Global Warming explained - "inconvenient" or otherwise!

[Icemelt]

Yes but this is what you did when you compared the temperature rise 8k to 12k years ago against current temperatures back through 4k years ago. Temperatures decreased for almost that entire 4k years and only increase for the last 200 or so years. You were the one not being sensible here, I was just correcting your conviction that global warming has been occurring for 4k years when in reality global warming has only been happening for about 200 years.

OK I seem to found a better example verifiable on the Internet at:

 

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/northern_temp.jpg

 

 

During the period 700 to 780 years ago the temperature rose by 0.42°C in 80 years, which equates to 0.01475 per annum

 

Examining the recent temperature rise on the same chart below, we see a rise of 1.15°C during the past 80 years, which equates to 0.01438 per annum

 

This indicates that we only have to go back 800 years before we find a warming period similar to today, and I have no doubt at all that we will find many instances over the past 100,000 years.

 

Temperatures are therefore not rising faster than ever before !

 

Q.E.D. I think !

 

[Dak]

I have a couple of issues with that.

 

1/ on the right, you're comparing a low taken from proxy-data to a high taken from thermometers. why?

 

2/ on the right, if you measure from the green trough just to the left of the pink trough that you measured from, it looks like it would report a sharper increase.

 

3/on the left, you measure from an anomolous trough to an anomolous peak; on the right, you measure from a non-anomolous trough to a possibly anomolous peak (taking anomolous to mean sharp deviation from the trend, not a deviation from what the trend should be). this gives a false represenation of the temperature increase on the left.

 

the temperature difference/time is as pronounced, but not the general temperature increase. all this means is that once, a random heatwave followed a random chill quickly enough to match our increase, which we've managed without (at the least) a random chill.

 

look at the bit on the left: there's about a 0.6C difference between the mean (for the time) and the random peak, which is the largest jump i can see in the pink.

 

on the right, even if we assume the peak is a random one, theres a 0.8C jump from the mean for the time to the peak.

 

4/ overall, we're hugely above the mean. which is from 1961-1900, well in the industrial era. note that almost ALL the times before the industrial era are below the average. i.e., it kinda shows that the average from 1961-1990 was hotter than most of the last millenia.

[1veedo]

NO!! I am not playing with words, symantecs, or definitions. PLEASE go read the definition provided by the EPA!!!! GW isn't warming that happends TODAY (today to always be the day of the discussion) GW is the total encompassing dynamic of all processes that warm the planet! That is why you can not say man causes 90% of current GW....that is what is wrong, and entirely different than saying man has caused the majority of temperature increases since 1975.....

Global warming is an average increase[/b'] in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere' date=' which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.[/quote']If we really are talking about, as you say, "all processes that warm the planet," I would agree wholeheartedly (though not w/ your exact numbers), that humans are nowhere near as big of an influence as nature.

 

Nature does a pretty good job keeping the temperature roughly stable. It is human influences, however, that are throwing things off balance. And this out-of-ballance rapid temperature increase is what I, and I'm sure everyone else, has been talking about.

Really? That is very odd, considering my calculations involved 4% of water vapor being due to man.

4% is incorrect.

1. You are claiming I am arguing from ignorance. No. I am arguing from your ignorance' date=' and the ignorance of everyone who tries to set up climate models without all the facts.[/quote']I was not calling you or anyone else "ignorant." Your statement just happens to be argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy.

 

 

 

On top of what Dak has pointed out...

 

This data comes from a 2005 study, "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data" published in Nature. They took a rather different approach to estimating previous climate trends, specifically they combined data < 80years with data > 80 years into wavelets. What you are looking at is the less then 80 year wavelets which are not supposed to be read in this sort of manner. The actual results of the study look more like the red line, here:

 

The reason that you cannot use this low interval data isn't necessarily because of it's short time period but because this is only data for the northern hemisphere and does not accurately reflect the entire planet. The northern hemisphere tends to have much larger shifts in temperature due to uneven sunlight hitting ice in the north. It causes a sort of feedback chain every summer and this is why the medieval warm period mostly effected the summer months and not so much the winter months. Another interesting feature about the medieval warm period is that it effected the northern hemisphere much more dramatically then the southern, again largely because of unevenly distributed sunlight between the hemispheres.

 

The Moberg et al data with it's approach to wavelets is supposed to show trends, not jumps, and the less then 80 year data is not supposed to be a stand alone study -- it is merely an intermediate step in the complete process they use to construct the final results. It is correct that Moberg et al shows much larger shifts in temperatures then most other studies but this is largely because the <80yr data has a much greater role on the outcome of the data then the >80year proxies.

