I just watched An Inconvenient Truth

[1veedo]

Edtharan.

 

You are a smart' date=' intelligent and educated person.[/quote']I beg to differ.

 

 

 

j/k

On the science side, the program provides data on how the sun, particularly sun spot activity, is the primary source of global warming. The science is impressive.

Well yeah, of course they did. This is actually true. The science is impressive simply because this is one of the factual things they said.

 

This does not, however, carry over into current warming. Whoever thinks scientists don't take into account the sun and only care about co2 are just ridiculously oversimplifying things.

 

The sun's contribution to current warming is much smaller then anthropogenic factors. Between 1900 and 1950 for instance, it's believed that the sun contributed 16% to 36% of total warming*. Today it's even less. Solar forcing is an entire order of magnitude smaller then anthropomorphic**.

 

*Stott, Peter et al. (2003). Journal of Climate, vol. 16, p. 4079-4093. "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?"

** 1.6 for humans and .12 for the sun. IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Actually, that is not true. Historical records show that Greenland was always cold. However, the Nordic promoters of the colonies in 1000 AD told little lies, and the name was one such lie. [b']It is probable that it was a little bit warmer then than today, since those same historical references show they grew five different crops there, which we cannot do today.[/b]

The medieval warm period and little ice age have been wrapped up in a heated, partially forgotten, debate over the merits of the original hockey stick study. In reality we don't think the medieval warm period actually matched or exceeded modern temperatures. Evidence suggests it was mostly a localized event in the northern hemisphere, and largely during the summer.

 

From here, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html , "

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."

 

The reason there is so much discrepancy about this is because the methods we use to construct temperature during this time is different from other methods used for older time periods, and the accuracy of this data comes into question. However, all the various methods for constructing the temperature collaboratively agree on the same conclusion. The graph below neatly represents all of the different studies so you can see what the actual conclusion is: the medieval warm period really wasn't as warm as it is today.

 

 

Also the idea that Vikings were growing lots of crops on greenland is an urban legend. Greenland was called "green" not because it was actually green but because the guy who discovered it thought he could get people to move there if he made it sound appealing. What few people actually came to greenland ended up dying. They couldn't grow any food and the winters, much like the early settlers in America, killed the vast majority of people (unlike America though they didn't listen to the natives...).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

 

 

The thing about the medieval warm period is that we know what caused it -- mostly orbit around the sun -- and we know what's causing global warming today -- greenhouse gases. That in itself makes the two very different.

[swansont]

Swansont said :

 

And a simplification to the point that it's wrong is a nonstarter. Do you have any peer-reviewed research that says that CO2 does not contribute, in any way, to the greenhouse effect?

 

Re-read my posting. I did NOT deny that CO2 can cause warming. What I said was that, over most of the past million years, from the fact that CO2 increase comes AFTER warming, a sensible conclusion is that warming can be the cause of CO2 increase. I even mentioned the mechanism.

 

 

When you reduce it down to "warming causes CO2" you deny any other effect of the CO2. Which is simplification to the point that it's wrong.

 

Does anyone deny that warmer water holds less dissolved gas? I seem to recall that being one of the arguments in all of this. What I don't recall is anyone arguing that increased CO2 initiated past warming cycles, but what is left is showing that increased CO2 won't initiate a warming cycle. It seems to me you would agree with that, if I read you correctly.

[waitforufo]

Since my last two posts regarding "The Great Global Warming Swindle" I have noticed that most of the arguments against this program have been of the kill the messenger variety. There was very little discussion on the science presented in the program. Lots of "Big Oil" funds the global warming deniers so they can't be believed. So I ask the question, if a scientist wants to prove that global warming is not related to human activity, where are untainted funds found? How many "global warming deniers" (aka scientist) are funded by the IPCC? Is the IPCC really impartial or do they have a vested interest in the perpetuation of the human activity causes global warming theory? Would they exist if it were proven that global warming were out of human control? Would their parent, the UN, grow in power if global warming were out of human control? One of the human global warming promoters (swindlers?) identified in the program were anti-capitalists. I'm I the only one that finds the evil "Big Oil" comments and arguments a bit anti-capitalist? I bring this all up because many of you act as if "Big Oil" is the only research funding group with skin in this game.

 

Now to the science presented in the program.

 

The program argues that increasing levels of CO2 are a natural response to increasing temperature. As the oceans warm, they give up CO2. According to the program, a warming earth causes increasing CO2. That, they argue, is the true causation argument.

 

So why is the earth warming? They argue that variability of the sun causes global warming. When the sun is more active (sun spots) two things happen. First, the sun is hotter. Second, solar wind caused by the solar activity shields the earth from cosmic rays. Fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds since cosmic rays cause water vapor to condense. With a hotter sun, and fewer clouds, the earth's surface gets warmer. Green house gas global warming theory predicts warming in the higher atmosphere. Measurements, they argue, have not shown adequate high altitude warming to confirm CO2 based warming.

In support of these arguments, the program provides the following plots. Sorry about the quality, but a screen capture gives limited quality.

 

[attach]1497[/attach]

This plot shows CO2 versus solar activity. The point is that increasing levels of CO2 are caused by solar activity. I don't think anyone is arguing that the earth's CO2 level has an impact on solar activity.

 

[attach]1499[/attach]

This plot shows the earth's temperature versus solar activity for 100 years.

 

[attach]1500[/attach]

This plot shows the earth's temperature versus solar activity for 400 years.

 

[attach]1501[/attach]

This plot shows cosmic rays hitting the earth versus earth's temperature. The point of this plot is that cloud formation is based on cosmic rays striking the earth. More cosmic rays, the more clouds produced, the cooler the climate. The cosmic ray plot was flipped to better show correlation. Since solar activity reduces the level of cosmic rays hitting the earth, increased solar activity will also therefore reduce cloud formation further increasing climate temperature.

 

The correlations in these plots are obvious. I don't know how one could argue that activity on the earth could cause solar activity or cosmic ray fluctuations.

 

By the way, there is an old axiom about the obvious answer generally being the correct one.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said :

 

but what is left is showing that increased CO2 won't initiate a warming cycle. It seems to me you would agree with that, if I read you correctly.

