The debate rages about global warming and the “greenhouse” effect, thought by most to be primarily the impact of GHG’s or “greenhouse gases” to maintain the temperature of the earth surface. The planet is in a warming trend. Almost all agree on this fact.
The cause regarding this warming however is the source of the debate.
CO2 levels are also increasing. So CO2 is considered by many now clearly the cause of the warming.
Most don’t understand the fundamental basic science and physics of the “greenhouse” effect and why the earth remains warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere and the oceans that moderate the impact of the sun’s energy on the earth’s surface.
Skeptics abound with various other theories regarding other factors that may be impacting surface temperatures, but the impact of agriculture generally and agricultural irrigation in particular is widely overlooked and even when considered is misunderstood; even by the very climate scientists providing the data to model the impact of increasing levels of CO2.
To understand the increased warming, first you must thoroughly understand the fundamental warming effect.
It’s not what you may think.
The most powerful impacting force for maintaining the relative temperature stability of the atmosphere is the phase transformation of water and water vapor. Tremendous amounts of solar energy are daily transformed to latent and later back to sensible heat.
CO2 and the other GHG’s are by far secondary considerations and the alterations of mankind to the hydrological cycle of the earth’s land masses are a far better explanation for the warming than any relatively minor changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
Agricultural irrigation on average adds nearly 12 cubic kilometers of water, in the form of water vapor to the atmosphere each and every day.
And this is just the tip of the agricultural climate impact iceberg.
If 12 cubic kilometers of water, in the form of water vapor doesn’t sound to you like it could possibly have an impact on the global climate, let me break it down a bit for you.
A single cubic kilometer of water contains a billion cubic meters of water.
That’s 500 million cubic meters of water/hour.
Just for agricultural irrigation, worldwide; but the vast majority of this water is diverted to the sky in the Northern Hemisphere.
Now, let’s do some basic physics. Temperature is a measure of the concentration of energy, or the average amount of motion per molecule.
Molecules in rapid motion have a higher temperature than those that are moving more slowly.
Adding heat to a substance makes the molecules move faster, and therefore increases the temperature. There is an exception to this, however.
At a certain temperature, specific to each kind of matter, additional heat will change the substance from a solid to a liquid, or from a liquid to a gas, without any increase in temperature.
In the case of water, adding heat to ice at 0 degrees Celsius produces water at 0 degrees Celsius. The heat is all used in freeing the molecules, and the molecules are not moving any faster as a result.
At 100 degrees Celsius, hot water can be changed into steam. It requires a lot of heat but the steam has the same temperature as the water from which it was formed.
It takes about 80 calories to melt a gram of ice, and about 540 calories to
evaporate or boil a gram of hot water.
We are talking about a tremendous amount of heat (energy).
Since the gram was defined as the mass of a cubic centimeter of water, water must by definition have a density of 1 gram per cubic centimeter. It actually varies a little with changes in temperature, but its density is exactly 1 somewhere around 3 or 4 Celsius degrees above freezing.
Now some quick math: 540 calories per gram or stated in joules per cubic centimeter of water would = 2,262.2 joules of solar energy to convert one cubic centimeter of irrigation water into water vapor.
So in terms of increasing the amount of captured power, and converting the rays of the sun into “heat” and efficiently placing this heat into the very lowest layers of the earth’s atmosphere; just how much of an improvement in the biosphere’s principal heating mechanism has agricultural irrigation made?
I realize this concept is somewhat confusing and have come up with an analogy that may help one better understand the “hypothesis.”
But first let’s get through the math.
How many watts of solar energy are converted to latent heat and stored in the earth’s atmosphere by the evapotranspiration of the water used for agricultural irrigation.
12 cubic kilometers per day. 500 million cubic meters of water per hour.
Since a watt = one joule per second, it is helpful to first establish the volume of water per second.
138,888,888.88888888888888888888889 cubic meters of water per second.
To lend some scale to this tremendous volume of water; only one river on earth moves more water. The quantity of fresh water released by the Amazon to the Atlantic Ocean is enormous: up to 300,000 cubic meters per second in the rainy season.
But only during the rainy season. Humans divert from the sea or pump from underground aquifers more water and redirect it to the sky than the average output of any single river on earth empties into the sea.
Next we figure how much energy it takes to convert this additional water to water vapor. Each gram of water requires approximately 2,262.6 joules of energy to make the phase change from water to water vapor.
There are 1 million cubic centimeters in a cubic meter. Now you’ll see why I saved all the 8’s from the previous calculation. We can simply slide the decimal point six places to the right to calculate the number of cubic centimeters of water per second.
138,888,888,888,888.88888888888888889 to arrive at the number of cubic centimeters of water per second. Next we multiply the energy in joules to vaporize this water.
138,888,888,888,888.88888888888888889×2,262.6 = get ready for this.
314,250,000,000,000,000 watts. 314.25 terawatts.
314.25 TWt
The small t is for thermal.
Now to put this tremendous volume of heat energy into perspective.
Gretchen C. Daily University of California (Berkeley) Anne H. Ehrlich and Paul R. Ehrlich Stanford University (July 1994)
Over a decade ago world energy use amounted to about 13 terawatts, about 70% of which is being used to support somewhat over a billion people in rich countries and 30% to support more than four billion people in developing countries.
Those figures are somewhat dated, so let’s just round off current global energy production from all nuclear, coal, oil and gas at 15 terawatts.
That’s ballpark.
The increase in “stealth” heat added to the atmosphere by the introduction of water to crops that wouldn’t otherwise be available to them contains roughly 21 times the power that is currently produced by mankind globally.
This isn’t anywhere near the total impact of how agriculture and agricultural irrigation change how the biosphere converts the rays of the sun to heat.
But it does give one an idea of the scale of the issue.
Imagine every nuclear power plant, barrel of oil produced, all the natural gas and propane and the coal mined all burned to create just steam that would be released directly to the atmosphere.
Now multiply that X21
Then you must consider that for days or even weeks afterward this additional water vapor being produced is going to absorb additional infrared energy, further heating the earth’s lower atmosphere and underlying surface; be it land, open seas, snow or ice.
The latent (stealth) heat added to the atmosphere in just one cubic meter of water that has been turned to vapor of the same temperature, holds sufficient energy to melt 7 cubic meters of solid ice.
Peace,
RELATED ITEMS
- A Global Warming Primer
Posted by Snark on Saturday, April 16th 2005
RECENT COMMENTS
Since 1950 agricultural production has more than doubled. 20% of the world’s cropland is now irrigated producing 40% of the world’s food.
The impact of agricultural irrigation alone has increased the amount of latent heat captured in the atmosphere by .3 PW or approximately .8% of the natural cycle.
While this is only a percentage of the water vapor that is produced by agriculture it is easily understood that this latent heat would not have been captured in the atmosphere without mankind’s intervention because the water would not have been moved to these vast tracts of farmland.
The impact of this additional water is magnified time and again as it precipitates down on the land masses to repeat the cycle, whether by cropland or naturally occuring vegetation.
It is certainly more plausible to attribute a 2% increase in the greenhouse effect being the result of the verifiable increase in the amount of solar energy being converted to latent heat in the form of water vapor, than it is to attribute the warming to an increase in atmospheric CO2 from .0320% of the atmosphere in 1950 to .0380% of the atmosphere today.
My understanding is that through the water cycle and cloud formation that this heat is used up going backward through the same process you just described.
In addition most water vapor is from the evaportion of the oceans. I do not think that the average vapor density of the atm has increased in a fashion that can be attributed to human activity. Although the amount of water vapor will increase with temperature.
I do hazily recall in an atm chemistry class learning that methane from agriculture (rice, cattle, etc) is responsible for some of the observed green house effect.
I do not think that the average vapor density of the atm has increased in a fashion that can be attributed to human activity. Although the amount of water vapor will increase with temperature.
You don’t believe in agricultural irrigation? Evapotranspiration absolutely increases humidity and sequesters solar energy in the form of the latent heat of vaporization to be released later in the troposphere as increased temperature when this water vapor condenses as precipitation.
Where did the figure 12 cubic kilometers come from and what fraction is that of the total amount of water vapor added to the atmosphere each day?
