SkepticLance

To Sysco. Nope. Not being especially sceptical or cynical, or even pessimistic. That was a statement I read some years ago - not even sure where. However, we need to remember that Mars is an entire planet. To make changes would require massive inputs, and the easiest such massive input is time. Mars would have something like 1,000,000,000,000 tonnes of atmosphere - pretty much all carbon dioxide. It may be theoretically possible to use photosynthetic organisms to convert this to oxygen. However, an oxygen atmosphere is not viable for a planetary ecosystem. Gotta have a nitrogen cycle as well. If the terraformers did not find a massive source of nitrogen on Mars, what would they do? We are talking vast quantities of anything and everything that might be needed to make a living ecology. I cannot even imagine a method of raising Martian temperature to that required to keep water liquid, unlss it involves continuous technical input. Mirrors in orbit have been suggested, to focus heat onto the planet. However, they would need to be constantly adjusted. Even if that was done by computers, they would need constant maintenance. Even a small error would be disastrous. On the whole, based on our current technology, it seems likely that Mars settlers would be in enclosed habitats for a hell of a long time.

Terraforming will not be quick. I saw a reference somewhere a few years back to the number 10,000 years. In the mean time, colonies will take the form of enclosed communities, possibly underground. They will need nuclear power to run the sun lamps for growing food. Given time, there could be a whole bunch of these communities. Eventually, of course, they will get annoyed enough with Earth control to declare independence and take over the whole shooting match. Once this happens, the idea of which Earth nation becomes moot. There will just be Martians.

When you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't, the smart option is to look for a third way. If the US leaves, thousands will die from unrestrained insurgent action. If the US does not leave, thousands will die from unrestrained insurgent action. What is the third way? I don't know for sure. However, I would say that the smart thing to do right now is to start making friends with Iraq's neighbours, including Iran. If the US leaves, you want someone else to assist.

Let's not get into a religious argument. Our sun is, in fact, slowly expanding. This is almost too small to measure, but not quite. It will expand to the point that : 1. In 400 million years, the whole Earth will exceed 100 Celsius. This will destroy all life except a few thermophiles which will take a little longer to die. 2. In 5000 million years, it will expand to the point where it will engulf the Earth. However, I have no doubt that humans will have colonised our galaxy long before this happens. We will, indeed, take a large variety of Earth life with us, and create the equivalent of 'New Earths' throughout the galaxy.

The human ability to adapt by means of technology is pretty much unlimited. These days, there are people who live at the South Pole through the southern winter, with temperatures heading towards minus 100 C, and total darkness - not to mention 150 kph blizzards. The people are snug and warm inside their heated and lighted buildings. If they gotta go outside, they do so in suits that are nearly spacesuits, and carry lights. If the ecology of planet Earth changes to the point of making unprotected human life untenable, there will still be more than a billion of us living on in comfort. Within 200 years, there will be colonies on the moon and Mars, and on rotating habitats in space. Its gonna take a lot more than a little ecology to kill us off.

To foodchain. Thank you for your references on tree ring data. Most interesting. I find it worth noting from the southern South America study that warming occurred around 0 AD, and cooling around the time of the Little Ice Age. The Michael Mann 'hockey stick' graph shows little or no sign of the various warmings and coolings that we know happened. This is one of its greatest weaknesses. Your reference helps to confirm that they realy did happen, and the Mann graph is incomplete.

1veedo said The cooling only lasted a few years, also, like Bascue said. Perhaps. But there is still a 35 years period in which warming stopped, and overall, a cooling of 0.2C was the result. I still think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. My assertion was that, before 1976, solar activity correlated more closely to warming/cooling than GHG growth. This is not saying that solar is the only influence. I am sure that other forms of pollution, GHGs, vulcanism and other influences were at work also. All I am saying is that the closest correlation was to solar. And of course, after that time, GHG increase correlated much more closely. I also have a bit of a problem with the fact that, after 1880, the method of measuring temperature changed. Before 1880, there were no accurate thermometers in widespread use. After, that changed. So we end up with graphs of global temperature with readings before 1880 taken indirectly, such as from tree ring data, and after 1880 by direct thermometer readings. It may be coincidence, but the warming graph steepness increases dramatically just as the method of measurement changes. I have also seen a graph of temperature change over the past few hundred years which ends in 2000 AD, where ALL the readings were taken from the same tree ring data. The steepness increases for the 20th Century, but no-where near as quickly as in the graphs with a change in temperature measurement. I suspect that the tree ring data underestimates temperature changes. This would tie in with historical data, which suggests a much greater temperature drop for the Little Ice Age and greater increase for the Medieval Warm Period compared to that shown in graphs from tree ring and other indirect data.