 

I have never said that. You persist in misinterpreting what I am saying. My reference to CO2 and warming, with warming being the cause refers to the past million years, except the last 100 years. I repeated the 'except' several times to try to make sure no-one misunderstood. Damn!

 

At least Peak Oil man was smart enough to understand my point.

 

Waitforufo got it right about the video when he said most of the criticism was the kill the messenger variety. It does not matter much where a scientist gets his/her research funds from. Medical researchers throughout the world have, for many decades, relied upon pharmaceutical companies for their primary source of funds. With this money they have created many life-saving medical technologies.

 

If a climate scientist is doing work that does NOT support the IPCC paradigm, he/she can expect to find getting government research funds very difficult, if not impossible. Thus, they go to where the money is. If Big Oil offers research dollars, they would be nuts to turn it down. Like medical researchers taking funds from drug companies, their research results can still be of the top most calibre.

 

It is a rule of this, and other forums, that ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. I think that attacking the reputation of scientists is just as despicable.

[1veedo]

How many "global warming deniers" (aka scientist) are funded by the IPCC?

Actually, quite a bit. The IPCC hires more global warming deniers then most "reputable" scientific organizations.

 

Of course I understand what you're talking about here so this isn't some sort of witty dismissive comment from me. The logical fallacy you're looking for is ad hominem. Although you can learn a lot about an argument bu who's arguing it, you can't dismiss argument on those grounds. The arguments against global warming fall on their own, not because of who says them.

Is the IPCC really impartial or do they have a vested interest in the perpetuation of the human activity causes global warming theory? Would they exist if it were proven that global warming were out of human control? Would their parent, the UN, grow in power if global warming were out of human control?

Actually, yes. The IPCC isn't a global warming prover organization. All the IPCC does is research the current scientific opinion on climate change and publish it. They don't do original research. And if you look at what's actually published in scientific literature, you'll find very little peer-reviewed material against global warming. Actually, and this is the same study Peak Oil Man was talking about, Naomi Oreskers found "Remarkably, none of the [928] papers disagree with the consensus position."[referenced in 1] This doesn't mean they don't exist, of course, but if you search peer-review literature for global warming, climate change, etc, you'll find next to nothing that disagrees with global warming.

 

What a lot of people don't understand that global warming is one of the the most understood natural phenomenon every observed in science! We know more about climate change and human interactions with the climate then we do many other areas of science. Climate change is up there in unanimous consensus as relativity and quantum mechanics. "Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science," says Science editor-in-cheif Donald Kennedy[1].

 

I havn't watched more then five minutes of the video, although I do plan to see it (unlike an inconvenient truth, though I have seen The Denial Machine). However, it seems like most of these "scientific arguments" are what I like to call global warming myths. None of these claims are actually real in science but many people like to make pretend that they are.

 

The IPCC has released a couple summaries of current climate research and they concluded that the Earth is warming very rapidly and that the cause for this is rising greenhouse gases from human activity.

 

These statements have been endorsed by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK). ( http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619 )

 

"The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world?s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.

 

There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as the world?s climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC?s conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990 levels by 2100 1. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources."

 

A further source explicitly endorsing the IPCC signed by many of the same people, including the Untied States, can be found here: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

 

On top of the IPCC, many other institutions have published the same conclusions. These include, but are definitely not limited to, the National Academy of Science(http://www.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.htmll ), NASA ( http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ ), The National Center for Atmospheric Research ( http://eo.ucar.edu/ ), The Environmental Protection Agency ( http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html ), and the American Meteorological Society ( http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html ).

The program argues that increasing levels of CO2 are a natural response to increasing temperature. As the oceans warm, they give up CO2. According to the program, a warming earth causes increasing CO2. That, they argue, is the true causation argument.

Several people have already responded to that in this thread.

 

CO2 is actually what's known as a feedback agent. Feedback is like when you put a microphone by a speaker and you get accelerated amplitude of sound.

 

This same sort of thing also happens in relation to temperature and CO2 throughout history. The switch from ice ages to warm periods is always very rapid which indicates a positive feedback loop causing acceleration of the effects[2].

 

CO2 actually rarely ever lags behind temperature. This shows that, obviously, CO2 is a cause as well as an effect of temperature[2]. And one of the main reasons we even see the 10% in the first place is because of certain orbital variations that cause uneven distribution of sunlight on the planet. For instance, the northern hemisphere commonly gets more sunlight then the southern.

 

The problem is that the extra sunlight melts ice in the north which is one feedback loop and then CO2 comes in as another feedback loop. The effects of these feedback loops is the reason scientists are concerned today -- we see the exact same things happening, only much larger. As ice melts, many scientists are concerned that it will amplify the speed at which the Earth warms.

 

If you take a look at this page, you can see why this is.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

 

The sun, all by itself, would not causes the temperature to vary anywhere near as much as it has. In order for us to have ice ages and warm periods, we need CO2 to feed back into the system. W/o CO2, changes in temperature would be very small[2]. This is just a simple fact, we understood how all this worked before we started noticing global warming.

 

For an example of CO2 causing global temperatures to rise, you can just look at the past two hundred or so years. Even though we are moving away from the sun, temperatures are rising. The only possible cause is an increase in greenhouse gases. Therefore, there must be high levels of greenhouse gases right now. And if you look at the data, what do you find? That greenhouse gases are higher then they ever have been for hundreds of thousands of years!

So why is the earth warming? They argue that variability of the sun causes global warming. When the sun is more active (sun spots) two things happen. First, the sun is hotter. Second, solar wind caused by the solar activity shields the earth from cosmic rays. Fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds since cosmic rays cause water vapor to condense. With a hotter sun, and fewer clouds, the earth's surface gets warmer. Green house gas global warming theory predicts warming in the higher atmosphere. Measurements, they argue, have not shown adequate high altitude warming to confirm CO2 based warming.

 

This plot shows CO2 versus solar activity. The point is that increasing levels of CO2 are caused by solar activity. I don't think anyone is arguing that the earth's CO2 level has an impact on solar activity.

