Global Warming?

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html

[Netghost56]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200602...ottubindinoera

[belgareth]

Yup,

Scientists

don't know what might have caused ocean temperatures to get so high. Climate models that consider increases in

carbon dioxide can't account for it, Bice said.

did you read the follow up

articles?
http://www.livescience.com/forc

esofnature/060124_earth_albedo.html
http

://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html
http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_050829.html
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/041202_

extinction_cause.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/extinction_sidebar_000907.html

[Netghost56]

I just posted a relevant

article for others to read.


I just can't fight this anymore, I'm not smart or strong enough.

[belgareth]

It was a question. Generally

speaking, you should try to be as informed as possible. I'm not fighting or even debating. I do want you and

everybody else to learn as much as you can though.

[DrSmellThis]

I just

posted a relevant article for others to read. I just can't fight this anymore, I'm not smart or strong

enough.

Don't be intimidated, but stay within yourself and trust your ability to think through it one

point or step at a time. Slow down if you have to.

So just read the articles, for example. There's nothing in

any of them that contradicts anything you've been saying, that I can see. If anything they're supportive, such as

identifying historical precedents for CO2 based warming. Do they bring up things you didn't bring up? Sure. Who

cares? Just be thankful for the extra information and move on.

Obviously, you could possibly have to "factor

out" (account for and subtract the effect of) changes in sun activity to get an accurate GG effect number, for

example; but only to the extent you have relatively compelling evidence that sun activity is correlated with

recent changes in GG (greenhouse gas) levels. That would, in that case, make it a confounding

variable, or a third cause of the GG/T relationship; as I've been saying (These are basic terms that scientists

who understand statistical research methods use). The same goes for albedo. Absent confounds, you go with the GG

effect number you have, other relevant things being equal.

BTW, the albedo findings reminded me of the

"conspiracy theories" about "chem-trails" (reputed to be for increasing albedo), since at first blush those

reported anomalous findings appear to support those conspiracy theories exactly as predicted, based on reported chem

trail activity, (which should be lower during a war and given Bush's beliefs about global warming, i.e., from

2000-2005.) This is apparently not much less crazy than any of the other inadequate explanations, so far. (Remember

during the Clinton administration when Letterman asked Hillary if the govt. controlled the weather, and she

replied, "Yes."?)

Regardless, it is true that predicting the actual effect of GG on future T is less precise than

it would otherwise be; the less we know about effects such as albedo. We have a bigger range of uncertainty, or less

confidence, in actual future temperatures than we would like. So albedo is currently a source of random error

variance in our models, obviously; since we can't predict what albedo will be five years from now. To the extent

we learn more we'll be more confident in our predictions of actual future T's.

However, that is just normal,

random error; and is already accounted for as such in typical models. It does not affect the validity

or reliability of the current GG/T correlation as a predictor, again; unless you can demonstrate a systematic

confound (instead of random error, or even non-random, non-confounding error). It is what it is, as I

said.

In fact, since albedo is functioning like "unbiased", random error for now (the only possible assumption

until we know more, if you believe the articles), the extra uncertainty of albedo actually represents extra risk to

ourselves from our own actions in GG emission, and therefore extra urgency (That in no way implies less urgency

would result should we pinpoint albedo, obviously). The same goes for the uncertainty of future sun activity. As a

result, basic scientific reasoning dictates that these factors strengthen arguments for doing something now

about our climate, based on what we already know about GG having a meaningful effect now, in the past, and in the

lab.

[belgareth]

Netghost,

All I ask is that

you take the time to read and learn. I have my viewpoint and others have theirs. The good Doc chooses to believe one

way and I another. I am not trying to convince you, only asking you to learn as much as possible so you can make

your decisions based on knowledge from both sides of the debate, or shaould I say all sides? There seems to be more

than two.

For myself, I find much of the reasoning about global warming, including that above, to be flawed. I

was glad to see I wasn't alone in apposing the Kyoto protocol. If you'll go back and read some of my posts you'll

find links and reference to the fact that more than 17,000 environmental scientists, 2/3 holding Ph.Ds in

environmental science fields, signed a petition asking the president to reject Kyoto. Rather than listen to me or

DST or any other find out for yourself why. I'm not arguing any course other that learning so you and everybody

else can make their own decisions.

