A Credible Global warming Scientist!

Status
Not open for further replies.
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #261  
I don't pretend to be a climate expert. I defer to those I feel are the experts just as I would if I had a medical issue.

The majority of accidents involve one or more passenger vehicles. (I'm guessing) I have observed many times when people in large 4WD vehicles were traveling considerable faster than conditions warrant. I've also seen them in the ditch. A coworker once told me how confident she felt in her SUV and didn't mind traveling in a snowstorm. (not a good combination) Overconfident drivers in large vehicles (or any vehicle) are dangerous. I had assumed (my mistake) that it was obvious that I was not excluding trucking. Clearly rail is a way more energy efficient way to move cargo. If true fuel costs where not hidden our methods would change.

Commercial Vehicles and traffic safety
http://www.truckinfo.net/trucking/stats.htm#Accident Stats
What are some accident statistics?
Estimates of 41,000 to 45,000 traffic deaths occur every year within the U.S.. Walkers and bikers account for 15% of the total traffic deaths each year. Fewer than 9% of those deaths involve commercial vehicles. More than 80% of those accidents are the fault of the non-commercial driver. Of those death related accidents only 4% of trucks are fatigue related. Drinking related accounted for .06% of those accidents.


I'm interested in the source of the pie chart. That is not a chart CO2 contributions or is it? The following speaks on the water vapor issue but separates that from the effect of other greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Role of water vapor

Main article: water vapor


Increasing water vapor in the stratosphere at Boulder, Colorado.
Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds.[9] However, the warming due to the greenhouse effect of cloud cover is, at least in part, mitigated by the change in the Earth's albedo. According to NASA, "The overall effect of all clouds together is that the Earth's surface is cooler than it would be if the atmosphere had no clouds." (cf. NASA Clouds and Radiation) Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. According to the Environmental Health Center of the National Safety Council, water vapor constitutes as much as 2% of the atmosphere.[32]
The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor.


Since about 1750 human activity has increased the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Measured atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are currently 100 ppmv higher than pre-industrial levels.[22] Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity,[23] but over periods longer than a few years natural sources are closely balanced by natural sinks such as weathering of continental rocks and photosynthesis of carbon compounds by plants and marine plankton. As a result of this balance, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide remained between 260 and 280 parts per million for the 10,000 years between the end of the last glacial maximum and the start of the industrial era.[24]
It is likely that anthropogenic warming, such as that due to elevated greenhouse gas levels, has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems. Warming is projected to affect various issues such as freshwater resources, industry, food and health.[25]
The main sources of greenhouse gases due to human activity are:
burning of fossil fuels and deforestation leading to higher carbon dioxide concentrations. Land use change (mainly deforestation in the tropics) account for up to one third of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions.[24]
livestock enteric fermentation and manure management,[26] paddy rice farming, land use and wetland changes, pipeline losses, and covered vented landfill emissions leading to higher methane atmospheric concentrations. Many of the newer style fully vented septic systems that enhance and target the fermentation process also are sources of atmospheric methane.
use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in refrigeration systems, and use of CFCs and halons in fire suppression systems and manufacturing processes.
agricultural activities, including the use of fertilizers, that lead to higher nitrous oxide (N2O) concentrations.
The seven sources of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion are (with percentage contributions for 2000?004):[27]
Solid fuels (e.g., coal): 35%
Liquid fuels (e.g., gasoline, fuel oil): 36%
Gaseous fuels (e.g., natural gas): 20%
Flaring gas industrially and at wells: <1%
Cement production: 3%
Non-fuel hydrocarbons: < 1%
The "international bunkers" of shipping and air transport not included in national inventories: 4%


Again it seems that the vast majority of scientists attribute part of the issue to human activity with fossil fuels. It seems unlikely that the burning of nearly 100 million barrels of oil per day has no consequences. (20 million for the US)

Loren
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #262  
Just by telling me your local temperature today indicates your lack of understanding of the concept of Global.

Actually, I've got the concept down, pretty good. However, if you want the dictionary definition:
globキal (glbl)
adj.
1. Having the shape of a globe; spherical.
2. Of, relating to, or involving the entire earth; worldwide: global war; global monetary policies.

You've got a little problem with "global warming". Since you're only sampling, "locally", when it's well below average at any particular location, it skews your "global" tally. That's why I mention the frosty temps in western PA in June. If "global warming" were truly "global", we wouldn't be experiencing "local" anomolies. Everywhere would be warmer. Even if it were only 1.2 or 1.4 degrees. It's not, though, and that's because "global warming" simply "isn't".

To state that a few emails negate all the science again indicates your narrow understanding.

One e-mail would be enough to negate all "global warming" "science"! It's not a matter of how many e-mails; it's a matter of what is contained within those e-mails. That may indicate your lack of understanding, and, quite possibly, duplicity.



List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The last two don't even deserve a rebuke. Pull your head out of the Kool-aid pitcher.
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #264  
Do you really believe that we would all be safer if we were driving smaller vehicles? Motorcycles? Ultra compact cars? I know I would feel safer in a larger car if I were to hit a tree or telephone pole at 50 mph or get hit by a dump truck.

