Global Warming - Seems we needed this...

[train]

So - to start it off...

I believe it is happening - but I do not believe there is anything we can do in our current state of technology to prevent it.

I believe this is a cycle that the earth has gone through previously and will continue to cycle through.

For other planets - is Venus going through global cooling - or is it warming? There is no man there, and it would be curious to note.
- What about other planets?

Can/Should we really compare other planets

 

[EricBess]

I believe that there are cycles that the earth goes through, but I don't believe that anything man does or does not do has a significant impact on these cycles. I do believe we should be responsible and take care of the planet, but not because anything catastrophic is going to happen if we don't.

I also believe that the politicians have latched onto this because it is something that an opponent cannot speak out against without coming across as a heartless barbarian, regardless of where the facts lie. I further believe that certain politicians (Gore among others) have intentionally manipulated public understanding, fear, and empathy to maneuver themselves into a very sweet position of power and financial gain from that fearmongering.

It is interesting. I saw one video that claimed 4 boxes as follows:

...............If it is true.....If it is not true

If we do.................... |
nothing .................... |
..............------------ | ---------------
If we do ....................|
something ..................|

He argued first that no one is falible, so no matter what your stance, there is the possibility that you are wrong. The furture argued that based on "worst case scenario", regardless of what you believe, the absolute destruction of the planet is a case we cannot allow. So since you might be wrong, the only "logical" approach is to take action.

Ironically, he aknowledged that doing something could lead to economic collapse regardless of whether or not global warming were really a problem, so regardless of whether or not global warming really is a problem, he promoted economic collapse as a "lesser problem".

However, the thing I wondered about this was how he would respond to me using his same argument concerning religion...hm...

 

[Spiderman]

I don't get your box chart thing.

I believe it's happening, it's a cycle of the Earth, but in this case, it's being accelerated by the doings of mankind. Taking turgy22's number from the other thread, if the average temperature rose 0.8 C in the last century, in the past, it might have taken 1000 years before it rose that much. However, I don't think there were measuring instruments back then, so I guess we don't know.

We do know that the arctic/iceberg shelves are melting and breaking off more and more than previously recorded, animals are ranging farther in previously cold climates, and icecaps on mountaintops are disappearing earlier in the spring/summer. So something's happening.

 

[EricBess]

I don't get your box chart thing.

Basically, he drew this chart and then in each box, wrote what the worst case schenario would be. For example, if global warming wasn't true and we did nothing, then there would be no ill effects at all.

if the average temperature rose 0.8 C in the last century, in the past, it might have taken 1000 years before it rose that much. However, I don't think there were measuring instruments back then, so I guess we don't know.

Yes, that was the point of the big scandal with the emails recently. They were using tree rings to try to determine what happened historically since they didn't have the measuring equipment. The problem was that the current data from tree rings doesn't match the current collected data based on what the assumptions were about the tree rings. Rather than admit that their technique didn't work the way they were assuming, they hid the fact that the current data doesn't extrapolate.

None of that proved that global warming didn't exist, but it sure proved that they were willing to fabricate data to make it look like it did.

For all we know, the temperature rises we are seeing are perfectly normal.

We do know that the arctic/iceberg shelves are melting and breaking off more and more than previously recorded, animals are ranging farther in previously cold climates, and icecaps on mountaintops are disappearing earlier in the spring/summer. So something's happening.

Again, no evidence that what is happening is any different than what has happened in the past. Perhaps 500 years ago, the same thing happened, but nobody really noticed.

 

[turgy22]

Yeah, it's really hard to say. I mean, most scientists agree that the earth went through an ice age about 20,000 years ago. Obviously, that wasn't onset by any man-made causes (maybe fire?). Of course, if that happened again today, the scientific community would say it had to be caused by some man-made effect. Reading through various articles dealing with possible global warming effects, I sometimes get the impression that the researchers think that the present state of the world is just the way it's always been and is the way it always should be. Animal migration patterns changing, species going extinct, extreme weather patterns - all these things have always happened and will always continue to happen. How can we conclude which changes are man-made and which ones are natural?

On the other side of the coin, it's really hard for me to look at a cloud of smoke rising from a smokestack and say it isn't doing something bad to the environment. Similarly, oil doesn't spill naturally into the middle of an ocean, nor does rain become extremely acidic, nor do CFCs and countless other chemicals appear naturally in the world. All these things have some effect on the world (just like leaving your car running in your garage is going to have some effect on your house), and I think it's important to better understand that effect and minimize it, if possible.

 

[EricBess]

I think you have said it as well as anyone can turgy. I completely agree that we need to take care of our planet and limit the amount of polution, but I don't agree that there is some mad-made catastrophe brewing if we don't "act now" and I think that the bigger threat is in handing people power and authority because they have stirred up fear.

 

[Oversoul]

So - to start it off...

I believe it is happening - but I do not believe there is anything we can do in our current state of technology to prevent it.

And what leads you to believe this?

I believe this is a cycle that the earth has gone through previously and will continue to cycle through.

That's great, except beliefs don't change reality they correspond (or fail to correspond) to. I don't care what you believe. I care about what you know. Or, if you prefer, I could also phrase it that I don't care about what you believe, but I care about what you are justified in believing.

For other planets - is Venus going through global cooling - or is it warming? There is no man there, and it would be curious to note.
- What about other planets?

Can/Should we really compare other planets

Sure, but we have to account for the differences between them. There are a lot of variables that differ dramatically. Distance from the sun, rate of rotation, moons, atmospheric composition, etc.

Venus is an interesting one because it's more similar to Earth than the other planets in our system, but it's not completely analogous. One striking feature is that Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect, which has to do with its proximity to the sun and much stronger positive feedback loops in its atmosphere than have ever been present in Earth's. I don't think they have enough temperature samples to chart long-term variation for Venus, but I would think that it isn't cooling down (because of the runaway greenhouse effect).

