JohnB Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 That's a pretty big and broad request, John. We are reasonably certain that the increase over the last 100 years is about .70in GMST. How much is natural and how much is anthropogenic? If we are going to say that "most" of the warming is anthrop, then we must have some actual evidence to back it up. Re the forcings. All those positives, the temp must be going up like a rocket. So why isn't it? Even the Hadley Centre admits it's paused. IIRC they put it at late 2009 before it kicks in again. There was a paper published recently from the Leibniz Institute in Nature that predicts cooling until 2015. iNow, to be frank I wasn't expecting an answer. The questions were big and broad. The point of my questions was more to show Rev that the debate is nowhere near as simple as he appears to believe. If it was that simple, those questions would be easily answered. To quote NOAA last year. It is unclear how much of the recent anomalous warmth was due to greenhouse-gas-induced warming and how much was due to the El Niño-related circulation pattern. It is known that El Niño is playing a major role in this winter's short-term warm period. As iNow pointed out, those questions aren't really that simple. The answers you seek can be found at the IPCC site though. Then you do realise the situation is complex, good. However the answers aren't actually in the AR4. (Yes, I've read it.) Quoting the SPM is not that great BTW as it is primarily a political document rather than a scientific one. I do have issues with the IPCC report itself, but that is another matter. BTW, you made a number of claims in a previous post; I have looked at what the skeptics are saying. They are saying that the theory, which is backed up by mounds of data is wrong. When they lose that argument, they claim that the theory might be right, but that we aren't the cause. When they lose that argument, they claim that it isn't that bad, may even be good. A modified version of the theory being wrong. When they lose that argument they argue minute details and claim those details invalidate the entire theory. When they lose that, they say that it' all political. If you would care to show where I have used any of these arguments without providing supporting references go ahead, otherwise your claims are unsubstantiated and you haven't looked at what I'm saying at all. Sorry, I neglected to include a quote — I was referring to the "GW is real" vested interests JohnB was referring to. I can certainly see any specific implementation being suspect because of vested interests; someone set to cash in on trading carbon offsets is going to push carbon offsets. But there's the whole conspiracy agenda that the government/university scientists can't be trusted because they have a stake in the outcome. And I just don't see it. Neither do I really. You might be reading more into my comment than I meant. I'm suspicious of anybody who pushes a solution to a problem that they stand to make a lot of money out of. In that respect I suspect Gore of not being totally honest. Just as I would suspect the "Bicycle Manufacturers Guild of Earth" if they came up with a solution that entailed forcing people to buy bikes. Or to take it out of the GW context. Most cities have traffic problems. Wouldn't you be a bit sussed if the guy who says the solution to traffic problems is to run tunnels under the cities just happened to own a tunnel boring company? I know I would. As to the whole vested interests thing. These occur on both sides. The oil companies are obvious. There may be some scientists in the climatology field who have prestige on the line. However the biggy on the AGW side hasn't been mentioned. If, I say again if, SCs 24 and 25 fizzle and we somehow drop towards a Dalton, then every single "Green" political party in the west will be wiped out. Most Green organizations will follow. Every single Green group that hitched it's wagon to the AGW star will be discredited. They will lose lobbying power, political power, the influence that power brings and money. No more spotlight, no more media attention, no more influence. If anyone doesn't think that these are very powerful "vested interests", then their knowledge of human psychology is amazingly weak. I also think I have legitimate concerns that perhaps some climatologists aren't being objective when I consider the comment by Stephen Schneider; “On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This `double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” From: DISCOVER, OCTOBER 1989, Page 47 (Note: Stephen Schneider is founder and editor of the scientific journal Climate Change.) (Emphasis mine.) I find it depressing to think that any scientist worthy of the name would advocate willfully being anything other than objective and totally honest.
foodchain Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 Nothing bugs me more than global warming deniers except being lied to about global warming. Who exactly is lying is something I can't say, but someone definitely is. I will go from what I know. CO2 is certified for producing a green house effect, this is empirical, observed and understood logically to be a reality. As far as I know science cannot link the growth of CO2 to any source on earth except for people. in fact the growth spurt seems to coincide a grow alongside the industrial revolution as evidence from natural logs of climate variability and composition. Tree use is different though then say for ice cores, I think the reason why would be simple, one of them is a living complex organism, as such tree data is still useful even if not understood as well as say ice cores. Also modern studies point to ocean saturation with co2 currently going on. also some think or even have data to support the idea that the ability for oceans to sink co2 is failing, I wonder if this will mean change. Solar data while very complex, more so in a historical tone including other things such as emergence of anything phyta to earth science to it being a heavily interdisciplinary endeavor overall. with that being said current understanding places modern CO2 count higher then it has been for many hundreds of thousands of years if you can imagine such time. Not to go into the idea that more of a green house gas concentration will mean more of a green house effect or more quanta if you want just that the sun seems to lack any direct measurable source for the current heating, and again no connection to all the CO2, which will give us more sun even if not how we would like it. Also even if you don’t fully want to follow the idea that higher concentrations of a green house gas would cause more of a greenhouse effect the reality of global climate change is already being understood in terms of impact by say fields like ecology as it would pertain to issues of biodiversity or populations. Such papers and talks on such are easy to find on the net really. If our current understanding of global climate change was some absolute science I think debate on the issue would still exist. Global warming has more gravity to it in regards to human attention. I mean society on a global scale is not reacting like they do over global warming to say finding some new specie of head lice.
