Comments on: Walrus Latest To Be Threatened By Warming

Sea Ice Melting Leaving Many Stranded On Land, Causing Stampedes, Woes For Other Species

[co2max]

continuing . . . The planetary greenhouse is not really like a greenhouse in the classic sense. The atmospheric barriers that hold heat near the ground and prevent ultraviolet rays from penetrating inward are not hardened protective layers. Instead, they are zones of interference and absorption. These layers are effective to a certain extent based upon their abundance in the atmosphere.
You hear about the ozone layer protecting us from UV rays, but it is not an impenetrable layer. We need some UV to get through, but not all of it. When the ozone layer is compromised, more UV gets through than is good for us and our fellow critters. The greenhouse gases which hold heat near the earth''s surface are not especially efficient. They work only to a specific small degree, but as their concentrations increase, their effectiveness at holding heat or blocking its path going outward increases. Carbon dioxide is only one of several greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful at holding heat in the atm, but it is much less abundant, but it is growing in concentration more rapidly than CO2.
These work in concert with other forces that keep our atmosphere warm and comfy for us. The other forces determine how much sunlight actually reach our planet, penetrate the atmosphere and heat the earth''s surface.

[co2max]

Gaye5 - I am a bit surprised that you have not grasped the principles involved in the planetary greenhouse. Here are the basics:
The solar irradiance reaches earth in the form of ultravoilet light and energy of varying wavelengths. It is the wavelengths which are particularly important here. The sun does not transmit warmth. Instead the radiant energy of the photons enters the earth''s atmosphere, and a portion of it reaches the surface of our planet. On the way to the ground, some of that radiant energy is reflected back or back-scattered to space by the earth''s magnetic field, high-altitude aerosols, clouds at varying levels and some of the reflectivity of the planetary surface.
Once the energy reaches the ground, water, ice on the earth, that energy is converted into infrared energy, which we feel as warmth. As the earth''s surface warms, we feel it that warmth because the earth re-readiates it outward in its new infrared portion of the spectrum. Think of it as a filter. If the energy falls to earth mainly in the form of pennies, and dimes and passes through slots only big enough to allow them to pass coming through, they cannot go back outward easily once they convert to quarters and nickels upon hitting the earth.

[co2max]

andor3 - The debate rages on about climate change and does so only because of the political power behind the global warming scare campaign. The basic, underlying plausibility that carbon dioxide accounts for the warming over the past 150 years is what keeps this topic alive. It shouldn''t be, but as long as the power elite in the world, especially that in the developing world which populate the majority of the U.N. councils (funded primarily by U.S. tax money), keep pushing their Stop America At All Costs agenda, it is necessary to respond against them. It is a pity that so many Americans get sucked into this updraft of scorn to rely upon faulty and twisted science to undermine the principles of the natural world and take pot shots at our culture.

[andor3]

hawksprings said: "THe whole premis of Human Caused Global Warming rests on ONE LITTLE guess: That more CO2 than is naturally created will cause run-away global warming."

If that is your understanding then you have no business commenting on this until you get someone to explain to you what it is we are discussing. Hint: that is not it.

[andor3]

jowand said: "There has been almost no serious public debate on the issue of the cause of global warming."

Science is not determined by public debate and popular opinion does not control scientific theories. Public debate would be stupid and pointless (reading the postings here confirms this theory).

jowand said: "...shooting his mouth off that the debate is over, there has been no debate."

There has been extensive debate. Some aspects of the debate are settled, for example the climate is changing and human activity is a primary cause.

[jimfinster]

Well, a final thought to all you deniers out there:

There is now broad consensus that warming is caused by CO2, as evidenced by position statements from virtually all reputable scientific organizations, most governmental agencies (as evidenced by Kyoto and Bali), and almost all research coming from the scientific community. Luckily the decision makers understand the importance and reality of this issue. Even the most bone-headed man in the Universe (George W Bush) has acknowledged this reality.

So, to you recalcitrant posters here, just understand that you are in a marginal and powerless position. This issue will go forward with or without you. I am sorry that you do not understand or believe the science involved, but it really does not matter.

[gaye5]

We are being told that the suns rays (solar radiation) penetrate the atmosphere and warms the planet but cant get out again, if the heat can get in why cant it get out?? and has it been proven that it cant escape earths atmosphere???.. surely if it can get in it can get out..
If it was like a blanket then surely the blanket would stop it from coming in..sounds like science is trying to make a one way ticket for solar radiation. Mother nature is a great balancer..
Wouldn''t it be the same as when you heat up water, at the beginning of the heating when the heat is not so hot, not much steam comes off the water, but as we turn up the heat more vapor comes off etc, so as the sun heats up the earth surely the radiation etc be more likely to escape the earths atmosphere..