To 1veedo. To date, including your just posted item, you have given nothing factual to change my mind. I am quite prepared to do so, if good empirical evidence requires it. Of the evidence you just posted, there is a 'key' graph, which comes up in your reference http://www.whrc.org etc. This graph shows greenhouse gas rise versus temperature. It is, in fact, a very nice graph, and shows the relationship very clearly. So what do we see to match your assertion that greenhouse gases have been the most dominant influence on temperature change throughout this time period? 1. 1880 to 1910. Small greenhouse gas rise. Small temperature drop. Correlation negative. 2. 1910 to 1940. Small greenhouse gas rise. Large warming. Correlation positive, but only to a minor degree with so little GHG rise. 3. 1940 to 1976. Larger greenhouse gas rise. Slight cooling. Correlation negative. 4. 1976 onwards. This is the ONLY part of the graph that shows a clear and undeniable strong correlation between greenhouse gas rise and warming. So over a 140 year period, greenhouse gas increase correlates strongly with warming for only 30 years. In other words, what I have been saying all along is verified by your own data. Your words about solar studies are just words. No valid data. I have seen so many references to solar influences, that a few words from you is just not very convincing. There are dozens of studies showing the importance of solar influences. For example : http://www.Ideo.columbia.edu/res/pi/arch/docs/Bond_2001.pdf Which is a peer reviewed study published in SCIENCE showing the importance of solar influences in the North Atlantic throughout the holocene. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1998/Lean_Rind.html This one shows the importance of solar forcings in the last 100 years or so. I do not suggest that solar forcings are the be all and end all. The whole damn thing is too complex. However, before 1976, they correlate better to warmings and coolings than do GHGs. The problem with GW activists is that they have swallowed the whole paradigm so firmly that they are blind to the many times when it just does not apply. GHGs are very important over the past 30 years. However, before that, they are just a part of the whole picture. Not the predominant part.

Sisyphus said what's the advantage of a long lifespan? You just got given a second chance. What makes you think you gonna get a third? You think you are that lovable?

If you want to be intelligent, you better pick an animal with a large brain. If you want to be intelligent AND live a long time, try a Bowhead Whale - they live to 200 years. Personally, I would be an Orca. They live a long time; are really smart, and are at the top of the food chain. No-one eats them, and they got a great social life.

Life on planet Earth is 3600 plus or minus 400 million years old. The first living things did not die out. They evolved into us. There is no reason humans have to die out in the foreseeable future either. We will probably evolve into something else. And even though some would say that there is no natural selection, evolution never stops. In the future, there will be guided evolution. For example : An essential step in leaving our solar system will be to spend enormous amounts of time (possibly generations) in giant space ships. This will expose the travellers to enough radiation to cause 100% mortality from cancer. Unless ... What we will do is genetically alter the people going to give much higher radiation resistance. There are genes in other life forms that produce enzymes for rapid genetic repair that confer such radiation resistance. It is only a matter of time before humans learn how to do it. I believe that an intermediate step to moving to other stellar systems will be the building of giant space habitats, rotating for gravity, that will be close to 100% self sufficient. This is possible in theory, and time will give us the skills. Once these habitats exist, they can be moved to other worlds by strapping on very long ion drive engines. If we take 10 years to accelerate to 0.1c (which NASA scientists predict will be possible within 1000 years), and another 10 to decelerate, then the time to get to alpha centauri is 55 years approximately. Using that level of technology, humans, or whatever follows humans, could expand to colonise the entire galaxy in a few million years. No time at all by astronomical standards!

Bascule said : In certain cases (specific period of paleoclimactic change) you are correct That is getting close to a gracious response. Thank you. Would you also care to admit, based on the data I have posted, that I am also correct in saying that warming/cooling before 1976 correlates more closely to solar activity variations, than change in greenhouse gas conentration?