Well yeah, this is actually true. This does not, however, carry over into current warming. Whoever thinks scientists don't take into account the sun and only care about co2 are just ridiculously oversimplifying things.

 

The sun's contribution to current warming is much smaller then anthropogenic factors. Between 1900 and 1950 for instance, it's believed that the sun contributed 16% to 36% of total warming[3]. Today it's even less. Solar forcing is an entire order of magnitude smaller then anthropomorphic[4].

This plot shows the earth's temperature versus solar activity for 100 years.

This looks a little fuged to me. I've seen numerous studies that show a diviations between temperature and solar activity over the past 100 years. The sun does stick with us till about 1950 but then the graph reverses itself.

 

There's an interesting little graph at junkscience.com, http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/IrradianceVsTemp.gif . I cant find this graph anywhere else but I'm assuming it's real. (btw junkscience.com is what is know as "Internet bunk" It is a website that appears to contain credible information but really doesn't. The author is a conservative activist and gets paid by the oil industry to make misleading claims. This is ad hominem but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of articles on the website are in fact false. junkscience.com is not a credible reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...875762,00.html)

 

The study shows no increase of irradiance from ~1970 forward despite its apparent rise from ~1860. As you can see, the blue line is temperature and the red line represents 11 year cycles of sun spots (not directly sunspots but the amount of radiation, which correlates w/ sunspots). Before the 1900s, the temperature directly correlates with the amount of radiation emitted from the sun. However, the temperature stops correlating with solar activity and starts correlating with what we know about the time period from 1940 onwards. Between 1940 and 1970, the temperature stayed the same because of aerosol emissions (despite an increase in irradiance). After 1970, the temperature started to rise dramatically. This is all independent of solar irradiates and does not correlate with the actual irradiance.

 

 

The entire period from 1970 to today is marked by .2C increases in temperature per decade despite the fact that there was no increase in solar radiation. http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant .

 

Another sources claism that sunspot activity peaked around 1950. This graph shows the relationship (or lack thereof) between temperature and solar irradiance very well:

 

As you can see, the red line is temperature and the blue line represents solar irradiance. Since 1970, the temperature has risen very rapidly and this is despite the fact that solar irradiance decreased during this period.

 

You have to remember that there's a difference between the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth and the amount of sunlight that is emitted toward the Earth. The reason for this is that our atmosphere screens out a lot of radiation from the sun. Particulates especially because they directly contribute to a phenomenon known as global dimming.

 

This is a factor that the IPCC and other climate models addres. For instance, the latest IPCC report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, gave solar irradiance a value of .12 W/m^2 and human factors a value of 1.6. Anthropomorphic forcing is one entire order of magnitude higher then solar[4].

 

It's just a myth, an urban legend if you will, that the sun is responsible for global warming. A myth that this movie perpetrates.

 

This plot shows cosmic rays hitting the earth versus earth's temperature. The point of this plot is that cloud formation is based on cosmic rays striking the earth. More cosmic rays, the more clouds produced, the cooler the climate. The cosmic ray plot was flipped to better show correlation. Since solar activity reduces the level of cosmic rays hitting the earth, increased solar activity will also therefore reduce cloud formation further increasing climate temperature.

 

The correlations in these plots are obvious. I don't know how one could argue that activity on the earth could cause solar activity or cosmic ray fluctuations.

 

By the way, there is an old axiom about the obvious answer generally being the correct one

Well I think from my other responses you already know the motif. Historically it is true that the sun has drove warming/cooling. Volcanoes and other factors have had effects as well, like the little ice age for instance[5]. However, modern warming is very different. I could quote literally thousands of peer-reviews science articles that claim global warming is caused by humans. However, there are no peer-reviewed references that claim otherwise. The entire body of information against global warming is found outside of science. This video is a good example of one.

 

Notes

1. 3. Mooney, Cris. (2005). The Republican War on Science.

--quoted from "An unfortunate U-turn on carbon," Science, vol. 291, p. 2515, March 30, 2001.

2. Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks by the NAP.

http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10850.html (you can read it online for free.)

3. Stott, Peter et al. (2003). Journal of Climate, vol. 16, p. 4079-4093. "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?"

4. IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

5. Crowley, Thomas J. Science 289, 270. (2000). "Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years"

 

This post appeared after I'd written all this...

If a climate scientist is doing work that does NOT support the IPCC paradigm, he/she can expect to find getting government research funds very difficult, if not impossible. Thus, they go to where the money is. If Big Oil offers research dollars, they would be nuts to turn it down. Like medical researchers taking funds from drug companies, their research results can still be of the top most calibre.

Scientists can be sort of socially marginalized for pushing against the consensus -- it's always been that way, regardless of field. But saying you're being laughed at does not make you correct. Sure, Darwin was ridiculed, the Wright brothers, even, were ridiculed, but these are good stories cause people like them. What you dont hear about are all the people who were ridiculed and history has subsequently found them wrong! (see for instance Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer) "For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating a scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose "truths" never pass muster with other scientists"

[swansont]

Swansont said :

 

but what is left is showing that increased CO2 won't initiate a warming cycle. It seems to me you would agree with that, if I read you correctly.

 

I have never said that. You persist in misinterpreting what I am saying. My reference to CO2 and warming, with warming being the cause refers to the past million years, except the last 100 years. I repeated the 'except' several times to try to make sure no-one misunderstood. Damn!

 

At least Peak Oil man was smart enough to understand my point.

 

You're right, you didn't, and I never claimed that you did. I said that. I was asking if you agreed (or surmising that you would).

 

You had said

 

The last 100 years are a different situation. You do not need to come up with greenhouse gas effects over the previous million years to justify your position on the last 100.

 

and now I'm confused how what I said is inconsistent with that.

 

To reiterate: in the warming trends before the most recent one, CO2 lagged temperature. Something else initiated the warming cycle. But that doesn't mean that an increase in CO2 can't initiate a warming cycle, i.e. the recent trend is different.

 

 

 

It is a rule of this, and other forums, that ad hominem attacks are not acceptable.

 

Like implying stupidity on someone's part?