[gaye5]

jowand I am very ignorant of computer models, but aren''t they only as good as what people put into them??? thus if half the data is left out, or bias data is included, then we don''t get the correct info..

and Hominatrix53 you are right I will include from where I get my articles next time... That is not to say that what I include here is correct or incorrect, I have always just tried to make people think for themselves by sometimes taking the opposite stance...but in this, I do not believe that we are the main cause of our temperatures being warmer and I do believe that we are going through a cycle, but in saying that I know that as our worlds cities grow that the miles/kms of concrete walls, roofs, pathways along with concrete roads etc must be having some effect on making temperatures hotter. Living in a city is a much hotter place than living on a farm in the same area.

[co2max]

Well, it''s been fun. Back to my reading. .. funny, you should have mentioned the effects of the Pinatubo eruption earlier. I''m reading about supervolcanos and their after-effects, with citations of Pinatubo as the modern-day analog of such events.

[hawksprings]

CO2Max speaks truth.
Read his post again.

Happy Festivus.

[co2max]

downstreamjim - Don''t know about the radioactive monkeys in the sky, but I''m quite sure this whole mess is having a serious effect on the musings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Pastafarians unite!

[co2max]

The carbon-dioxide spiking the planetary greenhouse theory is low-hanging fruit for the social engineers of the world. These radicals have been groping for generations to find some handle to grab onto that will allow them to present a plausible guilt-inflicting idea to the people that will seem convincing to the uneducated and intellectual immature of the world. In this way, they manage to offer a plea for help for the unborn children who may supposedly suffer because of our "greed and selfishness." It is such a propagandist load of garbage. Please wake up and look at the science and history of our world. Examine the millions of years that illustrate what this world is capable of. Then you will know that what we humans do is miniscule.

[downsteamjim]

What effect will it have on the number of radioactive monkeys falling from the sky?

[hawksprings]

Hominatrix,
THe whole premis of Human Caused Global Warming rests on ONE LITTLE guess: That more CO2 than is naturally created will cause run-away global warming.

When you stop and think about it, it''s really insane.
As complex as our climate is, we really don''t know and understang all the variables. THerefore our computer models are inferior guesses.

But we''re supposed to believe that this ONE component of the climate will cause run-away global warming, when it has NEVER BEEN PROVEN that increased CO2 levels increase the global temp.

Yet you would accuse us "Global warming deniers" of being too simplistic.

You people talk out of both sides of your mouth, depending on the point or fear you''re trying to create.

[co2max]

Gravity IS a theory, but it is an extremly reliable, repeatable theory to test and the results of such tests are easily observed. Gravity does get put to the extreme test at the singularity of the Big Bang or at the event horizon of a super-massive black hole. Gravity still appears to be constant in these extreme conditions but the theory of gravity has some rough edges that allow for the almost-law to have a few amendments tacked on as more evidence comes in. For our purposes, gravity might as well be considered a fact, a law, but we happen to wander toward the black hole at the center of our Milky Way, we may want to pay attention to the admendments to the theory and revise as needed.
Computer models are like baking a birthday cake in reverse. Take the finished product or look at the thing while it is is baking and conduct all sorts of experiments with random elements, with endless repeatability, until you find all the ingredients in just the right proportions that creates something similar to what you see.

hawksprings : http://www.climateprediction.net/science/strategy.php. "Every climate model has to make a number of approximations, called parameterisations. To read more about these, click here. Basically this means that there are numbers in the model which are given a certain, fixed value, but this value is not known for sure and a range of values could be equally realistic. The experiments will investigate the effect on the modelled climate of varying the value of 20 of the most poorly understood parameters in the model - such as the relationship between the number of raindrops in a cloud and how much it actually rains ..............." As I''ve said before, I''m not going to trade meaningless statistics with anyone here. Global climate is much too complicated for one statistic to have any meaning. I''m not a scientist, and I''m not going to pretend to be one. There is plenty of evidence out there if you really want to read it. Read it, or don''t. You won''t hurt my feelings either way.

Gravity is a scientific theory. An object might or might not fall, depending on where in the universe you are.

[jowand]

"The experiment is to try and produce a forecast of the climate in the 21st century" They''''ve drawn no conclusions.
Posted by Hominatrix53 at 09:11 PM : Dec 26, 2007

There is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth will probably warm over the coming century; climateprediction.net should, for the first time, tell us what is most likely to happen

This is a conclusion!
Posted by jowand at 09:14 PM : Dec 26, 2007

A broad concensus, a conclusion,they are basing there experiment on a broad consensus not even a real theory.
Again the real problem is there has been no valid public discourse on the subject on what is causing global warming. Global freezing in the 1970s gathered the same momentum the same way.
Have a great evening, got to go, I enjoyed the discussion and appreciate that you can post without using the 4 letter words and neanderthal speech.

[hawksprings]

Hominatrix,
What will your climate model prove?
What''s the point of it?

Oh, and would you please point me to the studies that PROVE that CO2 increases are what is causing the warming of the climate right now?
(I want to read some proof, not more consensus and conjecture and predictions.)

jowand: I''m running the climate model because I think this is the most important issue human civilization will ever face. And there''s nothing to be "sucked" into. It''s a screen saver that runs when I''m not using that computer.