Global Warming Impact on Houston

[Subdude]

Oct. 6, 2007, 11:17PM

Houston forecast murky

Experts say global warming checked or unchecked threatens city and region

By ERIC BERGER

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

If governments leave greenhouse gas emissions unchecked, scientists say, increasing concentrations would continue to push temperatures higher, raise the seas and possibly intensify hurricanes and other severe weather events that cause flooding.

"Houston clearly has some unique vulnerabilities," said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University.

..scientists generally agree, global temperatures will increase by 4 degrees to 5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. Temperatures in Southeast Texas would probably rise a similar amount, maybe a bit more, said John Nielsen-Gammon, the state's climatologist and a Texas A&M climate professor.

"Texans are adapted to the heat, so there may not be much increase in morbidity except for those who can't afford air conditioning," Nielsen-Gammon said.

During warmer winters, tropical vegetation

[bachanon]

complete hooey.

as i've suspected for some time, the earth's atmosphere regulates heat. energy from the sun supplies a system that regulates itself within our atmosphere. the power of this system far outweighs the negative aspects of human pollution.

this is not simply my opinion, i've confirmed this ideology with scientists in geology and astrophysics.

note: shorelines have historically receded, the planet has cooled and warmed, the atmosphere ebbs and flows as do oceans and other "controlled" systems. to think that man can influence the massive system that is the earth's atmosphere is as naive as thinking the earth is the center of the universe! we could blow up ten nuclear bombs, a hundred nuclear bombs, and not permanently change the atmospheric system we need to survive. the volcanic eruption of mount pinatubo (sp?) released more "greenhouse" gases than the entire industrial revolution.

nature will survive humanity.

[bachanon]

global warming zealots

junkscience

glowarmers

[RedScare]

complete hooey.

as i've suspected for some time, the earth's atmosphere regulates heat. energy from the sun supplies a system that regulates itself within our atmosphere. the power of this system far outweighs the negative aspects of human pollution.

this is not simply my opinion, i've confirmed this ideology with scientists in geology and astrophysics. al gore is a dumbass.

consider this, why would a politician get on the "global warming" party train? it's a reason to stay in the news.

note: shorelines have historically receded, the planet has cooled and warmed, the atmosphere ebbs and flows as do oceans and other "controlled" systems. to think that man can influence the massive system that is the earth's atmosphere is as naive as thinking the earth is the center of the universe! we could blow up ten nuclear bombs, a hundred nuclear bombs, and not permanently change the atmospheric system we need to survive. the volcanic eruption of mount pinatubo (sp?) released more "greenhouse" gases than the entire industrial revolution.

nature will survive humanity.

I am impressed with your ability to answer the question of global warming from the comfort of your own home, without conducting a bit of your own research. I look forward to your solving terrorism, world hunger and the Iraq War soon.

[bachanon]

I am impressed with your ability to answer the question of global warming from the comfort of your own home, without conducting a bit of your own research. I look forward to your solving terrorism, world hunger and the Iraq War soon.

the scientists i've spoken to consider that the convection of heat and energy supplied by the sun is regulated by the atmosphere. anything mankind does to the atmos is balanced by bigger systems than we could effect. global warming is "small scale science" that does not consider the science of astrophysics or geology.

seeing as mankind has always suffered wars, evil and hunger, i cannot see how those things compare to the "new" science of global warming. the same wackos claiming the planet is warming because of mankind were saying we would be in an ice age for the same reasons forty years ago. global warming is the new incarnation of this group of thinkers. think chicken little. they're cut from the same cloth as g. w. bush.

oh, you see global warming on the same level as wars, evil and hunger. guess you've had the kool-aid.

[Jax]

the volcanic eruption of mount pinatubo (sp?) released more "greenhouse" gases than the entire industrial revolution.

I've heard that statement in just about every global warming discussion I've been in, but its absolutely 100% FALSE!!! That statement totally discredits all of your comments about global warming because it shows that you are just repeating what somebody told you and not even doing research on your own.