[waitforufo]

1veedo,

The reference for the data that you think is a bit "fuged" is:

Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991

 

A recent update to this data can be found at:

<http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/welcome.shtml>

I am sure you will find this update more to your liking.

[1veedo]

Well I said I thought it was fuged. I've see enough of these sorts of studies to know what the norm looks like. Even if your study were critiqued well (which it isn't, more on that latter), it shouldn't change what every other study has found. We're not talking about one or two odd studies here; there is a lot of research in this field, and they all pretty much agree with each other.

 

Naturally, different studies are going to show slightly different results. And you can also "fudge" it up to look differently without changing the data. For instance, I graphed one of the studies from here in openoffice and you can hardly tell the temperature increase.

 

http://1veedo.homelinux.com/misc/Screenshot.png

(I brought this up on wikipedia talk)

 

This is consistent with a graph of the same data found on a global warming denier website.

 

http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif

 

The wikipedia graph appears to show a much greater increase, imo, mostly because of the line they draw through it. I figure most studies do this to illustrate their point. The wikipedia graph talks about global warming and the denier's graph talks about how global warming is false.

 

 

I did a google for the study you provided and found some peer-review about it. Apparently there are actually studies that do show it's incorrect. I don't think this came from a science journal, but it references good sources. (particularly two studies done by Damon that shows the Friis-Christensen study is flawed)

 

"In 1991, a Science paper reported a remarkable correlation between solar activity and temperatures, prompting speculation that solar activity was causing global warming. 1 While the paper understandably received a great deal of attention at the time, and is sometimes cited today, its conclusions are flawed.2 The original 1991 analysis compared temperature data to records of sunspot cycle length (a proxy for solar output). However, the sunspot data used in the analysis were not uniform—some were filtered to smooth out temporal variations and others were not. Subsequent analyses (by these same authors) attempted to address the filtering issue but were plagued by mathematical errors. When the analysis was repeated without these errors, the relationship between solar activity and temperature fell apart."

 

Another statement directly agrees with a study I linked to above, "...but there has not been any net change in solar output since 1978 when most of the 20th century warming occurred."

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=11&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.environmentaldefense.org%2Fdocuments%2F5544_SolarActivity_One-pager.pdf&ei=RIP4RZTKBYiIgAT4jPHPBw&usg=__qWrMFyB7EwNF1311SYKP7kNOwjw=&sig2=nIJ-dRxce5ojkCfrffcBBg (they have the corrected graphs as well as actual direct sunspot measurements in the pdf)

[SkepticLance]

To 1veedo.

 

There has actually been a nice correlation between solar output (as measured by sunspot activity) and global temperature covering the last 500 years, with the notable exception of the last 30 years. It is not a correlation of 1, or even close, but the coefficient is high enough to strongly indicate a real relationship. The fact that the two factors do not track each other 100% simply indicates that other factors are involved, and some of those other factors have already been mentioned in this thread.

 

The last 30 years, of course, indicate a more recent factor driving global warming which almost certainly includes human activity as a major factor.

[Edtharan]

There has actually been a nice correlation between solar output (as measured by sunspot activity) and global temperature covering the last 500 years, with the notable exception of the last 30 years. It is not a correlation of 1, or even close, but the coefficient is high enough to strongly indicate a real relationship.

I am not surprised that there is some level of correlation between the two. This, however, does not eliminate the possibility that CO2 output by humans is not having some effect.

 

In the graphs that has been presented showing an increase in CO2 that correlates with increased solar activity for thousands of years in the past does not surprise me in the least. Do you know why?

 

Humans weren't emitting near as much CO2 back then, the amount of CO2 humans emitted would not have been having much impact at all.

 

Showing a graph in a time and p[lace where the emissions of CO2 by humans were extremely low (or non existent) is actually a Strawman argument. The situation in those times is completely different to what is occuring now.

 

Warming the Earth will cause more CO2 to be released, but Releasing CO2 will also cause warming of the Earth.

 

So if, due to solar activity the Earth warmed (and there would be a delay between the increased solar activity and the actual warming of the climate) in the past, this has no real bearing on today's situation.

 

The question is not whether solar warming can cause a global warming, but the question is whether CO2 released by humans can cause Global Warming. Presenting graphs and evidence that in the past there was some other trigger event is really just dodging the issue.

 

With what I know about the climate, the delay seen in those graphs can easily be explained. As I have said before, there are "Sinks" and Negative feedback loops that can suppress the climactic change for a (relatively) short period of time. But, once these "Sinks" are overwhelmed, the change can be rapid, especially once the positive feedback loops begin to dominate.

 

Think about it: Solar activity begins to increase. The Sinks slow down (or prevent) and immediate climactic response to this extra activity. Eventually these Sinks are overwhelmed and the climate begins to warm. This releases CO2 (and triggers other positive feedback loops) which increase the effect of the increased solar activity. This causes the climate to amplify the temperature of the climate to more than it would have been with the solar activity alone.

 

Eventually the Sun cools again, but the increased greenhouse effect will allow the Earth to retain more of it's captured energy for longer which introduces a delay in the drop of CO2 as the temperature is still warm enough to stop the CO2 from being reabsorbed. Eventually the Earth cools enough for the CO2 to start to be reabsorbed (most likely into the oceans), this then uses the same feedback loop that caused an accelerated warming to help scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere. This will allow the Earth to cool faster than it would have (and as this would be driven by the cooling of the sun it should mirror it, but just be delayed a bit).

 

This fits exactly with all those graphs that has been posted that was supposed to "prove" that GW is only driven by the Sun.

 

Yes, it might have been "Driven" by the sun, but by taking an overly simplistic view of the climate system you can fail to see the actual reason that the CO2 increase and decrease lags behind the actual solar activity levels.

 

Basically, because the climate has sinks and feedback loops, the effects on the climate will lag behind the effect of whatever is driving it.

[waitforufo]

1veedo,

In the "If ALL the Ice melt" thread I asked how many years of weather does a climate make?" You responded "It depends but usually around thirty years. Thirty year trends tend to pop up alot." In post #84 of this thread you show a plot. You say "I'm assuming it's real" data. That plot shows about 30 years of warming. So are you saying we have one data point showing a trend toward global warming? I guess one in a row is a good start.