You won't be able to pedal fast enough to reach 50 mph!
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #266  
I'm interested in the source of the pie chart. That is not a chart CO2 contributions or is it? The following speaks on the water vapor issue but separates that from the effect of other greenhouse gases.

Yes the role of water vapor is not well understood and often ignored or omitted.

The chart is showing greenhouse affect contributions, normalized to the 'strength' of co2.

Water vapor is a stronger 'green house gas' than methane, methane is stronger than CO2 etc. IIRC methane is 20 times 'stronger' than CO2 so if you release 1 ton of methane that has the same green house affect as releasing 20 tons of CO2.

The chart can be found here

Global temperature deviations vs. solar activity and increases in carbon dioxide

If you click "the data behind the numbers" it takes you here
Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
which talks about the role of water vapor etc.

This is complex stuff with many, many variables, which is why my skeptical side comes out when someone grabs one thing, waves it around and proclaims 'This is it! This is it!"
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #267  
Thanks for the reference
It seems that most scientists are concerned with the increase in CO2 and its effect.
global warming facts, causes of global warming, global climate change, global change, Victor Miguel Ponce
About 75% of the annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels.
The remaining 25% is attributed to anthropogenic changes in land use, which have the effect of reducing the net uptake of carbon dioxide.

IMHO-the safer you feel behind the wheel and the larger the vehicle you drive is directly related to tyhe danger that is posed to others. A driver who feels vulnerable on the highway is more likely to drive defensively. Note also that commercial vehicles are involve in about 9% of fatalities and about 80% of the time it was not their fault. Also an auto such as a Toyota Corolla which gets nearly 40mph is a far cry from the bicycle you mentioned.

Loren
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #268  
There would be no dump trucks "If there were only small fuel efficient vehicles". Actually less safety would be a good thing, that way we could get rid of more humans, thus less fossil fuel burning, thus less greenhouse gases, thus less global warming, thus less climate change ... it's all connected.

There would be no semis to bring food to market either. I bet there would be a lot of folks in the city that would be PO'd when they went down to their local grocery store and found it empty and no food to buy. Of course, under regs like that, farmers would have to give up their 300+ HP tractors too and use some little 19HP units to try to plow all the fields. Doesn't seem likely to me.

Conservation and efficiency are good things. However, anything taken to extremes becomes bad.

Although I don't agree with most of the theories of AGW, I do feel that we need to work toward decreasing polution and better energy conservation.

As far as closing the forests, I hate that idea, but I can look at the amount of trash laying around just on the side of the roads and see that many people just don't care where they throw their trash. As Washington is one of the leading states in pushing control over what people can and can't do, I have to laugh because our trash is just as bad as anywhere else and worst than others. The most interesting thing I have noticed in my travels, is that the more "old school" (larger vehicles, burn wood, etc.) the town, typically, the cleaner it is and the less crime there is.

I'm intentionally trying to stay away from terms of conservative and liberal here as I know that diferent people have diferent views as to what those mean. To me conservatives are those who want to keep things as they are or were and liberals are those pushing the conservation messages. However, I know people who say that is backwards and conservatives want to conserve everything and liberals are those who want to allow people to do anything they wish. Personally, I think a balance must be found somewhere in the middle.

My 2 cents worth. For what it's worth.

Cyril
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #270  
A quick review of the last few pages indicates folks on both sides are speaking of looking at the science. Anyone actually done that? The reviews posted by proponents on both sides are biased by the point of view of the reviewer. For a bit of fun, Google "climatology journals" and then see which of the many journals you can actually read. I did that from home last night, and before I went through my university connection I found I was rather limited in which journals I could access. Some let me see abstracts, and some the full text of articles. Because my employer subscribes to lots of journals, I can access them easily through my account. See what you can get to and actually "read the science".

Most of the articles I scanned through were not directly related to what we have been arguing about, except in the sense that everything is related to Global Warming if it is actually happening. I was trying to find articles which either supported or refuted GW claims, and in my brief survey, if warming was mentioned, it seemed to be assumed as fact, and the object of the article was often to modify or suggest modifications to models or calculations involved. This is not to say that there were no articles arguing against the assumptions of Global Warming as such, though none of the ones I looked at were couched in those terms.

Frankly, I don't find that surprising. The scientific literature is not exactly littered with articles titled "Those Idiots are full of Crud", though I have certainly heard colleagues say such things and even read e-mails that contained similar comments.

Anyway, if you want to "read the science", go to the articles and don't assume that any review of the work in the popular literature or news media is correct. I must admit that though I have some background in science and a bit of statistics, I'd be hard pressed to evaluate the quality of most of what I read on the subject. What does come through, however, is that there is a lot of very involved study being done on the climate. I have to hope, and I do believe, that the people reviewing that kind of published work are practicing the same kind of diligence I and my colleagues in my own area use in evaluating articles submitted for publication. I recently rejected three out of five articles I reviewed for various reasons, but only one was, so far as I could determine, simply wrong in the authors description of their results. The others had relatively minor problems which could be resolved.