I believe that there are cycles that the earth goes through, but I don't believe that anything man does or does not do has a significant impact on these cycles. I do believe we should be responsible and take care of the planet, but not because anything catastrophic is going to happen if we don't.

What leads you to believe that?

I also believe that the politicians have latched onto this because it is something that an opponent cannot speak out against without coming across as a heartless barbarian, regardless of where the facts lie. I further believe that certain politicians (Gore among others) have intentionally manipulated public understanding, fear, and empathy to maneuver themselves into a very sweet position of power and financial gain from that fearmongering.

1. Scare everyone with global warming.
2. ???
3. Profit!

No seriously, what does this mean? The money has to come from somewhere. Are you saying that they invest in "green" technologies/products and use fear to sell them? Eh, so what? I'm pretty sure that happens, but I don't really care. Doesn't really have anything to do with the climate. That's just politics.

It is interesting. I saw one video that claimed 4 boxes as follows:

...............If it is true.....If it is not true

If we do.................... |
nothing .................... |
..............------------ | ---------------
If we do ....................|
something ..................|

He argued first that no one is falible, so no matter what your stance, there is the possibility that you are wrong. The furture argued that based on "worst case scenario", regardless of what you believe, the absolute destruction of the planet is a case we cannot allow. So since you might be wrong, the only "logical" approach is to take action.

Ironically, he aknowledged that doing something could lead to economic collapse regardless of whether or not global warming were really a problem, so regardless of whether or not global warming really is a problem, he promoted economic collapse as a "lesser problem".

I'm not even sure what the data are supposed to be with this, so I can't really draw any conclusions based on this. Vaguely reminds me of Pascal's wager, though.

However, the thing I wondered about this was how he would respond to me using his same argument concerning religion...hm...

Okay seriously, I wrote the thing I wrote above before reading this part...I guess that means we're on the same page as far as that goes?

Again, no evidence that what is happening is any different than what has happened in the past. Perhaps 500 years ago, the same thing happened, but nobody really noticed.

What about ice cores?

 

[EricBess]

Oversoul - I'm not familiar with any research that is being done concerning ice cores.

As to the question "where is the money coming from", I would point to cap & trade. If Al Gore wants to make a movie and people are willing to pay to see it, then he is entitled to whatever people are willing to pay, regardless of whether or the research is accurate, inacurate, or just misleading. But Al Gore has invested a decent amount in creating a software package to be used in regulating cap and trade. If the cap and trade legislation passes, he (and others like him) will stand to make a fortune.

The money comes ultimately from the people in the form of increased electric, fuel, and gas bills.

I'm for moving in a direction where we take advantage of solar and wind power, but from what I understand, the technology has a long way to come before it is practical on a large scale. As for the government getting involved, there are plenty of independent investors out there who would love to make a killing in this industry. If the government is going to throw out big money for research, then shouldn't all taxpayers get to reap the financial gains once the technology is affordable? Unfortunately, government isn't set up like that.

For example, there were 2 recent bills in CA. One to use taxpayer money to research alternative fuels, and a second to force all gasoline in CA to contain the alternative fuels, even though they would have been more expensive and the same company getting the research funding would have reaped all of the benefits of that as well.

And yes, Oversoul, I think the whole thing is just politics, As long as I can remember, there has always been some pending catastrophe being used for political leverage and from what I've seen, none of the foretold disasters have actually come to be.

 

[turgy22]

EB makes a great point about how private companies are set up to profit from global warming. Just to share my experience:

My company is currently working to develop some alternative technologies to make fuel more efficient and produce less emissions. Everything we're doing is taking place on the combustion level, inside the engine, so it's pretty much as basic as you can get. Now, where we're perceiving having possible trouble is that currently, the government mandates that catalytic converters be installed on all new vehicles to reduce toxic emissions. While these are generally a great help to the environment, they may be a big problem and get in the way of other things that may be even more beneficial to the environment.

Now, I'm not an expert on catalytic converters, but I'm pretty sure they use a number of sensors to detect things like oxygen and CO levels in exhaust and then they use a process to convert the CO to CO2. Well, depending on the changes we make to the engine itself, the O2 levels may get seriously thrown out of whack, plus the overall emissions are going to be much less than expected, which messes up the expectations and functionality of the converter. The computer in the car then assumes it needs to inject more air into the engine or take other steps to ensure the converter is getting the expected numbers. The effect of this is then that the engine becomes overall less efficient and ends up burning more fuel and creating more waste than it would have otherwise.

The simple solution is remove the catalytic converters, use the new engine technology and get better results for both fuel economy and emissions. But, there are too many powerful companies that are making a ton of money creating and installing catalytic converters that they wouldn't allow the government to change their policies. So that puts us in a position where we need to design modifications that not only improve the overall performance of the engine, but do so in a way that is compatible with the current environmental mandates... even though this may not be the best or most efficient solution.

 

[Oversoul]

Oversoul - I'm not familiar with any research that is being done concerning ice cores.

And yes, Oversoul, I think the whole thing is just politics, As long as I can remember, there has always been some pending catastrophe being used for political leverage and from what I've seen, none of the foretold disasters have actually come to be.

So you're not familiar with the most important relevant scientific research, but you're still comfortable dismissing the whole thing as political? Don't you see a problem with this? The politicians could be even worse than you think they are. They could be as bad as possible. And that still wouldn't have any effect at all on the veracity of any model of anthropogenic global warming. None. Not even a little bit. Zero. Period.

Like Turgy, I definitely think you have a point about people trying to make money off of this, maybe even, as he says, a great point. But whenever anything this big is going on, some people try to make money off of it.

