Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science

Page 13 of 14 [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

05 Jan 2011, 5:29 am

A group of lunatics?
*snerk*
Yes. Yes. We agree on this.



Wedge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 984
Location: Rendezvous Point

07 Jan 2011, 8:18 am

mcg wrote:
It makes sense that more CO2 could effectively make our planet a more efficient absorber of solar radiation, but don't higher temperatures also cause higher energy usage and CO2 output? I don't think anyone could deny the fact that there is a correlation between the two, but what evidence is there to show that higher CO2 levels cause higher temperatures?

Not trying to debate anything here, just genuinely curious.


There is this "proof" that I personally like. There are satellites that can measure how much energy is being emited by the Sun and how much energy Earth is radiating as heat to the space in order to cool. And also with these satellites we can measure how much of this energy is being trapped by the greenhouse gases. We can know that CO2 is trapping the heat because these satellites use a spectrometer. This device can distinguish what atom or molecule is emiting what type of electromagnetic radiation. And we know that in the CO2 bandwaves there is a decline in longwave infrared radiation (heat) going to space so that CO2 is keeping the Earth warm. Ground measurement stations came to the same conclusion.

Also scientists know that without an atmosphere Earth's temperature would be -18oC below freezing temperature.

This video is a little stupid but it explain that. (At 3 mim)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLYqzIhhT6o[/youtube]



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

07 Jan 2011, 3:21 pm

Wedge wrote:
mcg wrote:
It makes sense that more CO2 could effectively make our planet a more efficient absorber of solar radiation, but don't higher temperatures also cause higher energy usage and CO2 output? I don't think anyone could deny the fact that there is a correlation between the two, but what evidence is there to show that higher CO2 levels cause higher temperatures?

Not trying to debate anything here, just genuinely curious.


There is this "proof" that I personally like. There are satellites that can measure how much energy is being emited by the Sun and how much energy Earth is radiating as heat to the space in order to cool. And also with these satellites we can measure how much of this energy is being trapped by the greenhouse gases. We can know that CO2 is trapping the heat because these satellites use a spectrometer. This device can distinguish what atom or molecule is emiting what type of electromagnetic radiation. And we know that in the CO2 bandwaves there is a decline in longwave infrared radiation (heat) going to space so that CO2 is keeping the Earth warm. Ground measurement stations came to the same conclusion.


Some of the satelites up there are past due to be replaced though. Additionally, there is the issue about where the ground measurement stations placed their thermometers in locations where they would be exposed to waste heat from various mechanical devices or on blacktop.



Wedge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 984
Location: Rendezvous Point

07 Jan 2011, 5:28 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Some of the satelites up there are past due to be replaced though..

The first satellite was NASA's IRIS (Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer) satellite launched in 1970 that recorded data for 26 years. Its data was compared with Japanese Space Agency's IMG (Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse gases) satellite launched in 1996. They both found a drop in upward longwave radiation. That study was published in Nature. The data was later also compared with NASA's AIRS satellite ( Atmospheric Infrared Sounder) launched in 2002 ( http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/description/ ). The same work was extended with the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) on the AURA (latin word for brise) satellite that was launched in 2004. All them found a decline in upward infrared radiation.

Of course all these satellites which include state of art satellites (later ones) could all be wrong and you could be right. :roll:

Inuyasha wrote:
Additionally, there is the issue about where the ground measurement stations placed their thermometers in locations where they would be exposed to waste heat from various mechanical devices or on blacktop.


There is one study with the ground station that was done in Maniwaki, Quebec which is city with only 4,102 habitants. The downward radiative fluxes found for each gas were similar to the values found in climate models and these use data corrected for urban heat island effect. Other study was done at eight stations distributed over the central Alps where there is little population.



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

07 Jan 2011, 6:15 pm

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, not quite up for reading 25 or whatever pages of discussion.

Ocean acidification, in my opinion is in a worrying threat as far as climate science goes.

