The environmental debate thread

[Psyber]

What is the CO2 driver. The argument is skipping this aspect and going straight to the sun. CO2 is also widely recognized as true as a greenhouse gas in which since the industrial revolution has been steadily increasing. I do not know of any other variable to drive this currently save for human behavior in which its linked. So if human behavior continues to increase concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere the result will be what?

Possibly helping reduce the effects of the next Ice Age???

 

Seriously, I think we should be paying attention to reducing our effect in polluting the planet whether it is with our CO2 output or other by products. We should be cleaning up our act regardless of whether global warming is being caused by us or is part of a natural cycle, instead of obscuring the issue while arguing about our role in global warming..

 

Personally, I am not convinced that the changes we have recorded lately - since say 1900 - have anything to do with anything but normal fluctuations, but we should be looking at preventing our aggravating the situation in future.

[foodchain]

To foodchain

 

This point is not disputed. CO2 has been increasing in the air since the industrial revolution, and the cause is deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.

 

The CO2 increase has been pretty much trivial until WWII, and then has slowly increased, with the increase being close to a smooth exponential curve. From about 1880 to about 1940, CO2 increased at a bit less than 0.2 ppm per year. Today, it increases at a bit less than 2 ppm per year - a ten fold increase.

 

This is a big part of the reason I have claimed that the main causes of global warming were different in the past. Over the previous 30 years, with CO2 increase at more than 1 ppm per year, and an average warming of 0.17 C per decade, human generated CO2 is the prime driver of warming.

 

Even going by your numbers that does not equate into taking to long for warming to occur. Molecular concentration in the atmosphere does not require that a specific concentration need be huge to register an impact. To add to this the atmosphere is composed of various layers, and the atmosphere of course interacts with other systems such as the biosphere as evidenced with plant life and any vital metabolic pathway they have.

 

Production of greenhouse gas is something building up also, in the ppm count. So the history is additive overall currently. In that the numbers continue to grow, so in twenty more years the count could be double, which I think means its own specific effect. So if the truth of the matter is that GHG is increasing in time while persisting in time, that means eventually global change in various ways, abruptly speaking also when considering the various clocks such as geological or biological.

[swansont]

The temperature graph I was looking at came from the book : 'Meltdown'. However, whether the cooling starts 1870 or 1880 is not really the point. Sunspot activity and global warming/cooling does not correspond point for point for every year, and it is unreasonable to expect it to do so. As you pointed out many times, there are many factors driving warming/cooling. I am simply saying that sunspot activity is one of the more potent drivers. I am not quite sure why we keep arguing this point, since it is widely recognised as true.

 

 

I've been rebutting your claim from earlier in this thread

 

If you do not believe me, take another look at the graph of solar forcings. The biggest increase in sunspot activity, which drove a 0.4 C warming at a time when greenhouse gas increase was trivial, occurred from 1910 to 1940. Does the red line of solar forcings show this? No. It shows a trivial and short lived increase only. Why? Because the whole thing is not understood well enough to permit accurate calculations.

 

My point has been that the solar forcings account for less than half of the warming during that period. The study that you have used to back that claim has been revised by the authors of the study.

[openminded1]

This is a very simple and understandable way of wording my theory, leaving out internal details that are included in my book. Could be able to help understand the simplicity of global warming... Maybe it's normal, and has happend before.

 

The theory of evolution is a continuous circle of events that grow and break down as time goes on. Most people begin to think of evolution on a small scale. When I say this, I mean that people are not looking at the big picture.

 

Before I begin, I would like to throw a few things out there that we all know happen.

Exploding stars; Gravitational pull; The theory of Pangaea; The unexplainable time table of Dinosaurs; Meteors.

 

With that being said, Here’s how it goes.