swansont Posted June 17, 2008 Posted June 17, 2008 Re: the vested interests, I agree that people selling solutions to the problem have similar vested interests as the people selling the status quo. I think that we have to recognize that identifying the presence of a problem and identifying the solution are separate, though coupled, items. I find it depressing to think that any scientist worthy of the name would advocate willfully being anything other than objective and totally honest. This is the issue of "framing," of which I'm not a huge fan because of exactly this item. But you do have the problem of explaining a complex issue in a way people will understand it. The scientists and any supporters shouldn't be misrepresenting things, and that puts them at a disadvantage when trying to convince people who are swayed by things other than fact.
Rev Blair Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 If you would care to show where I have used any of these arguments without providing supporting references go ahead, otherwise your claims are unsubstantiated and you haven't looked at what I'm saying at all. If I was referring to you specifically, JohnB, I would have used your name. I'm not shy. I was referring to the larger debate...the one that's been raging in the media, not the science journals. In the science journals, the debate is largely over. Oh, there are questions. That's a sign of healthy science. There isn't much showing the overall theory wrong though. Then you do realise the situation is complex, good. However the answers aren't actually in the AR4. (Yes, I've read it.) Quoting the SPM is not that great BTW as it is primarily a political document rather than a scientific one. I do have issues with the IPCC report itself, but that is another matter. Of course the situation is complex. The IPCC process is also politicized, but that politicization generally leans towards the denier governments and their operatives, not those who accept the theory. What the UN does is look at and consider the peer-reviewed science on the subject, then come up with an overview. The politics happens AFTER the science. By the way, IPCC scientists aren't paid by the UN. I've seen a lot of misunderstandings about that in other places, so I think it's a good idea to note it before the claim gets made here. Would you, John B, agree that the vast majority of the peer-reviewed science done on the subject over the last century supports anthropogenic global warming theory? Would you also agree that C02 is a greenhouse gas? Would you also agree that the science shows that the sun is not responsible for current warming? Would you agree that feedback loops, both positive and negative, are very likely affecting how fast warming is happening. Would you agree that other mitigating factors, such as particulates in the air, El Nino/La Nina cycles, etc. have an effect? This is all stuff that's been covered by the science already. You have not explained what is causing the warming if CO2 isn't. Simply saying that we're coming out of the little ice age doesn't really cut it...you have to define that period and tell us why the present warming is happening.
iNow Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Of course the situation is complex. The IPCC process is also politicized, but that politicization generally leans towards the denier governments and their operatives, not those who accept the theory. That's actually very poignant, Rev. Good observation, that.
DeanK2 Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Global Warming The Complete Briefing, 3rd edition contains more information than several books combined, and if interested, should certainly be bought as it is contains exceptionally good information - yet it has by far one of the most uninteresting reading formats.
SkepticLance Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 iNow said "That's actually very poignant, Rev." Also totally subjective, biased, and unproveable by good scientific data.
Rev Blair Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 iNow said "That's actually very poignant, Rev." Also totally subjective, biased, and unproveable by good scientific data. ______________ No, sorry, you are wrong. The scientific part of the process is a review of the scientific papers. It is done first. Then the political people come in. They fight over wording. Typically the wording and the weight given to the pro-warming science is softened. A lot of that is at the urging of the United States, with back-up from such environmental luminaries as the United Arab Emirates and China. Now that Canada has a regressive anti-science government, we're in there like a dirty shirt too, taking over for the defunct Howard government in Australia. That's not a subjective judgement, that's the documented reality of the IPCC process.
