Global Warming

[Stormin Norman]

A Presentation of Global Warming
Stormin Norman Style

We have all heard stories of sea levels rising, icebergs the size of Rhode Island breaking off the main ice shelves, and glaciers melting causing devastating Laharres. In addition, many note droughts, shifting weather patterns, increased flooding and rising disease as direct effects of this phenomenon called global warming. Since kindergarten, many have been taught about this principle in little detail. The theory of global warming has reached the status of a doctrine or creed. Who would dare question an idea proposed by the top scientists of the day? Taken on faith by the majority of people who lack the scientific background to review the scientific literature, climate change is viewed as a factual occurrence. Simply look at the record highs reached this year alone in many locations, to obtain irrefutable evidence of this fact. Many years ago we were faced with the same situation when most of the population of the western world was convinced that the earth was flat. If someone were to tell them the earth is a sphere, they would have laughed in the face of the opposition. Certainly anyone alive can see this lack of critical thinking taking form again today, as it pertains to global warming.

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. If surface temperatures are actually increasing and CO(2) levels are increasing, one could deduce that the two have a cause and effect relationship. However, the scientific evidence for this is not entirely conclusive. As a matter of fact, there are many reasons to believe that the hypothesis of climate change being directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels is erroneous. In order to understand one of the most controversial issues of the day one must understand the theory, the physics, and the scientific method. A detailed look at the theory and problems with that theory must be considered before a person pledges an allegiance to such an idea. These issues will be the focus of this paper, as an investigation into the framework of the debate is thoroughly scrutinized. It will be necessary to lay out the actual theory and lay behind some myths attributed to global warming.

Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other hydrocarbons are at the heart of the issue, because they fuel our economy and remain byproducts of other process. Here is a site I hope familiarizes the reader with some of the main greenhouse gases and the levels produced.

Source:greenhousegases (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg00rpt/other_gases.html#hydro)

The reason greenhouse gases remain so controversial is largely due to the physics associated with certain types of molecules. All matter emits radiation at a level dependent upon its temperature and type of material, and is given by:

Radiation Law (applies to all objects in the universe, large or small, hot or cold)

R = eps*sig*(T^4)

Where

epsilon = emissivity of the object, and is a property of the material
epsilon = Ratio of R of object/R of black body
Sigma = Stephan Boltzman constant = 1.38x10^-23 J/K
T = temperature in Kelvin

The earth emits mainly infrared radiation. The source of this heat comes mainly from geothermal processes and the absorption and re-radiation of solar energy. The earth’s climate is due to a number of factors, the list is numerous and exceeds the topic of this paper. For our purposes we will discuss the temperature aspect. Let us consider the earth to be the system of interest, and the universe to be the surrounding environment. The process of heating the earth remains a continuous, transient process (depending on your view). The temperature variable depends on the amount of heat energy absorbed minus the heat energy released back into space. The earth’s atmosphere plays a crucial role in the regulation of heat loss to the surroundings. Overtime the flow-rates of the incoming radiation and output radiation reach some sort of equilibrium. This equilibrium is what allows for the temperatures conducive to life on this planet. The atmosphere can either reflect radiation back into space, or it can trap the radiation and prevent heat loss. Greenhouse gases are known to absorb radiation and because of their molecular properties radiate energy back towards the earth. The unique properties of the greenhouse gases remain the reason for concern over burning fossil fuels and the HVAC industries. However, due to the industrial implications both the left and the right have politicized the issue. Unfortunately, the science has suffered as a result.

Next, specific misconceptions about greenhouse gases must be shed for an objective look at the two sides of the issue. First of all, it was demonstrated that greenhouse gases are a necessity for life on earth. The reasons for this are listed above. Therefore, any idea that all greenhouse gases are bad should be thrown out. Water vapor and carbon dioxide, and methane are a fact of life, and would exist with or without human beings. Clearly, you can see how anyone calling for an all out ban on greenhouse gases is an idiot. Please don’t make the mistake of proving you are capable of a flat earth mentality.