About .8%, just from agricultural irrigation. The total impact from agricultural practices generally (soil and water conservation pratices, runoff prevention) and increased natural terrestrial evapotranspiration as a result of this redistribution of water would be higher than that in the range of 2 to 3% of the natural water cycle absent human agriculture. A relatively minor change on a planet that is mostly ocean surface, but in this increased percentage is of water vapor and increased latent heat sequestration is largely in the northern hemisphere, because that is where the bulk of the land mass is and this is basically a continental phenomena, though the oceans and ocean cooling is impacted by these changes.
12 cubic kilometers is the volume of water estimated to be used for agricultural irrigation from a sustainable environment site. It is probably low.
I used it however because it is ballpark and whether it is higher or lower, the point is still the same.
Water diverted from the continents that would have went directly to the oceans by damming rivers and pumping aquifers and redistibuting this water in what are basically man made solar arrays that very effectively use the sun’s energy to convert this energy to the latent heat of vaporization and add a tremendous amount of water vapor to the atmopshere, does further warm the climate.
Much more so than any impact that can be attributed to the relatively minor increase in volume of atmospheric CO2 that is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
The total post industrial increase in atmospheric CO2 is .01% of atmospheric volume. To attribute a nearly 2% increase in the earth’s natural “greenhouse” effect to this miniscule increase in CO2 simply isn’t plausible.
Peace,
When enough excess vapor forms clouds, won’t that have a cooling effect? So you’re saying we have nothing to worry about, essentially (other than soil erosion, pollution, and massive die-off).
Excessive humidity does not mean that clouds will form. a bit of time spent in Toronto in the summer will confirm this. Almost 100% humidity and clear skies, sticky mungy shirts all day long.
Cloud formation is fundamentally the cooling of water vapor and its condensation into liquid form. Most of the water vapor in the atmosphere isn’t visible, as it has little impact on energy in the form of visible light.
It is in the infrared spectrum that it has most of its impact, making the atmosphere more opaque to the longerwave energy leaving the planet’s surface.
But the primary mechanism of energy sequestration is in the latent heat of vaporization aspect.
Am I saying we have nothing to worry about climate wise. Not exactly.
It will continue to get warmer due to this change we are making in the climate as population continues to rise and the natural environment responds to these warmer and more humid conditions, the evapotranspirative output of water vapor from naturally occuring vegetation will increase as well creating even more warming.
This may well have happened anyway, and when I’ve more time I’ll get into my theories regarding this aspect as well, but human agricultural activities are certainly speeding and will continue to speed this process.
As for the 5 and 6 degree C increases projected in the global average by some climate models that is “extremely unlikely“as I would be remiss, but would greatly prefer to say “impossible.”
Peace,
Excessive humidity does not mean that clouds will form. a bit of time spent in Toronto in the summer will confirm this. Almost 100% humidity and clear skies, sticky mungy shirts all day long.
Precisely. The atmosphere must first dispense with this additional heat before the latent heat of vaporization can begin to be dissapated to begin the condensation of this water vapor into precipitation.
Why come only you, oil executives and the politicians they own don’t think global warming is real? I am not saying you’re a shill. This site is far too fringe for something like that. I sincerely wonder. At what point did you decide to start fighting the fight against global warming? There has to be some sort of reason. And it surely can’t be “the science”.
hera, why can’t it be the science? I find the science compelling and you can’t get more “fringe” than I. Being on the fringe, I don’t have to stay “on message”.
This is why it isn’t likely the science. His fight seems to be about what he thinks that admitting global warming means rather than what the science actually shows. “This is what’s wrong, now how do I explain it?” He works backwards. It’s circular, and that’s obvious. It’s almost dogmatic. Like those trying to find evidence that helps them prove that god exists or can exist. If you never have any doubts, then that’s called belief. That’s not science. That’s not rational. It’s simple dogmatic belief justified by circular reasoning.
gotcha
GW, I know how scientists can jump on bandwagons since I grew up with one. But does anyone else agree with your hypothesis?
Crop irrigation causes cooling, not warming. Think again…again.
His fight seems to be about what he thinks that admitting global warming means rather than what the science actually shows. “This is what’s wrong, now how do I explain it?” He works backwards. It’s circular, and that’s obvious.
I’ve observed the same thing. From comments he’s made, I get the impression that he thinks that the CO2 theory was ginned up by the elites as a justification for persecuting and disenfranchising the poor, or even to justify genocide, and to serve nuclear power interests. In short, he’s noticed that people like Al Gore are champions of the CO2 model, and has become convinced that it’s an elite plot that can’t possibly be right because it could be used against the poor.
Which is all very nice, and his heart is in the right place (I think), but he’s working backwards, as you note. He’s starting with the conviction that the current global warming consensus must be wrong and working from there.
That would explain his changing story. As I’ve noted, GWHunta’s explanation for why global warming occurs has changed. First, he was a champion of the idea that it was merely the mass added to the atmosphere that was driving warming; the volumetric and mass changes were enough to do it alone. Then he quickly abandoned that tack and started arguing that it was water vapor that does it. Rapidly switching stories when one becomes untenable is something of a symptom, in my experience, of an ideological or emotional bias against an idea driving your thinking.
Basically, as Hera says, I think he’s against what he percieves to be the ramifications and misuses of the CO2 theory, and campaigns against it because he thinks it can be used for evil. Which may very well be the case, but I think he needs to learn to separate the science and its application, and to understand the difference between the results of research and the policies made my policymakers.
At what point did you decide to start fighting the fight against global warming? There has to be some sort of reason.
I’m against global warming? I’m not against it. I’m explaining it.
But does anyone else agree with your hypothesis?
Yes. Those that I’ve actually had the opportunity to sit down and explain the math and the science of it to.
Crop irrigation causes cooling, not warming. Think again…again.
Snark, you are in denial.
Water vapor is the most potent of greenhouse gases.
The earth surface with the lowest albedo is tilled topsoil. albedo 5
This is a condition that does not exist in a natural setting, but will encompass many millions of acres of cropland this spring.
It is also the single greatest terrestrial surface condition in terms of evaporation of moisture to the atmosphere.
Moist cropland is cooler temperature wise than many or most other terrestrial surfaces. That is because of the efficiency with which crops especially irrigated crops can transform the solar energy that shines upon these fields into latent heat in the form of water vapor.
You warm a pan of water, if you keep the heat on it comes to a boil, if you leave it on it eventually boils away, but the water never gets hotter, it simply boils away.
Did all that additional heat energy disappear. No. It’ll all end up in the atmosphere.
Same with the farm field. The evapotranspirative process requires the same amount of energy to turn a gram of water to a gram of water vapor that boiling does, regardless of temperature.
Face it Snark, you don’t understand this process as most people and most climate scientists don’t either. They are simply busy checking the temperature data and trying to explain the changes they are finding, not thoroughly thinking through the processes and the physics behind them as they are happening.
The ET calculations that farmers do to decide when and how much water they need to disburse to their fields do calculate the solar energy that hits their crops and how much water is needed to keep the crops cool.
Only 1% of all the water a plant takes up through its roots goes towards plant growth, the rest is used to keep the plant cool and prevent it from burning up in the rays of the sun.
That is a fact. Now think about how many millions of tons of agricultural products are grown annually then multiply that figure by 99 and it’ll give you an idea how much water vapor is added to the atmosphere by agricultural production.
Energy sequestered as the latent heat of vaporization doesn’t dissappear. It just isn’t readily noticable as an increase in temperature (sensible heat), because it doesn’t cause the temperature to rise until this vapor gives up its latent heat when it condenses and returns to the earth as precipitation. Many times this process takes place on the surface itself, as in the morning dew.
If this doesn’t sound like science to you, it is because your blinded by belief.
I’m not a global warming denier. It makes such perfect sense to me that I can actually explain it, rationally and in terms that a non-scientist that is actually making as attempt to reason it out can understand.
Sorry you can’t believe in global warming unless it comes from a tailpipe or a smokestack.
Peace,
Using your logic I guess we should cultivate over the rainforests and all crops and vegitation to cool the earth.