 

By the way, I provided the link in my last post because that link provided an update to the plot with which you are disagree. In that link, the updated plot is very close to the one you say you are assuming is real. That is why I said it would be more to your liking.

[1veedo]

You can tell in the junkscience graph how the solar irradiace is scaled a point or two higher but it clearly stops correlating around 1950. It claims to have been done by noaa though I've never seen this study at their website or anywhere else. The author of junkscience.com probably took the data set and graphed it. I just think it's funny that this graoh is about the best junkscience.com can come up with and it still doesn't even support their position that "the sun is causing global warming."

 

Your graph is actually correct up till the last few years. These are the years that it shows data about opposite of what other studies show. Instead of a very clear, even slope from ~1970 onwards, your graph increases during this period.

[Icemelt]

Much of the above is answered in the recently produced TV programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Unlike “An Inconvenient Truth” which was produced for political gain, this production contains testimonies from 20 eminent university professors, the cofounder of Greenpeace, several authors of the IPCC report and an army of very well qualified researchers including the Director of the International Arctic Research Centre.

All contributors are in agreement that Global Warming is the main cause of an increase in carbon dioxide, and that the increases in carbon dioxide we have experienced over the last century have had an insignificant effect on the climate.

The bulk of the carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere comes from the warming of the cold water from the ocean floors, as it is pushed to the surface by ocean pumps such as the Gulf Stream. Cold water allows much more carbon dioxide to dissolve in it than warm water and therefore carbon dioxide is released as the water warms.

Now, taking the Gulf Stream as an example, the bulk of the carbon dioxide is dissolved in the water off the coast of Greenland, where the water is at its coldest. Water with more CO2 dissolved in it is heavier than water with less, and so this concentrated solution of CO2 in water sinks to the ocean floor and moves slowly along the ocean floor until it reaches the Gulf of Mexico, where it rises and releases the CO2 dissolved in it.

So an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will cause more to dissolve off Greenland, which subsequently results in more to be emitted in the Gulf of Mexico.

Now here’s the crunch !

The water takes approximately 800 years to travel along the bottom from Greenland to Mexico, so we are experiencing increases in CO2 now, which result from climate changes 800 years ago, well before industrialisation, cars, planes etc.

Unfortunately we are being led astray by political manipulation.

The production even shows one professor explaining how he resigned from the IPCC as a result of his research contributions being censored by third parties !

It’s well worth viewing.

[1veedo]

If you just google "the great global warming swindle" you can easily find that it's severely misleading. People like Icemelt innocently watch it and think it makes sense, without actually knowing anything about climate change in the first place. There are pages and pages of "rebuttals" and "swindling the swindle" that respond to the claims made in that show.

 

Wikipedia even has an article now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

The bulk of the carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere comes from the warming of the cold water from the ocean floors, as it is pushed to the surface by ocean pumps such as the Gulf Stream. Cold water allows much more carbon dioxide to dissolve in it than warm water and therefore carbon dioxide is released as the water warms.

Now, taking the Gulf Stream as an example, the bulk of the carbon dioxide is dissolved in the water off the coast of Greenland, where the water is at its coldest. Water with more CO2 dissolved in it is heavier than water with less, and so this concentrated solution of CO2 in water sinks to the ocean floor and moves slowly along the ocean floor until it reaches the Gulf of Mexico, where it rises and releases the CO2 dissolved in it.

So an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will cause more to dissolve off Greenland, which subsequently results in more to be emitted in the Gulf of Mexico.

Now here’s the crunch !

The water takes approximately 800 years to travel along the bottom from Greenland to Mexico, so we are experiencing increases in CO2 now, which result from climate changes 800 years ago, well before industrialisation, cars, planes etc.

These actually come from Carl Wunsch, the professor of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He thought the show was going to be honest so agreed for an interview, but is now suing the producers because they misinterpreted what he said to make it sound like he disagreed with global warming.

 

"In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening." ( http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response )

[Icemelt]

Hey 1veedo

Don’t be so condescending

They were indeed correct about Global Warming becoming a religion, and those who speak out being castigated by the indoctrinated !

It’s so easy to trash data and conclusions, since most of us have insufficient time to assimilate and analyse a sufficiently large chunk of it to reach a sensible conclusion.

 

However, 1veedo, you are sooooooooo wrong, and perhaps you'd like to direct your glib and misleading comments towards Nasa :

 

http://science.hq.nasa.gov/oceans/system/carbon.html

"Physical oceanography influences the carbon cycle through its modulation of the biology and also through processes that control carbonate chemistry (e.g., temperature, alkalinity/salinity) and carbon dioxide flux rates between the air-sea interface (e.g., surface wind speeds). The ocean "solubility pump" removes atmospheric carbon dioxide as air mixes with and dissolves into the upper ocean. Carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water, so at high latitudes where surface cooling occurs, carbon dioxide laden water sinks to the deep ocean and becomes part of the deep ocean circulation "conveyor belt", where it stays for hundreds of years. Eventually mixing brings the water back to the surface at the opposite end of the conveyor belt in regions distant from where the carbon dioxide was first absorbed, e.g., the tropics. In the tropical regions, warm waters cannot retain as much carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide is transferred back into the atmosphere”

 

Sure there is some controversy, which unsurprising since the professors concerned are now being threatened with research budget cuts if they continue to speak out.

But you shouldn’t just right the whole thing off because of a bit of hysterical chatter, and more importantly because it may indicate you might not be as knowledgeable as you claim.

After all, most of us realise litigation is a favourite American pastime, which has very little to do with any real truths, morals or situations.

 

You shouldn’t turn things around into what has not been said.

Nobody is denying that global warming exists.

What is under discussion is whether an increase in CO2 lags or leads global warming.

The fact remains there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that CO2 causes, or has ever caused, global warming. But there is conclusive evidence that global warming in the past has always caused an increase in CO2.

 

For you to come up with a statement like:

“People like Icemelt innocently watch it and think it makes sense, without actually knowing anything about climate change in the first place”

- - - means that, as you really don’t have a legitimate argument, the only way you can survive is to attempt to belittle any opponents who might put forward a different explanation.

