We won't have the fuel to fly the planes or run the supply trucks and tanks.
" I vote for Ice Age."
I vote for global warming. Good thing neither of our votes count for anything. lol...
"Let's stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere right now!"
Lovely thought. Too bad we don't have anything to replace it with. We could always set up a few dozen nuke plants to do nothing but produce hydrogen and a few more to produce electricity. But I don't think the environmentalists like that idea. Bio fuel is a bit of a bust since it uses farm land to produce fuel and therefore raises the price of food. Italy is already pissed off because the price of the particular type of wheat they use for pasta has hit the roof due to bio-fuel production. Using farm land for fuel production is just a really bad idea. Solar is fine for small applications, So is wind power. But neither will move a train or truck or fuel an airplane. I use an electric bike to go to work. That's fine for summer. It's fine now that only a few people are going electric. If electric cars become the norm, the amount of electricity we have to produce to run them all would be phenomenal. They likely wouldn't work well in Canadian winters either. Let alone if the winters get colder. What are we going to use to produce enough electricity for our needs? coal? Perhaps we should go back to steam.. oh, there go the rest of our forests, and with them our air. or there goes the environment due to coal production and pollution. Not to mention the co2 they produce. Nothing we have is good enough. Everything we have has drawbacks, some as bad if not worse than gas.
Perhaps growing all food locally and doing without pineapples and bananas altogether is the way to go. Perhaps by making it mandatory that every home is electrically self sufficient using wind and solar is part of the answer.
There goes global trade and the economy. Perhaps by filtering all waste products through a methane making process would help. Oh oh, burning methane produces co2. We can't win for losing. Iceland has the best solution. Too bad we don't have abundant underground hot water like they do.
"P.S. We have room in Texas enough to resettle all Canadian's here :)"
Thanks for the offer. By the way, if the ice goes away up north we'll have enough room to accommodate Texas. Come on up if it gets too warm. But be forewarned, Your politicians won't make it up here. The first mention of religion for a politician up here means political suicide.
Guess it's because you are all about freedom of religion, and we are all about freedom from religion. lol...
floyd;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClose but no cigar. You were mixed up and used the word "denialist" where you should have used the word "eco-fascist".
Honest mistake; could happen to anybody, especially scientifically illiterate, politically motivated hacks.
I think it will be nearly impossible to come to a conclusion about which is better: ice age or global warming. Shure, global warming might probably be beneficial to people living near the poles. But, if we consider the whole world, what about those who live near the equator (which I posit account for most of the world's population?). There are many places where summer already temperatures reach and go beyond 104 �F. Though not shure, I think in places like these people survive only thanks to sweating so they won't become feverish and die. Now, for those defending heating up things, I ask: how many do you think would suddenly die should peak temperatures rise 5 or 10 �F? We're already starting to see a death rate increase during hot european summers. I think mostly elderly people are perishing as it is right now. My opinion is that we still haven't seen the worst of it and that massive heat waves killings are to be expected in the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose voting for global warming over ice age are not thinking straight. An ice age would take thousands of years to have the kinds of dire effects they think. Current anthropogenic climate change could have dire effects much more quickly (possibly within decades, if feedback loops kick in more fiercely). However, this is a common tactic of climate optimists - once their pseudo scientific arguments fail, they fall back on "yes, but warming would be so much better". Of course, as they believe climate change isn't happening, it's a non-argument for them, anyway, and, so, hypocritical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who lambast SciAm for climate science blog posts and articles really ought to do some research. Whilst one would expect a science magazine to include science articles of all kinds, environmental articles are still far too rare here. Maybe the strength of the climate science is starting to get to the deniers; maybe it's hitting home harder, hence the need to believe it's all a big conspiracy.
I was amazed at the opening comments and a littering of others throughout the comment section. The amazement is because people here obviously subscribe to and read a science magazine, or at least the web site, and yet when the science is not agreeable to them, they come up with crazy comments about the earth rotating backwards or questioning how a ton of carbon can become three tons of carbon dioxide. If this is the science-literate crowd, what must the rest of society be like?
"However, this is a common tactic of climate optimists - once their pseudo scientific arguments fail, they fall back on "yes, but warming would be so much better". Of course, as they believe climate change isn't happening, it's a non-argument for them, anyway, and, so, hypocritical."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLighten up. lol.. Preferring heating to cooling doesn't mean I don't understand the science. It means I have a selfish preference. My preference doesn't effect what will happen. If you are scared that it will then you are delusional. If you read my posts you would understand that I am in no way denying climate change is happening. The first sign of some humour and the eco-nazis start call people like me eco terrorists. lol... Climate change seems to be a fact. I accept facts. What I object to is people who believe they actually know what the end result will be. How many models do we have? How many theories? Can they all be right? Which is and which isn't? You CAN"T know. There are too many variables or we would have one unshakable theory.
No matter what else happens with climate change, and most models say it is too late to do anything about it, it is a really good idea to go as green as we can. It is a good idea to find alternatives to oil asap. It is a good idea to clean the air and the water. But don't pretend you have the answers.
If climate change was as easy as the ozone layer we would have already started reversing it. But aerosol cans and freon were easy to find alternatives to. Just about everything you burn produces co2. We're screwed already. The only thing we need to figure out is just how screwed we are.