For example, there were 2 recent bills in CA. One to use taxpayer money to research alternative fuels, and a second to force all gasoline in CA to contain the alternative fuels, even though they would have been more expensive and the same company getting the research funding would have reaped all of the benefits of that as well.

I don't know anything about the bills in question, but just from what you've said, they don't necessarily have anything to do with global warming. They might, and there certainly are bills that pop up which do, so I think your overall point stands. But not all alternative fuels put less carbon dioxide into the air than conventional ones. And there are other benefits to alternative fuels that have nothing to do with global warming.

Oh, and as far as wind and solar and alternative fuels and all that stuff goes, I think at this point it's somewhat a matter of what looks or sounds cool rather than what will actually work best because we don't know very well. And personally, I'm a fan of photoelectrolysis. If it becomes efficient on a large scale, we'll have all the hydrogen we want. But more practically, I'd focus on nuclear power to supply the grid, as it's sort of already proven itself.

My company is currently working to develop some alternative technologies to make fuel more efficient and produce less emissions. Everything we're doing is taking place on the combustion level, inside the engine, so it's pretty much as basic as you can get. Now, where we're perceiving having possible trouble is that currently, the government mandates that catalytic converters be installed on all new vehicles to reduce toxic emissions. While these are generally a great help to the environment, they may be a big problem and get in the way of other things that may be even more beneficial to the environment.

Yeah, I have a friend who is somewhat anti-catalytic converter and said something along these lines. So far, I haven't seen examples of anything that could replace them. I mean, catalytic converters work really well. Have prototypes been presented that get better numbers? Granted there might be reluctance by companies to work on that problem what with the converters being mandatory and no guarantee that they wouldn't be once technologies are developed that render them obsolete, but it goes both ways. Why change the law if catalytic converters are still the best thing to prevent air pollution?

Now, I'm not an expert on catalytic converters, but I'm pretty sure they use a number of sensors to detect things like oxygen and CO levels in exhaust and then they use a process to convert the CO to CO2.

Hm. I'd think so. I mean, the book I read that explained how they worked and what they were made out of was published like 15 years ago, and I haven't read anything else that goes into that level of detail. A catalytic converter consists of a core and a coating, embedded in which are the catalysts themselves (bits of metals that have catalytic properties like platinum and others). But the ones they use now probably all come with a computerized control to manipulate the amount of oxygen going into the system.

Well, depending on the changes we make to the engine itself, the O2 levels may get seriously thrown out of whack, plus the overall emissions are going to be much less than expected, which messes up the expectations and functionality of the converter. The computer in the car then assumes it needs to inject more air into the engine or take other steps to ensure the converter is getting the expected numbers. The effect of this is then that the engine becomes overall less efficient and ends up burning more fuel and creating more waste than it would have otherwise.

Yes, but as far as I know, a catalytic converter is the only reliable method of reducing pollution by nitrogen oxides (which result in photochemical smog). There are worse things than burning a bit too much fuel...

 

[turgy22]

Well, if you read a book about catalytic converters, you know a hell of a lot more than I do about them. I wasn't really trying to steer this discussion towards their usefulness or disadvantages or anything like that. I was just trying to make the point that sometimes laws are in place that support existing products, even though those products may run counter to better products that come along in the future. And once those laws are in place, it's hard to dislodge them because of all the money and politics involved.

 

[Oversoul]

Well, if you read a book about catalytic converters, you know a hell of a lot more than I do about them. I wasn't really trying to steer this discussion towards their usefulness or disadvantages or anything like that. I was just trying to make the point that sometimes laws are in place that support existing products, even though those products may run counter to better products that come along in the future. And once those laws are in place, it's hard to dislodge them because of all the money and politics involved.

The book was about chemistry in general, but there was a section on catalytic converters. Again, it was from 1995 and a lot has changed since then. I get what you're saying though. Whether or not it applies much to catalytic converters (and I really have no idea), I'm sure that it is often the case that laws get in the way of something new that wasn't planned for.

And I would hope that if anything was found that could replace catalytic converters that doesn't require rare and expensive metals (I understand that there have been some attempts to make catalytic converters with cheaper metals but so far they haven't had the right combinations of reactions to adequately decrease the worst pollutants), the government would readily accommodate it, but that's probably a bit too optimistic, huh?

 

[EricBess]

Oversoul - Let's be clear. I never claimed that there wasn't anything to global warming. Perhaps man has done something to affect the environment and perhaps he hasn't, but I personally don't believe that current warming trends are anything more than a natural pattern. We talk of "science" as if scientists know what they are talking about, but so much of science in very speculative and there is plenty that we don't understand.

I looked up the ice cores and found this:

"The researchers, from 14 countries and led by the University of Copenhagen, are on a quest to recover ice formed 120,000 years ago, the last time our planet was in a period of warm climate such as the one many scientists think we are now entering."

Now, I don't know about you, but to me, this seems to be saying that perhaps there is a 120,000-year cycle here. But even the wording of this makes it clear that this is speculative.

Yes, science has uncovered all sorts of evidence about all sorts of things, but no one really knows for sure what the implications of all the evidence is or if it is even relevant.

So yes, I feel very comfortable arguing that the "global crisis" is strictly political, regardless of whether or not global warming is even an issue. I also am very clear to aknowledge that this is my opinion based on my own personal observations and that anyone is intitled to disagree with me and I don't disrespect them that right. All I am attempting to do here is share why I feel the way I do. And yes, I do feel very strongly about the matter because I think that we are dangerously close to loosing a lot of the freedoms and liberty that this country supposedly stands for.

BTW - the bills in question were being pushed as a response to global warming fear. The claim was that the "alternative fuel" (in this case ethanol) was cleaner burning than regular gasoline, which is true enough, but it turns out that creating ethonol is worse for the environment. Oh, the irony.

turgy - your example perfectly demonstrates my point. If you can produce an engine that does a better job without a catalytic converter and is better for the environment, then why not? If the problem is the nitrogen oxides, then bring that up as a problem and people can research that issue. But right now, someone is making a lot of money through a law requiring catalytic converters rather than requiring that nitrogen oxide levels be checked.