Carl Wunsch is just one professor amongst 20 or so. It was inevitable that the programme producer wasn’t going to keep them all 100% happy, and there were bound to be more than a few moans.

Just take a look at how many distanced themselves from the IPCC report.

If you saw the film you’d see there was no attempt to indicate that global warming didn’t exist.

Far from it, the program was all about the cause of it, and the sinister manoeuvres to prevent third world countries from developing.

The programme trashing is yet another publicity stunt, probably to avoid a threatened research budget cut.

I have no problem with my beliefs since they are based on personal experience.

FYI Icemelt has spent several hundred hours submerged in Pacific and Atlantic oceans getting first hand experience to substantiate his conclusions.

I just wonder how many measurements 1veedo has made, to qualify him to be so dismissive of a substantiated argument, when organisations such as Nasa provide more than adequate corroboration !

[1veedo]

Lets keep politics separated from the science, shale we?

They were indeed correct about Global Warming becoming a religion, and those who speak out being castigated by the indoctrinated !

This is how science has always been, regardless of the field. Saying you're being laughed at does not make your correct. Sure, Darwin was ridiculed, the Wright brothers, even, were ridiculed, but these are good stories because people like them. What you don't hear about are all the people who were ridiculed and history has subsequently found them wrong! (see for instance Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer) "For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating a scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose "truths" never pass muster with other scientists"

 

Global warming definitely isn't a religion though. You should probably look the definitions for religion and science. They are inherently very different and I dont see how you could confuse the two.

http://science.hq.nasa.gov/oceans/system/carbon.html

"Physical oceanography influences the carbon cycle through its modulation of the biology and also through processes that control carbonate chemistry (e.g., temperature, alkalinity/salinity) and carbon dioxide flux rates between the air-sea interface (e.g., surface wind speeds). The ocean "solubility pump" removes atmospheric carbon dioxide as air mixes with and dissolves into the upper ocean. Carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water, so at high latitudes where surface cooling occurs, carbon dioxide laden water sinks to the deep ocean and becomes part of the deep ocean circulation "conveyor belt", where it stays for hundreds of years. Eventually mixing brings the water back to the surface at the opposite end of the conveyor belt in regions distant from where the carbon dioxide was first absorbed, e.g., the tropics. In the tropical regions, warm waters cannot retain as much carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide is transferred back into the atmosphere”

I'm not denying that this conveyer belt exists. I've never heard of it before, but I never actually said it wasn't real. You have created what is known as a straw man.

 

All this article really serves to do is prove that it's real. That's great. What it does not do, however, is claim that global warming is caused by it. You're trying to create an equivocation fallacy. The existence of this conveyor belt and the causation upon global warming are not the same thing. Hence the logical fallacy in trying to say that they are. If you want to claim that the CO2 being released from the ocean is enough to effect the climate, you're going to have to come up with some numbers. And these numbers better be much higher then anthropomorphic levels.

 

If you read this article, you would clearly see in the first paragraph that they're talking about the fact that the oceans have absorbed a lot of carbon from the atmosphere (from nowhere else but the burning of Fossil Fuels). This is of great significance to climate scientists because we don't how much the ocean is going to absorb before it stops. It's what's known as a sink in climate science. Sinks eventually fill up and stop mitigating certain factors within the climate. The IPCC Feb 2007 has a bullet,

 

" Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise (see Table SPM-1). {5.2, 5.5}"

 

The irony of you posting this article is that the article assumes, as a premise, that anthropomorphic global warming is real. They're talking about the implications of predicting future climate trends based on research about the conveyor belt.

 

"New measurements of carbon in the coastal ocean and of organic particle content or profiles throughout the ocean will be needed to reduce uncertainties in coastal carbon fluxes and to quantify carbon export to the deep ocean. NASA will partner with other agencies to better understand carbon export. In 5-10 years, an intensive Southern Ocean carbon program will be needed to resolve uncertainties in the size, dynamics, and global significance of the Southern Ocean as a carbon sink, the processes controlling this sink, and the response of the sink to climate change in the Southern Hemisphere. In order to improve process characterizations in ecological models, more sophisticated measurement technology than are currently being used will be required."

 

But while we're talking about NASA, why don't you look at NASA's GISS surface temperature analysis?

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

 

So maybe you should direct your glib and misleading comments towards NASA?

Sure there is some controversy, which unsurprising since the professors concerned are now being threatened with research budget cuts if they continue to speak out.

Well we already talked about this above, and I am not denying that science tends to marginalize those who go against the consensus, but if you're going to make a specific claim regarding these particular researchers, you should also back it up with a reference.

What is under discussion is whether an increase in CO2 lags or leads global warming.

The fact remains there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that CO2 causes, or has ever caused, global warming. But there is conclusive evidence that global warming in the past has always caused an increase in CO2.

This may be a discussion but it shouldn't be. This is simply because, as has been said many times here at scienceforums.net in this thread and others, CO2 is what's known as a positive feedback agent in our climate. Feedback is a factor in a system that loops back into itself, and it is usually negative or positive. An example of positive feedback is a microphone put close to the speaker. The nose going into the mic comes back out in the speakers, which is then fed back in, causing an amplification of the sound.

 

If you want to read about all the various feedback agents at work in our climate, including CO2, dive into Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks.

 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10850

If you saw the film you’d see there was no attempt to indicate that global warming didn’t exist.

This really doesn't deserve being responded to but I just wanted to ask you again to avoid straw man arguments. A straw man argument is when you take a persons position, distort it, and then argue against that version. It is a logical fallacy simply because arguing against a distorted position does not constitute arguing against the position itself. I have never once insinuated that you were saying global warming isn't real. This whole time we've been talking about anthropomorphic global warming.

[silverslith]

So what you guys are saying is that the oceans are a sink that absorb excess co2 as the earth warms until the period of the conveyer belt returning the co2 to the surface is reached (200-800 years) where the co2 will spike seeming to indicate that warming causes co2 rise when this doesn't logically follow?

