Al Gore - Nobel Peace Prize

[Jolly Roger]

Interesting little read here:

Fred Singer is an internationally known climate physicist who was the first director of the US National Weather Service and he has a long list of accomplisments in the field as does his co-author Dennis Avery. They know whereof they speak. In this book they explain in easily understandable language with irrefutable historical evidence that human activities are not influencing the global climate in any perceptible way. With data of the global satellite temperature records, earth's temperature records, Chinese, Siberian and South African temperature histories as well as earth's temperatures related to solar cycles they show that climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling,on different time scales and for different reasons regardless of human action. They also argue with facts and common sense that a modest warming would be beneficial. Their explanation of the 1500 year climate cycles is best illustrated by Greenland where Eric the Red and his descendents grew vegetables in summer during the Medieval Warming period. That was followed by the Little Ice Age and on it went. My take from the book is that the problem is not climate change it is political --control energy use and you control the people. A great read and a much needed antidote to the scare tactics of Al Gore and the alarmists who want governments to take over whole economies to guard against the supposed impending catastrophe of ...what? A little warmer weather for a while? Read this book and you won't be conned by the global warming hoaxers.

[StrykerFSU]

I haven't read that book but I consistently read the peer-reviewed scientific journals on the subject and I have also been on 5 oceanographic research cruises in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans where we have measured increased concentrations of dissolved inorganic carbon and the resulting lowering of pH compared to 15 years ago. The ocean is absorbing some of the CO2 that humans are releasing into the atmosphere and this is drastically altering the ocean's chemistry.

Believe me, none of my collegues could care less about who controls the energy. With their political views, they would probably rather raise corporate taxes and hope the oil companies keep making money.

Here is some more information about Singer:

Singer is also skeptical about the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, between UV-B radiation and melanoma[2][3][4][5][6] and between second hand smoke and lung cancer.[7][8][9]

Singer has been accused of conflicts of interest, most notably involving financial ties to oil and tobacco companies.[26] Writing for The Guardian, George Monbiot claimed that in 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris to vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: "As you know, we have been working with Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."[27], although this communication does not prove that Singer accepted funds from the tobacco industry.

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. While funds were not directed specifically in his name, publicly available documents show that Singer's non-profit corporation SEPP received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including in 1998 and 2000.[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

[Zeuslax]

StrykerFSU

The ocean is absorbing some of the CO2 that humans are releasing into the atmosphere and this is drastically altering the ocean's chemistry.

Stryker I'm sure you know better than any of us, but isn't this also causing increasing acidic levels and many of the oceans are reaching there saturation point - decreased PH level = increased acidity. Then there's algae explosions that is a whole other problem. The last estimate I saw is that the oceans have absorbed 1 gigaton of CO2! From the experts that I've spoken with (I don't know the linear science here) have said that the dissolved CO2 leads to extreme change, especially at the surface (where most of the sealife lives).

I would also like to note that your house is probably your biggest CO2 contribution. It doesn't have a tailpipe or a smoke stack, but 35% of our national energy use is residential. This is site and source use. Shot me a Pm is anyone wants to learn how to decrease their energy use by about 10 to 15% with about 500 dollars.

[StrykerFSU]

I don't want to move this thread to far off the topic but I think it is important that people are made aware of the science. I don't care what stance people take on climate change as long as they take the time to fully educate themselves before deciding.

From Sabine et al., 2004 published in Science Magazine:

Using inorganic carbon measurements from an international survey effort in the 1990s and a tracer-based separation technique, we estimate a global oceanic anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) sink for the period from 1800 to 1994 of 118+/-19 petagrams (10^15 grams) of carbon. The oceanic sink accounts for ~48%of the total fossil-fuel and cement-manufacturing emissions, implying that the terrestrial biosphere was a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere of about 39+/-28 petagrams of carbon for this period. The current fraction of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions stored in the ocean appears to be about one-third of the long-term potential.

Note that one petagram is roughly equivalent to a gigaton so what this is saying is that of the ~120 gigatons of carbon produced over the last 200 years, half of it has been absorbed by the ocean, exhausting about one-third of its carbon absorbing potential.

When CO2 is absorbed by the ocean it interacts with the calcium carbonate (CaCO3) that plankton use to make their shells.

CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O = Ca2+ + 2HCO3-

Remember from high school chemistry that adding a reactant to a chemical reaction pushes the reaction to the right, producing more products. In this case, that means that the shells of plankton will dissolve more quickly and will be harder to precipitate. Plankton are the "grass" of the oceans in the sense that they convert the Sun's energy to biomass and fuel the food chain. Rapid changes in plankton populations could have disastrous consequences for marine life (and all of us that like eating seafood).