 

[train]

And what leads you to believe this?

We don't have a method of producing the pure masses of raw materials, food supplies, and energy needed to continue our current growth rate. If we had the technology, there would instead be a global "thermostat" that would be set so that when needed, global cooling would commence and re-stabilize the temperature. Periodically, we would change our special filter and all the CFCs would be emptied into outer space when cleaning it.

(concerning cycles)

Whether it is tree rings, or ice cores. Multiple Layers of the lithosphere tell their stories as well. We are all walking on a planet that has cycled through cold/hot periods. Our definition of time is relative to it's own existing definition... So who knows how long it has actually taken for the periods to occur...

(concerning other planets)

The atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Earth were originally quite similar. Of course, we are just now digging up more dirt on Mars, and with Venus being the closest cousin to us - if there were long term data for it - maybe it is an example of what we are to become, or maybe it is going through a cooling period, and will be more similar to our current state in a few million years... For Venus, due to the likely chance that most hydrogen escaped from the planet, there would need to be significant hydrogen reintroduced into the atmosphere for it to have a chance to become more like Earth - but it could happen. Of course, hydrogen would have to be the major component in the atmosphere to prevent it from escaping again and allow possible bonds with other elements/molecules...

Are you saying that they invest in "green" technologies/products and use fear to sell them?

Actually - I'm pretty sure that every single transaction involved in the R/D for green technologies and products, currently uses up raw materials and energy that we still have yet to efficiently replace. There are great concepts - but nothing solid. A cost/material/trade/economic analysis of a single product can yield a lot of "WTH" reactions...

(On Ice Cores)

Ice cores are a good way to view local aspects of climate, however, there are times where cores can be tainted, even from the same region. That is why the rule in using them is to verify/agree upon the assumptions for local areas. They are more accurate than tree rings or sediment layers. Depending on the assumptions, they are not much different than making behavioral assumptions on dinosaurs.
One problem with cores that hasn't been solved - how to get back to earth's beginnings. For man's timeline - the ice cores cover much. But for earth's timeline - they don't even cover 1% of the timeline - actually close to .0326% with a rough calculation...

@Turgy
- Maybe your company can focus on not alternative fuels, but a converter that doesn't just convert combustion by-products into less toxic substances, such as a catalytic converter - BUT rather one that tkaes the by-products and uses them as fuel for another process.
Simple model: Flame under pot of water - steam that is by-product is source of energy for turbine, etc.
- In a sense - you are making alternative fuels...
BMW recently previewed their engine that "cleans the ambient air" as well...

(California Bills)

the bills in california were looked at for the "green" reasons - money and environment. california is ramping up to do their part to prevent global warming - but they are doing nothing more than promoting industry at this time. Possibly look up the recent big-rig filter California was looking at that would kill one end of the economy and environment while spurring another end of each at the same time...

 

[Oversoul]

Oversoul - Let's be clear. I never claimed that there wasn't anything to global warming.

I know.

Perhaps man has done something to affect the environment and perhaps he hasn't, but I personally don't believe that current warming trends are anything more than a natural pattern.

But your belief on the matter might vary from utterly worthless to significantly relevant depending on the extent to which it is justified.

We talk of "science" as if scientists know what they are talking about, but so much of science in very speculative and there is plenty that we don't understand.

Well let's be getting to some specifics. Which particular details of the science on anthropogenic global warming do you find highly speculative?

I looked up the ice cores and found this:

"The researchers, from 14 countries and led by the University of Copenhagen, are on a quest to recover ice formed 120,000 years ago, the last time our planet was in a period of warm climate such as the one many scientists think we are now entering."

Now, I don't know about you, but to me, this seems to be saying that perhaps there is a 120,000-year cycle here. But even the wording of this makes it clear that this is speculative.

120,000 years is being given for how far they hope to be able to go back with this ice core once it's finished. I don't know if that figure is a minimum, maximum, average estimate, or what. But I'm guessing that's the fault of National Geographic and not the NEEM camp.

Speaking of this example, the article you got that from is talking about an ice core in Greenland. It's harder to get good ones there than in Antarctica, but nowadays they're managing to. One cool thing about this is that they can compare the ice cores in Antarctica to the ones in Greenland and to the other new ones that are popping up anywhere else in the world they can find where there's a decent amount of permanent ice. Science, when done right, is very self-critical wherever possible. That doesn't mean there's zero speculation, but it does mean that we understand when we are speculating and when we aren't.

Yes, science has uncovered all sorts of evidence about all sorts of things, but no one really knows for sure what the implications of all the evidence is or if it is even relevant.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here and apologies if I'm missing something, but it sure looks like...

I asked "What about ice cores?" You went to National Geographic (or somewhere else that led you to National Geographic) and searched for the term "ice core." You got one article, written for a general audience, about the NEEM drilling in Greenland. At least one paragraph of this article had some stuff that looked pretty speculative to you. From this (and nothing else besides it as far as I can tell), you conclude that no one really knows the implications of the evidence from ice cores. Do I have that about right?

We don't have a method of producing the pure masses of raw materials, food supplies, and energy needed to continue our current growth rate. If we had the technology, there would instead be a global "thermostat" that would be set so that when needed, global cooling would commence and re-stabilize the temperature. Periodically, we would change our special filter and all the CFCs would be emptied into outer space when cleaning it.

Uh, you lost me.

Whether it is tree rings, or ice cores. Multiple Layers of the lithosphere tell their stories as well. We are all walking on a planet that has cycled through cold/hot periods. Our definition of time is relative to it's own existing definition... So who knows how long it has actually taken for the periods to occur...