That would explain his changing story. As I’ve noted, GWHunta’s explanation for why global warming occurs has changed. First, he was a champion of the idea that it was merely the mass added to the atmosphere that was driving warming; the volumetric and mass changes were enough to do it alone.
That’s patently untrue Snark,
I began by trying to illuminate the holes in what folks think they know about the CO2 theory and what they believe about it as the primary contributor to global warming.
Everything I pointed out regarding CO2’s impact, including CO2 increasing the mass of the total atmosphere is true. That’s been demonstrated and verified for you and anybody else who’s followed this debate.
Telling folks what they don’t comprehend about aspects of CO2’s impact on the biosphere isn’t part of a tear down of the CO2 theory, it is simply exploration into the groups understanding of the actual physics and chemistry involved.
It also identifies the shortcomings of people’s logic when they are faced with facts outside the realms of their beliefs.
CO2 centric hypothesis has become a religion. People don’t understand it, they simply just believe it and repeat it as fact.
Snark,
How many terawatts of solar energy (heat) are “trapped” in the atmosphere due to the increase of CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm?
You can’t tell me, nobody can. Because they have no idea.
I can tell you how much additional heat is sequestered in the atmosphere as a result of agricultural irrigation. 315 TW.
Why if I only have a theory and you know the cause, how is it then, I have an answer and you do not?
That’s not circular anything. That’s fact based science. Identifying and quantifying causes and effects.
Peace,
Using your logic I guess we should cultivate over the rainforests and all crops and vegitation to cool the earth.
Your not using my logic.
My immediate recommendations for mitigating this impact are for improving the efficiency of agricultural irrigation and for people to eat lower on the food chain.
As in vegetariansim.
Peace,
Snark,
Do admit this much. You claim to have some expertise on this topic.
Do you understand the science of evapotraspiration?
I can link you if you like. I know you’ll be dissapointed but the science I’m using is established and sound. It’s your climate scientists that are getting it wrong.
Because an irrigated agricultural valley registers lower temperatures than it would absent being tilled, cropped and irrigated doesn’t mean it isn’t contributing more heat energy to the atmosphere than if it were naturally vegetated.
If you can’t comprehend that, it is you that are lost and basing his science on belief, not me.
Peace,
You know, on average, every calorie you eat took 10 calories to get it on your table. If you are eating multi-national food; Chilean grapes, Morrocan mangos, etc, each calorie is costing about 600 calories to get to you.
GW, I’m not gonna front that I’m a scientist, so you may well be right. I believe that dogmatic “THIS IS THE REASON” explanations for global warming are ALL hogwash, because nobody can begin to understand the subtle interactions that take place worldwide. As I learn more and more about plants, and particularly alleopathy between species, I see how TRULY complex the relations between every organism on earth really are.
However, I will agree with you 100% that our current trend of mono-cultural agri-business needs to be curtailed. Small gardens, due to the attetion that can be paid to small plots outproduce commerical agriculture by nearly 80%. 1 acre of urban area with gardens can produce as much produce as 1 acre of farmland, and this is taking into account the presence of apartments, business and every other building in an urban setting. 20% of the urban acre produces as much food per weight as 100% of the agrarian acre.
Hopefully by next year, I will be able to explain how I am growing 90% of my food on 10% of the normal water consumption, and managing to do ALL my irrigation through reclaimed fog drip.
YES, Agribusiness is harming the environment, but my question, GW, is; do 20 acres of irrigated farmland cause more or less impact than the 20 acres of rain forest that were slash and burnt to produce irrigated farmland in the time it has taken you to read my reply. It still seems to me that combustion would have a much more powerful impact than irrigation. I mean, 5 minutes after I start my truck, my engine’s thermostat registers 200 degrees. Multiply that by LA rush hour, and I think we might have MULTIPLE CAUSES.
Good observation, Blackpacker. Either way, we know the cure.
GW, that link you gave to NASA was really clear that water vapor is the agent that warms, but that CO2 increases dramatically the atmospheric absorption of water vapor. So I guess you and Snark are both right.
GWHunta,
If I understand your theory correctly, then increased irrigation leads an increase in the specific heat of the earth’s surface. This increased ability of the earth’s surface to be warmed by the suns energy causes an increase in evapotranspiration.
This increase in evapotranspiration should be reflected in either an increase in the average humidity of the atmosphere, or an increase in average precipitation should it not? Further, there should be a correlation between irrigation et al. and humidity and/or precipitation across time.
Do I understand your theory correctly?
Have you looked for the aforementioned correlations?
then increased irrigation leads an increase in the specific heat of the earth’s surface.
Yes it does. Moist or damp soil retains more heat than dry soil.
Increasing the amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere also greatly increases the specific heat of the atmosphere because of the latent heat from the phase change from liquid to gas and vice versa.
Increasing the amount of water vapor increases the relative humidity if temperatures remain constant.
In conditions of a warming climate and slightly warmer atmosphere near the surface, more water vapor is required to maintain the same level of relative humidity.
As for increases in precipitation, that has already happened and can be expected to continue to be the trend.
GW, that link you gave to NASA was really clear that water vapor is the agent that warms, but that CO2 increases dramatically the atmospheric absorption of water vapor. So I guess you and Snark are both right.
I also read the 800 pound gorilla and the steriods analogy in that paper.
Water vapor being the 800 pound gorilla and CO2 being the steroid.
I do not concur in that regard.
Peace,
Why come only you, oil executives and the politicians they own don’t think global warming is real? I am not saying you’re a shill.
Agribusiness is far bigger than oil.
Why might this aspect of climate change never see the light of day?
I’m not a GW denier, I’m just not a believer in the CO2 centric scam.
Peace,
Agribusiness is far bigger than oil.
are you sure about that? It’s my understanding that the MNC with the largest GDP is General Motors. Not an oil company, but I think the logical leap is obvious.
At any rate that doesn’t necessarily disqualify your proposed motive.
Globally most people spend far more on food than on transportation fuel. Even in a automobile centric society most spend more on groceries than gas, so yes agribusiness is by far a larger industry.
As individual corporations, the oil and automotive majors are huge in comparison to the average agribusiness.
But names like Pillsbury and Cargill should be immediately recognizable to most folks as well. The links between agribusiness and oil can’t be overlooked either as corporations like Monsanto get much of their chemical feedstocks from the energy sector.
I’m not insuating that there is a conspiracy afoot to prevent this aspect from becoming known.
I was simply responding to hera who questioned my motives for not “believing” in the CO2 centric explanation for the warming of the climate.
It is simply a matter of investigation of the science supporting the CO2 theory and finding it flawed and lacking and searching out the actual primary causes for the increase in the greenhouse effect and average global temperatures of the past 50 years.
It had to be something bigger than a relatively small increase of trace gases.
Changes to the hydrological cycle are simply a much more sound and reasonable explanation and are readily quantifiable. This isn’t theory, it is science.
Peace,
I don’t know enough to refute or even comment further. There aren’t enough hours in the day, and with my time spent primarily on other subjects, my only option is to assume that what the experts are saying is accurate(that’s not to say I always take that option).
With that in mind, I’m just curious of your qualifications.
I’ve spent thousands of hours studying and pondering the issues of energy, environment and climate over the course of the last 30 years.
I began in the libraries of the University of Minnesota in 1977 and now do most of my research via the internet.
If in terms of qualifications you mean degrees in fields relative or related to climate science, I’ve none.
I’m fundamentally a scholar , not a student in search of employment.
Peace,
I’m fundamentally a scholar
What do you mean by “fundamentally a scholar?” What field(s) did you concentrate on for your PhD(s)?
I do not concur in that regard.
On what grounds? It seems to me that, although misguided, the CO2 theory still has credibility given that increases in CO2 drastically increase levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, which in turn increases heat retained, ad infinitum. It’s those little nudges and pushes that are the trick in the end.
If you’re trying to convince the lay man, I’m here, and the site you link to, which you disagree with, seems more authoritative right now.
This isn’t theory, it is science.
Either your scholarship was not incredibly thorough, as you would know by your study of the empirical method that most of science is theory, or you’re lacking a fitting word. Hell, most of the paper you linked to was about a theory which had its own detractors.