Secondly, global warming or the majority of green house gases does not cause Ozone depletion. That is false. Chloro-fluorocarbons (CFC’s) have the ability to react with Ozone (0(3)). The chlorine can rapidly catalyze a reaction with oxygen gas being the major product. This phenomenon has been proven without a shadow of doubt. Ozone depletion results in a bombardment of ultra-violet rays, which are harmful to living organisms. This problem is entirely different than that of the global warming scenario, and should not be confused. With its discovery and acceptance, CFC’s were effectively banned from use and the ozone hole has demonstrated massive improvement. Yes CFC’s do exhibit greenhouse behavior, yet the concentration of CFC’s is too minute to make a real difference in the global warming issue.

Link to a site describing some ozone reactions:Ozone (http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/ozone/high.htm#Introduction)

With a descent discussion of global warming theory, the science behind the theory, and some of the fallacies that accompany its use, we can now look at the problems with the data and the results.

In March of 1994, Scientific America published an article related to errors that scientists were making when they gathered data for their hypothesis. Most of the errors were in regards to making accurate measurements. Since then the methods have become more reliable, but it does raise a question. It was during this time period that popularity for this theory really started to snowball. Given the amount of grants and funding going into this research did scientists overstate the problem in order to secure future funding? Did the liberal media use this as a way to spread an environmentalist agenda regardless of the lack of clear evidence?

Inaccuracies in ice core sampling with regard to tracking CO(2) emissions persist. It has been shown that CO(2) concentrations increase after the initial deposition of the ice sheet. However, other methods were developed and also show a similar, yet less drastic increase in CO(2) concentration in the atmosphere, post industrial revolution. One such method is stomatal frequency analysis of leaves buried in peat deposits. This approach is more precise than that of the ice core sampling. The evidence obtained from this method corresponds to variations in CO(2) concentrations during glacial-interglacial periods. Furthermore, it has been used to estimate levels during the Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene eras. Studies in the Netherlands have been conducted to investigate CO(2) emissions during the Late Glacial and Holocene periods. The results from these experiments have shown that High rises in CO(2) levels in less than a century have occurred, prior to the industrial revolution. These increases have occurred on the order of roughly 65 ppmv. A cooling occurred 300 years later and was substantiated by interpolating C-14 and O-18 fluctuations relative to one another. This occurrence is called the Preborial Oscillation. In addition, this method lines up closely with other methods of detection, mainly uranium-thorium and carbon-14 dating of coral reef. Not only does this data show a linkage between carbon emissions and global climate, but also it shows that this process has happened over time resulting from natural causes. The natural process has led to concentrations similar to those that persist today and those projected for the future. These natural processes have led to a natural cycle of temperature fluctuation and should be a consideration when discussing greenhouse emissions. It appears the earth has a mechanism for balancing concentration levels in the long term, which is good news for those who fear global warming marks the beginning of the end for humanity.

Source: Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene atmospheric CO(2) concentration
By: Wagner, Friedrike, et al

My greatest concern about the global warming theory is derived from the way such predictions are made. Currently, many proponents for the global warming theory claim that they have a model to predict future weather patterns. Anyone who has relied upon a local weather report to plan a day’s events should remain skeptical of such models. How can computer simulations, which fail to account for an infinite number of variables predict the climate 100 years out, when they can not even tell me with a large degree of certainty if it will rain tomorrow? Computer simulations have yet to be considered a good model by anyone, except for the people who are creating the software. It is widely accepted that such simulations are inaccurate in many other fields as well. Although the future of such devices seems promising, they currently lack the sophistication to be considered the final word on such matters.