 

From the actual report, "it does not weaken in any way the hypothesis that recent observed warming is a result mainly of human activity" and it does not change the scientific consensus that the warming of the 20th century is a lot faster then previous natural variations*, "The main implication of our study, however, is that natural multicentennial climate variability may be larger than commonly thought, and that much of this variability could result from a response to natural changes in radiative forcings. This does not imply that the global warming in the last few decades 15,19 has been caused by natural forcing factors alone, as model experiments that use natural-only forcings fail to reproduce this warming 15,23,27,30 . Nevertheless, our findings underscore a need to improve scenarios for future climate change by also including forced natural variability—which could either amplify or attenuate anthropogenic climate change significantly."

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said :

 

I was not calling you or anyone else "ignorant." Your statement just happens to be argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy.

 

I am sorry, 1veedo, but you are going to have to explain your reasoning. I simply do not see what you are driving at.

 

I pointed out an example by which computer models were incomplete due to the lack of vital data. Conclusion : With new data coming in all the time, we cannot be sure that there is sufficient data yet to ensure computer models are accurate. You call this arguing from ignorance. Please explain.

[Icemelt]

1/ on the right, you're comparing a low taken from proxy-data to a high taken from thermometers. why?

 

2/ on the right, if you measure from the green trough just to the left of the pink trough that you measured from, it looks like it would report a sharper increase.

 

3/on the left, you measure from an anomolous trough to an anomolous peak; on the right, you measure from a non-anomolous trough to a possibly anomolous peak (taking anomolous to mean sharp deviation from the trend, not a deviation from what the trend should be). this gives a false represenation of the temperature increase on the left.

 

I'm not going to disagree with your observations or argue the finer points. We can easily move the periods around to suit our arguments, and I just took a convenient period of the last 80 years, since this appeared to be the maximum recent rate of rise in temperature.

 

Obviously we are well above the mean for the last one or two thousand years, that point is not being contested. However what I am contesting is whether the claim that temperatures are rising faster than ever before is valid.

 

Taking different comparative intervals on the chart will clearly produce different results, but my point is that it will not show that the rate of warming is dramatically faster than ever before !

[Dak]

the finer points make a difference.

 

anyhoo, you missed one of my main points. the measurement on the left gives a false representation. it wasn't a rise in temperature; it was a sudden chill, coincidentally followed later by a sudden heatwave.

 

the difference between an obviously anomolous chill and an obviously anomolous heatwave / time inbetween != a period of sudden heating. it = a period of somewhat erratic temperature, with two anomolies in close proximity.

 

or, in other words, you are measuring the range/fluctuation over a certain time, not the general change. on the right, by comparing the lowest to the highest, you're actually doing the same btw, and by doing so it looks like you're over-reporting GW by 0.5-0.9C for the period (you're reporting 1.2C increase over 80 years, whereas 0.6C over cantRememberBut80yearsSoundsClose is actually the case).

 

when you just look at the means: on the left, the mean looks to be very slightly decreasing over time; on the right, the mean looks to be suddenly increasing.

[ParanoiA]

SkepticLance

 

Here's a nice description of an Argument from Ignorance.

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

 

Not sure if your argument qualifies, but is basically saying just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true. So, when folks say there is no God because you can't prove it, they are arguing from ignorance.

 

I, personally, love these little pre-packaged fallacies they like to use.

[SkepticLance]

To ParanoiA

 

I am sure my argument did not fit the definition of argument from ignorance.

 

Reason : I was not saying that the computer models were false, or that something else was true. I was simply saying that the data was not sufficient to derive accurate conclusions. This is very different to the argument from ignorance as defined in your source.

 

Anyway, thanks for the reply. I am glad to clear up my own lack of understanding on that point.

[ParanoiA]

Reason : I was not saying that the computer models were false, or that something else was true. I was simply saying that the data was not sufficient to derive accurate conclusions. This is very different to the argument from ignorance as defined in your source.

 

Agreed. I've enjoyed your healthy balanced approach to this subject.

[Icemelt]

Whilst searching for another chart to verify my data, it became apparent that for some strange reason there is a significant lack of global temperature data for the Pleistocene period (10K to 1.5M YBP).

This seems very strange since it is such an important period, including as many as ten similar cycles to the one we are currently experiencing.