Did you use the figure of volume (12 cubic kilometers) versus the average use of weight or mass (tons) used by people measuring carbon dioxide on purpose? I can’t find that figure cited anywhere else on the Internet, and it’s hard to compare volume to mass in an atmospheric theater when you’re dealing with gasses.
“I began in the libraries of the University of Minnesota in 1977 and now do most of my research via the internet.“
I’m convinced.
Try following both threads on the topic and letting this stand on its own accord absent the dogma you believe but don’t fully understand about CO2.
My PhD was a gift from a Wizard. It is in Thinkology.
Most of my atmospheric data was gathered by crows and whispered into my ears as I observed over the fields from my position on a stick.
Now, what possible motivation might I have for misleading anyone on this matter.
Every CO2 centric theory is totally dependent upon increased water vapor.
If you can’t grasp the fact that if continental runoff is prevented by contour plowing and other soil and water conservation measures implemented by farmers worldwide, coupled with the impact of industrialists who have constructed tens of thousands of large dams worldwide to provide flood control and water for the production of electricity and agricultural irrigation and this huge volume of water that is daily redirected to the sky, instead of flowing to the sea couldn’t be the cause of the warming and the climate change; but CO2 increasing from .0313 % of the total atmosphere to .0383 % over the past fifty years or so, a .007 % increase, is definitely the cause because Al Gore told you so, then I suggest you tap the heels of your ruby slippers and repeat after me….
There’s no place like home…..there’s no place like home.
GW, initially your theory gave me hope. Now it seems that we have even more to worry about. The CO2 levels really do seem to interfere with the ability of water to balance the temperatures naturally. And that cirrus cloud cover of increased humidity traps all the combustion heat that Blackpacker mentioned. Also scary is the release of methane from melting permafrost. Help!!!
Chickenma1,
Maintain that hope. CO2 is a bit player. So is the methane. The combustion heat is just a fraction of the percentage of the total energy that is cast upon the earth in the form of sunshine.
89 PW warms the suface of the earth. That is a tremendous amount of energy.
In comparison all of mankind produces 15 TW globally.
The sensible heat converted to latent heat by virtue of agricultural irrigation is 21 times greater than that of all the energy used by mankind at roughly 315 TWt.
Relax, so long as the sun shines and the rain falls, life will flourish.
Nothing human kind is currently capable of doing to the biosphere will prevent either of these blessings (sunshine and rainfall) from continuing on, albeit not exactly in the same patterns or with the same impact as they have had in the past.
Peace,
And speaking of BlackPacker
You know, on average, every calorie you eat took 10 calories to get it on your table. If you are eating multi-national food; Chilean grapes, Morrocan mangos, etc, each calorie is costing about 600 calories to get to you.
The calories commonly referred to in our food products are actually kilocalories, so when figuring in the energy used to create this food this factor must be taken into account.
Peace,
“…each calorie is costing about 600 calories to get to you.”
AHA, the problem with the American Diet. They were told to burn more calories… et voila!
My PhD was a gift from a Wizard. It is in Thinkology.
So if I understand this correctly, you’re a layman who uses the internet a lot and came up with an alternative theory that attempts to contradict qualified scientists? If I’m wrong please let me know.
a layman who uses the internet a lot and came up with an alternative theory that attempts to contradict qualified scientists
I think this should be the abstract for GW Hunta’s “global warming paper”
global warming paper?
Define layman? And do try to remember that George W. Bush has a Masters Degree in Business Administration from Harvard and is a Yale graduate.
Peace,
a layman who uses the internet a lot and came up with an alternative theory that attempts to contradict qualified scientists
Ha… Assholes. This is why scientists are hated. Your egos exceed your actual intellect. It’s pretty hard to turn people on to your theories and data when you are so busy trying to first prove how much smarter you are than them.
You guys say the word “scientist” like a fundie would say “God”. It’s shit like this that makes me believe that 90% of so-called “science” is about self-aggrandizement and ego masturbation. Oh, but I guess I only think that because I’m an uneducated “layman”, utterly incapable of reading, studying, and experimenting myself… Please, my lord Scientists… Do all my thinking for me? Fucking joke.
Inferiority complex much?
}=-]
Nope. Just a loooove for science!
Ditto that.
Read this article and you’ll get some idea just how ignorant some of these scientists can really be.
These people, though capable of running sophisticated computer climate models can’t explain the operation and impact of evaporative cooling or fathom how a reduction of convection while simultaneously creating radically higher levels of relative humidity in spite of lower levels of sensible heat will serve to warm, not cool the surface and lower levels of the atmosphere.
Their conclusions and assertions are exactly 180 degrees off the mark and as the title implies, they act as though they are onto something as the title indicates.
Good thing all that cropland cool is there to offset the urban heat island effect or CO2 would be cooking us off the planet.
I am going to write the editors of Science and author of the article. When I went to the page for instruction as to how to make this connection this icon was at the top.
Kind of says it all.
Peace,
The data reported in the article and others that note this decrease in sensible heat all report conditions that support the conclusions I am reporting.
They all also fail to appreciate the impact and model into the larger climate the impact of this additional water vapor and the latent heat it contains.
Better computer models are on the horizon. Maybe with some critical thinking to replace tweaking data imput till it mirrors the observed results we will get a model that actually mimics what is happening in the actual environment and will help guide us towards policies that will actually have a positive, not negative impact on the changing climate.
Oh, but I guess I only think that because I’m an uneducated “layman”, utterly incapable of reading, studying, and experimenting myself
Well, do you read the literature? More importantly, do you have the expertise to understand what’s being said in the literature, and to evaluate a paper’s findings? And – rhetorical question – do you have the equipment and knowledge to design and execute an experiment? Are you capable of running a multivariant analysis? Could you design a climate model? With respect, no, you don’t. You’re not capable of it. I’ve been working in my field for two years, 50 hours a week as my sole job and hobby, and I’ve only just recently mastered all the basic lab protocols I need.
Sorry if this puts a bee up your ass, but science has gotten to the point that you have to devote at least five to six years dedicating nearly every waking moment to study and research before you’re even considered competent to do it on your own, and another two or three doing research in academic probation (postdoctoral positions) before you’re considered competent to teach it. It’s not a democracy. It’s an infocracy, and no member of the general public reading stuff on the internet in their spare time has a hope of accumulating enough information to build a synthetic, comprehensive understanding of a field – let alone one with the scope and breadth of climatology, a multidisiplinary field where no one person can hope to understand much more than the narrow focus of their own research, and where there are so many variables at work that researchers use teraflop supercomputers to run their simulations and process data.
And I’m sorry if that insults you. But yeah, you basically said it – you can’t think for yourself in this realm unless you’ve devoted years of your life to studying it and doing research on it. The days of Leuvenhoek inventing a microscope and checking out the pondwater are over. There is so much information to be mastered that only those who devote their lives to understanding it are considered relevant.
Your – and hunta’s – insistence that you’re just as capable as any scientist to do research and hold an informed opinion about scientific issues is about as absurd as me walking into BMW and lecturing them about how to design engines, or into Apple and telling them how to write code. I know how to code a bit. I know how an engine works, in general. But to imagine that I, by reading car magazines and taking a class on Python coding in undergrad, have sufficient knowledge to lecture experts on their area of expertise? Absurd and presumptuous.
Oh, and hunta…
Read this article and you’ll get some idea just how ignorant some of these scientist can really be.
Tell me, have you read the article yet? Not the fucking digest of it in ScienceNOW, the actual article.
Oh, and submit 2 science? That’s a link to submit an article to the journal. I won’t joke about your reading comprehension, but come the fuck on.
It is also where the reader is directed to comment on an article or write a letter to the editor.
My reading comprehension is fine though my proofreading and spelling at times are quite poor. Aging eyes. As for this paraphrase:
let alone one with the scope and breadth of climatology, a multidisiplinary field where no one person can hope to understand much more than the narrow focus of their own research.
That’s the problem with the whole CO2 centric theory. It is a house of cards.
Face it Snark. All CO2 driven models depend upon CO2 increasing temperature and water vapor as a feedback or they fall in the face of the level of temperature change we’ve seen.