In continuation, these models have predicted long term effects resulting from global warming. Most noted is prediction for a 4.5-6.0 degree Celsius rise in temperature resulting from a doubling of current concentrations. In addition, the same models have predicted an increase in atmospheric temperature. The Goddard Institute of Space Physics (GISS) has shown warming since 1979, where as, many other methods have not. Other methods of observation include satellite based Microwave Sounding Units (MSU’s), weather balloons, and sea level derived temperatures. The only method mentioned, which shows an increase since 1979, is the GISS. All others show very little change at all. Furthermore the atmospheric temperature has failed to increase as predicted by the computer models, providing further proof of the inaccuracies of computer simulations. It has been stated that the GISS model is more suited for the theory of the heat island effect than global warming.

Source:somedata (http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/)

There are countless reasons why the global warming theory should not be taken as a matter of faith. Problems with the working model remain the most notable. Failures in atmospheric temperature changes failure to materialize in reality is yet another. In addition to the problems with the simulations, clear evidence has been provided that suggest perturbations in climate have occurred naturally, independent of man’s devices. This suggests that nature has a coping mechanism to deal with high concentrations of CO(x) gases and hydrocarbons, which are known to be greenhouse gases that exist naturally. Finally, there is ample reason for scientists to overstate the problem, as this issue has been politicized and many scientific grants are issued to investigate the matter. For every scientist that claims global warming exists, another scientist can be produced who states global warming is a farce. Perhaps, people should wait until all the facts are in and the scientific community has reached a consensus before they pledge allegiance to one view or the other. That is, especially if they do not understand the issue and have failed to investigate the literature for themselves.

In conclusion, there are many others theories that offer a reason for a rise in global temperature. One such theory cites a correlation between the solar cycle and the fluctuations in surface temperature. This is surely a reasonable suggestion considering that most of the earth’s heat energy comes from the sun. Another theory claims that the earth’s core is a nuclear reactor and that there exists a relationship between the shifting of the magnetic polarity of the earth and previous climate changes. Whatever the answer, we should refuse to let science become the dogma that subjugates the masses like the religion of the Dark Ages. Every legitimate claim should have evidence to support its claim, but if further investigation rules that theory improbable that theory should be abandoned and replaced with a better explanation.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 7:12 am on Aug. 10, 2002)


(Edited by Stormin Norman at 9:19 pm on Aug. 11, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Excellent, Excellent post, SN, I can see you did a lot of research and anlysis. I appreciate it.

[vox]

I think that there may be a couple of glaring mistakes in SN's piece. For example, SN insists that the myth of the liberal media (http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html) is a reality, which hardly helps his credibility. By any standard, from the ratio of Republican to Democrats consulted by the media to the endorsement of presidents (overwhelmingly Republican), the myth just doesn't stand up to investigation.

Worse, though, was SN's obfuscation regarding weather and climate. He wrote, "How can computer simulations, which fail to account for an infinite number of variables predict the climate 100 years out, when they can not even tell me with a large degree of certainty if it will rain tomorrow?" After the intro to basic science SN gave, it's more than a little disingenuous for him to purposefully confuse weather with climate. I'm assuming here that SN wrote this himself (I haven't bothered to check) and if so, he surely must know that the two are not the same thing.

The right makes much of the fact that much science is conducted using grant money, and SN plays this card as well. However, isn't it also true that the scientists, though few they may be, who conduct research, or at least publish papers, that support SN's view (and again, this is a small number) receive grants? At some point one has to look at the science, which is what peer review is all about. Actually, now I'm wondering how much "science" from the right is actually published in peer reviewed journals and how much is simply issued from think tanks.

One thing that SN didn't bring up, though, is that the far right Bush administration has now recognized that global warming not only exists, but that human activity is a prime cause.

I urge anyone who read SN's piece to immediately follow it up by reading the FAQ from New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climatefaq.jsp) regarding global warming, which goes into more depth regarding the science.