For your grape experiment, try a saturated sugar solution, and try scoring the grapes to provide a gap in the grape skin. To make a saturated solution, boil the water, stir in as much sugar as it will dissolve, and let cool. A lot of sugar will fall out of solution, and what remains is saturated.

Bascule. I think there is a serious lack of communication here. Either I fail to understand your points, or you do not understand mine. Possibly both. I have never claimed the climate system is simple. To the contrary, I believe it is more complex than anyone imagines. I have said this before. Why do you continue to accuse me of the opposite? If you want an example of oversimplification, then try the idea that all warming is due to greenhouse gases. That is patently wrong. Some, or a lot, is due to greenhouse gases, especially since 1975. But all? And that is especially true of ancient warmings, where the data clearly shows a protracted delay between the onset of warming, and the onset of CO2 increase. Why can you not see that? I have suggested that, in those more ancient warmings, the increase in CO2 is due mainly to warming oceans and reduced solubilities. If I am wrong, what is the right answer? Foodchain said : its just data, and as you say its open to interpretation right, but again its just data as collected, and no its not based on simply computer models, in reality there are numerous computer models for global warming, which to agree with you don’t agree, save that the planet will continue to warm. That's fine. I agree that the planet will continue to warm. As I said before, it is the future details on which I am sceptical. How long? How sever? What should we do? These questions need answering, but we need to be aware that the answers will be very imprecise. And we need to beware of those who are so carried away with the dogma that they interpret everything as global warming disaster.

Foodchain said All I did was post data. I guess it depends on your definition of the word 'data'. I tend to restrict its meaning to actual information gained from real world observation and experiment, rather than the results of computer models. I hop you do not take this as criticism. Your information is fine. Just that the results of calculations and models will always be subject to debate.

Foodchain. Your quotes from the IPCC report have simply put into words what others have presented as graphs. That is : the results of GCMs. If you have total faith in these calculations, then that becomes convincing. However, as Dr. Richard Lindzen points out, we do not even have enough understanding of cloud formation, and the effects of increasing water vapour, to accurately model these and their effects on climate. We all know the world is warming, and that anthropogenic GGs are a likely major cause. That is not what the debate is about. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. A TV documentary I watched this morning stated that the effect of GGs and the fact of warming is well established, and that the ongoing debate is about how much, when, and what we should do about it. I agree with that. I get a bit annoyed, though, about the way global warming enthusiasts re-interpret everything in terms of this theory. Bascule's refusal to accept that ancient warming could be instigated, and possibly continued primarily due to non greenhouse causes is a good example. Once these guys swallow the whole greenhouse gas dogma, the blinkers go on. I was watching another documentary the other day, which gave another excellent example of that form of scientific blindness. That was about mass extinctions of megafauna. This is something we knew about when I completed my degree 35 years ago (in chemistry, and microbiology). Way back then, it was accepted that the mass extinctions were due to human activity. Not now! The latest dogma has swallowed up this subject with a total lack of rational thinking. We now have a bunch of scientists who say these megafauna extinctions were due to climate change. That is so weird. Every continent except Africa has seen these mass extinctions some time in the last 60,000 years. In Australia, it happened 50 to 60,000 years ago. This 'coincides' with the first signs of human habitation, and was way before the end of the glaciation period. Yet it was due to climate change. In North America, the extinctions coincided with the arrival of Clovis Man, who had advanced hunting technology. Yet they were due to climate change. In Europe, with the advance of humans north at the end of the glaciation period. Perhaps there might be a slightly better case there, but the extinctions did coincide with the arrival of people. In Africa, no mass extinctions, even though the climate changed there also. Why? Could it be because animals had evolved along with humans and had adapted? After all, humans and pre-humans have been continuously in Africa for the past million years. Here in New Zealand, there was no mass extinction event till 800 years ago. Guess what? That's when people arrived (polynesians). Yet the climate change was thousands of years earlier. This is the kind of silliness I associate with an over devotion to global warming dogma. The world has a lot of things going on that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases. We need to get a better perspective on this.