[Netghost56]

My frustration is that I

don't feel that we can afford to waste time talking about certain issues. Just talk and talk until its too late,

and then what do you have? Only dissapointment for some, but others have to live with the consequences.

I'm not

sure if I'm making much sense. I think I'm heading for another dark period. I have trouble expressing myself

sometimes. Either way, I know that the smart move would be to look before you leap, but sometimes, if you wait to

long, the floor falls out from under you. Do you understand that? I think in global warming you have most, if not

all the data you can possibly get by current technological standards. I think in order to make the right observation

or choice one needs to put aside the cost, manpower, and other obstacles. You can't afford to be looking at

something like Kyoto and worry about the cost. Something like Kyoto is supposed to benefit everybody. It's a far

better plan to sink money into than some silly war effort. Don't you think? Would you rather spend $100 billion on

some overpriced, cheaply-built jet planes, or on an air filtration, water purifiying machine? How about development

of solar power? Making it more efficient? Geothermal? I'd gladly put money in those things. Even spaceflight! Maybe

I'm being silly, but I bought all the NASA propaganda that spaceflight benefits everybody. Or maybe I just want to

go into space someday. But I won't as long as the military controls space, right?

Anyway, rambling aside, I

feel that in an issue like this you've got to focus on the foundation of the issue and not get tied up or bogged

down in the parts and pieces.

[DrSmellThis]

For myself,

I find much of the reasoning about global warming, including that above, to be flawed.

What specifically is

"flawed" about the reasoning in my last post and how so? I see nothing remotely controversial about it, and

nothing particularly opinionated. It is just basic principles of statistics/research methods applied to the

findings in question, in a straightforward manner.

[a.k.a.]

My frustration is

that I don't feel that we can afford to waste time talking about certain issues. Just talk and talk until its too

late, and then what do you have? Only dissapointment for some, but others have to live with the consequences.

I think I know how you feel. I’ve been hearing this talk much longer than you.
Back

in the 70’s global warming was just a theory and a lot of people were saying it could never happen. Some scientists

even believed we were going to enter a new ice age. Now global warming is real and people are saying CO2 is not the

cause.
I say give some credit to the scientists that saw it coming.

[tim929]

My frustration is that I

don't feel that we can afford to waste time talking about certain issues. Just talk and talk until its too late,

and then what do you have? Only dissapointment for some, but others have to live with the consequences.

The unfortunate problem that we are rappidly running up against is that talk and prayer are about the only

practical things that humanity can do about any of it at this point.Wether you belive global climate change is the

result of mans hand or,as the evidence more firmly supports,a natural cycle in the earths life span,the catastrophy

is already uppon us.Global climate change I do not dispute.Cause and effect I do because there is no credible

evidence to point to man and tons of geologic evidence pointing to mother earth herself,the sun and a half dozen

other things.Birds,for example are having a hell of a time navagating because magnetic north is shifting.It has

moved measurably toward Moscow in just the last twelve months and seems to be accelerating.

But the relivent

topic for discussion at this point isnt "how do we stop it?" We cant...AMEN! The relevent question is "how do we go

about mitigating the catostrophic results that have been set in motion and cant be stopped.Coast lines are going to

change...get used to it.Cold areas will get colder...get used to it.Warm areas will be intermitently colder and

hotter...get used to it.Wet areas will be alot wetter...get used to it.

All the various changes will result in

things like the redirection of aquifers that feed water to your community.No water,what are YOU going to do about

that?Your house is built in a shallow basin...well...get your swim trunks out.You live on a costal lowland...Hope

your house doubles as a boat.At this point the change is comming and there isnt one little thing that man can do to

stop it...or even slow it down.So how are we gonna use our brains to survive it?