It seems many of the science minded people these days are just like the religious nuts. What they seems to forget is that science is about asking questions and raising new alternative outlooks with a good dose of scepticism about any interpretations of factual findings. Notice I said interpretations. I'm not questioning the factual findings. Science is not religion, It's educated sceptical inquiry. Just because a scientist doesn't agree with his fellow scientists does not make him or her a heretic or a retard. Scientists should be open to new information without allowing themselves to invest faith in their interpretations of it. Faith has no place in science and science minded people have no business conducting witch hunts or calling people who know the science but want to bring up alternatives to current thinking heretics. No one has the final word on these things. In the mean time the models will change. Get used to it.
August (month end averages) NSIDC (sea ice extent)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecorded Arctic min yr.
2007 Southern Hemisphere = 18.0 million sq km
2007 Northern Hemisphere = 5.4 million sq km
Total = 23.4 million sq km
Last yr.
2008 Southern Hemisphere = 17.9 million sq km
2008 Northern Hemisphere = 6.0 million sq km
Total = 23.9 million sq km
This yr.
2009 Southern Hemisphere = 18.6 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere = 6.3 million sq km
Total = 24.9 million sq km
Contrary to what is being claimed ice at both poles seems to be recovering (growing) from it's low of 2007. The arctic gained 900,000 sq. km. and the antarctic 600,000 km. in august.
jasbro,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are not alone on this. The other day a friend who is a paid up member of The-Church-of-Man-Is-The-Cause-of-Global-Warming solemnly advised me that every kilogram of gasoline burned in a vehicle released 19 kilograms of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Perhaps someone can tell me when the law of the conservation of matter was repealed?
V of R,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI should have known the Voice of Religion would show up sooner or later..... still trying to pretend to "reason". I suppose that the reason of atheists is very attractive but why must you fly under a flag not your own?
Prof1225,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, another "sad joke" is your weird definition of "belief".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree. The likelihood is that it's a going to get a lot hotter before it gets colder. One estimate says it could be 50000 years before we cool down again. That might be a pessimistic number, it may not. But on the other hand there are natural triggers that could reverse the process and send us into an ice age down the line, right quick. We may get the worst of both worlds. No one knows for sure right now. Either way, lots of people will die. Like the extinct culture on Easter island, we blew it for ourselves. There is no way to stop the change. The way to minimize it, cut out all co2 producing fuels 20 years ago, is not going to happen. The time is past. We have nothing at all in place. Trouble is we can't go to another island to solve our problems. You think the present recession is bad, imagine the depression that will come when there is no more oil and we have yet to find real alternatives. Countries will shut down.
Yup. Trouble is coming. The question is, will our technology save us in time? There's probably not much time left. The only comfort I have is that maybe I won't have to retire in the Caribbean after all. Eventually I might be able to grow palm trees in my back yard. Selfish? Sure. But isn't it selfish to want things to stay the same? Aren't all our preferences as well as everything we do, not to mention our survival instinct, selfish? And yet, were it possible for me to actually stabilize the climate even if it mean I have to move, I'd do it in a second for future generations. Most of us would. In the mean time, if shit is going to happen anyway we might as well find things to enjoy about it, like the fantasy of growing palm trees in Canada. I ain't gonna live for ever. lol.
floyd,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo why is it that those who believe in anthropogenic climate change use the term "denialist" (with it's connotations that relate to the holocaust deniers) to describe those who readily acknowledge the evidence for climate change (Global Warming), yet have very reasonable doubts about this being "man-made" - a claim that unlike clear evidence of the existence of GW, is not supported, at this time, by solid, peer reviewed, evidence?
Over and over on blogs and comments, I see the phrase, "as more research will soon show" (or words to that effect) following outrageous claims about how much of the CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) in our atmosphere is "man-made".
Why do you "man-is-the-cause" folks dislike mentioning that man's contribution to Co2 is about 3% of the total? Why do you ignore previous cycles of global warming? Why do you seem to want huge sums of money and vast amounts of resources spent to "stop global warming" when it is clear that this CANNOT BE DONE?!! Why do so many of you fight like hell against spending money on solid research and preparation for human survival during an inevitable Global Warming period?
I very much fear that you folks have turned your opinions into the dogma of a religion.
"So why is it that those who believe in anthropogenic climate change use the term "denialist" (with it's connotations that relate to the holocaust deniers) to describe those who readily acknowledge the evidence for climate change (Global Warming), yet have very reasonable doubts about this being "man-made"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said. It amazes me how many rational science minded people create a religious dogma around their pet theories.
I can see it from the scientists who's reputations and careers depend on their theories being right in order to get funding. All who disagree are to be considered heretics. It's a matter of their survival. We can blame that on our flawed system.
But what amazes me more, and it probably shouldn't, is the religious fervor the common scientific minded laymen views scientific interpretations with. As if all that comes out of a scientists imagination is by default, unquestionable fact. I have to assume that the religious cultural concept of faith being a positive attribute, and essential to human existence is the cause of this state of affairs. It's going to take some time for people to realize, even subconsciously, that faith is the root of ignorance and to be avoided at all costs.
