• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Global Warming: A debate that I will win.

atbell

TRIBE Member
^^^

Spot on !!! (and time for me to stop watching brit TV)

That's exactly what I'd like to do. I want to get a simple model created then add other modes of transport to see how much energy is being used.

Transportation in general is an area of interest of mine. Adding shipping, truck driving, and rail transport is part of that next step.

After that I might move to industrial processes such as smelting, power generation and power transmision.
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
Ok, I read the papers suggested and they did a good job of describing various properties of urban heat islands while adding some degree of popular terminology that can be used in the work I’m trying to get done.

For the most part the papers focused on a very localized level, the urban space. They covered studies of urban heat island gradients, thermodynamic models of heat transfer in an elementary urban unit, the effects of anthropogenic heat generation on weather forecasts, urban wind patterns that could be associated with urban heat islands and two papers discussing energy balancing.

After reading them I am convinced that:

-There is a heat island effect that can be described as locally elevated temperatures of urban areas compared to neibouring rural areas.

-The gradient of the heat island effect, the magnitude that the temperature changes with position, is related to the distance from the centre of the urban area along with the level of development.

-City layout and design can influence the effect of urban heat islands on a local scale.

-Urban heat islands do not store energy over the long term, meaning that the temperature difference between the urban heat island and the surrounding area is constant over a year.

-Urban heat islands do store energy in the short term. Over the course of a 24 hour period the urban heat island temperature relative to the surrounding rural areas changes.

-Urban heat islands have a greater effect on air temperature then ground temperature, meaning that the difference between air temperatures in the urban unit and air temperatures in the surrounding rural units are much greater then the ground temperature differences between corresponding locations.

Of the papers two were significant to the modeling that I have been working on. This paper and this paper focus on energy balances in urban heat islands which is the type of calculation I am performing. The difference between the two papers and what I’m trying to do is that my calculations are based on looking at a fraction of the global energy balance where as the two urban heat island papers are attempting to describe the complete energy balance of an urban area.

What all of these papers do show is that urban heat islands are producing heat that is being carried out of the system (a city) with a net balance of near zero retained energy. Because this energy can not be lost to a void it is understood that it is contributing to raising the amount of contained atmospheric energy, or global warming.

A quote from the second paper cited above sums up the findings nicely:

"More importantly, although a single urban region may not result in a large impact on global climate, the collective impact of all urban regions on the global climate system is as yet unknown and unstudied. Jin et al. (2004) show that zonal mean UHI has 1-3 degree warming over the Northern Hemisphere latitudes, implying that the collective UHI may be a significant contributing factor in the overall global warming signal." (emphasis added by poster to maniplate the reader)

Knowing and studying the aggregate effect of all urban heat islands is similar to what I did with car driving.

(as an interesting note this paper found that the inclusion of anthropogenic heat generation had a significant positive effect on the forecasting of regional weather patterns.)
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
But wait there's more

I've also been trying to come up with a clear, short statement that describes my point of contention with "global warming" as presented by the scientific media.

Here's what I've got:

"The scientific theory that has been developed around green house gas contributions to global warming clearly states that C02 (and other gasses) build up in the atmosphere causing a green house effect that decreases the RATE of heat transfer from the atmosphere to the universe.

Yet "the Stern report", "An Inconvenient Truth", and most reports on global warming cite the correlation between the amount of CO2 and the absolute temperature rise.

If the theory about how CO2 affects global warming is correct the correlation would be between the amount of CO2 and the RATE of temperature change.

In other words a linear rise in atmospheric CO2 levels should, by current scientific theory, have an exponential effect on absolute temperature.

For this reason it is likely that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere represent a record of the combustion taking place. This would imply that the combustion is the source of the energy responsible for the global temperature increases which have been most pronounced since the industrial revolution.
"
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
Don't forget about airplane contrails... they reflect the sun's energy out into outer space, so they have a cooling effect.

And don't forget to add the effect of kids jumping through cold water sprinklers and people washing their cars with cold water. More cooling.