 

Imagine a solar system a long time ago similar to ours as we know it. Every living species growing and living as they knew how. Imagine that the reptiles have concord the food chain at this time. As stars expire in their life span, they explode at an enormous combustion. We know that stars are made of gases and are hotter than anything we can create. Now think of the star of that solar system, that those reptiles are thriving on, exploding at the end of it’s life. What do you think is going to happen? Simply this… The star explodes melting all the rocks that are near it, with the combustion power blowing everything in an outward motion from that stars point. Now what you have is a molten rock flying through space (meteor), away from heat. As that rock is flying into the freezing darkness, the once molten is now covered in ice. This would happen so rapidly that it would be as if you placed something in a flash freezer (basically covering the outside while leaving the inside as it were). So now think about what you have. It’s a frozen ball of rock with a molten core and a tail that was following the rapid thrust of motion opposite the exploding star (ice age). Time is frozen on this rock, until it hits the warming heat of another star. As that rock is flying through space, eventually it will come close enough to a star causing it to pull into its gravity. Originally the rock will not start in a circular motion. It will start off in an oval motion, such as the Uranus rock is now (the newest planet in our solar system). As the circular force is beginning to create a rotation, the tail of that meteor will break off due to the constant circular movement. Imagine what you have now. A solid ball of ice with a nub for a tail that has just came in contact with direct heat. The nub tail at this point, Pangaea. Continuing its spiral around the star, the heat gets to it. How does Pangaea break apart? Why do we have faults where molten rock flows from within? All answered with this: What happens when you place a frozen object in direct heat? That’s right, it cracks. As the ice is starting to melt, temperatures come back to a point to sustain life. Is this possible? Look at the polar ice caps, and how rapid they are melting. Why? The remains of the ice. What’s my point… how does this continue? Just think what will happen when our star explodes!

 

 

Written by: Daniel Walter Barlett Jr.

[JohnB]

The unexplainable time table of Dinosaurs

They couldn't get the trains to run on time either, huh?

[Chris C]

How about a new global warming topic that is unrelated to solar activity and the decadal contribution of each forcing?

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said :

 

"the solar forcings account for less than half of the warming during that period."

 

Are you suggesting that an increase in CO2 of one tenth the current increase can drive a warming of more than 0.2 C in 30 years? Because if solar forcings are less than half, CO2 must be more than half of the 0.4C warming.

[swansont]

Swansont said :

 

"the solar forcings account for less than half of the warming during that period."

 

Are you suggesting that an increase in CO2 of one tenth the current increase can drive a warming of more than 0.2 C in 30 years? Because if solar forcings are less than half, CO2 must be more than half of the 0.4C warming.

 

Not at all. Your statement is only true if there are exactly two forcings, which isn't the case.

 

Jump in the wayback machine to post #93

 

Let's take the temperature increase from ~1910-1940 at 0.4 ºC as correct. Now, the CO2 increase then was "trivial" but how much is that? Half of the recent increase? A third? Because that still gives an increase of ~0.15 - 0.2 ºC as being due to CO2 (0.15 - 0.2 ºC per decade, three decades, and take a third of that). And, as we've discussed before, ~1910 represents the end of some high volcano activity, which had caused significant cooling. So what does that contribute? 0.1 - 0.2 ºC? The combination of those two take up more than half of the observed increase.

 

So how can you conclude that the solar forcing term is wrong?

 

And I ran the CO2 numbers in post #98. Since the relationship is logarithmic, a smaller increase at lower concentration can still yield a significant temperature change. I got 0.175 ºC for the CO2 numbers you provided. The volcanic forcings (or lack thereof) account for more than 0.2ºC in the early part of the century. And there are other terms to consider as well.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/Climate_Change_Attribution.png

[jryan]

How about a new global warming topic that is unrelated to solar activity and the decadal contribution of each forcing?

 

 

Heh, that would be the third in as many weeks. I like your optimism.

[JohnB]

Swansont, a clarification if you don't mind.

 

If the period ~1910 was the end of a time of increased volcanic activity, wouldn't the precipitation of the particulates out of the atmosphere cause a temperature rise even without increased CO2 or Solar Influence?

 

If so, what amount do you think this might have been? I'm not asking for a difinitive answer, just what your best guess might be. If you've already answered this, please accept my apologies.

 

Thanks.

[SkepticLance]

To swansont

 

As I have pointed out before, the volcanic eruption of Tambora, in Indonesia in 1815, was the biggest eruption of the past 500 years. It resulted on one year of cooling, described as the 'Year without a summer'. However, within two years, climate was back to normal. The 1910 to 1940 warming was a 30 year event. Not terribly likely to be the result of a drop in vulcanism!

 

By elimination, that warming was primarily a result of CO2 increase or sunspot activity increase. Since the CO2 increase was pretty much the same as the CO2 increase that had occurred over the previous 30 years, which was a time of global cooling, and CO2 increase was trivial, that appears like an unlikely explanation.