Great pictures of the tidal plants planned for the kaipara and Cook straight on TV the other night. between them ~1/3 of nz's needs. Just a drop in the bucket compared to the resource, 200Mw each. Eight tidal and wave farms in the works. Looks like Nuclear has missed the boat thank the gods that protect us from energy monopolies and irradiation.

[SkepticLance]

To 1veedo

Interesting new word you came up with :

Anthropomorphic global warming. Since anthropomorphic means taking the shape or form of a man, that boggles the imagination when applied to global warming. I suggest you try 'anthropogenic' instead, which means created by man.

 

You said :

 

CO2 is what's known as a positive feedback agent in our climate. Feedback is a factor in a system that loops back into itself, and it is usually negative or positive. An example of positive feedback is a microphone put close to the speaker.

 

You may note that microphone feed-back rapidly increases in volume to a major crescendo. Increase or acceleration is a basic property of positive feed-back, as the signals feed on each other. In the past, when warming occurs, and is followed by CO2 increase, there is no such acceleration. Unless you want to add to the complexity of your explanation, and suggest a counter balancing negative feed-back which exactly balance the positive, you are in the wrong. And such a negative feed-back?? Why don't you look up 'Occam's Razer', which is a basic concept in science.

 

As I have said before, there is a much simpler explanation for the fact that CO2 increases following warming. It is simply the effect of its solubility in sea water at higher temperatures. That explanation meets the requirements of Occam's Razer very nicely.

 

Accepting this does not mean you have to dump ideas on anthropogenic global warming. Since 1976, CO2 increase has been coincident with warming, not following. Thus, you can argue that CO2 increase in the last few decades is a cause of global warming, and you can make a strong case thereby. Your ideas on positive feed-back for the warming/CO2 increase relationship for the past million years make no sense.

 

Mind you, the explanation for increased CO2 that Icemelt came up with makes no sense either. If increase in CO2 comes from the cold, deep water reaching warmer climes, and releasing it, why is this happening now? If that explanation were correct, the water picked up massive amounts of CO2 in bygone times, and we have no reason why. It is a very weak explanation.

[bascule]

You may note that microphone feed-back rapidly increases in volume to a major crescendo. Increase or acceleration is a basic property of positive feed-back, as the signals feed on each other. In the past, when warming occurs, and is followed by CO2 increase, there is no such acceleration. Unless you want to add to the complexity of your explanation, and suggest a counter balancing negative feed-back which exactly balance the positive, you are in the wrong. And such a negative feed-back?? Why don't you look up 'Occam's Razer', which is a basic concept in science.

 

As I have said before, there is a much simpler explanation for the fact that CO2 increases following warming. It is simply the effect of its solubility in sea water at higher temperatures. That explanation meets the requirements of Occam's Razer very nicely.

 

SkepticLance, how much reading on the carbon cycle have you actually done?

 

To say something so simplistic as "CO₂ increases due to changes in solubility in sea water" is naive. This depends on a multitude of other factors. Water can act as a carbon source or sink at the same global mean surface temperature depending on a multitude of other factors in the climate system.

 

The carbon cycle is a complex, densely interconnected non-linear system full of feeback loops. It is in turn a subsystem within the global climate, which forms a larger, even more complex and more densely interconnected non-linear system full of feedback loops between smaller systems.

 

You cannot simply say that carbon concentrations increase with the global mean surface temperature. That depends on a multitude of other factors.

 

I think it's rather ironic that those who doubt the accuracy of GCMs seek naive and oversimplistic explanations for how the climate system operates. The climate system is something which can only be understood in the gestalt, because due to non-linearities and feedback loops it is much more than the sum of its parts.

[SkepticLance]

Hello Bascule.

 

I find myself amazed at the reaction of certain people to the interpretation of the CO2/warming or cooling relationship half a million years ago. It seems that 1veedo (and yourself???) demand that what happened before humans actually appeared on Earth has to follow the exact same pattern as what is happening now.

 

I have presented a simple explanation because that is all that is required. It is basic physics. Cold water dissolves more CO2. As the water warms, solubility drops and CO2 leaves the water, entering the air. For the events discussed, there is plenty of time, since the changes are happening over periods of thousands of years (unlike today). Of course, the reverse also applies.

 

There may, of course, be any number of other factors applying. However, the world's oceans are the largest sink of carbon dioxide, and normally the largest source.

 

Bascule, do you really think that a linear change in CO2 levels can be due to positive feed-back? Again, it is really basic physics that in such a feed-back system, the two factors reinforce each other, leading to an accelerating effect. This did not happen, which makes the positive feed-back hypothesis seem very unlikely.

[swansont]

Since 1976, CO2 increase has been coincident with warming, not following. Thus, you can argue that CO2 increase in the last few decades is a cause of global warming, and you can make a strong case thereby. Your ideas on positive feed-back for the warming/CO2 increase relationship for the past million years make no sense.

 

...

 

Bascule, do you really think that a linear change in CO2 levels can be due to positive feed-back? Again, it is really basic physics that in such a feed-back system, the two factors reinforce each other, leading to an accelerating effect. This did not happen, which makes the positive feed-back hypothesis seem very unlikely.

 

There's a lot more basic physics that you are ignoring. If CO2 can account for warming now, how does it not account for warming in the past? Has the physics changed?

 

Your characterization of feedback loops assumes you have the energy to drive the system. Microphone feedback gets really loud when you crank up the amplifier. What happens when you don't? You also have to look at other factors in feedback. Not all feedback gain is proportional gain.

 

You're trying to apply a simple model to a complex system, and it doesn't work. But you can't conclude that CO2 had no effect in the past cycles as a result. The model is wrong — it's not simple.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said :

 

If CO2 can account for warming now, how does it not account for warming in the past? Has the physics changed?

 

Ignoring your sarcastic comment about physics changing; yes there is a difference. The difference shows clearly in the data. The past relationship shows warming first, then CO2 increase. This is characteristic of a cause/effect relationship in which the warming is the cause, and CO2 increase is an effect. Today, the relationship is not so clear cut - probably because, in the early years of warming, other factors (besides greenhouse gases) were very strong. However, the warming of the past 30 years is consistent with GHG's being a strong factor.