Then there are the numbers of pools in people's backyards. They reflect energy back as well. And people who wear light coloured shirts.
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
They reflect energy back as well. And people who wear light coloured shirts.
Good point. I think someone should study the correlation between global temperature increases during the 1980s and the popularity of heavy metal t-shirts.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
AdRiaN said:
Good point. I think someone should study the correlation between global temperature increases during the 1980s and the popularity of heavy metal t-shirts.
probally negliable considering the popularity of pastel t-shirts,
don johnson was the al gore of the 80's.
;)
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
I'm glad to see the three of you are on side.

Since all of you are so enthusiastic about your own area's why don't you throw together the equations and I'll add them to the whole.

I'll get the three of you started, Here's a link to mass energy-absorption coefficient calculations to get you started. Of course you're probably going to have to search for some kind of derivation to get from the graphite / air equation shown to what I would assume is a cotton / air equation.

Unfortunately I didn't find anything on energy absorption related to pigmentation so you guys are going to have to work that out on your own.

I'll hold a blank space for you in my model, let me know when you get the work done.

:p
 

junglegirl

TRIBE Member
for atp:

http://www.rabble.ca/for_the_sake_of_argument.shtml?sh_itm=88e17c91110d209f08056e414e718f6f&rXn=1&



The whole truth



Though the scientist took every possible opportunity to reiterate that global warming is real, their words were misrepresented and misinterpreted by lazy journos, empty-headed pundits and oil-industry biostitutes, so as to put forth the image that Al Gore is a big unreliable poopyhead, who eats panda-burgers and smokes lead cigars in his Hummer.