JohnB Posted June 22, 2008 Posted June 22, 2008 (edited) The IPCC process is also politicized, but that politicization generally leans towards the denier governments and their operatives, not those who accept the theory. I suggest you prove this. I'm of the opinion that it actually goes the other way. I haven't pushed this opinion strongly as any proof is subjective. As I've seen comments from contributors claiming both watering down and hyping up, I'm not certain where the truth lies. The politics happens AFTER the science. What bugs the daylights out of me is that the scientific part is held back so that it can be edited to match the political part. I don't think that such a process is in the best interests of science or the people of Earth. Would you, John B, agree that the vast majority of the peer-reviewed science done on the subject over the last century supports anthropogenic global warming theory? Define "supports". Not being nitpicky, but the word can be used to describe anything from "explicitly agrees with" to "does not explicitly deny". In what reference are you using the word? Would you also agree that C02 is a greenhouse gas? Yes. As is Methane, Water Vapour and some CFCs. Would you also agree that the science shows that the sun is not responsible for current warming? No. Aside from direct measurement of the TSI, many processes and their direct or indirect effects on Earths climate are not well understood. That being the case I think it is premature to write off the largest, hottest thing in the Solar System as having only a minimal effect. Would you agree that feedback loops, both positive and negative, are very likely affecting how fast warming is happening. Feedback forcings certainly. Feedback loops would tend to make the climate extremely unstable as once started they would not stop without some sort of major forcing in the opposite direction. As the planet is neither an ice ball nor a barren ball of rock, this implies that "runaway" feedback loops cannot occur. Would you agree that other mitigating factors, such as particulates in the air, El Nino/La Nina cycles, etc. have an effect? Yes, as do (it would appear) the PDO, ENSO and the Atlantic Oscillation. You have not explained what is causing the warming if CO2 isn't. Simply saying that we're coming out of the little ice age doesn't really cut it...you have to define that period and tell us why the present warming is happening. Point 1, we are coming (have come. How exactly do we decide whan it ended?) out of the LIA. Point 2, AGW theory doesn't explain what the forcings were that ended it either except to say that the 1850-1940 period increase was probably due to natural causes. This is all stuff that's been covered by the science already. Yes it has, the question is whether it has been fully and accurately covered. Rev, I have said elsewhere here that I approach the AGW thing from a different perspective, an approach that is more forensic that anything else. I have no preconceived notion as to what has caused the warming and am not out to prove any theory over any other. Think of it this way. We think a crime (unusual warming) has been committed and if it has we have a suspect (CO2). So the first question is: Is the warming of the 20th C unusual compared to the paleo record? The answer is no, far larger and faster warmings (and coolings) have occurred from purely natural forcings. Q2. How accurate is the paleo record? Damn hard question. It is very hard to demonstrate that tree rings are in fact temp proxies rather than CO2 or precipitation proxies. O18 in the ice cores looks good, but some don't show the variations we would expect from temp changes thereby throwing some doubt as to their use as a proxy. (You'll notice that the answer to this question modifies the answer to Q1.) Q3. For the period that we have instruments, are these records accurate? Another good question. On page 3 of this thread, JRyan posted a graph showing where SST temps were historically gathered, however it is assumed in the historical record that SSts were gathered predominantly from intakes by 1965, this is not correct and throws out the GMST reconstructions. On that same page I posted a graph showing the difference between "unadjusted" and "adjusted data for Wellington N.Z. You'll note the 1.50 difference around 1915. If the data is being adjusted to make the past cooler (and the warming therefore larger) I would like to know why. What's your answer? Q4. Is data being interpreted to try and prove one "suspect" guilty or are the investigators following where the evidence leads? Q5. Are "fudge factors" being used anywhere? Yes they are. Aerosol forcings during the mid 20th C being one. Q6. WRT CO2. Has it been shown that CO2 can initiate or sustain a period of warming? No. As has been pointed out ad nauseum the record shows CO2 rise to lag temp. This means that another forcing (or combination of forcings) initiated the rise. The usual argument is that CO2 takes over after that to provide the rest of the rise. This is an illogical argument due to the fact that the record also shows temps drop while the CO2 is still rising. A far more reasonable hypothesis is that the iniating forcing continues to act throughout the entire warming period with CO2 adding a bit. Once the initiating forcing disappears, the temps drop as CO2 is not sufficient to sustain the warming by itself. This fully agrees with the paleo record. Rev, there are many forcings involved here. CO2, methane, CFCs, Solar, CRF, Land Use, etc. The argument revolves around the mix. Is CO2 the big baddy or are it's effects relatively minor? No-one denies the Earth has warmed or that CO2 has an effect. Likewise, no-one denies that moving away from a fossil fuel economy is a good thing. However if we were to concentrate on CO2 and find out later that Land Use was a bigger forcing, then we will have wasted time and effort. We should have been modifying farming practices, not industry. We do not wany .govs implimenting short sighted policies just because the electorate demands they "do something". The bio fuels fiasco shows how silly that course is. Bottom line is ATM we cannot accurately separate out the anthrop from the natural temp rise for the 20th C, let alone give accurate values for each individual anthrop forcing. Even iNow (who is well read on this subject) can't find definitive data, nor can I. I also find that many of the groups screaming loudest are the ones who historically have had a vision for how everyone should live and will latch onto anything that might give them the power to force the rest of us to live in their ideologically correct world. History tells us that ideologues seldom have the interests of the population at heart. The "cause" is more important than that. How long do you think before earthquakes get linked to GW? Edited June 22, 2008 by JohnB
iNow Posted June 22, 2008 Posted June 22, 2008 As I've seen comments from contributors claiming both watering down and hyping up, I'm not certain where the truth lies. Truth doesn't lie. That would be internally inconsistent. Just kidding... More seriously though... Define "supports". Not being nitpicky, but the word can be used to describe anything from "explicitly agrees with" to "does not explicitly deny". In what reference are you using the word? Actually, this does appear nitpicky... REALLY nitpicky. Oh, but that's not the serious part yet. Sorry. In reference to Rev's comment: Would you also agree that the science shows that the sun is not responsible for current warming? ... You said: No. Aside from direct measurement of the TSI, many processes and their direct or indirect effects on Earths climate are not well understood. That being the case I think it is premature to write off the largest, hottest thing in the Solar System as having only a minimal effect. It's okay if you truly think this, but you should know that you ARE wrong. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you just haven't seen this: Nature - No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics Sun not to blame for global warming. A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Since you probably don't have a paid subscription to the journal Nature (it being the low class, hardly referenced, barely trustable source that it is ), you can also read more here in .pdf: NATURE article in .pdf --> http://www.auger.org.ar/Auger_Sur/PDF/Nature%20July%202007.pdf This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming.