I think science is the best way we humans have yet devised to get real answers. But what we need to focus on is the scientific method, not the interpretation of the factual observations. QM is the perfect example. There are many interpretations of what the observations of QM mean. The many worlds theory, the holographic universe, even a super black hole theory.
You will hear people swearing up and down that the many worlds theory is fact. Yet there is no evidence that it is. It's an interpretation, and not required when doing the math of QM. No interpretation is required. The fact is QM works very well in predicting quantum behaviour. That's what's important. The interpretations of what that means are pure speculation. Based on evidence, yes. But the evidence used for many worlds is the same as that used for all the other theories. All interpretation is by default speculation. Some proves correct. Most doesn't. My advise to the science minded: First, cultivate a lack of faith. Science is not about faith. Second, study the patterns, not the interpretations. Third: Leave dogma to the religious. Forth: be open to new information, but don't marry any speculative theory or interpretation.
Slomofly,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery nicely put. I couldn't agree more......
G.KARST,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow very interesting!
Seems that this darn Warming thing just does not want to work the way it's supposed to. (According to the new GW religion, anyway). Thanks for this.
'Eco-fascists' and 'denialists' are equally ridiculous, in my opinion. Both groups allow their emotions and ideological convictions to overwhelm their capacity for reason. I'm sure that neither group gives a damn about science for its own sake - they are only interested in what 'authoritative' evidence it can provide to support their biased political agendae. I'd be very happy to have the righty denialists and their lefty counterparts, the eco-fascists, relocated to the moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Eco-fascists' and 'denialists' are equally ridiculous, in my opinion. Both groups allow their emotions and ideological convictions to overwhelm their capacity for reason. I'm sure that neither group gives a damn about science for its own sake - they are only interested in what 'authoritative' evidence it can provide to support their biased political agendae. I'd be very happy to have the righty denialists and their lefty counterparts, the eco-fascists, relocated to the moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sez Me,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe basic chemistry behind the fact that 1 gallon of gas produces about 20 pounds of C02 when burned has been answered several times in this forum. You can easily get the answer by googling '1 gallon of gas C02' as well. I hope (but somehow doubt) that you are more diligent in your other research on the issue of anthropomorphic climate change.
I will firmly agree to argue in defense of many of the environmentalists and ecological conservationists as they are willing to be conservative in usage and application of our non-renewable resources. This makes great sense in all manner of behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy issues are those which apply scientific facades to promote a concept so that governments or groups of persons with ideological goals may manipulate another group. This is of course, the same as any religious group applying an ideological pressure on another group as to motivate their behavior in a certain moral direction.
If you want to argue that an idea or goal has benefit and or merit then by all means lets discuss the issues and show the logic of a decision to change a goal or outcome.
But, lets act upon the virtue of the merit of truth and not the rectification of an answer. Sometimes the answer is not immediately available based on a limited set of facts and at times it may be important to make decisions without all the facts as a first best guess. This perhaps is the case in the Global Warming issue.
To those who hold the capacity to rationalize and apply true science and the proverbial 'scientific method' ...Grow some balls and resist the 'church of dogma' ... It's OK to say: " We just don't have enough data".
Please just stop your journalistic bias to placate readers or politicians who want to hear " Damn that Global Warming" !
How funny it is to read of people wanting to grow palm trees in their Canadian back yards or grow food for themselves in the Sahara. We are talking about large timescales here...not next year. In the 60's we started talking about throwing trash out of the car window, and we have a much cleaner environment now. In the 70's it was air pollution and acid rain, which are significantly lessor problems now. Over the next few generations we could actually create an environment that is poisonous to us, not to mention the warming (all caused by Asian overpopulation and fossil fuels). Or we could begin the changes that are required so that we can continue to exist on this planet. Fossil fuels have to go. Overpopulation must be controlled. End of story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't speak for 'those who believe in anthropogenic climate change', only for myself. I use the term 'denialist' because it's a convenient way to refer to people who are often so delusionally overconfident and ideologically driven that they are willing to flippantly dismiss the considered scientific opinions of 90% of the experts in the field because it doesn't agree with their political orientation. I'm sure I occasionally apply the classification improperly, but that's the way it goes. There is no corollary in my mind between holocaust deniers and climate science deniers - that would be beyond ridiculous. 'Denialist', in my opinion, is like 'Liberal', in that people adopt these political stances to varying degrees. A person who is 'liberal' because he is opposed to segregation is not the same thing as a 'liberal' who thinks it's a good idea to throw a bunch of Molotov cocktails around whenever the WTO meets. A 'denialist' who recognizes that there has been substantial warming over the last few decades and is willing to consider the possibility that human activity is the cause, but who thinks there are other explanations that are more apt and need at least to be thoroughly investigated before they can be dismissed is not the same as a 'denialist' who thinks that the whole 'global warming scare' is just a vast conspiracy of corrupt and dishonest scientists whose real goal is to turn us all into socialists like themselves. I'm glad that you think there is some merit in the process of scientific peer-review. Unfortunately, I don't think that sentiment is at all shared by most of the people who think the consensus view on anthropogenic climate change (as reflected in the IPCC reports) is a giant hoax. Otherwise, they would not be so willing to dismiss the hundreds of studies that have appeared in reputable publications like Science, Nature, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences supporting the consensus position (to varying degrees, of course). On the link between human-produced C02 and warming: that link is naturally more difficult to establish than the warming itself and the increase in atmospheric C02 levels due to human activity, which are essentially just measurements. Contrary to your claim, though, there have been a great many peer-reviewed studies that support the link between human C02 emissions and warming. Look at the references in this randomly chosen (and obviously peer-reviewed) PNAS article from 2008: Solomon et al., "Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions". It's
