Earth day

Riley wrote: Jamin, nice chart, but I'm suspicious of the source. .

That is the exact data that dave and every other climate change denier is referring to when they quote 17 years of climate change hiatus. It isnt the winter that has those more reality based up in arms its hearing the same lies over and over and over every time it snows.

Josh, you can thank technology and government regulation for the affordability of your overpowered truck.
My 1965 Ford had a 427 that made 415hp and got about 8 mpg driving conservatively (if I ever did that).
My 76 or thereabouts GMC 454 got about 7 and my Ford 460 of about the same year got similar.
A new Ram 5.7 gets 17/22. And a 662 up Mustang Shelby GT500 gets 15/24.
More power, less $. What's not to like?

jbach wrote: nice chart. have you ever heard of the term, garbage in = garbage out?

Yes. Where is the "garbage in" in this case exactly?

jbach wrote: ...furthermore, this entire argument is a political *************** show...

If people are involved, things get political. Let's imagine that Earth were facing some other scientifically determined problem; say 95% of expert astronomers on the planet agreed that an asteroid were going to hit the planet in ten years time. The scientific problem would require a political solution (Do we blow it out of the sky with nukes? Do we push it out of the way with rockets? Do we ignore it and go on a bender for ten years?), but just because there would be a political show around dealing with it doesn't change the fact that it was happening.

The solution would clearly NOT be to ignore it. Climate Change/Global Warming is no different. The politics of it have nothing to do with the science of it. Zip. Unless of course politicians try to suppress or confuse the science, but it isn't like that ever happens...*cough cough*

jbach wrote: for every scientific "consensus" that exists, there are as many reports of manipulated, falsified data. why is that? your side owns every argument there is. hotter = man made climate change, cooler = man made climate change, more antarctic ice formation = man made climate change, less arctic ice formation = man made climate change. ok, you win. how about that. i don't believe you, with the information that is currently available, and you don't give a crap because your decision has been made, no matter how audacious it may be.

I'm not aware of "many" reports of manipulated or falsified data. Perhaps you can point us to some? In fact, I am not even aware of one. If you are suggesting the infamous "Climategate", according to Wikipedia, "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations."

The general tenets of Climate Change/Global Warming have yet to be refuted (more energy is being trapped on Planet Earth). The specific outcomes you mention are in fact consistent with what was known, or is becoming known, of how the immensely complex climate system of the planet operates.

I don't understand how accepting the consensus of 95% of the world's climate experts is deemed "audacious" while buying into the argument of the scientific fringe is not. Certainly it should be the other way around?

jbach wrote: oh, btw. kentucky's full. only kidding. i moved from fargo to western kentucky, seems like a lifetime ago. louisville is a great city.

Yeah, Louisville is nice. Hopefully we can meet up sometime once I get down there.

Cheers!

john b wrote: peter1234 wrote: Geee John we must live in different worlds funny but you were the first person i thought would shoot holes in what i said I wonder why i thought of that. We don't live in different worlds. We can enjoy many of the better things in life, ski boats included. i visit the other world frequently. It is not a place I would like to live. Have you spent time in public housing? How many people do you know living in public housing well enough to stop in for coffee and a visit? What data set or personal experience do you have that established these opinions? Maybe you knew I would respond because you know I have spent time there. Maybe it's just because you're a smart guy. I can't accurately answer for your insight.

John where in my response did i saw anything about anything beyond my experiences. when i mentioned different worlds i was taking about my work in low income properties v.s what you may have experienced in your section of the country. I would still (after another 7 hrs working in 4 units today completely stand behind my opinion of what i see day to day.

It was ash that was injected into the atmosphere. It is short term. It falls out of the atmosphere over time. Earosol? Really? If you said sulfur I might have listened.

Bakchose wrote: It was ash that was injected into the atmosphere. It is short term. It falls out of the atmosphere over time. Earosol? Really? If you said sulfur I might have listened.

Bakchose: educate yourself on terminology my friend.

aerosol, a term which refers to the particulate/air mixture, as opposed to the particulate matter alone.

More on this particular eruption:

The powerful eruption of such an enormous volume of lava and ash injected significant quantities of aerosols and dust into the stratosphere. Sulfur dioxide oxidized in the atmosphere to produce a haze of sulfuric acid droplets, which gradually spread throughout the stratosphere over the year following the eruption. The injection of aerosols into the stratosphere is thought to have been the largest since the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, with a total mass of SO2 of about 17,000,000 t (19,000,000 short tons) being injected—the largest volume ever recorded by modern instruments.