>by Chris Parry
June 26, 2007
Politics is complex. There’s so much going on, so much to report on, so much to explain, and the average reader has a limited attention span. This is why Paris Hilton’s driving record makes page one, while the Conservative government of Canada hiring a Chief of Staff who has denied global warming exists, compared Ottawa to Nazi Germany and been quoted as saying that it’s "high time that Muslims show the world that theirs is a religion of peace rather than a religion based on threat, intimidation and terrorism," warrants only passing mention.
Yes, there’s a lot of ground to cover in the world of political reporting, but when something is missed or someone gets an issue wrong, people don’t tend to die as a result.
But that’s not the case in all areas of journalism. Environmental reporting, for example, is an area that tends to get left to Larry the Weather-Guy, even though it’s a beat that documents our impending doom.
“Expect tsunamis, long-term drought, flaming rivers, birth defects and highs of 265 degrees overnight. And a big hello to Doris McClintock from Flin Flon, who turns 99 years old today!”
We’ve had about five years of solid “he said/she said” on the topic of global warming in the North American media, and though you’d have to be a flat-earther to still deny that there’s a problem, all that hemming and hawing could – and should – have been put to rest with one simple, undeniable statement: If climate change doesn’t exist, and we spend lots of money cleaning the air, water and land, in the end we still have clean air, water and land. But if climate change is real and we do nothing to stop it, we die.
That, right there, should be the start, middle and end of every environmental debate. No oil-company lobbyist could defeat that logic, and no environmentalist has reason to. And yet, who among us has ever seen those words spoken by a TV reporter, or heard them out of a radio personality, or read them in big print?
Earlier this month, Philip Mote, a climate researcher from the University of Washington, and Georg Kaser, a glaciologist from the University of Innsbruck, put out a report that could have been titled, “Al Gore got something wrong in a slideshow.”
In essence, their work suggests that Mount Kilimanjaro, the oft-mentioned example of a shrinking glacier in Gore’s film, isn’t actually receding due to global warming but because of a unique topographical situation that prevents new ice from finding purchase.
On this point, there is little dispute: Gore got one wrong, but the scientists behind the report take great pains to say he could have used any of thousands of other ailing geographical landmarks as a replacement example, and he’d have been right on the money.
They even put out a press release to say so. And Hell was thus unleashed.
The enviro wonks walked into a threshing machine of PR lies and distortions and copped a beating from all sides. Though Mote and Kaser took every possible opportunity to reiterate that global warming is real, their words were misrepresented and misinterpreted by lazy journos, empty-headed pundits and oil-industry biostitutes, so as to put forth the image that Al Gore is a big unreliable poopyhead, who eats panda-burgers and smokes lead cigars in his Hummer.
Take this Fox News article, penned by Brit Hume, former Republican speech-writer and now nattering nabob of negativity on a news network so widely discredited everywhere but the U.S. that you basically have to buy the cable package that includes Al Jazeera just to get it on your Canadian TV screen. Nowhere in the piece does Hume mention that Mote and Kaser believe global warming to be a major problem. Rather, he repeats the keywords and framing that all bought-and-paid-for journalists and orc-like lobbyists love to throw out: that “global warming isn't the cause” and “fluctuations are nothing new,” before finishing with the overarching tenet that Al Gore is fat and didn’t invent the Internet; praise be to Jesus Christ of Corporate America.
Of course, to misuse scientific research in such a way, especially at such an important time in our modern history, is weak – the kind of thing that should get journalists thrown out of the Press Club and banished to... well, what’s worse than Fox News?
But what is even weaker is that the Left (or as we often call ourselves, the reality-based community) was right in the thick of that same intellectual dishonesty, spinning harder than the corpse in Tommy Douglas’s grave as they called Mote and Kaser tools of the oil lobby and/or naïve idiots who will have blood on their hands when the seals become desert-dwellers and Nunavut becomes a Club Med.
Man, talk about shooting the messenger! All these guys wanted to do was make a minor point about the legitimacy of image #962 in Al Gore’s slideshow, and suddenly they were being accused of taking a paycheck from Exxon. It’s an embarrassment for all concerned, mostly because none of it matters, and serves only as a diversion from what really does.
But what if the point wasn’t a minor one? What if the point was that the production of the batteries and twin engines used in the Toyota Prius require such metals as nickel to be mined in great quantities, which devastates the environment even before the finished product has had a chance to give you great miles-per-gallon? Should we not talk about that, lest we harm the environmental cause?
What if the inconvenient truth was that too much soy causes health problems in children, or that free-range organic eggs have limited health benefits, or that the energy required to recycle your plastic bottles is far greater than that required to incinerate them? What if removing fluoride from the water causes a great rise in dental problems in children? Do we not talk about it, lest we help out the “other side,” who’d love nothing more than to discredit the Prius, soy milk, recycling and clean water? And if we do talk about these things, will we be branded as traitors by those we call allies?
This isn’t how it’s supposed to work. When you’re on the side of right (as opposed to The Right), you have to question everyone and everything – not just the other side, but your own as well. If we’re to hold the corporate world to a standard of truth that requires them to be honest and open about the potential death of our world, shouldn’t we hold ourselves, and our allies, to that same exacting standard?
The small details like those of the Kilimanjaro question shouldn’t be something a scientist fears bringing to the public, because we, the people, should have the smarts enough to be able to say, “Thanks for that, Brainiac. Duly noted.”
And if some representative of Death Inc. dares stick his or her head up in the press to abuse and misuse that information, that head should be taken off with outrage, righteousness and the sort of factual counterargument that leaves him or her lying in the dust.
In the end, give me honesty, or give me death. Because, frankly, as far as the environmental debate goes, those are the only two options we have. Chris Parry is a Vancouver writer.
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
Here's a short version. I say it's short cause I think I saw a 45 min original.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JNCgoiGYjM

There is also a good presentation put together by a Scotish guy who talks about how the above video crafts it's argument in a manipulative fashion.

Both videos, like Gore's movie and the Stern Report, are slim on talk of anything like atmospheric physics, energy transfer, or chemistry. So really trying to decide on who is right in this case is tantamount to deciding which air is hotter.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

deca.dance

TRIBE Member
i will say however, that the hole in the ozone layer is closing
that is good

global warming is the new yrk
yeaahhh boii
that was fun.
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
^^^
Except that legions of experienced computer programmers have transferable skills.

What do we expect to do with legions of atmospheric physicists?

....


Yeah! Particle accelerators for all.

Wind tunnels and bio-domes for the rest.
 

zee

TRIBE Member
atbell said:
Here's a short version. I say it's short cause I think I saw a 45 min original.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JNCgoiGYjM

There is also a good presentation put together by a Scotish guy who talks about how the above video crafts it's argument in a manipulative fashion.