Well, I mean in some cases, it's possible to have a pretty good idea. I don't get where you're going with this...

The atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Earth were originally quite similar. Of course, we are just now digging up more dirt on Mars, and with Venus being the closest cousin to us - if there were long term data for it - maybe it is an example of what we are to become, or maybe it is going through a cooling period, and will be more similar to our current state in a few million years... For Venus, due to the likely chance that most hydrogen escaped from the planet, there would need to be significant hydrogen reintroduced into the atmosphere for it to have a chance to become more like Earth - but it could happen. Of course, hydrogen would have to be the major component in the atmosphere to prevent it from escaping again and allow possible bonds with other elements/molecules...

Huh? Yeah, you've definitely lost me. Some of this stuff you're saying is factually incorrect (you seem to think that Earth has a bunch of atmospheric hydrogen when in reality it has almost none). and some of it looks about right but mostly it just doesn't make any sense. And I mean, you were making some sense before and I think you usually make sense. Just not with this post...

So I don't really even know what to say here...

I will try to respond to the ice core stuff here though. As for the rest,

Ice cores are a good way to view local aspects of climate, however, there are times where cores can be tainted, even from the same region.

They compare cores from different regions. Problem solved. If something is wrong with a core because of some sort of contamination and it doesn't stand out as being wrong, it still gets noticed when the core fails to match up with other cores that should contain the same information.

That is why the rule in using them is to verify/agree upon the assumptions for local areas. They are more accurate than tree rings or sediment layers.

This is what I was getting at about science being self-critical. Scientists compare data not only between different ice cores, but also between ice cores and other evidence. Using deductive reasoning and proper methods, it is possible to assign some degree of confidence to measurements. And of course, the ones that we can be more confident of are the ones that are taken the most seriously.

Depending on the assumptions, they are not much different than making behavioral assumptions on dinosaurs.

But that can work too sometimes, although not as well. Still, anatomical features that are preserved in fossils correspond to functions that allowed the animals to survive and can teach us a great deal. And even better, there are some amazing fossil finds like the one where predator dinosaurs of different species fought over prey stuck in thick mud and were fossilized together. Crazy, I know. But much like a detective examining the scene of a crime, it is possible for a trained eye to get some idea of what happened. I'd say most conclusions about dinosaur behavior aren't nearly as well supported as atmospheric data gleaned from ice cores, but there's still a lot that can reasonably be concluded when it comes to dinosaur behavior.

One problem with cores that hasn't been solved - how to get back to earth's beginnings. For man's timeline - the ice cores cover much. But for earth's timeline - they don't even cover 1% of the timeline - actually close to .0326% with a rough calculation...

Not really a problem. I mean, yeah, it would be nice to know about the climate back then, but no one is trying to extrapolate ice core data to make conclusions about the climate millions of years ago or millions of years in the future. The extrapolation is about the near future, with data going back hundreds of thousands of years. Whatever the climate was like millions of years ago, knowing that isn't as relevant to the climate today as knowing what it was like more recently.

@Turgy
- Maybe your company can focus on not alternative fuels, but a converter that doesn't just convert combustion by-products into less toxic substances, such as a catalytic converter - BUT rather one that tkaes the by-products and uses them as fuel for another process.

That would be awesome, but would also be particularly difficult. I'm nothing resembling a fuel expert, but all the fuels I can think of work by undergoing combustion reactions, forming oxidized products and energy. The oxidized products can't then be used as fuel because they're, well, already oxidized. If Turgy's company figures out how to do this, I sure hope that they've been paying him in stock.

 

[train]

@Oversoul - I originally stated we don't have the technology to do anything about global warming as we understand the process today... You asked what led me to believe that...
So when I said

We don't have a method of producing the pure masses of raw materials, food supplies, and energy needed to continue our current growth rate. If we had the technology, there would instead be a global "thermostat" that would be set so that when needed, global cooling would commence and re-stabilize the temperature. Periodically, we would change our special filter and all the CFCs would be emptied into outer space when cleaning it.

I was emphasizing that we don't have energy/resource production methods viable to prevent global warming and using an example of some far-fetched AC system that could provide global cooling when we got too warm...

When I mentioned our definition of time was relative - we don't know how to really gauge the cycles that have occurred to make earth what it is today... or other planets for that matter. science does its best - but we are not at an omnipotent level and cannot state how long something should take to happen, whether it is normal or not, or even truly cyclical. But we seem to find things that point to global warming happened plenty before and so did global cooling...

Huh? Yeah, you've definitely lost me. Some of this stuff you're saying is factually incorrect (you seem to think that Earth has a bunch of atmospheric hydrogen when in reality it has almost none). and some of it looks about right but mostly it just doesn't make any sense. And I mean, you were making some sense before and I think you usually make sense. Just not with this post...

If you do some research on the outgassing of the earth's atmosphere as well as that of Venus, and Mars - originally, (and I guess it's hypothesized) the atmospheres were similar. they are not now - but were previously...

They compare cores from different regions. Problem solved. If something is wrong with a core because of some sort of contamination and it doesn't stand out as being wrong, it still gets noticed when the core fails to match up with other cores that should contain the same information.

It isn't just different regions to solve the problem as they can have particulates and gas that were injected in them from local as well as distant regions. Snow can travel thousands of miles while still in the atmosphere and land somewhere that would not be indicative of the area being studied. So even when checking various regions, though assumptions may be closer to correct, they are still just on the guessing side of the fence.