[DrSmellThis]

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/articl

e348177.ece

[InternationalPlayboy]

The water wars

won't be just between nations, but also between the states in this country too. I live along the Colorado River in

Arizona. Much of that water is taken by Los Angeles and other non-Arizonan areas. It's been years since I've seen

the movie, but if I recall, the movie "Chinatown" was based on a scandal associated with Los Angeles' Colorado

River water use.

Being that Arizona is now in one of the longest droughts on record, I wonder what the future

holds for us in that aspect. (We did have light sprinkles this morning, first time in months!) And to make matters

worse, these little towns between here and Phoenix are building golf courses to attract the RV users' money. Just

what the desert needs, more golf courses.

As a sidebar, there was a desalinization plant built in my area

with out tax dollars, due to the fact that the river water we were sending into Mexico was too polluted. (The water

dries up before it even hits the Sea of Cortez anymore.) It has never become fully operational as by the time it was

built, the water flow improved, and is now mothballed and used mainly for educational purposes. I wonder why cities

along the coasts, such as Los Angeles, don't look into this technology so their swimming pools and golf courses

won't put a burden on the Colorado, leaving more for others who don't have such a vast source of water, such as

Las Vegas and Phoenix.

[Mtnjim]

...I

wonder why cities along the coasts, such as Los Angeles, don't look into this technology so their swimming pools

and golf courses won't put a burden on the Colorado,

Actually, San Diego did have a plant in the early

'60's (below the Point Loma light house). It was decided that Colorado River water was cheaper, so it was closed

down.

[belgareth]

The most effective means of

desalination is through distilliation. Other means have been tried but are problematic, at best. To deslinate

through distilliation you need a lot of heat. In arizona solar is a decent option but in few other places in the US.

Even there it's limited because of the amount of available versus the amount needed. Huge collectors would be

needed that would cover many acres of the fragile desert and destroy much of the ecosystem. So what other energy

sources do you suggest?

[Netghost56]

It's not just water wars between states, it's cities too. And big cities get first dibs while smaller cities pay

the price:

Dallas, Texas wants water pipeline from Texarkana, Texas

lake.
http://www.texarkan

agazette.com/articles/2005/06/23/local_news/news/news17.txt

Dallas also wants a reservoir on the Sulphur

River, which will destroy 70,000 acres of

farmland.
http://www.stopmarvinnichols.com/actionalert.

htm

Dallas has been at this since

2000:
http://www.texasobserver.org/showarticl

e.asp?articleid=488
http://www.texaswatermatters.org

/pdfs/news_15.pdf

[InternationalPlayboy]

The

most effective means of desalination is through distilliation. Other means have been tried but are problematic, at

best. To deslinate through distilliation you need a lot of heat. In arizona solar is a decent option but in few

other places in the US. Even there it's limited because of the amount of available versus the amount needed. Huge

collectors would be needed that would cover many acres of the fragile desert and destroy much of the ecosystem. So

what other energy sources do you suggest?

Unfortunately, I have no suggestions for energy

sources. I was thinking more of places that had ocean water at their disposal to use. Of course, this would take

even more processing.

Our plant is a reverse osmosis plant, and that was what I was thinking of when I

formulated my statement. "Problematic" is a good description for it. I had a friend who worked there as a telemetry

technician and I unsuccesfully applied for a similar job there. They had problems with their membranes used to

filter the water drying out before they were even put to use.

I don't know on how grand a scale these types

of plants are used now, but they are used in places. A friend trained at ours through the local community college

and was about to go to Iraq to work in the field. Unfortunately (or fortunately as this was when they had just

cutting hostages' heads off), he failed some kind of physical exam and didn't go.

Golf courses cover many

acres and change the desert's ecosystem too. I see them as a waste of water (and mainly, a magnet for snowbirds,

whom I would prefer stay in their home state during the winter ). Of course, my opinion would probably be

different there if I played the game.

[belgareth]

The reverse osmosis stystems

have so many flaws and kinks that its almost funny. The idea is a good one, the practical applications have proven

to be a bear. Even when you can make them work right, energy use is phenomenal. Then, no matter the system you use

you have a problem with waste products, which are impressive.