 

You ask how, in the past, does CO2 not account for warming. The data clearly shows that CO2 change is not a factor, at least in the early years of warming, since the warming is well under way BEFORE CO2 starts increasing.

 

The other part of the GW activist theory, that CO2 may not start the warming, but continues it by a positive feed-back, is clearly not needed as an explanation. After all, something else began the warming. So why do we need to postulate an extra factor when that 'something else' is obviously capable of causing warming. I think the positive feed-back hypothesis is politically generated - not scientifically- to try to strengthen the case for GHG warming today.

 

And as I said, the warming, once begun, was linear. That is NOT consistent with positive feed-back.

[swansont]

Swansont said :

 

If CO2 can account for warming now, how does it not account for warming in the past? Has the physics changed?

 

Ignoring your sarcastic comment about physics changing; yes there is a difference. The difference shows clearly in the data. The past relationship shows warming first, then CO2 increase. This is characteristic of a cause/effect relationship in which the warming is the cause, and CO2 increase is an effect. Today, the relationship is not so clear cut - probably because, in the early years of warming, other factors (besides greenhouse gases) were very strong. However, the warming of the past 30 years is consistent with GHG's being a strong factor.

 

More rhetorical than sarcastic, but it's still valid. If CO2 has a warming effect now, how could it not have a warming effect before? Did the physics change? No. Ergo, it contributed, at some level, to the warming.

 

You ask how, in the past, does CO2 not account for warming. The data clearly shows that CO2 change is not a factor, at least in the early years of warming, since the warming is well under way BEFORE CO2 starts increasing.

 

And we've been over this. It is not contended that the CO2 was the initial cause of the warming in past cycles.

 

The other part of the GW activist theory, that CO2 may not start the warming, but continues it by a positive feed-back, is clearly not needed as an explanation. After all, something else began the warming. So why do we need to postulate an extra factor when that 'something else' is obviously capable of causing warming. I think the positive feed-back hypothesis is politically generated - not scientifically- to try to strengthen the case for GHG warming today.

 

And as I said, the warming, once begun, was linear. That is NOT consistent with positive feed-back.

 

Not consistent with your overly simplistic model. You have assumed CO2, and only CO2 feedback, and found that it does not fit the model, and yet you conclude that the model is valid, so CO2 can have no effect. But you have not addressed your assumption of only one element causing warming. That's a failure of logic and very bad science.

[1veedo]

You have said this before, SkepticLance, and people have shown you (including me, many times, and swansont right above) that in reality, the relationship is consistent with positive feedback. Coming out of an ice age is a very rapid process that can be seen here:

 

 

Actually, the switch form Glacial to Interglacial is rapid, and that indicates that there is a positive feedback loop causeing acceleration of the effects. If it was just the amount of Solar energy being different, then the switch from Glacial to interglacial would be slow and match the rate of change of the solar energy.

 

As the rate of change doesn't and the change is very rapid (compared to the rate of solar energy change), then this is, bot exactly proof, but very strong evidence for it. Also there is a period of delay where the warming effects from the increased solar energy doesn't cause immediate warming. This would be because of sinks and negative feedback loops keeping the system in "check". But a point is reached where these sinks become saturated and the negative feedback loops become overwhelmed by the positive feedback loops and you get a rapid switch from glacial to interglacial.

 

So yes, the graphs do support the positive feedback loop scenario of GW.

Again, you can read all about this in Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks, available here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10850

[foodchain]

What I get confused on is something I hope someone can help me out with. Ok, so the environment in total is a complex system, that’s great and its rather easy to see right off the bat that such is complex without actually having to see why its complex. This however is where I get confused. So say at some point in the past we have somewhere on the planet a warming event, it gets a few degrees warmer in general over some generally localized place on the earth, what does this have to do with global climate change in context of human activity exactly?

 

I mean we have punched wholes in the ozone layer, destroyed entire ecologies, made various species extinct and managed to produce acid rain right off the top of my head. The extent of human terraforming is not fully known but to say its of no impact on the environment is a bit disingenuous at best.

 

So we know that CO2 for instance can act or does act as a greenhouse gas. Such in evident in reality, in the earths past and today. Its contained in the complex system of our environment in which it will reflect or express its presence by various means. Now, this is the crucial part. The environment before the industrial age did not have various industrialized societies dependent really on fossil fuel or hydrocarbon usage to sustain those societies, so at large we now have a new variable if you will at play in the complex system of our environment. This variable which produces CO2 previous to us doing such simply did not exist.

 

So if we know that CO2 for instance plays a role in global climate, what is this new source, which is accelerating simply from the point of population growth and consumption, playing out in the environment exactly.

 

Now we know the earth previous to us or industrial us has experienced climate change, after all who needs to bring up the point about an ice age. What I don’t understand is basically people taking the fact that climate has shifted previous to industrialized humans, which now means human activity cant be the culprit? That’s a bit of a "logical leap", if not a quantum leap really.

 

I mean what’s the scientific arguments to support such, the climate has changed previously, that’s not saying much really. If we know that CO2 plays a role in global climate, is it far fetched to think a new variable relatively speaking in terms of natural history, producing a constant amount of greenhouse gases is going to be null in effect, what about action/reaction for instance?

 

What is for sure is that for around 600,000 years plus the levels of CO2 for instance in regards to our complex environment have been roughly at an equilibrium. This change to such in natural indicators, such as an ice core sample, shows a growing spike in regards to concentration that coincides with the industrial age. Now talking about systems, what about a saturation effect?

 

So human activity is producing now an accelerating and growing source of GHG's that previous to us doing such simply was not occurring, at least not according to data that has been collected, yet knowing that such elements play a role in global climate in regards to our environment is simply detached with the argument that warming has occurred in the past? I simply just get confused at that point because there is no real explanation as to why. Overall the ppm concentration of CO2 for instance has increased along the timeline of the industrial age by 33%, this amount is only projected to increase. What exactly is going to happen to our environment when the concentration hits 50% and higher. I also cant understand or find a point in data that can link the growth in CO2 to any particular source that would coincide with data that points to the spike of growth originating around the time humans became industrial.