Actually, fat that is stored in a fat cell does little harm to the human body. it is the 'overflow' that causes harm. That is, fats that enter the blood. These lead to cholesterol build up. There are two kinds of cholesterol - low density lipoprotein (low = lousy) which builds up inside arteries; and high density lipoprotein (high = healthy) which acts as an aid to transporting the 'bad' cholesterol to the liver for reprocessing. The nice thing, is that one of the most potent ways of increasing your 'good' cholesterol is a couple of glasses of wine each day. Too much is not recommended.

Something for the more bloody minded global warming activists. http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/welcome.shtml This contains graphs of the relationship between solar activity and warming/cooling. I have seen this graph in a number of other publications, also. It is data, not interpretation, and thus not a subject for scepticism. It shows two things I have been saying. 1. Warming and cooling correlates much more closely with solar activity up until about 1975 than it does to greenhouse gases. 2. Warming after 1975 correlates more to GHGs than to solar activity.

Bascule. This is getting ridiculous. You are mixing up two separate events. 1. Recent global warming - that is the last 30 years - has a clear correlation with GHGs. 2. The ancient warmings - that is, before the last 1000 years and back to 1 million years ago - clearly began BEFORE CO2 began to increase. That is shown on the data. Why do you persist in trying to say that both are the same thing? They are not. The ancient warming was kicked off by something other than GHGs. Of course, after it began to warm, CO2 may have had an influence. However, if the CO2 did not come from warming oceans, where did it come from? I think I have shown that organic matter will INCREASE in a warmer world, due to greater plant growth. This sequesters carbon. Do you deny this? If you doubt this, look at the studies made of the world following the last glaciation. As I said before, as the ice retreated, forests covered the once frozen land. This is simple ecology. It is also a matter of scientific record. Are you going to deny the results of dozens of paleo-ecological studies? You said : Seriously, where's the data? Where's your model? Where's anything? You have absolutely nothing to justify your position. The data is in the ice core analyses that showed warming began 800 years BEFORE CO2 began to increase. You claim that I do not present data. Neither do you, except to quote calculations. That is NOT empirical evidence. Evidence not derived from real world experiment or observation is not good science.

To foodchain Your comments on icemelts posting were more than a little unfair. Some of the scientists quoted are prolific researchers and publishers. And I am talking about peer reviewed reputable scientific journals. People like Richard Lindzen (Climatologist at M.I.T.) and John Christy (who consults for NASA). In any case, it is irrelevent. Icemelt quoted those sceptical scientists simply to make a point about the lack of consensus on global warming. Their record of published papers is irrelevent to that point. And I think Icemelt made the point very well.

Thank you, icemelt, for your support. It helps to counter-balance those, like 1veedo who get too emotional in their opposition. It is good to have people like yourself who present things in a rational and restrained fashion. For the record, here is my definition of denier versus sceptic. A denier refuses to accept data. While on rare occasions it is good to challenge data that might be shaky, it is not a good sign if someone refuses to accept data that has been well researched. I do not. A sceptic challenges the interpretation of data. That is what I do. Bascule said : You think of the climate system in terms of simple cause/effect combinations, yet you doubt the validity of GCMs. Those are your words, Bascule. Not my intent. I see the climate system as an enormously complex one. That is a big reason I distrust GCMs. I have simply argued that the interpretation of the cause/effect relationships regarding warmings and coolings over the past million years (excluding the last 100 years) is more likely to be other than GHG = warming. That is the oversimplification. It is abundantly clear that those warmings were NOT instigated by GHGs. How much GHGs contribute to their continuance is a matter of what hypothesis you happen to support. I see changes in CO2 solubility with temperature change as the most likely explanation for the fact that CO2 goes up some 800 years after temperature starts going up. Due to the complexity of the climate system, this is not likely to be the only factor. Some people suggest that CO2 rises since warmer conditions cause organic matter to break down. I doubt it. Simple ecological principles deny that. When the world warms, plant growth becomes verdant. This undeniably happened at the end of the last glaciation period, when the ice caps retreated. One result is more forest biomass. More plant cover produces more humus in soils, thus sequestering carbon. Overall, warmth should reduce CO2. Thus, the fact that the reverse happens means we need another mechanism. The 800 year gap is consistent with the fact that the oceans take longer to warm than the air. If we exclude the last 30 years, where the relationship breaks down, it is also clear that warmings and coolings over the past few hundred years correlate much more closely with sunspot activity than anything else. You will argue that this does not prove causation, which is true. However, the data more clearly points to the sun than any other possible cause. Of course, the last 30 years involves more stable, though high, solar activity, and increasing temperature, so it is probable that GHGs are a major cause of warming over that time.