Much of SN's argument seems to be of the "we just don't know" variety, so I find it odd that SN would suggest that solar cycles are an explanation, for, while this could certainly be a factor, very little seems to be know about how it affects the climate. On the other hand, we know quite a bit about the effects of carbon dioxide. This doesn't mean that we should stop researching solar cycles, of course, but we also shouldn't ignore what we already know.

The "nuclear core" theory is, as far as I know, not really accepted at the time and pushed only by Marvin Herndon. For those who wish to know more about, this page (http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa072102a.htm) has an overview and quite a few links. Regardless, it too fails to replace what we already know.

SN also overlooks what seems to be a synergistic effect in global warming. When the Larsen B ice shelf collapsed (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0319-01.htm), the National Snow and Ice Data Center pointed out that ice shelves "act as a buttress, or braking system, for glaciers. Further, the shelves keep warmer marine air at a distance from the glaciers; therefore, they moderate the amount of melting that occurs on the glaciers' surfaces.

"Once their ice shelves are removed, the glaciers increase in speed due to meltwater percolation and/or a reduction of braking forces, and they may begin to dump more ice into the ocean than they gather as snow in their catchments."

It should be noted here that the polar ice caps reflect a lot of radiation, but water stores heat, which adds another level to the problem of warming.

SN suggests that "nature" has a way of coping with increased carbon dioxide emissions. This actually sounds like a variation on the Gaia hypothesis. Of course, a major way that carbon dioxide is eliminated is through plant expiration. In light of this, destroying the rain forests seems to be even a worse idea than before. (Of coure, some say that nature will work this out, too. If man is causing the problem, what's the solution? Get rid of man. As Earth warms, the range for tropical diseases also spreads, and nothing kills as many as disease.)

Most disturbing about SN's piece, to me at least, is that he doesn't seem to realize the gravity of the situation. When the stakes are this high, wouldn't it be prudent to err on the side of caution?

vox

[Stormin Norman]

Vox,

1.) Considering the source, I will forget that you tell me to ignore my own perceptions that the liberal media exists. Anyone who is not so tainted with ideology would consider the mainstream TV media to have a liberal bias. Gun control this, anti-smoking that, CAFE standards over here, not withstanding campaign finance reform are only a few examples. Probably the biggest sign of left wing ideology can be witnessed by the blanket statement suggesting that corporate 'greed' is destroying our market system rather than socialists. Your example of presidential endorsements sounds a little weak. One must consider the stories these networks run constantly taking a liberal slant. No, Vox, maybe these aren’t hard line communists like you, but most sane people would concede that they are American liberals.

2.) Again Vox accuses me of lying by claiming that I purposely confused the terms weather and climate. Well, let me give the viewing audience the dictionary definitions of the terms and have them decide if I was so off base.

Weather - the atmospheric conditions (heat, cold, wetness, dryness, clearness, cloudiness, etc.)

Climate – the sum of the prevailing weather conditions of a place over a period of time

Source: New Webster’s Dictionary

However, I think that there are more important things to concentrate on. So, let’s not make a fuss over syntax. If you need help, I will further explain what the original statement meant. I made it clearly obvious that I was comparing meteorologist’s ability to predict short term weather patterns, with that of the environmental scientists use of computer models to predict long term climate changes. Most reasonable people will see the logic in my argument, especially if they are familiar with computer models. This must be one of those rare cases where Vox has jumped the gun and has proven himself wrong, in an obvious attempt to criticize the work of others.

3.) I thought I made it clear that the politicizing of the scientific arena was a tragedy. This is not a practice that I condone, but it remains a fact that the left uses the global warming theory to promote a specific agenda. Yes, many scientists on both sides of the political aisle get funding and grants. However, the widespread public acceptance of the global warming theory has made it particularly easy to discredit those who disagree. These dissenters are labeled scientific heretics. Any true scientist should always put politics aside in order to demonstrate honest results. Sadly enough, like many other fields, not all scientists abide by a good code of ethical conduct.