It's a matter of economics, really. No matter how

inefficient a process is you can make a case for it under some conditions, the question is whether you should do it.



Indeed, golf courses suck a lot of water and add humidity to the air which is not only poison to the very

fragile desert flora and fauna but retains heat adding to the question of global warming. How much it alters the

local weather patterns, or further, on a global scale is anybody's guess.

The water wars have been going on for

years in Cailfornia and they might get worse. It depends on what climate change really does and nobody really knows

that despite what some may claim. It's equally possible that the earth will become far more humid and overall

rainfall may increase by several factors, or desertification may increase.

[Mtnjim]

... So what other

energy sources do you suggest?

In my mention of the desalination plant in the posting above, they used

"our friend the atom"; it was the early '60's.

[InternationalPlayboy]

In my

mention of the desalination plant in the posting above, they used "our friend the atom"; it was the early

'60's.

Really? At Point Loma? That's bizarre considering that it is now a nature preserve area.

When you say "below the lighthouse," I picture where the modern lighthouse stands now.

The

reverse osmosis stystems have so many flaws and kinks that its almost funny. The idea is a good one, the practical

applications have proven to be a bear. Even when you can make them work right, energy use is phenomenal. Then, no

matter the system you use you have a problem with waste products, which are impressive.

Interesting.

So our plant is even more of a white elephant than I thought. Like I said above, it was built due to some treaty

with Mexico. Agricuture runoff had polluted the water so much that we had to clean it up before sending it to

Mexico. When I first started learning electronics, it was just in experimental stage along a tributary to the

Colorado, the Gila River. I pass tanks on the side of the highway every work day, that are still for sale these odd

25+ years later. When I applied for a job there, it was right before the Gulf War. I did get an offer later as an

employee got called up for service. I declined though as he would have been legally entitled to return to his job

after the war. The plant was closed a few years later without having ever going online in any more than a test

capacity. Your tax dollars at work.

If memory serves me right, the waste product was pumped to drying fields

nearby. What they did after that, I don't know. I hope they didn't just leave the residue laying there to soak

into the ground and eventually return to the water table.

What is your opinion on home RO systems? Are they

just as bad? Interestingly, my friend who worked at the plant later got into the Amway "cult" and was going to push

their home purification units. Nothing ever really came of that.

[belgareth]

MtnJim:
The atom is the most

logical source but you can imagine the screaming from the environmentalists. From one perspective it would serve two

purposes because the water could be used as coolant for a reactor producing electricity. I've seen design studies

and it looks pretty good but waste is an issue. There's also the consideration that IF global warming is more than

hyperbole that nuclear power plants genterate a lot of heat. A big if, I know but let's not discount any

possibility. Of course, if we'd stop using potable water to wash cars, water crops and flush toilets it wouldn't

be such a big issue.

IP:
The power drain is impressive, they are full of problems and the waste products are

terrible for the environment. Although, to be fair, there are a lot of useful minerals in seawater if somebody could

figure out a way to seperate them from everything else economically. There's gold, irradium, potassium, mercury,

silver and so on.

I don't know what they are doing with desalination waste these days. If left to sit rain

would eventually re-dissolve it and it would end up returning to the water table after poisoning the soil it

percolated through.

The home units have had mixed reviews, as I recall. It's been a lot of years since I've

read much about them. Where I used to live in California, near the Sacramento Delta, due to the massive amounts of

water taken to irrigate farmland and water golf courses in Southern California the local tap water was brakish.

Would you believe the newspaper publishes salinity figures for those with salt intake restrictions? RO units were

good for about a year before you had to replace most of the parts. And those were units used only for drinking

water. They did have the advantage of using such fine materials that things like Giardia couldn't get through to

the tap.

Current units for home use? I don't know enough about the state of the technology to really have an

opinion but its probably better than drinking straight tap water. Pay attention though because most of those units

use a bypass when clogged and you end up getting unfiltered water without warning.