Mt. Pinatubo didn't release a significant amount of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, it released a significant amount of ASH though which blocked the sun and actually cooled global temperatures.

If you believe the US geological survey, volcanoes release 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

And what about Humans? Well from what I've read, humans produce approximately 6 billion tonnes (from the department of energy http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html). Do some simple math and you can see that the amount of greenhouse gas produced by volcanoes is only a few percent of what humans produce.

Can you provide any facts to back up your statement that a single volcanic eruption could possibly produce more greenhouse gasses than the entire industrial revolution, please let me know.

[RedScare]

If you read my post very closely, you will see that, unlike your ideological kool-aid, buoyed by a couple of "scientists", I have made no statement on either side of the debate. It is frankly impossible for the average person to digest the literally thousands of studies and articles surrounding the climate change debate and come to the conclusion that either side is "complete hooey".

There is virtually no debate that the climate is growing warmer. The debate is only as to the cause. While I may chuckle at those that claim man caused all of it, those that arrogantly mock the thousands of career scientists studying the issue, merely because their favorite TV pundit scoffs at them on their right wing show...or, as in your case, a few fellow conservatives with science degrees let their politics cloud their lack of knowledge on the issue...make me laugh, too.

The fact is, for all of the study and debate, we do not know with certainty the cause of global climate change. If you choose to confidently cry "Hooey!", surely you would not fault me for laughing derisively at you...for it would be as well deserved as you laughing at me for claiming the debate has ended.

[bachanon]

effects of pinatubo

the mount pinatubo eruption enlarged the ozone hole over antarctica, but it (the ozone layer) recovered.

your link to the eia does not attach to any documentation.

a survey that records average annual volcanic eruptions does not specify the largess of the pinatubo event. it was ASH that cooled the planet, it was greenhouse gases that caused the increase in the ozone hole.

[bachanon]

I am impressed with your ability to answer the question of global warming from the comfort of your own home, without conducting a bit of your own research. I look forward to your solving terrorism, world hunger and the Iraq War soon.

i'm equally impressed with your ability to believe the hyperbole that is "global warming hysteria" from the comfort of your own home, without conducting a bit of your own research. do you need an assistant? i'd love to win some cases for you.

[RedScare]

bach,

Read my posts. I have come to no conclusions on climate change. Not only is it an extraordinarily complex phenomenon, but it has been wildly politicized, making any firm conclusions difficult, if not impossible.

If you are having this much trouble discerning my neutral position on this debate from reading my simple posts, I doubt your ability to reliably conclude it is "complete hooey".

[Jax]

My point was that if global volcanism only produces a small percent of the greenhouse gasses that humans produce then it's unlikely that one large eruption can produce more than the entire industrial revolution

The articles I posted only had stats on global greenhouse gas levels, not specific to Pinatubo. I am assuming Pinatubo didn't produce hundreds of times more CO2 than the yearly average. If anybody has some proof that Pinatubo produced more greenhouse gasses than the entire industrial revolution, I'd like to see it.

[Jax]

Ok here's some data from the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii.

If Mt. Pinatubo produced more greenhouse gasses than the entire industrial revolution, then there should probably be a spike in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere immediately after June 1991, right?

If we look at the stats for 1991, we see the following.

MLO 1991 01 354.85

MLO 1991 02 355.66

MLO 1991 03 357.04

MLO 1991 04 358.40

MLO 1991 05 359.00

MLO 1991 06 357.99

MLO 1991 07 356.00

MLO 1991 08 353.78

MLO 1991 09 352.20

MLO 1991 10 352.22

MLO 1991 11 353.70

MLO 1991 12 354.98

At this link, you can see a plot of this data. I thought it would be better to look at the actual numbers for the time period of the Pinatubo eruption though.