Tell me I’m wrong about irrigation adding water vapor to the atmosphere and in vast quantities.
You can’t.
And you if you were totally honest about it you’d admit you don’t understand the science of ET.
Occam’s razor.
The world is becoming warmer and the atmosphere is carrying increased water vapor. Relative humidity doesn’t have to rise to demonstrate this.
If it didn’t go down, there is more water vapor available or with increasing temperatures it would have gone down.
Now either the farmers of the world are accomplishing this by on a daily average evapotranspirating 12 cubic kilometers of liquid water into water vapor by virtue of irrigation of millions upon millions of acres of cropland or the miniscule increase of atmospheric CO2 over the last 50 years of .006% of total atmospheric content is the culprit.
Seriously, which of these assertions make more sense?
All CO2 driven models depend upon CO2 increasing temperature and water vapor as a feedback or they fall in the face of the level of temperature change we’ve seen.
None of the models are “CO2 driven.” Which you would know if you understood how they work. Reading papers would help.
Tell me I’m wrong about irrigation adding water vapor to the atmosphere and in vast quantities.
Irrigation water is added to the atmosphere in vast quantities. Now correlate that with global warming, explain in detail how and why it perfectly matches
The world is becoming warmer and the atmosphere is carrying increased water vapor. Relative humidity doesn’t have to rise to demonstrate this.
Exactly what do you think humidity is if not water vapor? By definition, higher concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere are increased humidity!
Seriously, which of these assertions make more sense?
Stop wasting my time with a priori bullshit in an attempt to prove your point. I’m not convinced. Science doesn’t have to make sense. It has to be supported by evidence. Your hypothesis is supported by nothing of the sort.
The biofuel business is already huge and growing. 15% of the American corn crop is being turned into ethanol. How many gallons of water are given to the atmosphere as water vapor, complete with the latent heat it contains to make one gallon of ethanol?
This is worth investigation and thorough understanding before we really run this planet into the ground.
Peace,
The world is becoming warmer and the atmosphere is carrying increased water vapor. Relative humidity doesn’t have to rise to demonstrate this.
Exactly what do you think humidity is if not water vapor?
By definition, higher concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere are considered humidity!
Snark, you are really out there.
Relative humidity is a function of temperature and water vapor content.
If I have the same volume of air with a fixed volume of water vapor, the relative humidity goes down as the temperature is increased.
If you can’t fathom that, do by all means save your breath. You aren’t capable of discussing this topic in even the most basic of terms.
Peace,
If you can’t fathom that, do by all means save your breath. You aren’t capable of discussing this topic in even the most basic of terms.
Missing the word “relative” when you’re reading quickly can fuck with your interpretation of a sentence. My apologies. I misread you.
The world is becoming warmer and the atmosphere is carrying increased water vapor.
Evidence? Like, as in, data? Perhaps showing that the atmosphere is carrying increased water vapor? Don’t tell me that it must be there, that’s more a priori bullshit; for all I know, water derived from increased evapotranspiration just precipitates out relatively quickly and overall water vapor content has remained mostly the same. As always, you need data and analysis to support your hypothesis, and I’m rapidly tiring of asking for it.
Ha… Assholes. This is why scientists are hated. Your egos exceed your actual intellect. It’s pretty hard to turn people on to your theories and data when you are so busy trying to first prove how much smarter you are than them.
lol I’m not even a scientist. I’m not even discounting his theory. As I mentioned earlier I’m in no position to refute what’s been said. Just trying to get an idea of GW’s qualifications.
Don’t get mad at me for phrasing what is true.
Define layman?
Someone who comes at the subject as an ordinary person, and has not had his/her ideas scrutinized by other qualified researchers. Someone with no formal knowledge of a subject.
Anyone with no fundamental understanding of this subject is simply taking everyone else’s word for it. I fail to see how one could spot an error with no basic knowledge of the topic at hand.
GW, with all due respect, I think your intentions are good but let’s face it: you;re using the internet for “research” and have no formal understanding of the subject you’re talking about. This is like a laymen reading a few articles from counterpunch and all of the sudden thinking he/she understands the complexities of international relations.
I have no idea how much of the current literature or how many articles and papers I’ve read in the past 30 years.
I’ve had formal studies but admittedly most of my research has been conducted independently via various university libraries over the course of the late seventies and eighties and beginning in the mid to late 90’s has been largely replaced with primarily information obtained by virtue of the internet and raw economic and resource/material data from various almanacs.
I also appreciate your honesty regarding your incomplete understanding of the issues and processes I’m trying to explain. I appreciate the due respect.
Let’s face it, if I had a PhD in climate science, it wouldn’t make one iota of difference in your ability to discern whether I am presenting to you the basis for climate change straight for the first time, or am mad whack.
Try not to have a strong or emotional opinions about matters upon which your basis of understanding is based on belief and not knowledge or be critical of those that follow this tenent.
Peace,
Sorry if this puts a bee up your ass
It doesn’t.
It’s not a democracy. It’s an infocracy
No shit. It’s designed that way.
And I’m sorry if that insults you.
It doesn’t.
no member of the general public reading stuff on the internet in their spare time has a hope of accumulating enough information to build a synthetic, comprehensive understanding of a field
Who said anything about all of that? It’s important for people to have at least a general understanding. Too many scientists are too busy looking for self-gratification, or publishing works meant only for others in their field. Not nearly enough work to bring it to the general populace, in ways that they can understand and to show them why they should give a fuck. All these smug asshole attitudes get is all them dumb-can’t-fink-fer-demselves normal folks’ resentfulness.
I sometimes catch Kirk Cameron on the tube going around, trying to explain that evolution isn’t real because of bananas (his mustached friend called the fruit “an atheist’s nightmare”). Sure, we might all laugh and all feel incredibly smarter than these simpletons… But the truth is that being undereducated and being stupid are two very different things. So many of us are content to just look at things like that, laugh, feel smug, and move on. In reality, we should see how truly sad, and actually dangerous, this situation is.
you can’t think for yourself in this realm unless you’ve devoted years of your life to studying it and doing research on it
This here… Is bullshit. A person who doesn’t have the know-how or equipment or understanding of the science can still have things explained to them in a way that will be understandable. A layman is still entirely capable of searching through the fruits of others’ labors and making a basic comparison analysis for themselves. They might arrive at incorrect conclusions, but so do many Scientists (for now on, it must be capitalized to convey the superiority). Granted, an undereducated person has much more chance for error, but they aren’t feeble-minded idiots. They aren’t mentally handicapped.
Your – and hunta’s – insistence that you’re just as capable as any scientist to do research and hold an informed opinion about scientific issues is about as absurd as me walking into BMW and lecturing them about how to design engines
When the fuck did I ever insist on such a thing? Fuck… Nevermind all this… Let me break it down, simple, so a layman like you can understand.
Most scientists aren’t half as clever as they believe. History is filled with their errors. This isn’t an attack on science itself… Far from it. Rather I believe that it is the scientists themselves that are doing a disservice to their own practice by ignoring, ridiculing and otherwise pissing off those in the public.
ALL scientists are subject to ALL the same frailties that ALL human beings are subject to. This is something that I find that a lot of intelligent, high-minded people unfortunately blind themselves to. People fuck themselves because of this, including all us “geeeniuses”.
As for your analogy…
No, I don’t think undereducated people should waltz into a meeting of engineers and attempt to tell them how they’re wrong. I do think it’s entirely appropriate for a dreeeaaadful layman who’s exercised some ingenuity to approach these engineers with their ideas, correct or not. If the guy’s wrong, then they can correct him and invite him to further study the related fields if he’s interested. Better yet, educate everyone in basic engineering. They might not be able to understand the more complicated heights of the research, but at the very least they won’t be going around saying, “ENGINES WORK BECAUSE OF GOD BANANAS!”.
But no… It doesn’t work out that way. Instead people will just sneer and say, “What the fuck do you know?” And waggle their PHDs at them arrogantly. Who the fuck is science for anyway? Just other dickhead scientists?
Just trying to get an idea of GW’s qualifications.