Mr Skeptic Posted June 22, 2008 Posted June 22, 2008 What was that about CO2 rise lagging a temperature rise? I've heard this before, is it true?
SkepticLance Posted June 22, 2008 Posted June 22, 2008 To Mr Skeptic Not true for the current warming. In previous periods during the current ice age, about every 100,000 years, the glacial periods give way briefly for a warmer interglacial. The warmings leading to the interglacial periods involve a rise in CO2. However, the warming on average begins about 800 years before the CO2 starts to rise. The current warming is not a period of leaving a glacial. Instead, it is a fluctuation within the interglacial, and the CO2/warming relationship is different.
Rev Blair Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 I suggest you prove this. I'm of the opinion that it actually goes the other way. I haven't pushed this opinion strongly as any proof is subjective. As I've seen comments from contributors claiming both watering down and hyping up, I'm not certain where the truth lies. Mine is an opinion based on multiple explanations of the process, statements by those involved in the process, and statements made by the US and other anti-AGW government officials. You can find a lot of at the UN site, but it's also been discussed in the mainstream media outside of the US, most notably the CBC, the BBC, The Guardian, etc. It's also been discussed or alluded on some science blogs. What bugs the daylights out of me is that the scientific part is held back so that it can be edited to match the political part. I don't think that such a process is in the best interests of science or the people of Earth. I'd like to see the politics taken out of it as well. Unfortunately, without the politics no action will be taken whatsoever. Define "supports". Not being nitpicky, but the word can be used to describe anything from "explicitly agrees with" to "does not explicitly deny". In what reference are you using the word? Actually, you are being nitpicky. The support varies from unrelated scientific studies from a variety of disciplines with findings that match global warming theory, to studies that are explicitly explain global warming, to work that looks at the effects of global warming without explicitly dealing with the theory itself. Yes. As is Methane, Water Vapour and some CFCs. Yes. And the effects of methane are a great concern, especially when it comes to feedback loops such as melting permafrost. The role of water vapour has been pretty well understood since the 1950's and the way it keeps being brought up in the argument is a little misleading, since it also blocks heat, depending on the season and atmospheric conditions. CO2 is the big one because of the volume we are releasing though. No. Aside from direct measurement of the TSI, many processes and their direct or indirect effects on Earths climate are not well understood. That being the case I think it is premature to write off the largest, hottest thing in the Solar System as having only a minimal effect. Except that's not supported by the data. Nature has published at least one study showing that, as referred to by iNow, and NASA has said that the measurements have been going the other way since the 1970s. Besides, the hottest thing in the universe is some girl the neighbour boy and his friend were talking about the other day. Feedback forcings certainly. Feedback loops would tend to make the climate extremely unstable as once started they would not stop without some sort of major forcing in the opposite direction. As the planet is neither an ice ball nor a barren ball of rock, this implies that "runaway" feedback loops cannot occur. Yeah, and I never said we were going to turn into Venus. The permafrost is melting though, releasing methane, the oceans are warming and we know they absorb less CO2 as they do, and then there's that all-important albedo effect. There are also loops going the other way, but they seem to have less strength, at least so far. Yes, as do (it would appear) the PDO, ENSO and the Atlantic Oscillation. And that's all taken into account in the overall science. Point 1, we are coming (have come. How exactly do we decide whan it ended?) out of the LIA. Point 2, AGW theory doesn't explain what the forcings were that ended it either except to say that the 1850-1940 period increase was probably due to natural causes. Does the science not say, or does it offer up several theories? There's a fair bit of evidence questioning whether the LIA was even global or if was restricted mostly to the Northern Hemisphere as well. Yes it has, the question is whether it has been fully and accurately covered. Are we heading back into the conspiracy theory? You know as well as anybody else that science is never fully accurate nor does it fully cover any area of research. There's always more work to do. There has been a whole whack of work done though, and the vast majority of it all points in the same general direction. We are changing the earth's climate with our actions. Think of it this way. We think a crime (unusual warming) has been committed and if it has we have a suspect (CO2). That's a gross oversimplification, but I'll go with it because none of us wants to write a novel. So the first question is: Is the warming of the 20th C unusual compared to the paleo record? The answer is no, far larger and faster warmings (and coolings) have occurred from purely natural forcings. We know the approximate causes of those forcings though. Volcanic activity, sun cycles, and strikes from asteroids have all been implicated. None of those things are happening right now. Son of Sam wasn't innocent just because Jack the Ripper used a knife. Q2. How accurate is the paleo record? Damn hard question. It is very hard to demonstrate that tree rings are in fact temp proxies rather than CO2 or precipitation proxies. O18 in the ice cores looks good, but some don't show the variations we would expect from temp changes thereby throwing some doubt as to their use as a proxy. (You'll notice that the answer to this question modifies the answer to Q1.) It is fairly accurate and getting more accurate all of the time. Just as importantly, that record does not falsify the present science. Q3. For the period that we have