So in June 1991 the CO2 leve is 357.99 and at the end of 1991 they are at 354.98, actually a bit lower. Therefore the Mt. Pinatubo eruption did not produce more greenhouse gasses than the entire industrial revolution.

I should point out that I am not trying to come to any conclusions on climate change here (although some of you may already know how I feel on that issue). I am merely trying to debunk the "Mt. Pinatubo" claim.

[bachanon]

bach,Read my posts. I have come to no conclusions on climate change. Not only is it an extraordinarily complex phenomenon, but it has been wildly politicized, making any firm conclusions difficult, if not impossible.If you are having this much trouble discerning my neutral position on this debate from reading my simple posts, I doubt your ability to reliably conclude it is "complete hooey".

my bad, you were posting at the same time i was. i posted without regard to your second statement. you are correct to state that my emotional disregard for global warming science is illogical. after all, science requires opposition. my opinion is that global warming hysteria has reached an alarming level, when much of the science is inconclusive.i should learn to be more thoughtful before i post. especially with you around.

Ok here's some data from the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii.If Mt. Pinatubo produced more greenhouse gasses than the entire industrial revolution, then there should probably be a spike in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere immediately after June 1991, right?If we look at the stats for 1991, we see the following.MLO 1991 01 354.85MLO 1991 02 355.66MLO 1991 03 357.04MLO 1991 04 358.40MLO 1991 05 359.00MLO 1991 06 357.99MLO 1991 07 356.00MLO 1991 08 353.78MLO 1991 09 352.20MLO 1991 10 352.22MLO 1991 11 353.70MLO 1991 12 354.98So in June 1991 the CO2 leve is 357.99 and at the end of 1991 they are at 354.98, actually a bit lower. Therefore the Mt. Pinatubo eruption did not produce more greenhouse gasses than the entire industrial revolution.I should point out that I am not trying to come to any conclusions on climate change here (although some of you may already know how I feel on that issue). I am merely trying to debunk the "Mt. Pinatubo" claim.

good facts jax. perhaps the atmosphere is capable of handling ANY amount of greenhouse gases. debunking the mt. pinatubo claim could actually confirm the efficiency of the atmos.

[dbigtex56]

al gore is a dumbass.

Did you see An Inconvenient Truth?

Yes; I thought not. Perhaps you should actually hear what the man has to say before judging his intellect.

[KinkaidAlum]

But wait, hasn't this current administration been telling us for the past 7 years that global warming wasn't a real threat? That scientists were in major disagreement about the theory? Didn't they also fail to sign the Kyoto Treaty to curb greenouse emissions?

The sudden turn around actually makes me a little nervous. Some big piece of $%*@ must have just hit the fan...

[CDeb]

Didn't they also fail to sign the Kyoto Treaty to curb greenouse emissions?

Who is "they?"

If by "they," you mean the Clinton administration, then yes, you are correct.

The Bush administration has merely continued the Clinton admininstration policy re: Kyoto, which is to not endorse the treaty until developing nations such as India and China were no longer exempt.

You were also aware that Kyoto is already "signed" (by the Clinton administration) and merely needs to be ratified by the Senate in order for the United States to join? Were you aware that Kyoto received a 99-0 ass-kicking when it went before the Senate during the Clinton administration? Why is it all of a sudden Bush's responsibility that the United States is not part of this farce?

If there is this much misinformation out there about simple U.S. Constitutional processes, is it really that hard to believe that there is also a lot of misinformation out there about complex climatalogical processes?

[TheNiche]

Perhaps you should actually hear what the man has to say before judging his intellect.

I'd have to agree with bigtex. Al Gore is most certainly not a dumbass. He's a politician. Far worse.

EDIT: CDeb beat me to my next punch.

[Jax]

Who is "they?"

If by "they," you mean the Clinton administration, then yes, you are correct.

The Bush administration has merely continued the Clinton admininstration policy re: Kyoto, which is to not endorse the treaty until developing nations such as India and China were no longer exempt.