From Feely et al., 2004:

Estimates of future atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emission scenarios and general circulation models, suggest that by the end of the century CO2 levels could be over 800 ppm (2). Corresponding models for
the oceans indicate that surface-water dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) could probably increase by more than 12%, and the carbonate ion concentration would decrease by almost 60% (3) (Fig. 1). The corresponding pH drop would be about 0.4 pH units in surface waters (4). Such dramatic changes of the CO2 system in open ocean surface waters have probably not occurred for more than 20 million years of Earth’s history. If they do occur, they can potentially have significant impacts on the biological systems in the oceans in ways we are only beginning to understand (5). Thus, the delicate balance of marine planktonic species could undergo significant shifts in the future as humankind continues along the path of unintentional CO2 sequestration in the surface oceans.

These papers are not intended for the general public but PM me if you are interested in them and I can forward copies.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Will one of you on "the right" please rebut my earlier contention that Jimmy Carter and Al Gore have done more since leaving office (whether you agree with any specifics of what they have done) than any other past President or Vice-President? Please name one former Republican President the past century (Teddy Roosevelt is ancient history) who has spent his retirement doing anything of a volunteer nature to try to help his fellow man?

I strongly believe that JC has been our best EX-Prez in history -- actually building homes for Habitat from Humanity, monitoring elections, fighting for human-rights, etc. Very admirable, indeed.

[StrykerFSU]

Jimmy Carter as "JC"...haha!

He has certainly been "active" since he was summarily booted from the White House, but then he was only 57. Al Gore was only 53 when he left the Vice Presidency.

Reagan was 78 when he left office and was felled by Alzheimer's during his retirement. Bush41 lost his bid at reelection at the age of 69. He worked with Clinton following the Indonesian tsunami but appears to be enjoying retirement more than anything else.

Yes, Carter and Gore have arguably done more in retirement than their Republican counterparts, as they should have considering they were retired before they could even claim Social Security.

[peterwho]

Carbon dioxide absorbs heat and we make more of it faster than there has ever been in the last million years. Carbon dioxide absorbs the thermal radiation emanating from the surface of the planet like a blanket, making it warmer. That's just physics and there is no room for politics in that discussion.

So my question for you (I respect your opinion) is this:

Are you convinced that humans are the primary factor in this buildup of carbon dioxide, directly or indirectly?

If so, that the buildup of carbon dioxide is the primary factor in the current warming trend and not another, naturally occurring factor, such as increased solar activity?

And finally, that this trend will continue unless we humans intervene?

Thanks

[Sonny]

I strongly believe that JC has been our best EX-Prez in history -- actually building homes for Habitat from Humanity, monitoring elections, fighting for human-rights, etc. Very admirable, indeed.

This is 100% laughable Dan. Monitoring elections for guys like his buddy Chavez in Venezuela? I will give him credit for building some homes through Habitat. But Bush, Sr and Clinton did that too.

JC hasn't met a dictator he didn't like and undercuts US policy abroad any chance he gets. He also seems to forget that ex-Presidents don't criticize the current administration as has been past (unwritten) policy for all past presidents.

But if JC had just one more helicopter during the Iran Hostage Crisis, he would have been reelected.

[Adam Gamradt]

"ex-Presidents don't criticize the current administration"

This claim is just a myth.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705220 ... =rss-alert

The current administration certainly deserves any and all criticism that comes it's way.

[StrykerFSU]

My opinions, for what their worth:

Are you convinced that humans are the primary factor in this buildup of carbon dioxide, directly or indirectly?

Yes, I believe that human activity is directly responsible for the buildup of CO2 in our atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. By burning fossil fuels for energy we are releasing huge amounts of carbon to the atmosphere that otherwise would remain locked beneath the Earth's surface.

If so, that the buildup of carbon dioxide is the primary factor in the current warming trend and not another, naturally occurring factor, such as increased solar activity?

This is a little trickier because it is true that the planet's climate has undergone significant changes due to natural rhythms such as the Milankovitch cycles. Over the last 400,000 years, the intensity of the Sun's radiation hitting the Earth has fluctuated because of slight changes in the Earth's orbit and angle of tilt. During that span, periods of high solar intensity correspond with warmer periods (interglacial periods) and periods of low intensity occurred during glacial times. But, and this is a big but, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 never rose higher than about 280 ppm during that 400,000 year span. Because of our reliance on fossil fuels we have raised the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to 380 ppm, increasing by about 2 ppm per year (a rate that will increase with China and India's continued industrialization).

And finally, that this trend will continue unless we humans intervene?

Without a doubt, the release of CO2 will continue and accelerate without the intervention of developed nations. As I said before, there are a host of reasons to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels that have absolutely nothing to do with climatology.