Not really a problem. I mean, yeah, it would be nice to know about the climate back then, but no one is trying to extrapolate ice core data to make conclusions about the climate millions of years ago or millions of years in the future. The extrapolation is about the near future, with data going back hundreds of thousands of years. Whatever the climate was like millions of years ago, knowing that isn't as relevant to the climate today as knowing what it was like more recently

But if the global warming has occurred hundreds of times, over billions of years - this would make a difference to how we view the cycle for global warming. If it never occurred, and it is only occurring now, then it would seem we have a definite problem. Otherwise, we just don't know. So only looking at a small fraction of the time, is as similar as comparing the increase in temperature over a hundred years, to the increase in temperature from yesterday to today.

I'll do some checking on the engine idea to see what Turgy can invent...

 

[EricBess]

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here and apologies if I'm missing something, but it sure looks like...

I asked "What about ice cores?" You went to National Geographic (or somewhere else that led you to National Geographic) and searched for the term "ice core." You got one article, written for a general audience, about the NEEM drilling in Greenland. At least one paragraph of this article had some stuff that looked pretty speculative to you. From this (and nothing else besides it as far as I can tell), you conclude that no one really knows the implications of the evidence from ice cores. Do I have that about right?

At one point in history, it was clear to everyone that the earth was the center of the solar system and the sun rotated around the earth. Someone questioned that and started saying that was incorrect and he got thrown into prison for heresy. Clearly, science has come a long way from then. Not only are we more open to ideas, but we are more careful to substantiate assumptions.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't still assumptions in science.

To be fair, the quote I used was from the first article I found, which I found by googling "Ice Cores", yes. Was it National Geographic? Honestly I'm not sure, but I'm fairly confident that I would have to spend hours digging through articles meant for the general public before I encountered one that was not written for a general audience. However, it is interesting to note that the next one I read also talked about cycles, but was saying that they were looking into a 300,000,000 year cycle.

But what I said had nothing to do with the fact that a comment looked speculative. What I said had to do with the fact that there is not a general consensus about the cause of the current earth's warming. BTW - I've read articles that show that while the earth is still warming, the rate at which is is warming is slowing.

Certainly, there is a lot of good information that can be extrapolated from a lot of different sources, but extrapolation by it's very nature is partially speculative. "We've seen this pattern here and this other pattern there, so this is what we expect to see here.". While certainly a lot of useful information can be gleened and as our methods and technology improve, the extrapolations become more accurate, but they are still extrapolations and without knowing all of the factors invoved, we cannot say with 100% certainty that we aren't missing some very important data.

Just like with anything scientific, you make some reasonably assertions, observe some data, form a theory, then test against as much data as you can to see if your theory makes sense. In the case of tree rings, the current observations didn't match the expected results, so they were forced to move in a different direction.

I do have a question about ice cores. What is the most recent data we have? In other words, what is our "control group"? And how do we compensate for the additional weight resting on the core and are we sure that we are compensating properly?

Again, I'm not saying that the research is irrelevant, just that from what I've read and seen, there is still a lot of disagreement among scientists over what conclusions can be drawn.

The only thing I'm saying here is that to take some conclusions that some scientists have drawn and turn it into a world-wide panic is premature. I suspect based on your comments that you agree with what I am ultimately saying, but want to make sure that I have given it sufficient thought.

 

[Oversoul]

@Oversoul - I originally stated we don't have the technology to do anything about global warming as we understand the process today... You asked what led me to believe that...
So when I said I was emphasizing that we don't have energy/resource production methods viable to prevent global warming and using an example of some far-fetched AC system that could provide global cooling when we got too warm...

Two things.

1. Even if this were true, it wouldn't really have any bearing on anthropogenicity. If it turns out to be the case that global warming is beyond our power to stop, that doesn't mean it wasn't partially caused by us.
2. I don't think it's the case that it's beyond our power to stop global warming. If carbon sequestration on a large enough scale becomes affordable, we could easily not only deal with the increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide aspect (which would seem to be enough), but do so while continuing to burn hydrocarbons to our heart's content. And then there are technologies like photoelectrolysis that might change everything some day if they are improved or ones like LFTR power plants that look like they might already be able to do so if implemented. And then there are more extreme measures like atmospheric engineering...

When I mentioned our definition of time was relative - we don't know how to really gauge the cycles that have occurred to make earth what it is today... or other planets for that matter. science does its best - but we are not at an omnipotent level and cannot state how long something should take to happen, whether it is normal or not, or even truly cyclical. But we seem to find things that point to global warming happened plenty before and so did global cooling...

This sounds almost deliberately obfuscating. There are some things that we really can know. Not everything in science is guesswork.

It isn't just different regions to solve the problem as they can have particulates and gas that were injected in them from local as well as distant regions. Snow can travel thousands of miles while still in the atmosphere and land somewhere that would not be indicative of the area being studied. So even when checking various regions, though assumptions may be closer to correct, they are still just on the guessing side of the fence.

But the only way this could affect the data without it being apparent to the chemists comparing the cores is for pixies to specifically target the sites where the ice cores will later be dug up. Otherwise if something is affecting those distant regions in the same way at the same time, it is, by definition, global.

But if the global warming has occurred hundreds of times, over billions of years - this would make a difference to how we view the cycle for global warming. If it never occurred, and it is only occurring now, then it would seem we have a definite problem. Otherwise, we just don't know. So only looking at a small fraction of the time, is as similar as comparing the increase in temperature over a hundred years, to the increase in temperature from yesterday to today.

But it's not just the temperatures over that time. That's what is so great about ice cores. They contain other information too...

 

[train]

I don't recall mentioning that it wasn't partially caused by us (and I believe it is occurring)... so that is an agreed upon point... My case was that we don't know the scale

2. I don't think it's the case that it's beyond our power to stop global warming. If carbon sequestration on a large enough scale becomes affordable, we could easily not only deal with the increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide aspect (which would seem to be enough), but do so while continuing to burn hydrocarbons to our heart's content. And then there are technologies like photoelectrolysis that might change everything some day if they are improved or ones like LFTR power plants that look like they might already be able to do so if implemented. And then there are more extreme measures like atmospheric engineering...