The available charts, which do include this period, are for much longer periods of time and dedicate less than 5% to the Pleistocene.

Exploding the 5% produces wild variations showing significantly faster warming and cooling than we have now. As much as 10C warming in only 50 years !

There's one interesting chart I've discovered for Greenland (see below) but it would be great to acquire more detailed data for say 10K to 50K YBP.

Can anyone provide a source ?

This chart comes from: http://

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/printall.php

and the article includes some interesting stuff on wobble too.

[SkepticLance]

To Icemelt.

Interesting stuff. Keep those graphs coming.

 

Just a small point. Your 10 C in 50 years. This is from Greenland data, where temperature change is 3 times global average.

 

So this translates at 3 C in 50 years global average, assuming the same ratio holds. Still a lot faster than present day warming, which is less than 1 C in 50 years.

[waitforufo]

A growing list of skeptics? An interesting read at:

<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12>

[KLB]

A growing list of skeptics? An interesting read at:

<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12>

 

It might be on a .GOV websites, but look at the source who wrote the opinion piece, Marc Morano. You can read articles and opinions he has published via: http://www.changingworldviews.com/guestcommentaries/marcmoranocom.htm

 

If you don't want to take the time to read his writings here are a couple of bio summaries:

From 1992-96, Morano was a reporter and producer for Rush Limbaugh's television show. (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1126)

 

Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha."

 

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine." [2] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano)

 

Marc hardly qualifies as a "fair and balanced" source and defiantly isn't scientific source.

 

Comments by another "non-scientist" that can be watched on this subject is a webcast conducted by Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation (the owners of Fox News) at: http://www.newscorp.com/energy/energywebcast.asp

 

Rupert Murdoch's webcast is over one hour long, but only the first 20-30 minutes are dedicated to Rupert Murdoch's comments. I watched it the other day and found it very interesting. I particularly found it interesting how he see business sense (as in significant money savings) by going carbon neutral even if the whole climate change thing turns out to be wrong.

 

A choice quote from him in the webcast is:

"This one is clear. Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction."

 

Australia's The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/climate-of-change-gives-murdoch-a-new-face/2007/05/11/1178390558705.html) quoted the following comments Murdoch made last November in Japan:

"I have to admit that, until recently, I was somewhat wary of the warming debate. I believe it is now our responsibility to take the lead on this issue."

 

"Some of the presumptions about extreme weather, whether it be hurricanes or drought, may seem far-fetched. What is certain is that temperatures have been rising and that we are not entirely sure of the consequences. The planet deserves the benefit of the doubt."

 

Really I see this as a measured and pragmatic response to the issue. He accepts that the earth is warming and that there is a strong possibility that man is responsible. Rather than waiting to see definitive proof he wants to take action now while. In part because reducing is company's carbon footprint will result in significant financial savings over time and in part because if it is a real problem, the sooner we address the problem the less it will cost.

[SkepticLance]

To KLB

 

I doubt that too many people on this forum would disagree with the idea that we should be moving to lower CO2 emission technologies. I agree with that myself. However, I do not agree that we should be taking panic measures. The world should be developing new ways of doing things that result in less air pollution (all kinds). We need research into biofuels, hydrogen technologies, new nuclear technologies etc. We need to introduce these technologies in a properly managed and sane way.

 

Over exaggeration of global warming, and stressing urgency can lead to ill managed introductions of political and economic systems that harm human beings.

[Icemelt]

To KLB

 

I doubt that too many people on this forum would disagree with the idea that we should be moving to lower CO2 emission technologies. I agree with that myself. However, I do not agree that we should be taking panic measures. The world should be developing new ways of doing things that result in less air pollution (all kinds). We need research into biofuels, hydrogen technologies, new nuclear technologies etc. We need to introduce these technologies in a properly managed and sane way.

 

Over exaggeration of global warming, and stressing urgency can lead to ill managed introductions of political and economic systems that harm human beings.

 

I couldn't have put it better !

[KLB]

@ SkepticLance,

 

In regards to your last post (#264), we agree on this part of the issue more than you may realize.

 

I do think that we can act with urgency without counterproductive panic. Many things that we can do today also have substantial benefits beyond the CO2 footprint issue. For instance it really wouldn't be that big of an issue to improve the average fuel efficiency of vehicles 20% in the U.S. (heck this would just put us on par with other countries). The side benefit to this would be that it would take a tremendous amount of stress off of American refineries.