This very large stratospheric injection resulted in a reduction in the normal amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface by roughly 10% (see figure). This led to a decrease in northern hemisphere average temperatures of 0.5–0.6 °C (0.9–1.1 °F) and a global fall of about 0.4 °C (0.7 °F).[7][25] At the same time, the temperature in the stratosphere rose to several degrees higher than normal, due to absorption of radiation by the aerosol. The stratospheric cloud from the eruption persisted in the atmosphere for three years after the eruption.
Satellite measurements of ash and aerosol emissions from Mount Pinatubo.

The eruption had a significant effect on ozone levels in the atmosphere, causing a large increase in the destruction rate of ozone. Ozone levels at mid-latitudes reached their lowest recorded levels, while in the southern hemisphere winter of 1992, the ozone hole over Antarctica reached its largest ever size until then, with the fastest recorded ozone depletion rates. The eruption of Mount Hudson in Chile in August 1991 also contributed to southern hemisphere ozone destruction, with measurements showing a sharp decrease in ozone levels at the tropopause when the aerosol clouds from Pinatubo and Hudson arrived.

Will you listen now?

JP, thanks for engaging as always. I wish I could make it down to the SJRR to hang out with you and everybody else. Too much going on for me to do that this year.

JPASS wrote: What I love about graphs like this is that depending on how you scale them they look terrifying or completely benign. In this instance there was an increase in temps over the past 40+ years of only 9 tenths of a degree F. If we look at the last 16 years from the end of this graph, we see an increase in temps of roughly half a degree.

I knew it was a little dangerous to post that thing, but the point of it was to illustrate that you can cherry pick lots of dates along an obvious trend and claim that there is "no warming."

Thankfully we have data going back much farther than 40 years, like the one I posted six pages back of the average high for Minneapolis, MN from 1880-2012.



But of course, you can look at the entire world and see the same thing (from NASA).



Having the Earth's surface warm up by a little over 1 degree Celcius may not seem like much, but since much of the world's agriculture (just to name one example) relies on climate patterns that could be disrupted by such an increase, I'd say that is cause for some considerable concern.

JPASS wrote: ...While this is an increase overall, it certainly cannot be blamed primarily on humans. An interesting point I'd like to make is the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines back in 1991... While I don't deny the climate is changing, I do believe there are many factors both man made and natural that are the cause. Just food for thought.

I agree that there are natural forces at work that influence climate, but I think your volcano example is actually stronger evidence for the fact that people are causing climate change rather than against it. There are at least two reasons for this.

1) If we can figure out not only how much a single volcanic event cooled the planet but also how much material it spewed into the atmosphere, how that material acts to cool the planet, and how long those effects last, doesn't it stand to reason that climate scientists who study these sorts of things intensely can then factor them out?

Specifically, if you know that 17 millions tons of SO2 from Mt. Pinatubo cooled the planet half a degree for a year or two, then you can figure out how much past and current volcanoes probably had an effect on global temperatures and take that into account.

If you know your boat is running upstream into a river that flows 1 mph and your speedo reads 30, you know you are going 29 mph when compared to the land, right?

2) If you agree with me that 17 million tons of SO2 in few months can cool the planet by half a degree Celcius, why does it not also make sense to you that humans adding over 300 billion tons of carbon dioxide, a known greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere over a century or two wouldn't heat the planet up.

You acknowledge cause and effect when it suits you, but deny it when it does not. This makes no logical sense.

I expect that the next lines I will hear from someone is, "Well, but, we can't trust those data they've been manipulated!", "Where do those numbers come from anyway, like what do scientists know?", "CO2 is good for plants!" and other such denialist fallbacks.

Don't take it from me. Let's see again what NASA has to say about it (you know, that evil govt. agency that is a pawn of the UN). I am going to do the annoying thing and quote important segments of the NASA Earth Observatory website on global warming since I know many people will not be bothered to click a link and read it.

"Is Current Warming Natural?
In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming.

These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades. We know this because scientists closely monitor the natural and human activities that influence climate with a fleet of satellites and surface instruments."