As I originally stated in the very first post... we don't currently have the methods... that doesn't mean they aren't possible or being R/D-ed at this time - but - we don't have them now... Even so, the current scale of the research doesn't match the exponential rate at which we consume the energy and materials... And we won't get to scaled implementation to match that rate before other issues potentially arise...

But the only way this could affect the data without it being apparent to the chemists comparing the cores is for pixies to specifically target the sites where the ice cores will later be dug up. Otherwise if something is affecting those distant regions in the same way at the same time, it is, by definition, global.

But it's not just the temperatures over that time. That's what is so great about ice cores. They contain other information too...

Right - and the pixies made sure that we had the select places from which to take core samples from in many places not near each other.

First of all- i believe that cores are possibly the best evidence samples we have at this time, but also note that there may be too many assumptions being made from them.

the cores are only indicative of what was in the air at the time the snow/water was falling. If any volcanic activity happened afterwards, it may not appear in a core sample if there was not enough precipitation to add this layer to the core at that time. And that's if the activity made it to the area the core is extracted from at all...

A train special - if we only took the US as an example - and we took a weather system that traversed the US in 3-4 days... along the western states we may see rainfall with cool air... from the western air we pick up particulates... across the central states the water in the air begins mixing with the particulates, but hasn't yet dropped it's load on the plains... it picks up a few more particulates and moves on... as the system reaches the Eastern US, the system finally drops the load with the particulates from the Western and Central US. This snowpacks - but can be tested and found to have the particulates that would indicate the area it has been found in is similar to the Western and Central US. In actuality, this area isn't anything like that in the Western US or central US - but it seems that way...

An even smaller area example is the smog in the LA area moving into other regions in Southern/Central California. The smog is not indicative of the areas themselves - rather an area a couple hundred miles away. However - this is not a global effect - regional only.

 

[Oversoul]

At one point in history, it was clear to everyone that the earth was the center of the solar system and the sun rotated around the earth.

Someone questioned that and started saying that was incorrect and he got thrown into prison for heresy. Clearly, science has come a long way from then. Not only are we more open to ideas, but we are more careful to substantiate assumptions.

I find this line really, really tired. I find it hard to address this in an agreeable manner. But none of that is your fault. So I'll just say that I take issue with the way you have framed this and the difference between the way in which the two of us frame this may be irreconcilable and make the rest of the discussion superfluous. If so, oh well. There are worse things. But I'll try.

I don't believe that your assessment of those events is accurate historically, scientifically, or philosophically. I want to avoid delving into my full take on philosophy of science because well, that would take a long time. But it seems reasonable enough to me to define science based on certain prominent characteristics, videlicet honest and open inquiry, a social framework that enables the generation of testable hypotheses and experimental designs that can address them, controls in experiments, a publication system that makes information gleaned from these things available, the ability of like-minded individuals to access and (where possible) replicate findings, and whatever cognitive or social prerequisites exist that might be necessary for the development of comprehensive and robust models (scientific theories).

But by now I'm probably boring everyone to death. So my point is that defined too strictly, science hasn't been around for all that long, as pretty much any time and place in history more than a few centuries ago would have been lacking one or more of the components that define science. And that's not how people understand the term. Nor is it etymologically what one might expect (if that matters). We'd certainly call Newton a scientist, right? And I think most people consider Aristotle to be a scientist. In fact, that's a very good example of what I'm trying to get at...

Aristotle is, in my experience, the most popular example of an ancient scientist. He's an icon. Now, I'm not saying that he wasn't a scientist, but he did, and perhaps you've heard of this, make a claim that Galileo (allegedly, but it doesn't really matter who did it) later demonstrated to be false (that if two objects are dropped off a tower, the heavier one will fall faster). Now, what's odd about this is that it's such a simple experiment (drop some stuff off a tower). Aristotle could easily have performed it himself. He didn't bother to. Didn't seem to cross his mind. And yet, I'll bet that if you ask young schoolchildren today about this question, even though they might not have heard of Galileo or Aristotle, some of the bright ones would suggest an experiment. I don't think this was because Aristotle was stupid. He must have been one of the smartest men of his time. Something was wrong and not so much with him as with the way he and his whole society framed these types of problems. The way I'd put it, he was a scientist, sure. But the science the ancient Greeks were doing was incomplete.

They called the scientific revolution by that name for a reason, after all. And of course one obvious concern arising from this is that the science we have now is also incomplete in that same sense. Fine. I think so myself. I have my own speculation as to where some of the incompleteness lies. But despite this, it's still unfair to say that because science or scientists had a completely wrong model in the past and "everyone" thought it was right, a model that science or scientists have now is also wrong (they were wrong before and they could just as easily be wrong now). For a couple of reasons, actually.

#1. From the explanation of I've laid out here (some of it perhaps unnecessarily), we seem to have a pretty good idea of why the ancient Greeks were wrong about the scientific claims that they got wrong. It's not that they were mysteriously, inexplicably wrong and that we might unknowingly have fallen into the same trap ourselves. We already know (or I think we can explain pretty well, anyway) what trap they fell into. We've corrected for it. That doesn't mean science if completely and utterly wrong about a whole lot of things now. At least, it doesn't mean that by itself. But if that's the case, it must be wrong for other, completely different reasons. We've already corrected for the flaws in the way the ancient Greeks and their scientific successors in later centuries operated (in large part because of the scientific revolution).