 

Personally even though my wife and I live in a small apartment and have always tried to be careful with our electrical usage, we have been able to cut our electrical usage an additional 20% by doing simple things like swapping out our incandescent bulbs with CFLs, putting our electronics on electrical switches such that they are truly turned off and reducing the temperature on our hot water heater.

 

The point of my example is that there are lots of ways for individuals to have an immediate impact on their energy consumption and thus CO2 production without "panicking" and this is a point that many have been trying to make. We should do what we can immediately and strive to archive those changes that require more time. It will be good for the environment, help reduce national demand for energy and save individuals money.

[SkepticLance]

To KLB

As I have said before, cutting down on the burning of oil and natural gas products will not do much. These are limited resources which will be extracted and burned whatever anyone does. In 30 to 60 years, all the easily exploited oil and natural gas will be gone; converted to CO2. However, the extra CO2 from this source will be only about 20 ppm .

 

The real long term contributor to CO2 will be coal. There is enough in the ground to add at least 1000 ppm CO2. This is substantial. Cutting down on oil and gas is a bit 'cutting off your nose to spite your face', but working to develop technologies that will leave coal in the ground is really worthwhile. Solid coal is by far the best carbon sequestration available.

 

This means that we have a medium term target. We will have to replace oil and gas anyway, with novel liquid and gaseous fuels, when it runs out. This gives us 30 to 60 years. However, replacing coal is something that we can begin working on immediately. Nuclear power instead of coal burning stations is the obvious first step. There should be a plan to close all coal burning stations and replace them.

 

Similarly, there should be a ban on using coal to make liquid fuel.

[KLB]

SkepticLance in regards to oil, gas, coal, and CO2 think of it this way: improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles will help reduce our annual release of CO2; save consumers money on fuel costs; reduce stress on our refineries, which are running near their capacity; AND allow us to divert oil and gas from fuel from vehicles to existing oil fired power plants. In turn this would help relieve the need for coal generated power.

[SkepticLance]

Actually KLB,

It would probably have the opposite effect. The only real substitute for oil at the moment is liquid fuels from coal, which is exactly the opposite direction to which we should be going. Bush junior has already commissioned the first US coal to diesel manufacturing plant (5000 barrels per day) which is exactly the opposite trend to what we need.

 

We should use the 30 to 60 year 'grace period' oil and gas give us to develop better alternatives.

[MolotovCocktail]

Actually KLB,

It would probably have the opposite effect. The only real substitute for oil at the moment is liquid fuels from coal, which is exactly the opposite direction to which we should be going. Bush junior has already commissioned the first US coal to diesel manufacturing plant (5000 barrels per day) which is exactly the opposite trend to what we need.

 

We should use the 30 to 60 year 'grace period' oil and gas give us to develop better alternatives.

 

Why would it have the opposite affect? If you increase fuel efficiency that means you would be using less coal, oil and gas which would then release less CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

The problem with increasing fuel efficiency with regards to fossil fuels, if memory serves correctly, is that there is a limit to how efficient fossil fuel based technology can get. Of all the energy that is stored in, say, coal or gasoline, our engines can only harness less than 30% of it because more than 70% of the energy is lost as heat.

 

The best way is to start switching over to other fuel sources right now and increase research that will find ways that we could make them more reliable. Right now, nuclear power (for powerplants that is) is our best alternative, and it is much safer to use than some people think. Research into nuclear fusion is also starting to show results.

 

Biofuels can also be pretty good. Most of them come from sugar or corn starch and can be grown pretty cheaply in almost any part of the world.

[KLB]

We should use the 30 to 60 year 'grace period' oil and gas give us to develop better alternatives.

I agree with your dislike of coal and the liquification of coal. In general I think for too long there has been too much focus acquiring energy from all fossil fuels via government funded research and tax breaks to the fossil fuel industries. Those tax breaks and research dollars should have been pumped into non-fossil fuel energies and energy efficiency . If this had been done consistently since the energy crisis, we would not be so dependent on fossil fuels today and would not be in such a pickle when it came to the situation in the Middle East nor with the situation of refineries being constantly at their maximum capacity here in the U.S.

 

Regardless of the climate change issue, I really do believe that from an energy policy standpoint, we should do everything possible to improve the energy efficiency of everything from the vehicles we drive, to our homes, to electronics, to our manufacturing processes. The energy efficiency related technologies should also be shared with rest of the world, particularly the developing world.