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's true that humans don't produce a sizable fraction of the total C02 in the system, but that is a red herring in this context. Why? Because minus human emissions, the earth is in a state of dynamic equilibrium as it has been for millions of years. The additional forcing caused by the sudden increase in C02 levels due to human activity is like the 'wafer thin mint' in that Monte Python movie ("Meaning of Life", I think). I'm not sure about the relevance of previous cycles of global warming. There have been huge meteor impacts before, as well. Those that occurred in the past aren't the ones I'm worried about. The economic consequences of retooling our system to be more green could be hugely positive. There could be a bunch of new jobs building more fuel-efficient cars and cleaner factories, developing carbon-capture technologies, maybe building and running a nuclear power plant or three. We could get out from under OPEC, which could be a huge money-saver. We could scale back some of our extremely costly military activities in the Middle East. The economic impact could well be net positive. As for the 'AGW is a religion' claim: maybe it is for some people. Certainly there are some for whom opposition to the mainstream science is a religion. For me, it's more to do with these simple facts: 1. I am not a climate science expert and would therefore find it very difficult to evaluate many of the technical arguments made by the professionals 2. an overwhelming majority (around 90% of professional climatologists) of the professionals, in addition to every major scientific body in the world endorses the consensus view 3. I don't generally believe in vast conspiracies, particularly in science, where the practitioners are as independent as feral cats 4. I'm not willing to concede that reputable scientific publications such as Nature, Science, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences etc are either in on the conspiracy or incompetently publishing a bunch of 'junk science' (term borrowed from Philip Morris, but probably familiar at Exxon) 5. the 'denialists' have been unable to produce a single piece of research falsifying the mainstream view that could survive peer-review and be published in a reputable journal; since they are unable to falsify the theory through traditional means, they have resorted to setting up dodgy web-sites and founding 'journals' that look legitimate but aren't. That's not how honest scientists behave - it's how snake-oil salesmen behave, and I'm not looking to buy any snake oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to the role of CO2: The absorption spectrum of CO2 in the infrared range is no different from that of any other gas present in the earth's atmosphere. In order for CO2 with its tiny concentration of some 0.013%, against O2 with around 21% and N2 some 79%, to have that tremendous effect that IPCC-experts claim, you would have expected CO2 to be practically opaque in the infrared range, which it is not!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to the melting of arctic ice: Has the effect of soot dropped by the exhaust of engines of the numerous planes flying over the Artic on their journey between USA & EU been considered? That would cover the ice with a black, heat-absorbing layer of soot, that could go a long way towards explaining the increase of ice-melting there. OK, it is also Carbon and anthropogenic, but not CO2.
The palm trees in Canada were a joke, by the way. I realize I won't live long enough to see anything like that even if it were to come to pass, which I doubt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that oil has to go. New studies suggest that oil is going and will be gone within 50 years. Some are saying it will be gone in as little 20 years. This is indeed the time to go green. The problem finding another source of fuel that doesn't produce toxic waste. That's not going be easy. In fact, it is going to be damn hard. Nothing we have now is good enough. Everything we have put together is not good enough in it's current state.
It would be nice to stop using oil today. But it's impossible. The world as we know it would shut down. We need to make radical changes in the way we live. When I say radical I mean changing the way the world economy works. The way it is now is not sustainable.
We live in interesting times. The fact that: "May you live in interesting times" is a Chinese curse shouldn't be lost on anyone. They are going to get a lot more interesting.
That argument might carry more weight if absorption was the primary engine of heat transfer from CO2. However, the greatest contribution CO2 makes to warming is due to internal reflection. The sun's rays (which are a close approximation of black body radiation) are absorbed at certain wavelengths when passing through the various layers of our atmosphere, but a large amount of what passes through to the surface is in the infrared part of the spectrum. When infrared radiation strikes the surface of the planet (and it is important to recall that 70% of the planet's surface is water), much of it is reflected back toward space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is where the atmosphere (and particularly CO2) come into play. CO2 works to trap much of the reflected infrared radiation under the higher layers of our atmosphere, redispersing it throughout the system instead. To a degree, this phenomenon is the reason life exists on the planet at all. Without the greenhouse effect, our planet would be as barren as the moon, because all of the heat an area absorbed throughout its contact with solar rays would be totally released back into space when it passed over to the night side.
However, maintaining equilibrium requires a delicate balance of concentration among the gases in our atmosphere. This balance has been badly upset by the last hundred years of widespread industrial activity humanity has taken up. As a result, the greenhouse effect of CO2 has destabilized and is rapidly growing out of control.