Both videos, like Gore's movie and the Stern Report, are slim on talk of anything like atmospheric physics, energy transfer, or chemistry. So really trying to decide on who is right in this case is tantamount to deciding which air is hotter.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/07/11/global-solar.html


Sun did not cause recent climate change: U.K. study
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 | 2:10 PM ET
CBC News

Solar radiation is not the cause of recent global warming, two scientists say in a report published by Britain's Royal Society, the country's science organization.

The study was undertaken partly to rebut a TV documentary that argued natural solar radiation, not human activity, is the cause of global warming, the BBC reported.

The Great Global Warming Swindle was shown on Britain's Channel 4 in March. "We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a manmade phenomenon," the network's website said. "But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming."

Mike Lockwood from the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Britain and Claus Fröhlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland dispute that. The abstract of their report in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A said there is evidence that the sun affected Earth's climate up to about 1950.

But in the past 20 years, "all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."

Their data show that while the sun's output has fallen, temperatures on Earth have risen.
Continue Article


The power of the sun peaked in 1985, they reported after assessing nearly 40 years of data. Yet the Earth's average temperature has gone up 0.4 C steadily over that period, both before and after the peak.

They also studied two other measures of solar activity, solar flux and cosmic rays, and both suggested solar activity has been declining since the late 1980s.

The Royal Society endorsed the study, British media reported.

The society said: "There is a small minority which is seeking to confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day."
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

junglisthead

TRIBE Member
zee said:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/07/11/global-solar.html


Sun did not cause recent climate change: U.K. study
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 | 2:10 PM ET
CBC News

Solar radiation is not the cause of recent global warming, two scientists say in a report published by Britain's Royal Society, the country's science organization.

The study was undertaken partly to rebut a TV documentary that argued natural solar radiation, not human activity, is the cause of global warming, the BBC reported.

The Great Global Warming Swindle was shown on Britain's Channel 4 in March. "We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a manmade phenomenon," the network's website said. "But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming."

Mike Lockwood from the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Britain and Claus Fröhlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland dispute that. The abstract of their report in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A said there is evidence that the sun affected Earth's climate up to about 1950.

But in the past 20 years, "all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."

Their data show that while the sun's output has fallen, temperatures on Earth have risen.
Continue Article


The power of the sun peaked in 1985, they reported after assessing nearly 40 years of data. Yet the Earth's average temperature has gone up 0.4 C steadily over that period, both before and after the peak.

They also studied two other measures of solar activity, solar flux and cosmic rays, and both suggested solar activity has been declining since the late 1980s.

The Royal Society endorsed the study, British media reported.

The society said: "There is a small minority which is seeking to confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day."
please this article is a joke and is being slandered on all levels, mr. mike lockwood is a researcher into quantum physics and has never dabbled into sun activity, or global warming

suddenly he is putting his 2 cents in, pretending that he knows something, when in fact, all he was doing was retaliating against a video he did not agree with, as he has been quoted as saying

and hell this is the most laughable thing out of his comments from that article

The abstract of their report in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A said there is evidence that the sun affected Earth's climate up to about 1950.
so the sun affected the earths climate up until 1950 and then suddenly stoppped doing so thereafter ?.... LOL

right there he loses all credibility
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
The following analysis seems to suggest that the correlation between solar output and global temperatures does indeed continue past 1950.



Also, the short term trend of solar output over the most recent 30 years is upward (at least for the minimum part of the solar cycle).

 

Genesius

TRIBE Member
You know what the funniest part about this is?

That nobody really knows what's going on. But some are so ready to jump to conclusions...

Disclaimer: The enviornment and our natural resources are important and we need to protect them.

Disclaimer 2: I support the troops.
 

Hi i'm God

TRIBE Member
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record
My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again -- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

maphi

TRIBE Member
Thanksgiving's in July now? oh wait... July's in thanksgiving now? I remember some Thanksgiving weekends that were the 'other' 32 degrees... brrrrr....
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Well this is proof of global warming if I ever saw it.

Next you'll be telling me the colour change on a peppered moth is all the proof of evolution we'll ever need.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories
Top