1veedo I find it really difficult to understand how someone can read (if you read) my postings and come back with all those claims for what I do and do not believe. Let me nail it down for you. I will keep this very simple so you can understand. 1. I accept that the world is warming. 2. I accept that greenhouse gases, of human origin, are increasing. 3. I accept that these greenhouse gases are a powerful cause of that warming. Is this too difficult for you? However, I am not a predictor of catastrophe. Nor am I tied, as you are, to the interpretation that damn near anything climatic must be caused 100% by human generated global warming. Thus, as the IPCC admits, there is no convincing evidence that global warming is causing more or greater hurricanes. Something I am sure you will try to push. You need to appreciate the difference between global warming denier, and global warming sceptic, which is what I am. Where, in the past, we see a clear cut case of warming, in which the increase in temperature comes BEFORE the increase in CO2, I do not automatically assume that it is greenhouse gas driven global warming. Which you do. Who steers the best course? The person who looks at the facts as I do, or the person who follows the dogma as you do? Blind faith in a particular set of beliefs is not what drives science forwards. Scepticism is needed.

foodchain One of the things I find really frustrating about forums is the number of people like you who skip-read my postings and then reply, assuming I said things which I did not. I have said repeatedly that I am not a global warming denier, and that it is clear that human released greenhouse gases are a major driver of global warming over the past 30 years. Why do you and others write as if I were denying that? I am sceptical of certain aspects of global warming dogma. Not of the data, which is clear. However, data is subject to interpretation, and a lot of that is influenced by people's pre-conceptions. We are not here to argue the data, but it is valuable for sceptics like myself to point out when interpretation goes beyond what the data clearly indicates.

To 1veedo I cannot even begin to argue against everything you say. You must have put in heaps of time to write what you did. I am smothered by sheer volume. The comment I made about the graph was not an attack on your graph. Just pointing out that it did not show the CO2/warming relationship very well. I have seen other graphs that showed that much more clearly. You repeatedly call things 'facts' when they are hypotheses. That is not very good science. The idea that CO2 caused ancient (hundreds of thousands of years ago) warming is a hypothesis - not a fact. Carrying out assorted sums does not show otherwise. Only empirical testing can verify or refute a hypothesis. Show me that empirical testing. I have not tried to deny global warming over the last 30 years is strongly influenced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Nor do you need to 'prove' ancient warming had the same cause to make a case for recent warming. There are major quantitative differences in each case. For example ; time. Recent warming correlates with rapid greenhouse gas increase. Ancient warming was much slower. You suggest that GCMs were accurate for the 20th. That can not be so. None predicted the cooling of 1941 to 1975. This was a 35 year trend that was unpredictable. Over a third of the entire century. Nor can this cooling be fully explained by sulphate aerosols, though some have tried. There was such pollution before 1941, and it continued after 1975. Yet the difference between 1910 to 1940 warming, and 1941 to 1975 cooling was dramatic. It is not fully explainable by pollution. However, if we look at solar activity, as shown by sunspots, it correlates perfectly with those changes, as long as we look at decade long trends, rather than year to year variation. Note again. I am not suggesting this is still the case. Solar activity levelled off (though remaining high) after 1975, and warming continued. Thus, solar activity does not appear to be responsible for the warming of the past 30 years. However, it is abundantly clear that warming/cooling before 1975 was NOT a simple result of AGG's.

Swansont said ; We can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we can calculate how much of an insulating effect that has on the planet. And there lies the reason we will never agree. You have a naive and touching faith in the ability of GCM's to simulate climate change. I do not. The climate modellers have been trying to get it right for 25 years. Now that both warming and GHG increase has settled down to a steady pattern, they are able to modify their models to allow them to, more or less, simulate what is happening. However, no-one has been able to simulate changes that happened in the 20th Century before 1975. Why? Because other factors were important. Almost certainly, they will again become very important. Until the modellers accept these alternative factors, such as solar and volcanic, they will continue to give predictions that will inevitably be proved wrong.