Here's a little tidbit that most climate debators seem to be unaware of: the greenhouse effect was not discovered until we pointed radar and radio telescopes at Venus. As most of us should know, the temperature of the air at the surface of Venus is high enough to melt lead. Do you know what that atmosphere is composed of? Mostly CO2.
Just something to think about.
For a slightly less biased assessment of the condition of the arctic check out the current condition of the arctic sea ice:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php and:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
and long term temperatures:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Draw your own conclusions.
If you continue to publish and promote political positions such as AWG this will be my last subscription. (I have been with you for over 20 years but I prefer a less biased presentation.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's yet another take on this subject:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Arctic.htm
Slomofly...I agree with you. A major factor in our inability to find better alternatives is the grossly gross profits in the energy industry. Here in Western Colorado, they use the fracturing method to obtain natural gas. Our most precious resource, water, is pumped under high pressure deep into the earth to force the gas to escape. But with the improved methods of extraction, the price has fallen dramatically due to a glut. The don't have enough storage space to handle it all. But do our heating bills go down? Not a chance. The energy industry is very adept at controlling both the public and the politicians. This will continue, as you said, as long as fossil fuels rule the world economy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think my 11 year old will see some big changes in the world in her lifetime. I hope that I can give her enough wisdom (and wealth!!) to insulate her from the negative impacts.
The people who continue to argue against the mainstream scientific consensus are the ones guilty of religion-style dogmatism. They have not produced a single piece of legitimate science (i.e., that can survive peer-review and be published in a decent journal) and yet they continue to believe. What could this faith possibly be based upon? There are many studies on the anatomy of conspiracy theories that could probably shed some light on this question. Your QM analogy extremely misguided. Climate science is just classical physics. The 'interpretation' is obvious (I mean, what would be your 'interpretation' of the fact that the wind is blowing at 10 knots out of the north?) . QM deals with phenomena far-removed from ordinary human experience and that is why an 'interpretation' is necessary. Beyond that, though, do you 'believe' that the mathematics of QM is correct? Why? Have you ever calculated the wave function of a uranium atom? How do you even know that it can be done? Are you extrapolating based on the fact that you solved the hydrogen atom in high school? That would be bold. QM was clearly incomplete when it was created (for example, it couldn't handle the strong or weak nuclear forces). QM denialists would have claimed that the theory was rubbish because of this incompleteness (this reminds me that Einstein was a QM denialist until he was proven wrong, so maybe there is hope for climate science denialists). Even today, QM doesn't have anything to say about gravity. Should we trash it? Decidely not! Even though it will probably be superceded by a more comprehensive theory at some point, QM is the best we have now. The exact same thing could be said of GCMs. It's as foolish as it is easy to identify imperfections in a dominant scientific theory and claim that the theory is therefore garbage. This is especially true when you don't even have an alternative to offer, at least not an alternative that can pass scientific muster. If you're willing to dismiss mainstream climate science because it is incomplete and imperfect (and it clearly is), then you may as well go ahead and reject quantum mechanics, general relativity, evolution by natural selection, and so on ad infinitum, because the list of incomplete and imperfect scientific theories includes every scientific theory that has ever come along.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@prof1225:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent description of the process of theory formation in science. I certainly agree with you that scientific understanding is a type of belief, but it is definitely a qualitatively different sort of belief from that held by denialists. I don't believe that scientifically-minded people like yourself are innately less prone to errors in judgement that anyone else, though - only that the tools and standards that you apply in the process of acquiring belief are of an unusually high caliber. These tools and standards are among the most remarkable and valuable output products of modern science. I believe that they are unrivalled in their ability to enforce accuracy, clarity, rigor, and perspective in the thinking of those who are wise enough to apply them. Unfortunately, it's clear that the sentiment is not shared by the overwhelming majority of climate science deniers.
@slomofly:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm surprised to find that I agree with most of your points here, with only a few objections. First, scientists are hardly 'clueless' about what is going on with the climate. I'm not sure if you meant to imply that they are, which would be completely wrong, or if you just meant to imply that they didn't have a satisfactory understanding, which would at least be reasonable. I don't agree at all that we should wait until we are certain what will happen before we start to do some climatological risk-management. We will never be 'certain' what will happen - neither climatologists nor anyone else can predict the future. After all, all of this debate and energy could be rendered pointless by the emergence of some new viral strain that kills off 99% of the human population. That would be a huge black swan, but it (or something equally unpredictable) could happen. We still need to think like financial risk managers with regard to climate change, though. Yes, there are many possible trajectories the 'market' could follow, but we need to try to calculate the probabilities and the impacts associated with each. Climatologists have been running this Monte Carlo simulation for years, and they have concluded that we are exposed to considerable risk. What do you do in other areas of life when you are exposed to risk? You buy insurance. You don't buy auto insurance because you're certain that you're going to crash your car, but because 1. there is a non-zero probability that you will crash your car, and 2. the negative impact on your pocketbook or your health could be substantial. What denialists are attempting to do in many cases is argue that the risk is zero. That is a patently foolish position and is contradicted by a mountain of evidence. There can be a constructive debate about how big the risks are and what sorts of mitigating policies are appropriate given those risks, but the debate should be mature and serious. People who are willing to make the outrageous (and frankly, completely gone-around-the-bend whacko) claim that the mainstream science is nothing but a big conspiracy and that professional climate scientists are either fools or liars do not deserve to be a part of such an important discussion.