In my opinion, there is no question about the link between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change. Where it gets a little fuzzier is what the impacts are going to be. I tend to distance myself from folks who like to talk about 20 foot sea level rise and shutting down the Gulf Stream because things like that are hard to predict and smack of scare tactics, hence my negative attitude towards Gore.

[Zamboni_Driver]

My opinions, for what their worth:

Are you convinced that humans are the primary factor in this buildup of carbon dioxide, directly or indirectly?

Yes, I believe that human activity is directly responsible for the buildup of CO2 in our atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. By burning fossil fuels for energy we are releasing huge amounts of carbon to the atmosphere that otherwise would remain locked beneath the Earth's surface.

[

Animals (which humans are) release CO2 when we breath. What has been the population expansion in the world since the Industrial Revolution? And how fast is it increasing in the future? The increase in humans directly suggests an increase in domesticated animals as food sources all adding CO2 (and methane)... How come population control is never mentioned as a means to curb global warming?

[StrykerFSU]

Certainly all aerobic organisms release CO2 through respiration:
CH20 + O2 = CO2 + H2O

However, animals are not releasing CO2 that would otherwise be removed from the system as is the case with fossil fuel burning. The carbon in the CO2 that we breathe out comes from the food that we eat, originating at the start of the food chain when some photosynthesizer used the Sun's energy to turn CO2 into some organic molecule, say a carbohydrate. When we eat the food and then break it down to release energy, we are just returning that CO2 to the atmosphere. There is no net loss or gain to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In the case of fossil fuels, we are burning organic material that has been locked underground for millions of years. This carbon has been removed from the pool of atmospheric CO2 and therefore its release is a net increase to the pool of atmospheric CO2.

Methane (CH4) is a little different. While the source of the carbon for CH4 in the cases you mentioned is the same as the CO2 we breathe, increasing production of CH4 from the guts of ruminants (and termites) and from anaerobic systems such as rice paddies as we try to meet the food needs of over 6 billion people is a significant contributor to climate change. CH4 is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, approximately 20 times more efficient at trapping heat. CH4 is also released from our landfills and is produced naturally in peat bogs and similar areas. The latter is of interest because if the high latitudes warm and the permafrost thaws, it is quite possible that very large amounts of CH4 would be released to the atmosphere in a positive feedback.

Overpopulation of the planet is a HUGE issue.

[Rob Graff]

Methane (CH4) is a little different. While the source of the carbon for CH4 in the cases you mentioned is the same as the CO2 we breathe, increasing production of CH4 from the guts of ruminants (and termites) and from anaerobic systems such as rice paddies as we try to meet the food needs of over 6 billion people is a significant contributor to climate change. CH4 is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, approximately 20 times more efficient at trapping heat. CH4 is also released from our landfills and is produced naturally in peat bogs and similar areas. The latter is of interest because if the high latitudes warm and the permafrost thaws, it is quite possible that very large amounts of CH4 would be released to the atmosphere in a positive feedback.

Cliff - I seem to recall that there are naturally occuring massive deposits of methane on (Below?) the sea floor that are kept their via some combination of temperature and pressure. IF this premise is accurate, is there any legitimate <read - peer reviewed> concerns/papers on the effect of a change in salinity or temperature on the continued storage of the sub-ocean methane? And if so, do you know where I can obtain such studies/papers? I cannot seem to creat a wiki search term correctly, hence my question.
Thanks
Rob

[StrykerFSU]

You are exactly right Rob. What you are referring to are called gas hydrates or gas clathrates. A clathrate is essentially a hybrid of solid liquid water and some gas, in this case methane. You can think of it as methane frozen within an ice matrix. They exist either on the surface of the seafloor or just below.

Methane clathrates exist all over the seafloor but are especially abundant in the Gulf of Mexico. They only occur at great depth because it is the immense water pressure present at depths of several thousand meters, in addition to low temperatures, that keep the liquid water in a solid form (<7 degree C and >50 bar). I won't get into the physcal chemistry going on but suffice it to say that clathrates are usually right on the edge of stability. At the surface, clathrates are unstable and quickly sublime...you can even light them on fire. They are sometimes brought to the surface in fishing nets.


There is concern that a warming of the ocean will upset the balance of temperature and pressure keeping these clathrates in the solid phase. There is an enormous amount of methane sequestered on the seafloor, oil companies are some of the biggest investigators in this area, and should a significant amount of clathrates "melt", an enormous amount of methane would be released, bubble up to the surface, and into the atmosphere.

Coincedentally, I'm going to a seminar tomorrow on the critters that live on methane clathrates so I'll see what I can come up with in terms of literature.

[Ravaging Beast]

Does the seminar happen to involve Santa Barbara? I know we have tons of methane seeps all through out the SB channel. I think David Valentine does a lot of work with it.