You were also aware that Kyoto is already "signed" (by the Clinton administration) and merely needs to be ratified by the Senate in order for the United States to join? Were you aware that Kyoto received a 99-0 ass-kicking when it went before the Senate during the Clinton administration? Why is it all of a sudden Bush's responsibility that the United States is not part of this farce?

If there is this much misinformation out there about simple U.S. Constitutional processes, is it really that hard to believe that there is also a lot of misinformation out there about complex climatalogical processes?

I think his main point was that the Bush administration had been telling people for the past 7 years that global warming wasn't a real threat, and now they are saying it IS a threat .

Mr Bush last week acknowledged climate change as one of the

[webdude]

This is Houston Texas. There will always be some folks here that even if floods reach over their heads, they still wouldn't be concerned with global warming. It will be attributed to act of god or terrorism.

But who knows, if even someone like bush and friends can finally realize it is a threat, maybe there is hope for some texans.

And it shouldn't take global warming to justify taking care of the environment, how about just for reducing some pollution and getting some cleaner air.

[TheNiche]

I think his main point was that the Bush administration had been telling people for the past 7 years that global warming wasn't a real threat, and now they are saying it IS a threat .

I've heard that statement in just about every global warming discussion I've been in, but its absolutely 100% FALSE!!! That statement totally discredits all of your comments about global warming because it shows that you are just repeating what somebody told you and not even doing research on your own.

^^^Sound familiar?

Might the same line of logic apply then to Kinkaid's comment? ...if one is to accept your line of logic, that is. But I find it hard to believe that just because a supporting argument is shot down means that none of the others go down with it.

And I'm not very pleased with the attitude that the only people that can discuss GW science are GW scientists. While it is true that the layperson must suppliment their argumentation with hearsay, the logical justification of hearsay as a fallacy is when somebody argues upon an underlying premise that "Person 1 says A, therefore A is true." In logic, truth or falsehood is absolute, and is actually highly uncommon. But the pitfalls of hearsay can be avoided by modifying the above premise to read: "Person 1 says A, therefore A is subject to a probability of being true." The probability should be assigned based upon somewhat more subjective interpretation of Person 1's data, argumentation, or virtue. In any case, direct personal experience need not be a prerequisite for meaningful argumentation. This is especially true once any scientific conclusions begin to be translated to public policy.

[Jax]

just because a supporting argument is shot down means that none of the others go down with it.

I guess I was just trying to say that when somebody spouts off hearsay as fact, it makes it hard to take them seriously from that point on. It shows that the person has most likely not done a lot of research on the issue at hand.

If I claimed to be an expert on astrophysics, but told you that it is an undisputed fact that the earth is flat, you would probably be less likely to believe what I say about astrophysics, even though my flat earth theory might not affect what I say I know about other planets.

In any case, direct personal experience need not be a prerequisite for meaningful argumentation. This is especially true once any scientific conclusions begin to be translated to public policy

I agree with you there. I'm not a GW scientist, and yet I think I can discuss the issue meaningfully, but only because I try to look at data and not just base my arguments on what I hear on TV or in the news, or from politicians.

[bachanon]

A Climate Change Primer: Solar and Orbital Variation

Part two of a three-part series

Written By: Jay Lehr and Richard S. Bennett

Published In: Environment & Climate News

Publication Date: June 1, 2003

Publisher: The Heartland Institute

In Part One of this three-part series, Lehr and Bennett defined and described the

[sevfiv]

fei:

http://www.heartland.org

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...tland_Institute

[bachanon]

sourcewatch is a cool link. thanks. however, it is a wiki. anyone can write whatever they want.

the article i linked to simply confirmed information that i'd been given by a geology professor, a geological scientist and an astrophysicist. The references for the article include Science and the Astrophysical Journal, not exactly opinion periodicals. What many of these learned people conclude is that the natural systems in place are far more powerful than humanity.