instruments, are these records accurate? Another good question. On page 3 of this thread, JRyan posted a graph showing where SST temps were historically gathered, however it is assumed in the historical record that SSts were gathered predominantly from intakes by 1965, this is not correct and throws out the GMST reconstructions. On that same page I posted a graph showing the difference between "unadjusted" and "adjusted data for Wellington N.Z. You'll note the 1.50 difference around 1915. If the data is being adjusted to make the past cooler (and the warming therefore larger) I would like to know why. What's your answer? They work with what they have. They adjust according to known variables and statistical norms. Those adjustments are subject to peer review. Not all of the adjusted data shows as large a variance as the data for Wellington either, just like the adjustments for some sites in the US during the 1930s didn't reflect all of the global numbers and had a very small effect overall. Q4. Is data being interpreted to try and prove one "suspect" guilty or are the investigators following where the evidence leads? Again, peer review would catch that, or other data and interpretations would contradict it. This isn't the Winnipeg Police killing somebody for having the wrong colour of skin. Q5. Are "fudge factors" being used anywhere? Yes they are. Aerosol forcings during the mid 20th C being one. Again, those "fudge factors" are subject to the review process. Sometimes the data is exact enough to do anything but take an educated guess, but what the guess is based on and the resulting interpretation are reviewed, criticized, and adjusted accordingly. When new data becomes available, that is taken into account. Every scientific study I've seen that uses them includes at least three possible levels as well, with an upper and lower limit as well as something in the mid-level. Q6. WRT CO2. Has it been shown that CO2 can initiate or sustain a period of warming? No. As has been pointed out ad nauseum the record shows CO2 rise to lag temp. This means that another forcing (or combination of forcings) initiated the rise. The usual argument is that CO2 takes over after that to provide the rest of the rise. This is an illogical argument due to the fact that the record also shows temps drop while the CO2 is still rising. A far more reasonable hypothesis is that the iniating forcing continues to act throughout the entire warming period with CO2 adding a bit. Once the initiating forcing disappears, the temps drop as CO2 is not sufficient to sustain the warming by itself. This fully agrees with the paleo record. Actually, it all makes perfect sense. Warming, caused by some sort of forcing, releases GHGs. Those GHGs represent a positive feedback loop and drive more warming. Eventually a negative feedback loop or unrelated mitigating factor is introduced and cooling begins. The cooling allows the oceans to absorb more GHGs etc, slowly over-riding the original feedback loop. To put it into your crime scenario...a young man falls in with a bad group. He doesn't commit crimes at first, but eventually gives in to peer pressure. Then he meets a girl. At first he continues to commit crimes and hang out with his buddies. Then he drops his buddies and commits fewer crimes, but is still prone to "finding" things that don't belong to him. Eventually he quits doing even that. Rev, there are many forcings involved here. CO2, methane, CFCs, Solar, CRF, Land Use, etc. The argument revolves around the mix. Is CO2 the big baddy or are it's effects relatively minor? No-one denies the Earth has warmed or that CO2 has an effect. Likewise, no-one denies that moving away from a fossil fuel economy is a good thing. The science points to CO2 being the major culprit this time and us being the cause of the CO2. It doesn't discount methane, in fact it takes it into account and describes its effects. Same with CFCs and land use. It has discounted solar (along with massive volcanic activity) because the facts don't match what is happening, but it did not do so out of hand. In fact the data for those things was closely examined. However if we were to concentrate on CO2 and find out later that Land Use was a bigger forcing, then we will have wasted time and effort. We should have been modifying farming practices, not industry. We do not wany .govs implimenting short sighted policies just because the electorate demands they "do something". The bio fuels fiasco shows how silly that course is. Land use and agricultural practices are tied to the CO2 levels though, along with other GHGs. How we use the land affects sequestration as well as the release of GHGs. There's also the albedo effect. These are all taken into consideration in any number of studies. The bio-fuel fiasco shows a weakness in the political side of things, not the scientific side. I also find that many of the groups screaming loudest are the ones who historically have had a vision for how everyone should live and will latch onto anything that might give them the power to force the rest of us to live in their ideologically correct world. History tells us that ideologues seldom have the interests of the population at heart. The "cause" is more important than that. How long do you think before earthquakes get linked to GW? Well, the rebound effect as the glaciers melt would be expected to lead to increased seismic activity, but I don't think we're there yet. You may think this all ideologicial, but I started my part of this little journey on the other side of things. I was worried about union jobs and have a deep love of big trucks and powerful motors. Maybe I'm just some back country rube, but the more of the science I read and the more of what I know of politics I examined, the more obvious it became that the planet is warming, we are playing the major role in that, and those promoting business as usual are the ones pushing an ideology. From an ideological point of view, I can think of nothing that would bring the capitalist/neo-liberal system to an end more fully and completely than doing nothing until there's some sort of ecological collapse. According to my ideology, I should be working overtime to promote the release of GHGs into the atmosphere. I'm not doing that though.