 

It would be a heck of a lot better for society if we could stretch out our oil and gas reserves to last for as many years as possible so that we can phase in real long term replacements rather than being forced extremely high energy prices that damage our economies. Improved fuel efficiency of all vehicles would also reduce the cost of transportation for everyone, which is good for the economy and personal household budgets.

[KLB]

Of all the energy that is stored in, say, coal or gasoline, our engines can only harness less than 30% of it because more than 70% of the energy is lost as heat.

 

Actually with vehicles less than 15% of the potential energy in fuel is turned into forward motion so there is massive room for improvement in the fuel economy of vehicles. Here is a chart from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml showing how energy is losted:

 

If you visit the page this chart is from you can actually click on the image and see more details about each form of energy loss.

[ParanoiA]

Regardless of the climate change issue, I really do believe that from an energy policy standpoint, we should do everything possible to improve the energy efficiency of everything from the vehicles we drive, to our homes, to electronics, to our manufacturing processes. The energy efficiency related technologies should also be shared with rest of the world, particularly the developing world.

 

Maybe we could use the tool of the right and just challenge everyone's patriotism when they insist on using fossil fuels and buying oil from countries that hate us.

 

I mean, seriously. Irregardless of GW or what causes it, irregardless of peak oil, irregardless of any doomsday scenarios - we know for a fact that we're going to have to keep getting "bad guys" rich by buying their oil. We're going to have to war to keep it accessible.

 

How patriotic can you be if you're willing to continuously drag your country along the bottom of the barrel just to keep status quo on oil and gas? Surely we love our country enough not to volunteer each other's children to go die for gasoline. Surely?

 

As a side, I had no idea that coal was such an offender. I've read a bit of material on GW here lately, and I've never read that anywhere. Much thanks to SkepticLance for bringing that up - apologies if someone else did and I missed it.

[MolotovCocktail]

Actually with vehicles less than 15% of the potential energy in fuel is turned into forward motion so there is massive room for improvement in the fuel economy of vehicles...

 

I don't think so. While we can certainly increase the energy efficiency of moving parts of a vehicle as well as the energy from fossil fuels they can convert, there is only so much you can get from fossil fuels because in order to harness any energy from them you have to burn it. Most of the energy, whether it would be from the engine, or in the case of powerplant from steam, is converted into heat which would be converted into mechanical energy. Most of the energy is lost through heat, and in the case of fossil fuels, more than 70-80% of that energy is lost. And then even more is lost through sound, friction, etc.

 

Fossil Fuels are very inefficient to begin with, as you lose a lot of the original crude oil to refine it to gasoline or petrolum or other liquid fuels. For an example, take this chart from a study at the University from Utah which shows just how much it takes to get gasoline:

 

"Dukes calculated ancient plant matter needed for a gallon of gasoline in metric units:

-- One gallon of oil weighs 3.26 kilograms. A gallon of oil produces up to 0.67 gallons of gasoline. So 3.26 kilograms for a gallon of oil divided by 0.67 gallons means that at least 4.87 kilograms of oil are needed to make a gallon of gasoline.

-- Oil is 85 percent carbon, so 0.85 times 4.87 kilograms equals 4.14 kilograms of carbon in the oil used to make a gallon of gasoline.

-- Since only about one-10,750th of the original carbon in ancient plant material actually ends up as oil, multiply 4.14 kilograms by 10,750 to get roughly 44,500 kilograms of carbon in ancient plant matter to make a gallon of gas.

-- About half of plant matter is carbon, so double the 44,500 kilograms to get 89,000 kilograms – or 89 metric tons – of ancient plant matter to make a gallon of gas. In U.S. units, that is equal to a bit more than 196,000 pounds or 98 tons."

 

Source: (University of Utah, 2003

http://web.utah.edu/unews/releases/03/oct/gas.html)

 

In other words, you need a huge amount of crude oil or coal matter in order to produce a gallon or pound of useful fuel, whether it would be natural gas, oil, or gas. And you can only get about 15-30% of the potential energy stored in that fuel that has been produced. In other words, you are losing a huge amount of net energy. Fossil fuels are very inefficient.

 

With biofuels on the other hand, since it comes directly from plant (as opposed to fossil fuels which has lost a lot of its matter to become crude oil or coal), you can get far more matter needed to convert it into useful fuels. Also, you can turn it into ethanol, which produces far less CO2 emissions than gas.

[KLB]

@ParanoiA,

 

I agree with your post #273 entirely. I've felt this way for a long time. Oh and yes SkepticLance has been bringing up good points about how bad an offender coal is. Really it is something that should stay locked in the earth if better options are available.