[TheNiche]

I guess I was just trying to say that when somebody spouts off hearsay as fact, it makes it hard to take them seriously from that point on. It shows that the person has most likely not done a lot of research on the issue at hand.

In casual speaking, many otherwise intelligent people make statements in absolute terms, rather than include modifiers that would more fully describe various circumstances. I'm inclined to try and read in between the lines and extend the benefit of the doubt.

As for Pinatubo, you haven't yet shown bachanon to be technically incorrect. You have presented data that measured CO2 at one measuring station in Hawaii. We don't know the circumstances of that measuring station as they relate to elevation, climate, exposure to sunlight, the time of day of measurement, wind patterns around Hawaii, or proximity to local volcanism. The data does seem to indicate seasonality, which would indicate that changing climactic conditions either worldwide or locally would suppress or elevate the amount of CO2, and that would at least lend credence to bachanon's argument of earth as a self-regulating system. In either case, it is technically impossible to prove bachanon incorrect--and to do it so fervently--with data from one measuring station.

I've also variously heard that Pinatubo put off as much "CO2" or "greenhouse gases" as have ever been released by humans "since the start of the industrial age" or "in the whole of their history". In fact, you concluded from the data that "Therefore the Mt. Pinatubo eruption did not produce more greenhouse gasses than the entire industrial revolution." But greenhouse gases are comprised of well over a dozen different gases. And in addition to that, unique gases have unique properties. Water vapor, for instance, is largely self-regulating, and it is a greenhouse gas. It or other greenhouse gases that tend to be reabsorbed from the atmosphere may not have made it all the way to the Hawaii measuring station, even if that measuring station was equipped to measure them.

I suspect that there is a seed of truth to the Pinatubo talking point, but I'd agree that it has become mythic and that its value as a scientific data point for GW argumentation is effectively nil. Nevertheless, Jax, if you are going to say that bachanon loses all credibility in everything he is saying because he brought up Pinatubo, then shouldn't you lose all credibility for concluding something about global warming gasses from measurements of one component gas that were taken from one measuring station about which little is known? I don't think so. I still respect you and am willing to consider all of your comments.

[Jax]

What many of these learned people conclude is that the natural systems in place are far more powerful than humanity

That may be the conclusion of the people writing the article on heartland.org, but not necessarily the scientists who wrote the papers cited. Did you actually read the Science article? As I understand it, these cycles are indeed a factor driving climate change, but that hasn't led anybody (except maybe heartland.org) to rule out the manmade factors driving climate change.

Where is your data backing up the statement that the natural systems (Milankovicch cyclles) are far more powerful than the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses? I've heard people bring up the same argument using solar radiation and sunspots. Yes, solar radiation is changing (very minimally), but that doesn't mean it's the only factor driving climate change, and it's not enough reason to rule out the other factors such as greenhouse gasses.

What is more interesting (in this debate anyways) than Milankovitch cycles and solar radiation is how much the manmade factors will influence the climate compared to the natural processes. The article doesn't touch on this at all.

[Jax]

Niche: I don't really have enough time to write a book on volcanism for you, but we know that ejecta from volcanoes spreads fairly quickly into the atmosphere. If heavier particle such as aerosols spread into the stratosphere and created a global temperature decrease, I think we can safely say that CO2 would also spread out fairly uniformly after a few months. We know that there are other gasses released by volcanoes, but CO2 is a significant enough portion that we should at least see a small blip in the level of atmospheric CO2 due to this event (if it was equivalent to all of the carbon dioxide produced since the industrial revolution)

We know all of the data on the observatory (it's all in the link I posted), and there is years more data incase you want to look into it. Here is some more info about Mauna Loa and how they measure CO2 and why it is a good place to make CO2 measurements.

Keep in mind I was writing a forum post and not an article in Science and therefore you can't expect me to be as rigorous as I would be otherwise. I should actually stop spending time in here and actually work on something that could possibly be rigorous enough to be published in a journal like Science.