#2. This is somewhat tied to #1, but if it's your belief that a scientific theory is way off, the onus is on you to state what's wrong with it. Appealing to previous models having been way off in the past isn't good enough at all. Nothing ever gets done this way. Furthermore, to reject the best available science based on previous science having been wrong, no matter how wrong it was, is a bit silly. Let's say you were around in a time and place when the best available science pointed to a geocentric universe. The failure to find stellar parallax might have played a role. You were unable to refute the case for this geocentric model. And yet, you still insisted that it was wrong, on the basis of some previous model (perhaps in another area entirely) having been overturned as completely incorrect. Sure, in hindsight, you were right that those other guys were wrong. But your reason for holding this position was ridiculous. I would say that you were nuts. A crazy person.

#3. Also tied to the #1 and #2, but perhaps more important: practical applications. These are huge. It's easy enough to say that the geocentric model was wrong and everyone knows that now. But Ptolemy's model didn't succeed for so long just by chance. It worked. It made accurate predictions. To the level of resolution that was available and relevant back then, Ptolemy's model was right. Yeah, it seems wrong now. But now we've literally put people on the moon. We've sent spacecraft to the outer planets of the solar system. We can observe details about other galaxies, things that no one back then even knew existed. But if you wanted to address a problem that was within the scope of things Ptolemy's model dealt with, you technically could still use Ptolemy's model. The conclusion that some portion of global warming is anthropogenic is based directly on principles used in and relied on for other applications in multiple fields of science. And more often than you'd think, these applications necessarily mean that if the models being used were wrong, it would be obvious because the application would not work, as it relies on the accuracy (to some degree anyway, but that degree can be known) of the model.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't still assumptions in science.

Science, when done right, is very self-critical wherever possible. That doesn't mean there's zero speculation, but it does mean that we understand when we are speculating and when we aren't.

To be fair, the quote I used was from the first article I found, which I found by googling "Ice Cores", yes. Was it National Geographic? Honestly I'm not sure, but I'm fairly confident that I would have to spend hours digging through articles meant for the general public before I encountered one that was not written for a general audience.

Hours? It seems tautological that you'd never find such an article, the general public being roughly synonymous with a general audience. But my point was that you are making an unwarranted conclusion that something is highly speculative. I'm not saying that you should make a project of really researching ice cores and the way they work until you understand fully how the data from them is collected and analyzed and such. That would be quite a chore. But if you want to make the claim that ice cores are highly speculative, then yeah, I think you'd have to research that stuff in order to be justified in your claim. As for articles written for a general audience, for one thing, you're never getting the full picture. They're necessarily "dumbed down." Also, journalists in general are notoriously bad when it comes to reporting science. More importantly, quoting one paragraph from anything and going "looks speculative to me" isn't enough to dismiss a massive body of scientific research. I would think that this would be obvious.

However, it is interesting to note that the next one I read also talked about cycles, but was saying that they were looking into a 300,000,000 year cycle.

Three hundred million years? Ice cores? The EPICA core only goes back about 800,000 years. I can only assume that you misread whatever article this was or that the article itself is a load of crap.

But what I said had nothing to do with the fact that a comment looked speculative. What I said had to do with the fact that there is not a general consensus about the cause of the current earth's warming.

But there is.

Certainly, there is a lot of good information that can be extrapolated from a lot of different sources, but extrapolation by it's very nature is partially speculative. "We've seen this pattern here and this other pattern there, so this is what we expect to see here.". While certainly a lot of useful information can be gleened and as our methods and technology improve, the extrapolations become more accurate, but they are still extrapolations and without knowing all of the factors invoved, we cannot say with 100% certainty that we aren't missing some very important data.

Yes. I fully agree.

Just like with anything scientific, you make some reasonably assertions, observe some data, form a theory, then test against as much data as you can to see if your theory makes sense. In the case of tree rings, the current observations didn't match the expected results, so they were forced to move in a different direction.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Dendrochronology has made some pretty useful contributions to science.

I do have a question about ice cores. What is the most recent data we have? In other words, what is our "control group"? And how do we compensate for the additional weight resting on the core and are we sure that we are compensating properly?

I can't answer in a way that does these questions justice. They're good questions. It's just a time constraint. I knew this would be a long reply and I figured I'd just keep typing it until I finished Windows recovery on my new computer (everything that's happened after I bought this new laptop has been quite the saga...), but it's past 1 AM now and I'm still typing and the computer is still supposedly installing software. I have an exam that I'm not ready for and I need some sleep. I'll have to pick this up later. Sorry.

But as for the pressure issue, while I have read about it and while it's an interesting problem, I don't think I'm equipped to answer very well: it's a physics problem. The aspects I'm most comfortable with are the chemical ones, because I'm a (sort of) chemistry major who still isn't very good with anything beyond really simple physics, and that's something that I hope to remedy as soon as I can. So anyway, I'll try to answer that one, but I doubt my ability to do so adequately.

Again, I'm not saying that the research is irrelevant, just that from what I've read and seen, there is still a lot of disagreement among scientists over what conclusions can be drawn.

Yes. And this is pretty much universal in science. No matter how well-understood something is, the scientists who study it the most closely almost invariably seem to find some details to fight over.

The only thing I'm saying here is that to take some conclusions that some scientists have drawn and turn it into a world-wide panic is premature. I suspect based on your comments that you agree with what I am ultimately saying, but want to make sure that I have given it sufficient thought.

Yes, I do agree with that.

And in case it isn't clear, as this hasn't really been the focus of the discussion as I've seen it: worldwide panic is not my goal or desire. I find the reactions of many people, which I'm sure you have some idea about, to be totally silly and unproductive. It does seem that a portion of global warming is anthropogenic, but from that conclusion there are a great many possible responses. Most of the things I think we should do are also things I think we should already be doing even if it seemed that global warming isn't influenced by human activity at all. That strikes me as suspiciously fortuitous, but so far I haven't come up with any reason for that other than coincidence and the fact that bad habits often have more than just one consequence.

I would elaborate further, but this post is already too long and my computer finally finished its thing anyway, so I can go to bed now...