In a nutshell, the earth cannot absorb as much c02 as it used to be able to, thanks to all the man made emissions and the fact we are chopping down the trees which used to do such a great job at processing this c02. Now with all the extra c02 in the oceans, a chemical called carbonate is disappearing and organisms such as plankton and coral reefs rely on carbonate to form their shell like structures. Without either of those able to live, the rest of the marine eco system will collapse, because plankton is the base food of most marine life, and corals play a significant part as well.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfgbVjb688[/youtube]

@wedge, there is also another threat which is to do with heat trapping gases which are underneath the ice caps being released. These gases, if they start to be released from the melting ice caps, would create a self perpetuating problem if it started. Any ideas on the name of that issue? I was trying to find it the other day, but melting ice caps, trapped, underneath and melting turned up too many results in google to find it


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)


Kon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada

07 Jan 2011, 10:12 pm

This is the one of the best videos on global warming I've ever come across:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjfxEejS2Y



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Jan 2011, 10:58 pm

PatrickNeville wrote:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfgbVjb688[/youtube]

@wedge, there is also another threat which is to do with heat trapping gases which are underneath the ice caps being released. These gases, if they start to be released from the melting ice caps, would create a self perpetuating problem if it started. Any ideas on the name of that issue? I was trying to find it the other day, but melting ice caps, trapped, underneath and melting turned up too many results in google to find it


At last! Some decent science.

ruveyn



Kon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada

08 Jan 2011, 2:23 am

Some interesting stuff on this ocean acidification:

How do we know what ocean pH was in the past even though the pH scale was not introduced until 1909?

When ice sheets build up into glaciers, air bubbles become trapped in the freezing ice. Scientists have analyzed the CO2 concentration of air in these bubbles and have developed a record of the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the recent past. Because large parts of the surface ocean CO2 concentration remains roughly in equilibrium with the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the ocean CO2 content can be calculated from these air bubbles, and ocean pH can also be calculated. In fact, the ice core record shows that the atmospheric CO2 concentration has never been higher than about 280 ppm during the last 800,000 years, creating conditions leading to an average preindustrial surface ocean pH of ca. 8.2

How do we know what ocean pH was tens of millions of years ago?

To estimate physical or chemical parameters such as temperature or pH for periods before instruments were available, scientists use so-called proxy parameters or “proxies,” which are measurable parameters that can be related to desired but unobservable parameters. For instance, marine calcifying organisms incorporate many other elements into their hard shells and skeletons besides the calcium, carbon, and oxygen in calcium carbonate. When the hard parts of these organisms that are preserved in sediment are analyzed, the additional elements provide information about environmental conditions during the animal's lifetime. Historical ocean pH values and changes can be studied using the concentration of the element boron and the ratio of its stable isotopes (δ 10B and δ 11B) in marine carbonates. Additional geochemical evidence and modeling provide strong evidence that the average surface ocean pH has not been much lower than about 8.2 for millions of years.

In a paper published April 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of researchers led by a Stanford geologist said that as carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the oceans, it raised the acidity of seawater.The research team said it was a deadly combination - carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and higher acidity in the oceans - that eventually wiped out 90 percent of marine species and about three-quarters of land species, in a cataclysmic event 250 million years ago known as the "end-Permian extinction." Back then, the ocean teemed with corals, algae, clams and snails. Soon after, however, there was an abrupt change to a thick layer of bacteria and limestone, a "slime-world," dominated by bacteria.:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf
http://www.futurity.org/earth-environme ... r-present/



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

08 Jan 2011, 4:25 am

Kon wrote:
Some interesting stuff on this ocean acidification:

How do we know what ocean pH was in the past even though the pH scale was not introduced until 1909?

When ice sheets build up into glaciers, air bubbles become trapped in the freezing ice. Scientists have analyzed the CO2 concentration of air in these bubbles and have developed a record of the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the recent past. Because large parts of the surface ocean CO2 concentration remains roughly in equilibrium with the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the ocean CO2 content can be calculated from these air bubbles, and ocean pH can also be calculated. In fact, the ice core record shows that the atmospheric CO2 concentration has never been higher than about 280 ppm during the last 800,000 years, creating conditions leading to an average preindustrial surface ocean pH of ca. 8.2

How do we know what ocean pH was tens of millions of years ago?