[bachanon]

That may be the conclusion of the people writing the article on heartland.org, but not necessarily the scientists who wrote the papers cited. Did you actually read the Science article? As I understand it, these cycles are indeed a factor driving climate change, but that hasn't led anybody (except maybe heartland.org) to rule out the manmade factors driving climate change.

Where is your data backing up the statement that the natural systems (Milankovicch cyclles) are far more powerful than the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses? I've heard people bring up the same argument using solar radiation and sunspots. Yes, solar radiation is changing (very minimally), but that doesn't mean it's the only factor driving climate change, and it's not enough reason to rule out the other factors such as greenhouse gasses.

What is more interesting (in this debate anyways) than Milankovitch cycles and solar radiation is how much the manmade factors will influence the climate compared to the natural processes. The article doesn't touch on this at all.

my opinion is that geologists and astrophysicists have great understanding of the magnitude of these large systems. because of their knowledge of space, time and historic cataclysmic events, they have better understanding than most about man's place in the grand scheme of things. the people i've spoken to are not politically motivated, they do not have an axe to grind. they believe in good stewardship of the earth, they do not believe that the sky is falling.

also, since we cannot effectively measure anthropogenic greenhouse gases, we will never be able to rule it out as a factor. ergo, bad science. it's like trying to prove or disprove god.

[TheNiche]

Niche: I don't really have enough time to write a book on volcanism for you, but we know that ejecta from volcanoes spreads fairly quickly into the atmosphere. If heavier particle such as aerosols spread into the stratosphere and created a global temperature decrease, I think we can safely say that CO2 would also spread out fairly uniformly after a few months. We know that there are other gasses released by volcanoes, but CO2 is a significant enough portion that we should at least see a small blip in the level of atmospheric CO2 due to this event (if it was equivalent to all of the carbon dioxide produced since the industrial revolution)

We know all of the data on the observatory (it's all in the link I posted), and there is years more data incase you want to look into it. Here is some more info about Mauna Loa and how they measure CO2 and why it is a good place to make CO2 measurements.

Keep in mind I was writing a forum post and not an article in Science and therefore you can't expect me to be as rigorous as I would be otherwise. I should actually stop spending time in here and actually work on something that could possibly be rigorous enough to be published in a journal like Science.

Hey, you don't have to defend your assertions for my sake. I'm already dubious of the Pinatubo anti-GW argument.

I just don't like it when someone claims that all of a poster's comments should be discredited on account of a technicality in the way they presented it, and then have the very same person draw conclusions based upon inadequate data, expecting everyone else to take him seriously and take time to fill in the blanks on their own to have it make any sort of sense, rather than discrediting him any everything he says because he articulated a single argument poorly.

[ricco67]

I'm sorta' on Bach's camp on this one with a bit of a twist.

While I'm not disagreeig that the earth is warming, I'm not convinced that Man is playing a significant part in this, but that doesn't give it a free pass on the things it SHOULD do to be more environmentally friendly.

The Orbital shift is an interesting theory, but I would imagine scientists would be all over that if new measurements were made and compared to those that were done centuries ago (Via ancient sundials). I wouldn't doubt that a few degrees variance of our orbit might be enough to have some influence on our weather.

While I'm not a scientist and have absolutely no formal education on this, I theorize that it could be as something something as simple as the sun heating up a bit more than usual. My reasoning for this is that there are few true absolutes in nature, from the weather to the stars. As everyone knows (Or at least science has taught us), the stars goes through various phases during it's lifetime. What makes our sun any different? How much of an increase in the energy of the sun would it be possible to alter the climate and would our instrumentation be sensitive enough to notice it?

Could it be that our sun is simply running a fever? Maybe we're simply drifting a few degrees (no pun intended) towards the sun. How much of a slight deviation of orbit is possible to negatively influence our weather?

I'll let the guys with the PhD's hash it out, I'm just a working schmuck.