[swansont]

Swansont, a clarification if you don't mind.

 

If the period ~1910 was the end of a time of increased volcanic activity, wouldn't the precipitation of the particulates out of the atmosphere cause a temperature rise even without increased CO2 or Solar Influence?

 

If so, what amount do you think this might have been? I'm not asking for a difinitive answer, just what your best guess might be. If you've already answered this, please accept my apologies.

 

Thanks.

 

I assume that's the mechanism. The calculated forcing is about a tenth of a degree in the few years following, and another tenth or so of the next decade or so, as shown in the plot I linked to a few posts back.

 

To swansont

 

As I have pointed out before, the volcanic eruption of Tambora, in Indonesia in 1815, was the biggest eruption of the past 500 years. It resulted on one year of cooling, described as the 'Year without a summer'. However, within two years, climate was back to normal. The 1910 to 1940 warming was a 30 year event. Not terribly likely to be the result of a drop in vulcanism!

 

By elimination, that warming was primarily a result of CO2 increase or sunspot activity increase. Since the CO2 increase was pretty much the same as the CO2 increase that had occurred over the previous 30 years, which was a time of global cooling, and CO2 increase was trivial, that appears like an unlikely explanation.

 

And as I have pointed out, dozens of volcanos typically erupt in a given year, and they all contribute. Restating your objection doesn't make it valid all of the sudden. You can't eliminate factors you haven't quantified (that's argument from incredulity). Or addressed; there are other forcings present as well. I have quantified your "trivial" CO2 increase (using the data you provided) and showed the temperature increase to be not so trivial.

[Chris C]

Aerosols and internal variability look like the big suspects from 1940-70

[jryan]

Explain "internal variability". I'm not familiar with that term as a forcing.

[SkepticLance]

About volcanoes. They can have a major effect on world climate. It is inevitably a cooling. Historic volcanoes have a cooling effect that is limited in time. This is my point. A volcano or volcanoes can cool the world climate, but only for a year or three. You should not quote them as causes of events that last decades.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

swansont has already pointed out that there are multiple volcanoes erupting every year.

[CDarwin]

About volcanoes. They can have a major effect on world climate. It is inevitably a cooling. Historic volcanoes have a cooling effect that is limited in time. This is my point. A volcano or volcanoes can cool the world climate, but only for a year or three. You should not quote them as causes of events that last decades.

 

Volcanoes that trigger the massive releases of CO2 can create long term warming. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19626330.400-mass-extinctions-the-armageddon-factor.html

[Taq_is_hot]

Global warming is indeed occuring, but is it necessarily as terrible as some make it out to be? Look at the 60s and 70s. The earth was in a cooling trend then. The Earth goes through warming and cooling trends naturally. I do believe humans play somewhat of a role in it, but it is a natural thing - not something to get all worked up about! We had two active hurricane seasons and everybody thought that it was all due to global warming and I heard many extreme cases who actually thought the world was coming to an end. TWO active seasons...but now we just had two inactive ones to make up for that. Hurricanes and other severe storms have been happening on the earth since the earth began. They have gone through periods of happening more frequently and less frequently, alternating every few decades or so. Global warming is nothing to fear. Soon we will see "Global Cooling" and we won't have to worry anymore. Yes, humans can destroy things on the earth, but the earth is a strong enough system to take care of itself dispite what we do to it. In other words, humans can't totally screw up the earth because they would all kill themselves and then years later everything would go back to normal again. I don't see any threat here in global warming. In fact, I see a much worse threat to humankind with war. I think we are too worried about global warming and putting too much time and effort into those worries. I like to remain calm about it and let the earth run its natural cycle.

[SkepticLance]

To the Cap'n, who said :

 

"swansont has already pointed out that there are multiple volcanoes erupting every year."

 

EVERY year sees multiple eruptions. For 2007, even without actually doing any research, I can remember three volcanoes that erupted - One here in NZ, one in Mexico, and one in the Andes. If I were to actually do some research, I am sure I would find more.

 

Swansont claimed that CO2 increase was a major, if not THE major cause of warming from 1910 to 1940. However, the annual CO2 increase, at just under 0.1 ppm per year, at that time, was almost exactly the same as in the period of 1880 to 1910, which was a period of global cooling. To get around this, he claims cooling by vulcanism. But volcanic cooling occurs only after significant size eruptions (Mt. Pinatubo is an example) and only for about 12 months.