SkepticLance Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 On the subject of feed-back loops .... The world has warmed many, many times. In the last interglacial, 120,000 years ago, it reached a temperature several degrees greater than today's. Yet in none of these previous warmings did a positive feed-back result in runaway warming. Instead, the world always reached a maximum, and eventually cooled down again. I interpret this to mean that, at a certain point, negative feed-back controls dominate, and stop the warming. Assuming I am right, then it is reasonable to suggest that such negative feed-back loops will cut in at some stage in the current warming. Some are obvious. The most simple is black body radiation, with the Earth radiating more heat into space as it warms up. However, there are also a number of subtle possibilities. For example, in cooler ocean waters, phytoplankton accelerates its growth as the water warms. Since these cooler waters cover a massive part of the globe, this is a major effect. As the oceans warm, phytoplankton increases, and they emit aerosols that stimulate cloud formation - a cooling effect. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/314/5804/1419 Relating to politics. I have read numerous articles on global warming, and hypothetical positive feed-back mechanisms outnumber hypothetical negative feed-back mechanisms 10 : 1 in my experience. If that aint biased politics at work I do not know what is. I am not trying to make a definitive point here. I do not know which will dominate at particular stages of the warming. And neither does anyone else, although there are lots of people arrogant enough to think they do. My point is to emphasize, once more, the level of doubt and uncertainty surrounding the future of climate change.
Rev Blair Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 The world has warmed many, many times. In the last interglacial, 120,000 years ago, it reached a temperature several degrees greater than today's. Yet in none of these previous warmings did a positive feed-back result in runaway warming. Instead, the world always reached a maximum, and eventually cooled down again. That's a bit of a strawman though. Nobody here is saying that we're going to experience runaway warming. Like I said, we aren't going to become Venus. A temperature rise of several degrees, say equal to that 120,000 years ago, would be catastrophic though. We aren't evolved to deal with physically or societally. Many, many of the current species on the planet would become extinct and others (most likely including us) would suffer greatly before things settled down or adaptation could take place. Since the majority of the data points to us being the variable in this case, and since we can do something about it, to bring that kind of problem down on our own heads would be ridiculous. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that there are many car crashes, so it doesn't matter if we cause one.
SkepticLance Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that there are many car crashes, so it doesn't matter if we cause one. Not at all. I have never suggested that we should do nothing. I am just trying to keep people's feet firmly on the ground. I doubt that a 2 Celsius rise, like 120,000 years ago, would cause too much harm. Most of that warming would be Arctic, and mainly reduce the lowest temperatures. The places where most of humanity lives would not suffer mcuh temperature rise. There would be some sea level rise, but that is something humanity can cope with. Possibly some places would have to be evacuated, but that can be dealt with. If you look at the last million years, and the temperatures reached during the various interglacial periods, you see an increasing trend. The last interglacial was the warmest. If the trend continues in the 'natural' way, we would expect our current interglacial to get even warmer. Hey! That is what it is doing! Sometimes I look at the opposite case. Imagine that the world is now 2 Celsius warmer than the year 2000. Imagine that we are faced with global cooling due to human activity. I suspect that the hysteria over anticipated consequences of such a cooling would be much greater than we face looking at a warming.
D H Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 That's a bit of a strawman though. Nobody here is saying that we're going to experience runaway warming. Like I said, we aren't going to become Venus. Not here, but out there, yes. Here are a couple: http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2007/11/venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect-warning.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-takahashi/the-venus-syndrome-part-t_b_106325.html A temperature rise of several degrees, say equal to that 120,000 years ago, would be catastrophic though. We aren't evolved to deal with physically or societally. Nature is much, much tougher than is modern humanity. Life will survive without us; it would most likely fare much better without 6.7 billion human mouths to feed. The key problem with global warming is what it will to do us. Many, many of the current species on the planet would become extinct ... Many, many of the current species on the planet will become extinct whether or not global warming is real or whether or not global warming is our fault. The die-off caused by a few degrees of global warming is nothing compared to the die-off that is caused by 6.7 billion human mouths to feed. The only way to prevent this biological die-off is for us to die off. Contrary to some of the more extreme environmentalists' wishes, that ain't gonna happen.
swansont Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 The world has warmed many, many times. In the last interglacial, 120,000 years ago, it reached a temperature several degrees greater than today's. Yet in none of these previous warmings did a positive feed-back result in runaway warming. Instead, the world always reached a maximum, and eventually cooled down again. "eventually" meaning after >1000 years, which makes this a specious argument.
jryan Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 In recent geological history ice has been the rule and warmth has been the exception. We are benefiting from living in one of those exceptional periods.