Chuck
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #271  
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #272  
But an Indy 500 car only gets 1.8 mpg. Surely you don't suggest we drive these on the street? :rolleyes:

Of course it would be a blast, but no, I was pointing out that a 1600 lb. car can be built to protect the driver from some serious crashes. It's how the engineering is prioritized I guess.
Dave.
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #273  
This would be funny, if it was not maddening:

In the video on the bottom of the page they show sea ice shrinking from January to September 2008 - ice more often than not melts in summer, Einstein:mad:
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #274  
The chart can be found here

Global temperature deviations vs. solar activity and increases in carbon dioxide

If you click "the data behind the numbers" it takes you here
Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
which talks about the role of water vapor etc.

This is complex stuff with many, many variables, which is why my skeptical side comes out when someone grabs one thing, waves it around and proclaims 'This is it! This is it!"

Interesting that the source of the chart is "West Virginia Plant Fossils". Ya think the website might be just a tad pro-coal/fossil fuel burning? The website's author, Monte Heib, has worked as chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner Safety. He is not a climate scientist, which is why he has not published any scientific papers on the causes of global warming. Could Mr. Heib be saying of water vapor "This is it!" when in reality coal is it?
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #275  
He is not a climate scientist, which is why he has not published any scientific papers on the causes of global warming. Could Mr. Heib be saying of water vapor "This is it!" when in reality coal is it?

Possible but I have seen lots of other references regarding the role of water vapor and how it dwarfs the role of CO2. Water vapor is a green house gas but it also increases the albedo (sunlight reflectivity) of the Earth thus causing cooling. It's role does not seem to be well understood and, from what I have read, is often left out of climate models because of this.


There are lots of unknowns. Like the cooling trend from post-WWII to the 1970's. The theory is that the Clean Air Act of 1970/77 is the cause of the current post-1970's warming trend. Post WWII Industrial Revolution pumped lots and lots of pollution into the air resulting in a net cooling. The visible components of 'smog' are the ones that increase the Earths albedo. The invisible components are the ones that cause the green house effect. (Simplified but more or less correct). We focused on the visible parts, which allowed more heat to enter, but was trapped by the greenhouse component. Thus we now have a warming trend.

Another, less-mainstream, theory is that the above ground nuclear testing that occurred 1945 through the 1970's put sufficient enough material high enough in the atmosphere to cause cooling. Again by increasing the Earths albedo.

Are either correct? Was some natural force at work instead? Who knows? If you look at a graph like this:

url


It even makes the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age look statistically insignificant.... simply 'noise' on the temperature time line in the last 11,000 years.
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #276  
Good post Chuck52

Those who concluded (incorrectly) that I was advocating for no trucks or large tractors clearly avoided the possibility I described. (smaller, more fuel efficient passenger vehicles and the energy savings involved without a significant safety issue)


Loren
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #277  
Even though Mr. Heib is obviously a shill for the coal industry, it is interesting that water vapor is considered a "greenhouse gas" even by legitimate scientists. The 95% he references is probably an exaggeration but nevertheless the true percentage is definitely a major global warming factor. Does that mean human activity is an inconsequential factor? In my opinion and in the opinion of the legitimate scientific community the answer is no.

Union of Concerned Scientists summary:
"In the past few years, scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and whether it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it."

Links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus:
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #278  
Even though Mr. Heib is obviously a shill for the coal industry, it is interesting that water vapor is considered a "greenhouse gas" even by legitimate scientists. The 95% he references is probably an exaggeration but nevertheless the true percentage is definitely a major global warming factor. Does that mean human activity is an inconsequential factor? In my opinion and in the opinion of the legitimate scientific community the answer is no.

Union of Concerned Scientists summary:
"In the past few years, scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and whether it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it."

Links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus:
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

Of course humans are contributing to it. So are Elk. The question is to what degree and can we do anything to realistically stop it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of the use of fossel fuels, but price "is" a factor. If it wasn't, you would probably be driving on of these. Tesla Motors - Roadster Sport. I know I would.
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #279  
However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it."

Well it will be interesting to see what happens the next few years. El Nino just broke and may go to La Nina and the sun continues it's 'minimum'. Both are 'cold' events.
 
/ A Credible Global warming Scientist! #280  
Of course humans are contributing to it. So are Elk. The question is to what degree and can we do anything to realistically stop it.

degree = human 99%, Elk 1% (they don't drive)
do = reduce human and Elk populations
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Marketplace Items

UNUSED IRGC80 Battery Powered Golf cart (A55272)
UNUSED IRGC80...
iDrive TDS-2010H ProJack M2 Electric Trailer Dolly (A59228)
iDrive TDS-2010H...
3PT HAY SPEAR (A63291)
3PT HAY SPEAR (A63291)
2018 VOLVO VNL TANDEM AXLE DAY CAB (A59912)
2018 VOLVO VNL...
2021 TAKEUCHI TL12R2 SKID STEER (A64279)
2021 TAKEUCHI...
H&H 100 GALLON ALLY WAY SPRAYER (A63291)
H&H 100 GALLON...
 
Top