Warming may bring mass extinctions: study
Blue_Nose @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:49 pm
CO2 isn't the "answer", it's a potential factor. There's never going to be one "answer" to climate change.
Perhaps I should have used 'unaccountable climate change' - every time a new model is introduced, or an old one is modified, it's because the previous model didn't fit some phenomenon.
For example (coming from the AIP's resource on climate research), aerosols were added to the models when a temporary cooling was observed after a volcano eruption, resulting in a temporary cooling. The revised models fit the observed phenomenon very well, so the hypothesis was validated.
That's only one of a miriade of factors that have been introduced to models based on areas of deficiency in the model. There's no scientists doing research for nothing - it spawns from something outstanding that's unaacountable with current knowledge.
Why CO2 has been so controversial, I have no clue - it may be due to the fact that scientists disagree on the cause/effect relationship, or maybe it's because there's no huge blast of CO2 that can measurably affect the climate like there was with aerosols. Maybe it's as bad as the fact that there's political interests at stake, given the implications.
I'm not an expert on the subject, so I don't know. That's why I simply refrain from making conclusive statements.
To me, pollution reduction is more important, and extremely easy to confirm.
Kyoto is stupid.
I don't have time to read your article tonight, so you'll have to do without my feelings on that.
N_Fiddledog @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:46 pm
That's OK. I think we understand each other now.
But hey, veering slightly OT, and speaking of aeorosols (you're talking about, like chlorofluorocarbons, used in spray cans and air conditioning and refrigeration, right?) , have you heard about this new data creating controversy on the Ozone front?
$1:
Oct 03, 2007
Scientific Consensus on Man-Made Ozone Hole May Be Coming Apart
Nature
As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threatens to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere - almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”
Scientific Consensus on Man-Made Ozone Hole May Be Coming Apart
Nature
As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threatens to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere - almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-c ... ing_apart/
originally here
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/ ... 9382a.html
but you have to register.
Zipperfish @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:14 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying there is a fact, or group of facts which unequivocally proves catastrophic CO2 forced warming is imminent, but someone who is skeptic of their existence automatically becomes too stupid to be trusted with the information, based on the fact he is skeptic?
No, what I'm saying is that the scientist, the Jokhlaups, the MSM, the hockey pucks and the liberals all get together for weekly meeetings in local secret UN buildings to figure out how to take money away from god-fearing conservatives. Global warming is just the latest idea they have. Stephen Harper said it's just a socialist scheme. Otherwise, why would Al Gore have a big house?
HOCKEY PUCKS
Aurora_Janus @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:54 pm
-
N_Fiddledog @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:34 pm
Which, you mean Zip? Nah, he's no problem. He just trying to deflect the conversation, from stuff that was unflattering to his cause. They do that. Every once in awhile I give their sarcasm back to them, but that's just for fun.
To be honest, I'm more worried about you. I'm still not sure you understand about that thing he's quoting. I'm hoping you realize that quote was me talking to you after I misread one of your posts. After that I figured we worked it out, and understood the correct interpretation of the confusing posts. That is correct isn't it?
Aurora_Janus @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:02 pm
-
N_Fiddledog @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:10 pm
No problem. I liked your pirate picture on the other thread, so I'll do anything you say. 
Aurora_Janus @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:30 pm
-