SkepticLance Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 "eventually" meaning after >1000 years, which makes this a specious argument. This is not a convincing argument. The time factor may, or may not be relevent, or accurate. Or it may be a function of temperature increase. Or some other variable. The point is that runaway warming did not happen, and thus is unlikely to happen in our near future.
Rev Blair Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 I doubt that a 2 Celsius rise, like 120,000 years ago, would cause too much harm. Most of that warming would be Arctic, and mainly reduce the lowest temperatures. The places where most of humanity lives would not suffer mcuh temperature rise. There would be some sea level rise, but that is something humanity can cope with. Possibly some places would have to be evacuated, but that can be dealt with. Again, most of the experts disagree with you. First of all, the arctic melting is likely to lead to more temperature increase because of the vast amount of methane stored in the permafrost. Also, people do live up there. Maybe not a lot of people, but there are people there. Just the other day I was reading how a village in Nunavit was in trouble because flash flooding was washing away the infrastructure from right under their feet. Second of all, we are already facing food shortages and a further 2 degree temperature rise would cause more droughts and more floods. You may think we can just move the croplands north, but I don't know a lot of farmers who think you can grow crops in poor soil or on rocks, and the clearing of trees would be both cost prohibitive and an additional environmental disaster. Third of all, "Where the people live," includes places like Bangledesh, low lying parts of India, and virtually every temperate coastline on the planet. The cost of moving them will be incredible, and the social and economic upheaval from that will be terrible.
SkepticLance Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Rev said "First of all, the arctic melting is likely to lead to more temperature increase because of the vast amount of methane stored in the permafrost." As I said in my recent posts, there are many negative feed-back mechanisms also. The idea above is merely one of numerous hypothesized positive feed-backs. There are an equal number of negative feed-backs envisaged. The difference is that most people are pessimists, and so we hear about the disasters, and not about the hope. The point is that we simply do not know how much warming will occur, and the pessimists are pissing in the wind just as much as anyone else. Rev also said "Just the other day I was reading how a village in Nunavit was in trouble because flash flooding was washing away the infrastructure from right under their feet." During the Little Ice Age, a series of massive Atlantic storms struck the sea coast of Britain causing enormous damage and loss of life. Entire fleets of ships and fishing boats were destroyed. As maritime disasters go, these were the worst in recorded history. Apart from hurricanes, nasty and damaging storms are more common in times of global cooling. And any increase in hurricanes is currently unproven. The point is that disasters happen all the time, and ascribing them to human induced global warming is just plain incorrect. Mother Nature is much meaner and nastier than we are! "Second of all, we are already facing food shortages and a further 2 degree temperature rise would cause more droughts and more floods." This is another assessment based on pessimism rather than science. All we know is that the climate is changing. Certainly some places will have more droughts and some will have more floods. That is a statistical certainty whether the change is overall beneficial or overall harmful. However, there are a number of clearly beneficial changes coming. For example : 6.000 years ago was a warmer period in climate history, and the Sahara Desert was much wetter, and supported a much larger population of people, including permanent settlements. When the climate cooled, the desert grew, and people had to leave. It has been suggested that global warming will once more green the desert. The world's largest land masses are in Russia and in Canada - precisely the areas that are most subject to warming. If we cannot, overall, grow more food than before, I have totally misjudged the human species. Bangladesh is one of those parts of the world currently undergoing a quiet economic revolution. It is becoming much richer, and the standard of living of the people is rising. Sure, it has a long way to go. However, your predicted flooding is many decades away also. By the time the crisis comes, its people will have had time to prepare, and a much richer economy to give them the resources for that preparation. Do not forget that sea level rise is averaging only 3 mm per year. Even in Bangladesh, that means plenty of time to prepare. Unless sea level rise accelerates, that is only 300 mm in 100 years - barely more than a foot. If we ignore the pessimists credo and go by actual data, we realise the simple truth that Bangla Desh's real problem is not the minimal sea level rise from global warming, but the much more massive short term increases during hurricanes. Bangla Desh has a crisis, but it is right now - not in some mythical global warmed future. Hurricane defenses are needed. Not global warming defenses.