4.) Furthermore, Vox goes on to use President Bush as a source of scientific information. Last time I checked the scientific community does not take the word of the President of the United States as scientific fact. I find it hypocritical that you would use the words of a man you obviously disagree with as evidence against me. Isn’t it widely accepted amongst liberals that this president is a moron? Why should I believe that you think differently on this issue?

5.) New Scientist as opposed to what, the old scientist? If I had to choose a method, I would choose the old school over the new school of thought any day. The scientists of yesterday seem to be a bit craftier than many of those today. However, there are many young scientist who take the old school approach and favor the scientific method over computer simulations.

6.) Vox claims that I took the ”we just don’t know approach”. I admitted a correlation between climate change and greenhouse gases. The difference remains, I stated that natural processes have been known to cause such events and that the results seem less drastic than those proposed by global warming advocates. What we don’t know is whether the human effect will be significant enough to deviate from previous cycles, or if humans will even have an impact on this naturally occurring cycle. In addition, I said that the most popular model has been proven inaccurate in its projections for atmospheric temperature increases. When investigating such matters we seem to look at one variable at a time and have limited capability when providing models of such complex systems as the earth. Excuse me, am I wrong here, Vox?

7.) Are you saying that I am a fool for suggesting further study into other hypotheses? What seems foolish to me is the suggestion that Marum Herdon is wrong because he doesn’t have a huge percentage of the scientific community backing him, that heretic. I do believe there is substantial evidence to support the basis of his theory and it remains one of the best explanations describing the earth’s changing magnetic field. It took people awhile to warm up to Plate Tectonics as well. The theory of continental drift has is now the rule rather than the exception. I can only hope that someone who fails to understand that which is unpopular is not automatically wrong, will steer clear of the field of science.

8.) “It should be noted here that the polar ice caps reflect a lot of radiation, but water stores heat, which adds another level to the problem of warming.”

One of the interesting properties of water is the amount of energy required to heat it. This principle remains a fundamental reason why life is sustainable on our planet. In order to understand this phenomenon one must be familiar with thermodynamics.

The relationship between heat capacity of an object and heat energy can be described as follows:

Q = C(T_final-T_initial)

Where Q is the Heat Energy (J)
C is the Specific Heat (J/K)
del(T) is the Change in (K)

The specific heat of a unit mass can be stated similarly:

Q = cm(T_final-T_initial)

Where m is the mass (kg)
c is the specific heat of a unit
mass of material (J/kg*K)

In order to make the necessary calculations we will have to make a couple of assumptions:

For Salt Water the Specific Heat is 3900 (J/kg*K) – given by tables
The Average Depth of the Ocean is 3800m – from NOAA
The Mean Radius of the earth = 6.37x10^6m – known value
The Surface Area of a sphere = 4*pi*r^2
Density of any object is given by D = m/V
Density of Sea Water = 1.025*10^3 kg/m^3

Area = 5.1x10^14m^2 x 3800m = 1.94x10^18 m^3
Mass of sea water = 1.94x10^18m^3 x 1.025x10^3kg/m^3
= 2.00x10^21kg of sea water

Plugging this result into the Formula for Heat Energy gives

Q = 3900J/kg*K x 2.00x10^21kg x 1K
= 7.75x10^24 Joules of heat energy needed to raise the Temp. of water by 1 Kelvin

Now we must consider that the sun radiates 1000W/m^2 onto the earth:

24hr x 60min/hr x 60 s/min = 86400s in one day

86400s x 1000W/m^2 x 5.1x10^14m^2 = 4.41x10^22 Joules

Clearly the radiation from the sun is not enough to increase the temperature of the sea by 1K. That is even neglecting the cooling that occurs on the side of the earth not exposed to the sun. Therefore, according to my quick calculations, the idea that melting glaciers could somehow cause heating of the earth resulting from ocean heating doesn’t hold much water.