The water here is sweet so

for our drinking water use I jiggered up a filter using an industrial grade, wrapped fiber, one micron filter like

they use to filter water in asbestos removal projects. Far better than anything you can buy for residential use and

relatively cheap. Then you filter it through charcoal to eliminate volitols like clorine and any distillate type

pollutants. Pretty cheap to do, actually. Most the products are available through places like Grangers.

An old

friend and fellow techie was trying to work out a cleanable system using diatamacious earth a few years ago but was

having trouble with grit pass through on the filter panels. He was talking about using the paper filter panels like

resturants use for cooking oil filtering but I don't know how it went.

[InternationalPlayboy]

MtnJim got my

curiosity up about San Diego's treatment plant and I tried to find some quich information at work this morning. No

success there, but I did find a couple of recent news articles about desalizination proposals in San Diego County.

One of them in fact, is to used an old nuclear power plant.

San Onofre

desalination plant study authorized
Water Authority to

study nuke plant for desal concepts
Desal plant hearing

delayed

I guess I shouldn't have been shocked at a nuclear plant at Point Loma as the navy

has a nuclear sub base there. In fact, one of the articles I found said that they want to set up a waste dump in

that area!

[Mtnjim]

I found this in a Google

search. Seems there is a plant north of San Diego in Encinetas that is slated to be completed in 2007, I didn't

know about that one. I forgot about the one at Scripps.


[PDF]

Clathrate Desalination

PlantFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -

View as HTML
coast of San Diego and one at

Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, ... in the 1960 and 1970 decades. It comes from

matching desalination ...
www.usbr.gov/pmts/water/media/pdfs/report005.pdf -

[belgareth]

Anything current on it? I read

about the energy storage idea. Another guy in Southern Cal was trying to do the same thing under dry ground. In the

latter case the heat pumps required ended up eating the majority of the gains from low temperature energy storage.

Again, that was a long time ago and I haven't looked at it recently.

[Mtnjim]

The PDF (posted above) mentions the

2007 project, I didn't read the whole thing. The ones from the '60's are long gone. At the time the Colorado

River water was cheaper, and plentiful.

[belgareth]

Yeah, I saw that but was hoping

for something fresher. That one is 11 years old. A lot has happened since then.

[Mtnjim]

True, unfortunately, I hadn't

given the issue much attention until this thread. At the moment, I don't have time for much research on the issue.

[belgareth]

I did a brief search and the

most recent I could find on the subject was a general article from 2003. There were a number of inter-related topics

I thought I wanted to explore.

[DrSmellThis]

Published on Monday, March 6, 2006 by Reuters

Global Warming

Evidence Grows - UN Expert

by Alister Doyle

OSLO - Evidence that humans are to blame for global warming is rising but governments are doing

too little to counter the threat, the head of the United Nations climate panel said on Monday.
Rajendra Pachauri,

chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also said that costs of braking climate change in

coming decades might be less than forecast in the IPCC's last report in 2001.
"If one looks at just the

scientific evidence that's been collected it's certainly becoming far more compelling. There is no question about

it," he told Reuters of research since 2001 into a link between human emissions of greenhouse gases and rising

temperatures.
Pachauri was more forthright than at the last U.N. climate meeting in Montreal, Canada, in December,

when he declined to say whether there was clearer scientific evidence that human activities were to blame.
The

last IPCC report in 2001 said there was "new and stronger evidence" that gases released by burning fossil fuels in

power plants, factories and cars were warming the planet.
Warming may herald catastrophic climate changes such as

more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising sea levels.
The IPCC, grouping research by about 2,000 scientists,

will present its next report to the United Nations in 2007. The report is the mainstay for environmental

policy-making.
Still, Pachauri said it was too early to draw exact conclusions.
A BBC report last week said the

IPCC would say in 2007 that "only" greenhouse gas emissions can explain freak weather patterns. "That's premature

because the report is still nowhere near completion," he said.
MORE ACTION
Pachauri said the world needed to do

more.
"Given the gravity of the situation and the importance of taking action I hope that the global community

will move a little more rapidly with some future agreements," he said.
The U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, which obliges

industrial nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, entered into force last year after years of wrangling and

weakened by a U.S. pullout.
Pachauri said people living in island states such as the Maldives in the Indian Ocean,