Don’t lie. It only makes me smile. You did nothing of the sort… You were belittling him. Had nothing to do with “assessing qualifications” or even debating anything he’s saying what-so-ever. Instead it had everything to do with you lowering someone else beneath you so you could be full of that smugsy glee. How human.
lol I’m not even a scientist.
Ah, hypocrisy. According to you, he’s not within his rights to come up with his own ideas (right or wrong) because he’s not a scientist, and has no PHD.
You said… As I mentioned earlier I’m in no position to refute what’s been said
Then what is it that puts you in a position to attempt to discredit him?
Anyway… Hijacked the thread. Sorry.
beginning in the mid to late 90’s has been largely replaced with primarily information obtained by the internet and raw economic and resource/material data from various almanacs.
I am utterly unimpressed.
I also appreciate your honesty regarding you’re incomplete understanding of the issues and processes I’m trying to explain. I appreciate the due respect.
You disingenuous…….shit, I’ll get banned. Insert whatever insult you like here.
Jesus Christ.
How does this:
Missing the word “relative” when you’re reading quickly can fuck with your interpretation of a sentence. My apologies. I misread you.
Equate to “an incomplete understanding”? Jesus, are you even capable of debating without tailspinning into logical fallacies? We’re done. You are a dishonest, intellectually bankrupt, arrogant, pedantic blowhard with an ideological agenda, and I’ve got no time to waste arguing with you. Enjoy your “truth”.
Don’t be sorry Draconis, valid points.
Enjoy your “truth” – I’ll be glad to see it die with you.
It won’t.
/me pulls up a chair.
Too many scientists are too busy looking for self-gratification, or publishing works meant only for others in their field. Not nearly enough work to bring it to the general populace, in ways that they can understand and to show them why they should give a fuck.
I agree with this, totally. Though I believe that’s changing.
Most scientists aren’t half as clever as they believe. History is filled with their errors.
Errors which were later rectified and changed. Science is nothing but trial and error. To expect it to be right all the time is unrealistic; by its basic philosophy it acknowledges the possibility of error or incompleteness.
ALL scientists are subject to ALL the same frailties that ALL human beings are subject to.
Of course they are. But science, as an institution and a practice, tends to eventually transcend those frailties. Subhramanyan Chandrasekhar got a space telescope named after him; Arthur Eddington died in obscurity after spending his entire career claiming that Chandra’s black hole theory was wrong.
A layman is still entirely capable of searching through the fruits of others’ labors and making a basic comparison analysis for themselves.
Of course. But to claim that basic comparison analyses are better than the fruits of others’ labors is what’s pissing me off. I want people to engage with the science, it’s cool shit and it’ll help them understand their world. I just take issue with people immediately declaring that it’s wrong and fucked and that their bible/almanac/back-of-the-envelope calculation proves that the scientists are just ignorant assholes trying to fuck over the world’s poor. And such.
Rather I believe that it is the scientists themselves that are doing a disservice to their own practice by ignoring, ridiculing and otherwise pissing off those in the public.
The only time I’ve ever seen a scientist ignore, ridicule, or piss off a member of the public is when said member of the public was arrogant, condescending, insulted the scientist’s work, or claimed that they knew better. I know the “Ivory Tower” stereotype is strong, but I don’t think it’s correct with the modern generation of scientists. If you approached your average scientist and merely asked for clarification or information or to consider an idea, they’d probably be delighted. My relatives all ask me about evolution stuff they don’t understand and I’m gratified that they care. My advisor spent so much time talking about science with a few friends of his that they now work in the lab as techs. One of them convinced my advisor to abandon an entire paradigm he’d been relying on for years.
But no… It doesn’t work out that way. Instead people will just sneer and say, “What the fuck do you know?” And waggle their PHDs at them arrogantly.
I simply don’t think that would happen – if they were approached with a tone of respect, desire to communicate, and friendly interest. “I’m hoping you could clarify some things that don’t add up” elicits a much different response than, “you’re wrong, I’m right, my ideas are the truth, and you’re just in denial.” Now, I don’t mean deference, groveling, and ass-kissing, but messianic certainty is out.
I do think it’s entirely appropriate for a dreeeaaadful layman who’s exercised some ingenuity to approach these engineers with their ideas, correct or not.
If that’s what GW was doing, I’d applaud him for it. But he’s not approaching, he’s kicking down the door, saying “fuck you ignorant assholes, I’m bringing the truth” and insisting that he’s correct. He’s not joining the debate, he wants to dominate it.
“If you approached your average scientist and merely asked for clarification or information or to consider an idea, they’d probably be delighted.”
Several years ago, I thought I had the kernel of an idea that would kickstart the AI community. I wrote up an email with my ideas and sent them to every email address I could find connected to AI research and development. To be fair, my ideas were waaaaaay broad, but they were presented in a fairly humble manner.
The replies I DID get were not very encouraging. There was a single positive (if somewhat patronizing) response. Two negative responses, one of which accused me of wasting peoples time with my ‘nonsense’. The other 15 or so emails never received a reply.
Now granted to everyone but me that’s anecdotal, and it’s not a very large sample group… but I can see where GW’s coming from with respect to scientists and laymen.
Ah, hypocrisy
Hypocrisy first of all has to do with advocating one thing and doing another. You accused me of being an arrogant scientist. I obliterated that point by stating I’m not a scientist.
next…
According to you, he’s not within his rights to come up with his own ideas (right or wrong) because he’s not a scientist, and has no PHD
Actually you’re the only one saying that. I never said anything remotely close to that.
Don’t lie. It only makes me smile. You did nothing of the sort… You were belittling him. Had nothing to do with “assessing qualifications” or even debating anything he’s saying what-so-ever. Instead it had everything to do with you lowering someone else beneath you so you could be full of that smugsy glee. How human.
Thanks for me telling what I did. If you’re interested in my intentions, however, they were exactly what I said: an interest in his qualifications. I was curious whether he was talking out of his ass or in a position to refute qualified scientists.
I asked the question because had I assumed from the start I might have said something I regret.
Then what is it that puts you in a position to attempt to discredit him?
How have I discredited him? All I asked was for his qualifications. Two years ago I asked Snark the same question. Three years ago I asked fennec the same question when we used to talk about evolution. It seems to me GW has discredited himself by stating that he is a scholar when in fact he is nothing of the sort.
The other 15 or so emails never received a reply
I dunno – take it how you will, but in my experience most professors and researchers are insanely hella busy, and it taxes their meager time- and people-management skills to the max. It’s a crapshoot whether my advisor will even return my emails, let alone somebody he doesn’t know emailing him cold. You’d probably have better results forming a relationship with them first, then discussing the ideas – just as with anybody, really.
There was a single positive (if somewhat patronizing) response. Two negative responses, one of which accused me of wasting peoples time with my ‘nonsense
That’s too bad. There’s assholes in every group, I suppose, but I don’t think that’s representative of the whole.
GWHunta has proposed a hypothesis that many of us agree is interesting and potentially valid. Let us set aside the tact or lack therof of his presentation. Let us also set aside his qualifications to suggest said hypothesis, for from the perspective of seeking truth these are irrelevant.
GWHunta, have you presented your hypothesis to anyone with the resources to test it in existing climate models and/or to investigate whether or not there is a correlation between increased water vapor (influenced by CO2 etc.) and temperature?
Snark, could you summarize the unanswered questions you have regarding this hypothesis?
What, if any are your plans for this hypothesis? Presummably you would like to see questions as to its validity investigated.
Are there climate change forums where it may be fruitful to present your hypothesis?
Isn’t Exxon or another big oil firm offering cash for such hypothesis (not that I support big oil)?
Personally, I’d like to see more respect from all and more of an effort placed on isolating the unknowns, the unanswered questions, the next steps to be taken to test this hypothesis, etc.
Cheers,
“Isn’t Exxon or another big oil firm offering cash for such hypothesis (not that I support big oil)?”
Um, gee, isn’t Marboro offering cash for a hypothesis that posits that nicotine tastes like ice cream, elongates penises/enlarges breasts and that it isn’t addictive?
The stupidity on this site is unbelievably fucking shocking, sometimes.
Does the peanut gallery have anything constructive to add?