 

The 1880 to 1910 cooling was 30 years! To claim this was due to vulcanism is, frankly, pushing credulity. It would require a major eruption (Mt. Pinatubo size or greater) every year! And over that 30 year period, with its 0.1 ppm per year CO2 increase, we saw a major drop in sunspot activity. A little basic logic tells you which explanation makes more sense.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

But volcanic cooling occurs only after significant size eruptions (Mt. Pinatubo is an example) and only for about 12 months.

Reference?

[SkepticLance]

To the Cap'n

 

Wow!

That was a quick response. I posted, and you replied within 2 minutes.

 

Reference. Mt. Pinatubo - recent history we all lived through and well coverd by newspaper accounts at the time, which included climate effects.

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Indonesia/description_tambora_1815_eruption.html

 

Slight change of direction.

I noted several times my distrust of computer models and the lack of accuracy of their predictions. Of course, they can be inaccurate in either direction - exaggerating or under-estimating warming. A new reference to the melting of sea ice in the Arctic, showing the inaccuracy of such models. In this case, underestimating speed of melting.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/science/080102/g010213A.html

 

This is due, not to any extra global warming, but to an unexpected heat transfer from one part of the world to another.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I presume you're referring to this quote:

An eruption the size of Mount Pinatubo could affect the weather for a few years.

Note that it says weather, not climate. Local weather might be different in places, but it's the global climate that matters, and a difference of fractions of a degree probably isn't noticeable in local weather patterns.

 

(and see the latest announcement for how I noticed and replied so soon)

[SkepticLance]

To the Cap'n. You are once more fast off the starting point.

 

I was more thinking of this quote :

 

"Even a year after the eruption, most of the northern hemisphere experienced sharply cooler temperatures during the summer months. In parts of Europe and in North America, 1816 was known as "the year without a summer." "

 

Mount Tambora in 1815 was the biggest eruption in 500 years, and its global climate effect was 12 months only.

 

Mt. Pinatubo was similar, in that its effect on global climate (as opposed to weather) also lasted less than 12 months. I suspect that there have been eruptions in the geological past that may have had disastrous climatic effects lasting thousands of years. However, if we define 'historic eruptions' as the last 500 years, the effect is 12 months or less.

 

No comments on the failure of global computer models to anticipate the heat flow causing faster Arctic sea ice melt?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The major climate differences (like "sharply cooler temperatures") were visible for twelve months only. That says nothing for smaller, less easily noticeable effects.

[SkepticLance]

To the Cap'n

 

Sure. But we could debate all year about small subtle effects. In this argument we are talking about a 30 year climate trend with substantial cooling, in spite of the effect of a greenhouse gas increase of 0.1 ppm per year, which Swansont claims to be potent enough to be the main driver of another 30 year warming of 0.4 C.

 

Do you really think small subtle effects of volcanoes could do that?

 

Is it not more reasonable to expect that a major drop in sunspot activity, that we know occurred, is the main driver of that cooling?

 

Especially when you look at all the other evidence for sunspot activity effect, such as the Little Ice Age, occurring during the Maunder Minimum of few or no sunspots, and the Medieval Climate Optimum, occurring at a time of high sunspot activity.

 

http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/lisa3/beckmanj.html

 

Of interest to me in the above article is the statement that the various scientific lobby groups push their own specific theories.

 

I quote :

 

"Scientifically, the meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric physicists, who were responsible for ``discovering'' the human contribution to the terrestrial greenhouse effect, have been the most consistent champions of its importance, while the solar physics community, and especially those interested in solar-terrestrial relations, have increasingly stressed the possible importance of the long-term variations of the solar constant as the chief cause of climate change."

 

This is something I have been saying all along. It is human nature to push your own theories, ideas, and specialties, and to argue against those who have alternative ideas. This tendency is exacerbated by talking with others of like mind. Basic psychology shows that, when two or more people with similar dogmatic views, get together and talk about their views, they become more entrenched and more extreme. This, of course, has been happening within the anthropogenic greenhouse gas global warming community. The end result is that we get exposed to the most extreme views. Scientific data is good, but the interpretations of that data are often extreme.