"NASA satellites record a host of vital signs including atmospheric aerosols (particles from both natural sources and human activities, such as factories, fires, deserts, and erupting volcanoes), atmospheric gases (including greenhouse gases), energy radiated from Earth’s surface and the Sun, ocean surface temperature changes, global sea level, the extent of ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice, plant growth, rainfall, cloud structure, and more...

...Though people have had the largest impact on our climate since 1950, natural changes to Earth’s climate have also occurred in recent times. For example, two major volcanic eruptions, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991, pumped sulfur dioxide gas high into the atmosphere. The gas was converted into tiny particles that lingered for more than a year, reflecting sunlight and shading Earth’s surface. Temperatures across the globe dipped for two to three years."



"Although volcanoes are active around the world, and continue to emit carbon dioxide as they did in the past, the amount of carbon dioxide they release is extremely small compared to human emissions. On average, volcanoes emit between 130 and 230 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. By burning fossil fuels, people release in excess of 100 times more, about 26 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere every year (as of 2005). As a result, human activity overshadows any contribution volcanoes may have made to recent global warming."

There is another section on the sun, but it is more of the same, i.e. we know about the Sun and can factor it out.

I don't understand. Would you let a climate scientist who has never turned a wrench rebuild your engine? Why do you insist on acting like you are the expert in an arena where you clearly are not. Is it really so hard to believe that expert scientists may actually know what they are doing?

Somebody please explain this to me. As a research scientist myself I selfishly want to know why people who do not do research science think they know more about it than I do. This is a question at large because comments like Bret's concern me. In a time when we need science more than ever to help us navigate our way into a better future, why such skepticism?

JP, your evidence seems to be a lot more believable to me than anything else presented here so far.

Jamin, I'm sorry my comments concern you but maybe my comments are such because the people trying to sell me the goods aren't doing a good enough job. 1 degree Celsius in well over 100 years is hardly evidence to me that humans have directly caused global warming, and when the proponents of such get all over the TV and the media with their doom and gloom predictions showing ice sheets falling off of glaciers in the summer time of Antarctica and saying we're all gonna die do you think that makes me want to be a believer? No, it makes me think there's a bunch of snake oil salesman with alterior motives, ESPECIALLY since the government is now involved. Want to sell it better to the masses? Find a better approach that's more believable. I've still got that snake oil in my eyes clouding my vision apparently.

Hansel wrote: - "It is an uncomfortable truth, but all of the evidence we have suggests that the world is warming rapidly and humans are to blame so we are probably going to have to make some potentially painful collective changes in the short term to protect our mutual interests in the long term." Cheers

Jamin, here is my point. 1 degree in over 100 years hardly constitutes as "raplidly" for me. But alas that is just my opinion and I am not a scientist. But that is where my opinion on the matter is generated from.

Difference of opinion is what makes us human and not boring robots. I respect yours, you respect mine, and we can still all get along and be happy talking about boats and beers and the other stuff that's a little more fun to talk about. :)

john b wrote: I believe we have reached the tipping point on the cost / benefit analysis of solar. It is now economically prudent to replace traditional sources of power with rooftop solar arrays. It has taken a long time and some financial support in its infancy as most technology does, but stories like this are becoming commonplace. The energy savings are being used to hire additional workers. If only we had supported Solyndra long enough to have a large photovoltaic manufacturer here. Rooftop solar coming of age

I've always found the Solar Shingle to be a pretty cool idea. Not as unsightly as the larger solar devices I see mounted to roof tops.

Solar Shingle

john b wrote: I believe we have reached the tipping point on the cost / benefit analysis of solar.[/URL]

Yes, its tipping birds right out of the sky.
Horror at the world's largest solar farm days after it opens as it is revealed panels are SCORCHING birds that fly over them

If any other industry did this the greenies wood be all over them, but solar and wind are untouchable.

OverMyHead wrote: john b wrote: I believe we have reached the tipping point on the cost / benefit analysis of solar.[/URL] Yes, its tipping birds right out of the sky. Horror at the world's largest solar farm days after it opens as it is revealed panels are SCORCHING birds that fly over them If any other industry did this the greenies wood be all over them, but solar and wind are untouchable.

Yes, that could be a issue. There is one issue that could really sink the industry though
New solar risks

Not to mention the fines and jail time handed out to BP..

OverMyHead wrote: Not to mention the fines and jail time handed out to BP..

Maybe you should watch it.