10.) Explain to me Vox, what exactly is the gravity of the situation. Nothing I have seen has led me to believe the theory that man is the sole cause of global warming, if in fact it is occurring at this time. I have seen plenty of evidence that suggests this movement is politically motivated.

11.) Vox then goes off on this rant. “Most disturbing about SN's piece, to me at least, is that he doesn't seem to realize the gravity of the situation. When the stakes are this high, wouldn't it be prudent to err on the side of caution?”

I found that line to be of particular interest, since it comes from a guy who claims to hold empirical evidence to be of the highest importance. Are you suggesting that we should through away the conditions for good science and error on the side of safety, regardless of the lack of conclusive scientific evidence? I think it is a good idea to bring this up since we are discussing a topic of scientific importance, and we are not simply tossing about assumptions based on a failed political candidate.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 9:38 pm on Aug. 11, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

James,

This was spawned by a question you posed with one of your asinine propaganda pictures. Do you wish to comment? I am interested in your feedback, since you wanted my opinion. What do you think of all this? I miss our conversations.

[kidicarus20]

" Anyone who is not so tainted with ideology would consider the mainstream TV media to have a liberal bias.:"

You're a Capitaist moron, anybody not a fascist would see that the media serves the corporations and is run by right-wing ideologues.

"Gun control this, anti-smoking that, CAFE standards over here, not withstanding campaign finance reform are only a few examples"

Acutally you're a moron, those policies are about 1/10th of what's on the media, probably less, most of the media is Elizibith smart and Chandra levy, it's entertainment, that's all.

One thing the media wont do is turn itself into hate radio like rush limbaugh or some kind of Libertarian bullshit.
People wouldn't watch, most americans aren't as braindead as you right-wing nutcases, they are braindead in the sense they are brainwashed and nothing gets reported, but they aren't ideologues.

"Probably the biggest sign of left wing ideology can be witnessed by the blanket statement suggesting that corporate 'greed' is destroying our market system rather than socialists."

It is a fact that complete self-interest is not only bad morals but bad ecnomics. Furthermore it is a fact that these cheats ruined the company and let all their workers lose their savings, capitalism failing again.

It has nothign to do with fucking socialists, we are closer to the gilded age now than we've ever been, you're a moron. 1930-1970, we had regulations on corporations and regulations on the rich, we had unions, etc.. the minimum wage peaked at 1970 (inflation adjusted), then it fail down when the terrorist ronald reagan came in.

Companies can do whatever they want, and that is the problem, there are no co-ops any more except in certain power companies where the "consumer owns it".

Even adam smith suggested that Rich control over everythign would lead to disaster, i dont have his exact quote but i could easily find it.

"One must consider the stories these networks run constantly taking a liberal slant."

We see it as a right-wing slant, entertainment to help brainwash the people so they dont know what's going on. The media was setup to act as a fourth branch of government to keep the others in check, that means investigative reporting.
during the 2000 election when George Stephanopolous or other so called liberals even tried to bring up positions that mattered (like health care bills) cookie roberts and other rihgt-wing lunatics would change the subject.


We dont have balanced debate either, the media is now masquerading as a source that provides debate, maybe they fill bad for hte destruction they have done over the past 20 years (which began when reagan deregulated them) so now they feel they have to talk about issues, the problem is they only have right wing morons like Christ matthews (a reagan democrat), Bill Oreilly (right wing whack job), Ann coluter, tucker carlson, robert novak (dumb fuck), etc...

The rest of them, peter jennings and brokaw, are simpley news commentators, they show the news and thats it, mos tof it isn't even.

As for your Global Warming positions it's just right-wing rhetoric. Scientists dont have any agenda, the Environmentalists simpley use the science to further their own agenda, not the other way around, LOl.

The rest is obviously copied and pasted from rush limbaugh.com or something.


(Edited by kidicarus20 at 9:07 pm on Aug. 11, 2002)

[Anonymous]

I am begning to be very anoyed by SM Math!!!