Yeah, The stupidity on this site is unbelievably fucking shocking, sometimes.
egalitarian77,
Thanks. It is refreshing to find some perspective and a response that isn’t based on an emotional reaction to having one’s belief system altered.
hera,
You don’t understand how CO2 contributes to climate change and is the cause of the documented warming, because it isn’t.
You simply believe it mindlessly and until the herd runs the other way, you’ll heckle from the crowd.
Open your mind a crack. This isn’t rocket science and my explanation for the warming is very simple as compared to the CO2 centric hypothesis.
For some reason, economic pressures, social discord, popular culture, whatever; there seems to be an affinity for doomsday and apocolyptic scenarios in modern society. We must all band together and do something, quick before it’s too late.
I don’t discount this, or the need to do something.
But if the cause is misunderstood, then the “cure” may well kill the patient.
Biofuels do more harm than good. The ethanol business is one of the few bright spots in the U.S. manufacturing base. Converting 15% of the U.S. corn crop to alcohol to fuel transportation in the U.S. is compounding the problem, not alleviating it.
Now I’ve heard your vile for the tobacco companies and realize you don’t have a lot of love for Exxon, nor do I. But do you really buy into the General Motors biofuel campaign? Flexfuel vehicles to save the planet?
Activists do what they can based on what think they know, but their CO2 centric global warming theory is based on belief.
I posted this information to test the water in terms of the receptivity of the so called altenate media to think outside the framework that the mainstream media has framed the whole concept of global warming.
I ask you again to take a look at the real world and see what is being done globally to combat climate change.
Besides sincere activists trying to limit their use of automobiles and maybe planting a few trees and trying to cut back on their personal waste stream, the push towards biofuels is the biggest effort out there in terms of change.
The MTBE in gasoline is history and ethanol is its replacement.
I am right on this. If you’ll take the time to actually think this through that will become apparent. The push for biofuels as a solution will exacerbate climate change and there isn’t enough cropland currently in production on the planet to feed 6.6 billion people and fuel America on E-85 or biodiesel.
Something will have to give.
Sometimes no Peace,
“You’d probably have better results forming a relationship with them first, then discussing the ideas – just as with anybody, really.”
Yeah, probably. It was a stupid email. I know NOTHING technical about AI… but even if the slight was not intentional. The lack of response to an enthusiastic layman… comes off poorly for science as a whole.
Maybe scientists need PR?!
Or a PhD in Thinkology, like the one the Wizard gave me.
Hmmm…
too many questions run through my brain.
Should science be better guided… perhaps a world council…?
Does science need intermediaries, people who could function in a professional capacity to not only bring science to the layman, but also bring a bit of the layman to science?
If you did any of the above, would it still be science?
guh… I hate when I have to actually think about anything….
Does science need intermediaries, people who could function in a professional capacity to not only bring science to the layman, but also bring a bit of the layman to science?
Word.
Does science need intermediaries, people who could function in a professional capacity to not only bring science to the layman, but also bring a bit of the layman to science?
Carefull what you wish for… I’m pretty sure George Bush is trying to fill that role of ‘explaining science to the masses…’
“It made for big news when President Bush confidently declared on prime-time television last month that private research had produced a trove of more than 60 stem-cell lines. Most experts had assumed that there were as yet only a dozen or so such colonies of the cells that might become weapons against a range of debilitating diseases, from Alzheimer’s to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson’s…“
GW, I’m following your theory except for one thing: Why are the graphs of CO2 levels throughout time almost identical with heat level graphs? What would cause that if they’re not directly correlated? And if heat drives the CO2 levels rather than the other way around, well, how? That was a really impressive part of Al Gore’s film.
Snark, my dad is a well-known and stellar research scientist. He has never been turned down for a grant. He manages to make his research (cancer) understood easily by a college drop-out like me. And it was I who got him to finally concede that non-locality is a valid theory even though he screamed at me for months that that was impossible and I shouldn’t have dropped out of school if I was going to believe such things.
Peace.
On edit: This is way fun. Think we can do 39 pages?
A search of science magazine for CO2, 6677 articles found.
A search of science magazine for evapotranspiration, 175.
Here’s one from 1981.
On the correlation of CO2 and average global temperature, that is well established.
But a correlation doesn’t establish that rising CO2 levels increase temperatures.
Temperature driving CO2 levels is equally plausible and not too difficult to understand.
Carbon in the form of CO2 is released to the atmosphere when plant matter either burns or is broken down by biological processes. Some of what we eat is liberated to the atmosphere as the average adult human exhales approximately 2.2 lbs of CO2 each day.
If atmospheric CO2 levels are temperature driven as I assert that they are, then the fall of atmospheric CO2 during relatively cold periods (ice ages) when CO2 levels historically have bottomed would be explained by the fact that the cold oceans are a net CO2 sink and that when the terrestrial surface is largely covered by ice, there isn’t much CO2 being released to the atmosphere by burning or decomposing plant matter, as much of it is now preserved till the thaw, beneath the snow pack and or ice sheets.
During warmer periods, when even Siberia has been the home of mamoths and covered in lush vegetation that normally (as in the mid-range more moderate global average temperatures we are having now) doesn’t grow in the arctic.
If temperature was driven strictly by CO2, how would the world have again come out of an ice age, when CO2 levels bottom?
Peace,
A change in ocean currents over a period of time due to continuous continental drift.
just a guess
A wild shot in the dark really.
Opening statement of the summary of a “golden oldie” circa 1951.
Peace,
Chapter 1 – Introduction to evapotranspiration
Opening statement of the summary of a “golden oldie” circa 1951
Don’t waste my time with ancient papers. Climatology has come as far in 60 years as genetics has.
If temperature was driven strictly by CO2, how would the world have again come out of an ice age, when CO2 levels bottom?
A particularly lame strawman, here. Nobody has claimed that temperature is driven strictly by CO2, and to attempt to refute that point shows that you’re either deliberately disingenuous or ignorant.
Here’s the abstract from Stott et al 2000. Surely you’ve read it; it’s one of the most cited, influential global warming papers ever published.
A comparison of observations with simulations of a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model shows that both natural and anthropogenic factors have contributed significantly to 20th century temperature changes. The model successfully simulates global mean and large-scale land temperature variations, indicating that the climate response on these scales is strongly influenced by external factors. More than 80% of observed multidecadal-scale global mean temperature variations and more than 60% of 10- to 50-year land temperature variations are due to changes in external forcings. Anthropogenic global warming under a standard emissions scenario is predicted to continue at a rate similar to that observed in recent decades.
So, as I suspect you know, nobody has ever claimed that CO2 alone drives all climate change. The assertion is more properly expressed as “Anthropogenic CO2 is the most dominant of all factors that force climate activity in the present day.” In fact, natural forcings were the dominant forcing until the middle of the last century. So you’re just right enough to be wrong, as usual – in the past, other factors have driven temperature and CO2 has followed along, and now CO2 is the leading forcing, along with anthropogenic aerosols.
I won’t bother to go too far into your misconception that active microbial activity and decomposition doesn’t occur under snowpack (my own lab showed that wasn’t the case, yay team), or point out that the only reason cold ocean water is a net CO2 sink is because of increased pelagic bacterioplankton primary productivity in cold upwelling zones, but…yeah….
I won’t bother to go too far into your misconception that active microbial activity and decomposition doesn’t occur under snowpack
Do me a favor and prior to making statements about my conceptions or misconceptions, don’t quote or paraphrase what I’ve said out of context.
Nowhere have I stated microbial activity and decomposition doesn’t occur under snowpack. It not only occurs under it, but on its surface during the melt as well.
I stated that there is a reduction of the decomposition of plant matter during an ice age, when continents are covered with ice sheets and snowpack, slowing the release of CO2 to the atmosphere from the terrestrial surface.
If atmospheric CO2 levels are temperature driven as I assert that they are, then the fall of atmospheric CO2 during relatively cold periods (ice ages) when CO2 levels historically have bottomed would be explained by the fact that the cold oceans are a net CO2 sink and that when the terrestrial surface is largely covered by ice, there isn’t as much CO2 being released to the atmosphere by burning or decomposing plant matter, as much of it is now preserved till the thaw, beneath the snow pack and or ice sheets.