floyd: I think we do agree on many aspects of this. Science has pointed out a potential problem we are facing. I think that's the way it should be. I don't recall saying scientists are clueless and it's certainly not how I feel. My problem is with many so called "absolutes" that people seem only too happy to put faith in. I'm also against the idea of people who love science becoming dogmatic and closed to new ideas once they have latched on to a particular cause. It's something we all need to guard against.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm in favour of risk management even if we can't know what is really going on yet or how it will all play out. That's normal and wise. Oil needs to go just for the sake of air polution. What scares me is the idea of trying to get too invasive before we know what the consequences of that will be. By invasive I mean taking steps over and above reducing or eliminating our co2 emissions and green initiatives. It hasn't been mentioned here yet but have you've heard some of the plans the Obama people have been suggesting? I would really like to know a lot more about them before I give an opinion besides: Be very careful, it's the world we are playing with, not just America. We need to know so much more before we do anything drastic. We aren't good at climate control yet and won't be for a long time, if ever. Any talk of action on that front before we really know what is going on is dangerous in the extreme
What I don't really understand is why does chaos theory not apply to climate prediction? I thought that iterative functions, with complex feedback loops, subject to initial conditions were inherently unpredictable? Not that there aren't patterns, but that as we move from one pattern of "stable" weather to what ever comes next, will not come smoothly. If the Greenland ice core data are correct, we are in for quite a ride. Arguing about this model or that, or this fact or that just demonstrates the ignorance of the combatants (petrofiles). Why just not have a shouting match?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ChaosMan :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChaos definitely does play a role in climate, but it probably isn't as dominant when considering climate as when considering weather. I.e., chaotic effects matter a lot when you're looking at the atmosphere-ocean system on short time scales of days to weeks (weather), but are less important on much longer time scales of years (climate) since you're concerned more with long-term averages, which tend to smooth out the chaotic behavior. As you may have observed, the failure to distinguish between climate and weather causes a lot of people to be skeptical of the practice of climate modeling, in general, because they know how hard it is for the weatherman to predict what the temperature in Cleveland will be next Wednesday night. The simple fact that they need to grasp is that climate modeling is more concerned with questions like 'is the average January temperature in Cleveland likely to be lower than the average July temperature?', which the poor, maligned and misunderstood weatherman can generally deal with much more successfully.
Floyd, thanks for your comments to my post. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and by that measure I am a very dangerous man. I have a double baccalaureate in physics and biology and a masters in molecular genetics. I taught math for 20 years (including AP Calculus) and have recently metamorphosed into the science teacher(7 years ago) in a small rural school where I teach everything grades 7-12. I was a master teacher on an NSF grant with Purdue for 4 years working with delivering hands-on curriculum in nanotechnology. My CV does not matter, but if in fact I misunderstand, please set me straight or head me in the right direction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy knowledge of chaos theory is self-taught from the internet (Delaney et al). I did give a talk to the local Audubon Chapter ten years back on this very topic.
My question is this: I thought the primary component of chaotic behavior is due to its iterative nature and sensitivity to initial conditions and not directly dependent on the time scale of the phenomena. In particular I have interpreted/assumed that the Greenland ice core data strongly supported a chaotic interpretation of climate change. It is my "understanding " that planetary orbits also display chaotic characteristics and that the longer the time scale the less predictable the system becomes.
I have tried to follow some of the discussion on RealClimate.org with regard to climate change, but I'm obviously a babe in the woods. I don't mind trying to digest primary sources if you have something to recommend.
Any corrections or additions to my understanding will directly impact the students in my own classroom. Thanks for your time.
Bill Hunt aka Chaosman
Hi Bill,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGrades 7-12, huh? Talk about chaos theory :)! You must have nerves of tempered steel. I'm certainly not an expert in climatology (and so at least as dangerous as you, I'm sure), but the description of the role of chaos in climate modeling here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/ seems to be pretty good. Also, I think Devaney is as good an introduction to chaotic dynamics as there is. I'm a big fan of V.I. Arnold's books (Ordinary Differential Equations, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics), too. An interesting point made in the discussion at realclimate.org is that while some of the fundamental equations in climate modeling (for example, Navier-Stokes or suitable approximations) clearly contain nolinearities that can give rise to chaotic behavior, it doesn't seem to be important when dealing with actual numerical or instrumental data. So, I suppose it is sensible to say that, while in principle chaos could be important in climate prediction, the folks who have spent the most time with the data don't actually observe chaotic effects. In other words, long-term climate statistics don't seem to display extremely strong sensitivity on initial conditions. The important thing to remember, I think, is that you're interested in statistics (e.g. averages) - you're not trying to make a detailed plot of the systems's trajectory in phase space. To use your planetary orbit example, it would be like measuring the average distance of the earth from the sun over millions of years. Clearly, if you were to measure this distance every day, you would see substantial variation in that time-series, but if you take the measurement for every day for a couple of million years and average all of those measurements, you would presumably get a number that is close to 93 million miles. This is not to say that if you were to plot the exact trajectory of the earth-sun-moon system in phase-space that you wouldn't see some interesting, chaotic behavior, only that the sort of rough statistical information you're trying to get at isn't strongly affected by that chaos. Of course, if you were to perturb the earth-sun-moon system strongly enough (e.g., by placing Betelgeuse close to the sun), you would naturally knock the system out of its 'basin of attraction', which would result in very different long-term statistics. The extent to which perturbations (such as anthropogenic warming) to the earth's climate system could permanently alter climate statistics is not clear to me, but my sense is that the system is relatively stable to such perturbations in the long term. In the short term (which is what concerns homo sapiens), though, these perturbations could cause substantial difficulties, and that, I guess, is what all the fuss is about. Does that at all address your comments?