Tuvalu in the Pacific or low-lying countries such as Bangladesh were among those most at risk.
"They are living in

a state of fear," he said. "We must understand the reasons behind their fears. We're really talking about their

very existence, the complete devastation of the land on which they're living."
And cities from New York to

Shanghai, from Buenos Aires to London, could also be swamped by rising seas.
The IPCC report says that costs of

curbing greenhouse gases in the toughest case could delay world growth from reaching projected 2050 levels until

2051 or 2052.
"That's not a heavy price to pay," he said in a speech at Oslo university. "Personally I think

these (IPCC) projections are pessimistic."
He said more U.S. companies, cities and states were acting to cap

greenhouse gas emissions even though President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of Kyoto in 2001, saying

it was too costly and wrongly excluded developing nations.
"I think (U.S. action) is going to gather momentum," he

said. He noted that even Bush had said in January that the United States was "addicted to oil".

© Copyright

2006 Reuters Ltd

[DrSmellThis]

Polar ice sheets show net loss


By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter




There is a net loss of ice to the ocean from the Greenland and Antarctic ice

sheets, a study has found.

In one of the most

comprehensive studies of its type, satellite data was used to plot changes in the height of the ice sheets between

1992 and 2002.
Writing in the Journal of Glaciology, a US team says that 20 billion

tonnes of water are added to oceans each year.
Mass

changes in the ice sheets match predictions from computer models of global climate change, they say.


Dr H Jay Zwally, of the US space agency (Nasa)

Goddard Flight Center in Maryland, and colleagues analysed radar altimeter data from two European remote-sensing

satellites, ERS-1 and ERS-2, as well as Nasa's plane-based Airborne Topographic Mapper instrument.



This

seems to suggest that East Antarctica might not save our bacon after all


Liz

Morris, Scott Polar Research Institute


The survey

documents extensive thinning of the West Antarctic ice shelves, but a thickening in the East of the continent,

though not by as much as some other studies have shown. It shows the interior of

Greenland is gaining mass due to increased snowfall, but the edges are getting thinner.


Competing forces


This mass gain is something which computer models of climate have predicted.


Warmer air is able to carry more water; so as the atmosphere heats up, Greenland and Antarctica should

experience greater snowfall.

But

rising temperatures could have the opposite effect at the edges of both landmasses, causing rates of melting to

increase. A recent study led by Eric Rignot of Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

showed the amount of ice dumped into the Atlantic Ocean by Greenland's glaciers has doubled in the last five years.


"A race is going on in Greenland between these competing forces of snow build-up in the interior and ice loss on

the edges," explained Dr Zwally.
"But we don't know how long they will be approximately in balance with each

other, or if that balance has already tipped in favour of the recently accelerating outflow from glaciers."


The Rignot study included data up to 2005, whereas Jay Zwally's analysis ran only until

2002.
In the Antarctic, the new findings confirm the trend of other recent studies

- that the West is losing mass to the oceans whereas the ice sheet in the East is either getting thicker or

remaining stable.
"This seems to suggest that East Antarctica might not save our bacon after all," commented Dr

Liz Morris of the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge, UK.

"We knew that West Antarctica was losing ice rapidly,"

she told the BBC News website. "The surprise is that the East Antarctic isn't showing more of a gain. "Maybe the

story there is that the moisture is never being carried on to the continent. You have got to get that packet of

warmer air to the ice sheet in the first place."
If ice is on balance being lost to the oceans, it could be

contributing to global sea-level rise; and according to Jay Zwally's research, it is, but by less than expected.


"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to sea-level rise during the decade studied was much

smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year," he said.


"Current estimates of the other major sources of sea-level rise - expansion of the ocean by warming temperatures and

runoff from low-latitude glaciers - do not make up the difference, so we have a mystery on our hands as to where the

water is coming from."

Story from BBC

NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi

/science/nature/4790238.stm