I am sure you would concur in this regard.
I should have stated that if trees can’t grow because they have been buried in the snow until it has formed into an ice sheet hundreds of feet thick, that this is the reason for the reduction of CO2 released from the terrestrial surface, but I assumed anyone with the intelligence to follow the reasoning in context would have gathered that.
Sometimes no Peace,
As to the relevance of external forcings upon temperature and climate change, I don’t discount them or their impact, I’m simply trying to explain the primary anthropogenic impact on climate.
Peace,
“Anthropogenic CO2 is the most dominant of all factors that force climate activity in the present day.“
Anthropogenic water vapor not atmospheric CO2.
As well as some of the other feedback effects I’ve described such as reduced cooling of the Gulf Stream at middle latitudes and the reduction of ice cover on the Great Lakes further increasing both the sensible heat of the wintertime atmosphere as well as the latent heat from additional water vapor that otherwise wouldn’t have been available to impact the climate.
I thought the official guerrilla position is that God controls the weather!
Afterall it was God that “sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea” (Jonah 1:4).
Apparently the official guerilla position is that this topic is too complicated to be understood or discussed rationally and it’s easier to just move on to something more relevant, like the accidental invasion of Liechtenstein by the Swiss Army.
LOL?
Are you trying to sound off like an arrogant asshole?
I do avalanche forecasting with local snow pack evaluations that require extensive knowledge of water/ice/snow and it’s continuous transformation. People lives are at stake.
The topic that you are attempting to “discuss” is not beyond myself nor a lot of folks here. What’s beyond me is your approach, if you want people to understand or even debate you then don’t be so condescending and confrontational.
So far I’m not sold on what you’ve put forward. I’d like to read more of what’s got you convinced that this is the major source of G.W.
Who’s an arrogant asshole? GW has been insisting that we here on this site can understand, and is taking great pains to explain it. It’s everyone else who’s trying to shout him down because he (and presumably we) do not have Ph.D.‘s. What he’s been writing has been clear, the responses have not. Peoples’ lives are at stake, so step up to the plate and explain why he’s wrong so we peons can understand. You’re the one that’s being condescending.
And thanks, GW, for answering my questions. All answers have been straight forward and understandable.
Easy Chickenma1,
he didn’t call me one, just said he thinks I sound like one.
The impact of my approach could be considered by some to be confrontational.
But they must consider the lens through which they are viewing the material I’m presenting.
Denial is of course the natural psychological defense mechanism to finding out what you believe about an issue isn’t factual.
It isn’t pleasant being wrong about anything.
Almost everybody has had the CO2 centric theory explained to them and the simplified irradiative model of global warming is the one that is taught and commonly understood.
Most of us have explained it to others and have taken a position on its validity and either believe in global warming or we do not, and hence are then labeled global warming deniers.
I’m unusual in that I’ve not been on one side or the other.
I try to hear out both sides of the issue as it is being debated, but keep my focus on what is actually changing on the ground and less so on the debate.
Neither side of the debate answers the fundamental questions of why the climate is changing or adequately explains the reasons why the pattern of the warming has been somewhat unpredictable and that the most profound impacts have been upon the formerly cooler, drier and northernmost climates.
The material I’m presesenting is as straightforward and as easy to understand as I’ve yet been able to present it.
Realizing that it is difficult to break through the veil of denial that most of us have since as people we have an emotional investment in what we believe to be true or not true and the positions we’ve taken and possibly even changes we’ve made in our lifestyles to accomodate these beliefs.
I have been a bit brash in this, as I believe if I wasn’t the material would just get glossed over and not really read or deeply considered.
Additionally there has been a backlash, and often a nasty one, each time I’ve tried to broach the global warming topic that in any manner questions the integrity of the CO2 centric irradiative theory.
It’s almost taboo to even question it.
I don’t work or ever plan on working for Exxon, though I’m viewed through that lense.
I think the greatest error we are making in our national energy policy is not breaking the dependence of the entire transportation sector on liquid fuels.
I’ve repeatedly taken the position that our homes and business should be heated and cooled with geothermal from ground water heat pumps and our cars should be plug in hybrids that when driven beyond the range of the batteries switch to CNG (compressed natural gas) for primary internally combusted power to recharge the batteries and keep us going down the road.
Biofuels as I’ve pointed out repeatedly will hasten climate change and increase the warming.
Cars shouldn’t be in competition with people for food either and there’s not enough cropland to do both, even if warming and climate change wasn’t an issue.
Not only do I not work for Exxon, I don’t work.
Haven’t for a decade.
Leaving me time for research and thinking through issues and I don’t have a palm to grease or any worry about my outspoken position on sometimes politically sensitive issues having any impact on my employment.
I’m as totally independent regarding freedom of thought and speach as one can be in modern America.
I think the entire coal burning industry needs to be revamped to one that requires the gasification of coal prior to using it to generate electricity.
This process is mature and has been used in Tampa, FL for over a decade, proving that coal can be burned cleanly and economically as well.
This process lends itself to the removal of the sulfur and other contaminents, including radioactive particulates in the smokestack exhaust of conventional coal fired plants, prior to burning the gas for power.
This prevents these contaminents from being introduced into the biosphere, and they can then be further processed into useful products of commercial value.
If we took these three simple steps; geothermal heating and cooling, CNG powered plug in hybrid automobiles, and implemented clean coal technology for commercial electricl power with an eye on increasing individual homes and businesses reliance on direct solar to electrical conversion (solar panels); America would be cleaner, energy independent and economically on a better footing in less than a decade.
As for combatting global warming, there is a huge volume of waste regarding water issues in agriculture and agricultural irrigation proper.
Farmers many times put water on their fields regardless of need, just to keep the dust down and use their allotment so that they will have it drought conditions.
Open ditch and the stereotypical arched pivoting sprinker systems that rotate around the field are also very inefficient and lose much of the water they dispense directly to evaporation.
Drip irrigation is more efficient and is used in countries where water is in short supply and relatively expensive.
Much of the agriculture in America is in support of the factory farm system for animal products. Most doctors and nutritionalists will tell us that we are consuming far too much animal protein in our diets already.
Rational changes in our diets, eating only the recommended amounts of meat would go along way towards reducing agricultural demand and hence eliminate much of the additional and unnecessary water vapor as well as reducing obesity related illnesses associated with diets high in cholesterol and animal fats.
Simply not growing corn and cotton in semi-arid climates and instead growing crops that fair well naturally under the average precipitations of the regions in which they are grown could largely eliminate the actual need for most irrigation.
It would entail major economic change, shifting production of crops back to lands that are naturally suited for their production, but it is a necessity if we are to mitigate our impact on the climate.
No till or reduced till planting and weeding practices are also worthy of consideration and would do much to mitigate the impact of evapotranspiration of the more common style of non-irrigated agriculture practiced globally.
These no and low till practices also have the side benefit of reducing the need for agricultural chemicals on the land as well as being better in terms of soil conservation.
Sorry that we aren’t on the brink of the point of no return in terms of atmospheric CO2 levels. It isn’t the end of the world, it is simply time to do things in a more environmentally sound and rational fashion.
We don’t have to give up our cars to walk or ride bikes, though I’m all for it for health and recreation benefits, we don’t have to sit in the dark and cold in our homes and we don’t have to let the third world starve so we can drive our cars on so called “renewable” energy.
We simply have to implement some real and beneficial change to save ourselves and mitigate our impact on the biosphere and the climate.
Step one is acknowledging and understanding our current impact.
Peace,
So far I’m not sold on what you’ve put forward. I’d like to read more of what’s got you convinced that this is the major source of G.W.
Peace,
Good article but other than reinforcing that climate models and projections are subject to many variables and sometimes not entirely accurate, especially long term, it does not mention anything that outright supports your theory.
That was the only point I was trying to make with that single post.
The models are far from perfect
My “theory” is self-supporting.
Do the math.
Peace,
Has anyone posted this yet?
GWHunta's Blogs 
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-settles-at-record-seasonal-minimum/
Myths about industrial agriculture
(Rainfed) Organic farming is the “only way to produce food” without harming the planet and people’s health.
Poles apart: A record-breaking summer and winter