-Floyd
I don't care what the planet is like in 100 years, I won't be here. If the people of earth in 100 years want to live bad enough, they'll figure something out. All this global warming debate is doing is actually making things worse, it seems to polarize people on all the enviromental issues which need to be addressed because of our health and well being today, not some future generation which as I stated earlier, I frankly don't care about. We need to clean our air because we breath it, we need to keep our water clean because we drink it, we need safe food to eat now, not in 100 years. I think if we took care of the issues at hand, the ones that actually concern us and we as individuals can help change, then global warming will take care of itself and it won't matter who believes or doesn't believe in it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFloyd,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks your reply substantially answers my immediate questions, although I still not convinced that the Greenland ice core data is not chaotic. Is there anything you might suggest I read in that regard?
Thanks for the heads up on the RealClimate.org article.
I don't know about nerves of steel. I'm just lucky actually. I teach in a school with 50 kids grades 9-12, about one third Native American. At this point many of my students are children of former students. We do Science Bowl and generally try and have fun. I'm pretty much a free agent. My students are pretty good at thinking for themselves, so they keep me challenged. I figure we're all a work in progress. Thanks for helping with our progress.
Bill
"Oh come on! Is it silly season again for Climate Alarmists? Since when are climate models accurate enough to make predictions 4000 years into the future?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be refreshing if someday the pseduoskeptics would read the articles they comment on.
Hello Floyd,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Thanks your reply substantially answers my immediate questions, although I still not convinced that the Greenland ice core data is not chaotic. Is there anything you might suggest I read in that regard? "
You might want to consider that other proxies match the ice core record. The other proxies do not have the time span but, where they over lap they agree. Such proxies as dendrochronology, pollen analysis, corals, foraminifera are in rough agreement. Real Climate has been suggested to you and I have one more:
NASA Earth Observatory
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/
It may interest climate change deniers and creationists that the 'New Scientist' magazine has decided to submit all comments to refereeing, that is, to scientifically accepted and proven precedent. That is, such deniers will rightly be denied the possibility of commenting in the magazine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe First ammendment to the American constitution is of doubtful use. In England there is no free speech. (If you want to say anything that comes into your head, you may go and vent it off at Speaker's Corner, Hyde Park, which is carefully monitored). English people soon learn that anything they say may be taken down and used as evidence against them.
In France, the existence of attempted genocide by the Nazis has been proven in court without any shadow of a doubt. Therefore it is a criminal offence to deny their existence.
Both England and France foster and cherish free thought, but before you speak you must consider the truth of what you wish to say.
Free speech in America has led to such aberrations as the Klu Klux Klan, a terrorist organisation relying on the principals of racism which have been scientifically proven to be baseless.
If the Scientific American were to referee comments of readers, it would be a far more interesting publication with comments that stimulate scientific enquiry, not denialist propaganda of which there is already more than enough in other non-scientific media.
YetAnotherBob....good question! Trouble is with this sort of "consensus" of scientific opinion instead of rigorous scientific proof there is sure to be a group of scientists who come up with another silly explanation....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA simple hydrocarbon, gasoline equivalent is hexane with the formula C6H14
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2C6H14 + 19O2 = 12CO2 + 14H2O
A balanced chemical reaction, but what is needed is the fraction of C and that comes from determining the formula weight
12 x 6 + 14 x 1 = 86 g/mole
Fraction carbon = 72/86 = 0.837 of the gasoline or its 83.7% carbon or weight of 5.02 lbs.
Then from the formula weight of CO2, CO2 weight is 12 + 32 = 44 g mole, the chemical result is that 5.02 lbs of C produces 44/12 x 5.02 lbs of CO2 = 18.4 lbs of CO2 or 8.35 kilograms.
A simple hydrocarbon, gasoline equivalent is hexane with the formula C6H14
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2C6H14 + 19O2 = 12CO2 + 14H2O
A balanced chemical reaction, but what is needed is the fraction of C and that comes from determining the formula weight
12 x 6 + 14 x 1 = 86 g/mole
Fraction carbon = 72/86 = 0.837 of the gasoline or it’s 83.7% carbon or weight of 5.02 lbs.
Then from the formula weight of CO2, CO2 weight is 12 + 32 = 44 g mole, the chemical result is that 5.02 lbs of C produces 44/12 x 5.02 lbs of CO2 = 18.4 lbs of CO2 or 8.35 kilograms.