To estimate physical or chemical parameters such as temperature or pH for periods before instruments were available, scientists use so-called proxy parameters or “proxies,” which are measurable parameters that can be related to desired but unobservable parameters. For instance, marine calcifying organisms incorporate many other elements into their hard shells and skeletons besides the calcium, carbon, and oxygen in calcium carbonate. When the hard parts of these organisms that are preserved in sediment are analyzed, the additional elements provide information about environmental conditions during the animal's lifetime. Historical ocean pH values and changes can be studied using the concentration of the element boron and the ratio of its stable isotopes (δ 10B and δ 11B) in marine carbonates. Additional geochemical evidence and modeling provide strong evidence that the average surface ocean pH has not been much lower than about 8.2 for millions of years.

In a paper published April 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of researchers led by a Stanford geologist said that as carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the oceans, it raised the acidity of seawater.The research team said it was a deadly combination - carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and higher acidity in the oceans - that eventually wiped out 90 percent of marine species and about three-quarters of land species, in a cataclysmic event 250 million years ago known as the "end-Permian extinction." Back then, the ocean teemed with corals, algae, clams and snails. Soon after, however, there was an abrupt change to a thick layer of bacteria and limestone, a "slime-world," dominated by bacteria.:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf
http://www.futurity.org/earth-environme ... r-present/


I am no scientist so I can't give you that good an answer, but as far as I am aware the coral reef samples are a good way of analysing what has happened in the past. Really difficult to say what happened 100s of millions of years ago.

For a general tool, check out this site (one which I should probably check out myself). It has a wide variety of climate topics covered.
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Jan 2011, 7:14 am

Kon wrote:
Some interesting stuff on this ocean acidification:

How do we know what ocean pH was in the past even though the pH scale was not introduced until 1909?



It can be estimated from the material found in the core drillings. Also the gas content of the drillings will give some estimate because the chemical reactions are known. This fellows lectures was based on solid chemistry. I am sure that the underlying laws of chemical reactions have not changed in the past billion years.

ruveyn



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

08 Jan 2011, 7:32 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kon wrote:
Some interesting stuff on this ocean acidification:

How do we know what ocean pH was in the past even though the pH scale was not introduced until 1909?



It can be estimated from the material found in the core drillings. Also the gas content of the drillings will give some estimate because the chemical reactions are known. This fellows lectures was based on solid chemistry. I am sure that the underlying laws of chemical reactions have not changed in the past billion years.

ruveyn


It can be estimated, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is accurate. There are a number of other variables that could have occurred which would explain the results. Why do you think scientists like to do experiments in laboratories, its cause there are external factors that may change the results otherwise.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

08 Jan 2011, 11:52 pm

@ PatrickNeville: You're probably thinking about the methane hydrates. They also occurr in the deep ocean, and yes we're going to be in seriously sad shape if they melt.

Incidentally, IIrc the formation of methane hydrates was part of what halted one of the first efforts to cap the Deep Water well that blew in the Gulf of Mexico.

Also, at all 3 of the previous posts: Kon answers the question he poses as well as just putting up the question.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Jan 2011, 6:27 am

Inuyasha wrote:

It can be estimated, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is accurate. There are a number of other variables that could have occurred which would explain the results. Why do you think scientists like to do experiments in laboratories, its cause there are external factors that may change the results otherwise.


Nowadays chemical analysis is accurate to a few parts in a billion. The technology has gotten to be very good. Core samples are the best way to find out what gases were in the atmosphere Way Back When. We don't have a time machine, but core samples and subatomic level chemical analysis are the next best thing.

ruveyn



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

09 Jan 2011, 7:34 am

LKL wrote:
@ PatrickNeville: You're probably thinking about the methane hydrates. They also occurr in the deep ocean, and yes we're going to be in seriously sad shape if they melt.

Incidentally, IIrc the formation of methane hydrates was part of what halted one of the first efforts to cap the Deep Water well that blew in the Gulf of Mexico.

Also, at all 3 of the previous posts: Kon answers the question he poses as well as just putting up the question.


aye i think that is the name of them,


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)