My knee is slowing down about this global warming thing

[Zeno]

"Geologists are particularly skeptical. Peter Sciaky, a retired geologist, writes to me thus:

........I do not know one geologist who believes that global warming is not taking place. I do not know a single geologist who believes that it is a man-made phenomenon. "

Interesting statment given this salient fact here:

AGU Statement

About AGU

By the way AGU also publishes a very good weekly magazine called EOS. It is worth reading. Though technical, the small papers presented every week are well written and interesting and cover a broad range of topics.

I was a member of AGU until I was thrown out for being too good of a Scientist. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I no longer participate much in these global warming threads. I have other fish to fry.

-Zeno

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly want to know what would convince you guys that man-made global warming is actually occurring? What kind of evidence do you want/need?

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue isnt whether its occurring, the issues are

-how much of the warming is man made
-what are the real implications for the near term and long term
-is it necessarily bad or are there beneficial aspects
-even if it is bad, what can be done about it and at what cost

none of those issues have been satisfactorily addressed or have "consensus"

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry man, I totally dropped the ball on that one thread. I still haven't asked her. I'll try to get in touch with her this week

[/ QUOTE ]

it just seems to me if geologicsts arent even involved than i can't see how the solar guys are.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry man, I totally dropped the ball on that one thread. I still haven't asked her. I'll try to get in touch with her this week

[/ QUOTE ]

it just seems to me if geologicsts arent even involved than i can't see how the solar guys are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Wacki proved that geologists are, in fact, involved. I'm still interested in your question though.

[ZeTurd]

Let me ask the global warming crowd a few simple questions:

Is it correct that CO2 makes up about 3,6% of the greenhouse gases, and that water vapour makes up the majority?

Is it also correct that man-made emissions account for about 5% of those 3,5% or about 0,2% total?

Finally, we know that there is a correlation between higher CO2 levels and higher temperature, but AFAIK causation hasn't been proved. Correct?

These questions aren't meant to be snide, I'm genuinely curious.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry man, I totally dropped the ball on that one thread. I still haven't asked her. I'll try to get in touch with her this week

[/ QUOTE ]

it just seems to me if geologicsts arent even involved than i can't see how the solar guys are.

[/ QUOTE ]



Geologist have been and are involved in all aspects of climate change studies and have studied this aspect of earth history long before the current uproar over "global warming". They study the earth, which is what Geology means, and that entails all aspects of the earth and its history.

Here is one example paper: Other Global Warmings

-Zeno

[wacki]

Zeno, I'm very familiar with the AGU but I'm far less familiar with the USGS. I know the USGS has the USGS Earth Surface Dynamics Program which studies past climate change and it's potential effects on us in the future. However, I'm not familiar with what percentage of the USGS's geologists would be involved in what could be considered climate change related study. I assumed most of their work was about mineral exploration, oil surveys, earthquakes, etc. Breaking apart the USGS into neat little categories is probably an impossible task so maybe there is no answer. I guess the easiest way to do it is find out what the budget of the USGS Earth Surface Dynamics Program is and compare it to the whole. But even this might be incomplete as I'm sure many programs overlap.

thoughts?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it also correct that man-made emissions account for about 5% of those 3,5% or about 0,2% total?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is one thing I dont really get aobut global warming. CO2 has gone from 200ish ppm to 300-400ppm. Parts per million. That seems like a really small part of the atmosphere to account for such a large change in the temperature. Its an increase of 0.0001% of the atmosphere. How do we know that such a small increase can cause global warming? What are the causal mechanisms at work?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Zeno, I'm very familiar with the AGU but I'm far less familiar with the USGS. I know the USGS has the USGS Earth Surface Dynamics Program which studies past climate change and it's potential effects on us in the future. However, I'm not familiar with what percentage of the USGS's geologists would be involved in what could be considered climate change related study. I assumed most of their work was about mineral exploration, oil surveys, earthquakes, etc. Breaking apart the USGS into neat little categories is probably an impossible task so maybe there is no answer. I guess the easiest way to do it is find out what the budget of the USGS Earth Surface Dynamics Program is and compare it to the whole. But even this might be incomplete as I'm sure many programs overlap.

thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

The USGS does a very broad range of scientific work both in the US and Internationally. The USGS also works through the State Department to help other nations with certian problems or give expert advise etc. I received monies long ago for some work I did in Mexico through this program. A seach through the USGS website shows a lot of programs done overseas.

General info:

About USGS

Main website, good information: USGS


USGS Climate Change I think I have posted to this link before. Note that the reserach activities cover a very broad range of disiplines within the earth sciences.

In general, a scientist or a group of scientists are given a certain budget within their home office and a task to accomplished with that budget. This is usually divided up by the head scientist at the office. The scientists are the managers and run the whole system. Mission statements and goals etc are given but a wide latitude is allowed. It is a flexible system, which is why the USGS produces top-notch scientific research and publications and expertise in technology and in innovation. This system may have changed some since it is about 20 years since I worked for them but I think the general principles still hold.

-Zeno

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
So when there is already warming going on, adding more CO2 accelerates the pace of that warming.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then, if that is the case, then should CO2 not act as a buffer on the start of the cooling phases since CO2 lags? Thus, would not the slope during cooling be an inverted exponential function where the CO2 initially helps resist the cooling but then helps accelerate it as the CO2 drops?