A simple hydrocarbon, gasoline equivalent is hexane with the formula C6H14
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2C6H14 + 19O2 = 12CO2 + 14H2O
A balanced chemical reaction, but what is needed is the fraction of C and that comes from determining the formula weight
12 x 6 + 14 x 1 = 86 g/mole
Fraction carbon = 72/86 = 0.837 of the gasoline or it’s 83.7% carbon or weight of 5.02 lbs.
Then from the formula weight of CO2, CO2 weight is 12 + 32 = 44 g mole, the chemical result is that 5.02 lbs of C produces 44/12 x 5.02 lbs of CO2 = 18.4 lbs of CO2 or 8.35 kilograms.
@Yetanother Bob,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If the climate is so much warmer today than in the past 4,000 years, how many crops can be grown in Greenland now, and why aren't there more farms on that very large patch of icy land?"
Google is your friend, Bob. A search of the phrase crops grown in Greenland give this result:
http://www.atlanticfarmer.com/article.php?id=1261
FTA:
Although potatoes have been produced for some time, climate change has created a 'growing window' during the summer months just long enough to allow the cultivation of vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage and carrots.
Does that answer your question, Bob?
I read the paper by Kaufman et al. where this work is reported. They found a two thousand year cooling trend terminated by a sudden warming that begins at the turn of the twentieth century and continues until today. This warming starts very abruptly and is strong enough to overcome two thousand years of cooling that preceded it. It is quite impossible for such a warming to be initiated by a sudden surge of greenhouse warming - laws of physics simply do not permit this. What is needed to explain it is a heat source that can be turned on just as suddenly as the warming appears. The record shows that the warming was briefly interrupted in mid-century which requires that the heat source, whatever it may be, must be capable of being turned on or off as well. Carbon dioxide, the sun and volcanoes do not meet these criteria, so what is left? It's actually simple: it can be nothing else but warm ocean currents that started to reach the arctic at that time. We know that the Gulf Stream today brings huge amounts of warm water to the arctic but what do we know of its history? While its name changes in the north, its flow is strong enough to pile up water along the coast from Skandinavia to Novaya Zemlya. Its warmth keeps the Russian arctic ports ice free and has melted away a third of the icecap that otherwise would exist in the arctic. Gulf Stream is actually the only way that warm water from the Atlantic can reach the arctic which makes it virtually certain that the start of the warming at the turn of the century coincides with the time that the Gulf Stream took up its present northerly course. In addition to the Gulf Stream a small amount of warm water enters from the Pacific side through the Bering Strait. It is enough to keep open the Chukchi Sea just north of it open but in 2007 that bubble of open water expanded and caused much ice loss while the Gulf Stream side of the ice front hardly changed. Which goes to show that all arctic warming today is caused by variations in the flow of warm ocean currents, not by a trace amount of carbon dioxide in the air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 degree warmer refers to the global average temperature. That actually translates to many degrees warmer for specific localities. It means that instead of it being 120 degrees in Phoenix in the summer, it will be 130 or 140 degrees. It also means that more polar ice will melt in the summer which in turn creates a cascading affect allowing more of the sun's energy to be trapped by a "darker" ocean (since ice is white and reflects heat). This, in turn, allows the global average temperature to go up even further. I'm sure you can deduce from here what that means for the entire planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaulty temperature records seem to be "climate science" now! A real average temperature relation can be obtained by using sea level measurements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate scientists have their thermodynamics mixed. For example, a steam engine that has more heat applied to its boiler has more water forming in its condenser. One of Earth's condensers is at the north pole. Since we are getting less ice at the nouth pole this means the Earth (the boiler) is cooling! We can blame ocean currents or airplane exhaust trails or smoke, but we cannot blame carbon dioxide.
Correct me if I am wrong, but everything that has brought us to this point is the direct result of "scientific" achievement. So now we are to believe that only science has the ability to fix what they have clearly broken so badly? To top it off you have individuals that want to ridicule others as "scientifically Illiterate" while continuing to deny sciences role in everything from atomic testing that rendered 7000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean irradiated, to the gas additive MTBE, designed to reduce air pollution only to become a water pollutant once it combines with other molecules and returns to the earth as precipitation. How illiterate do you have to be to be in total denial of the failures of science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience has its benefits, yet some of the conundrums it creates are nothing short of total ignorance backed by additional theories that have not been debunked yet because they cannot predict the long term effect of their present arrogance. So you dare not challenge them or they write you off as a half-wit, when clearly some of the most dim witted disasters in history that have been sent forth are the direct result of educated idiots carrying out insane experiments in the name of science. It is as if the world is their laboratory and the contents are theirs to do with as they see fit.
Why do they call it an experiment? Because until they test their theory they cannot predict the results. A theory is nothing more than a set of facts that will change as the variables change. Some variables cannot be for seen and some have unthinkable consequences. Does that stop the "mad" scientist from subjecting the rest of us to their arrogance? Hell no, upon failure they claim ignorance and go back to the lab and try again, "hoping" for a more favorable result next time.
What does science actually know beyond their loosely assembled current theory? We live on this planet, pollution is to blame and the future is questionable/unpredictable. Beyond that it is little more than their usual predictable speculation.