iNow Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) Apart from hurricanes, nasty and damaging storms are more common in times of global cooling. I've not heard this before. Do you have a reputable source that I could read more about it? And any increase in hurricanes is currently unproven. We may not be having a greater frequency of hurricanes overall, but the intensity of those we do have has increased. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/4/111816/4408 Global warming increases sea surface temperatures (SSTs), which are directly correlated with stronger storms. Indeed, tropical cyclones are threshold events -- if sea surface temperatures are below 80°F (26.5°C), they do not form. Some analysis even suggests there is a sea surface temperature threshold close to 83°F needed for the spawning major hurricanes. Global warming may actually cause some hurricanes and some major hurricanes to develop that otherwise would not have (by raising sea surface temperatures above the necessary threshold at the right place or time). This is especially true in the Atlantic, where sea surface temperatures appear to be closer to the threshold than other hurricane-forming basins. Equally important, one of the ways that hurricanes are weakened is the upwelling of colder, deeper water due to the hurricane's own violent action. But if the deeper water is also warm, it doesn't weaken the hurricane. In fact, it may continue to intensify. Global warming heats both the sea surface and the deep water, thus creating ideal conditions for a hurricane to survive and thrive in its long journey from tropical depression to Category 4 or 5 superstorm. The point is that disasters happen all the time, and ascribing them to human induced global warming is just plain incorrect. Your comment is only correct if the disasters are not related to global climate change. If the disaster is unrelated then you are correct, but your blanket comment misses this important detail. Sometimes disasters WILL happen as a result of climate change, and the frequency of such instances is on the rise. "Second of all, we are already facing food shortages and a further 2 degree temperature rise would cause more droughts and more floods." This is another assessment based on pessimism rather than science. All we know is that the climate is changing. Please tell me you don't seriously believe this. We know MUCH more than just "the climate is changing." For example, we KNOW that food and water resources are being dramatically impacted... And yes, it's based on science, not pessimism. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS275&q=impact%20of%20global%20warming%20on%20food%20supply&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=impact+of+global+warming+on+water+supply Hurricane defenses are needed. Not global warming defenses. Sorry mate, but that's just a stupid comment. It's akin to someone focussing entirely on symptoms and not the cause. Edited June 27, 2008 by iNow
SkepticLance Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 iNow asked "I've not heard this before. Do you have a reputable source that I could read more about it?" That came from a New Scientist article about 2 to 4 years ago. Can't give you the exact reference apart from that, but I can explain the mechanism. Storms (apart from hurricanes) are driven by temperature differentials across different latitudes. Cold conditions further towards the poles cause air to sink and warmer air further from the poles causes air to rise. This air flow is the basis for storms. (I know it is not that simple. But these differentials are nevertheless the basis for the air movement that leads to storms.) With global warming, the temperature differential gets less, since polar regions warm up more than temperate to tropical. With a lower temperature differential, there is less air movement, and thus fewer and less potent storms. During the Little Ice Age, the temperature differential was much greater than today, since the polar regions were much colder, and the temperate regions were not much cooler than now. High differentials gave more, and more potent wind movements. iNow also said "We may not be having a greater frequency of hurricanes overall, but the intensity of those we do have has increased." As I understand it, looking at hurricanes over the past 100 years, this difference is still not statistically significant. "Sometimes disasters WILL happen as a result of climate change, and the frequency of such instances is on the rise." That is easy to say, but hard to prove. AGW is still only 0.8 C warmer than the depths of the Little Ice Age, and much less in comparison to long term average. Weather based disasters have been with us for the life of the planet, and identifying any such as being due to AGW is pretty much impossible. As I have already pointed out, weather based disasters were common and nasty in the Little Ice Age. I suspect that such are actually less frequent today, though I don't have the numbers to prove that. "For example, we KNOW that food and water resources are being dramatically impacted... And yes, it's based on science, not pessimism." Almost every year for the past 50 years, global food production has increased. On this basis, the so-called negative effect of AGW is not a dramatic impact when we look at it globally. What we get instead, is local events which are blamed on AGW. "Sorry mate, but that's just a stupid comment." Unless this statement is backed up with a proper argument, your statement is the stupid one.
Rev Blair Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 Rev said "First of all, the arctic melting is likely to lead to more temperature increase because of the vast amount of methane stored in the permafrost." As I said in my recent posts, there are many negative feed-back mechanisms also. The idea above is merely one of numerous hypothesized positive feed-backs. There are an equal number of negative feed-backs envisaged. The difference is that most people are pessimists, and so we hear about the disasters, and not about the hope. The point is that we simply do not know how much warming will occur, and the pessimists are pissing in the wind just as much as anyone else. The "idea" above? Dude, when it gets warm, things melt. There is a whack of plant and animal matter trapped in the permafrost. When plant and animal matter thaw, they rot. When they rot, they emit methane. That's not an idea, those are facts. What are this number of negative feedbacks you envisage by the way? Have they been measured? There are scientists working in the arctic right now measuring the melting of the permafrost. Have you got scientists measuring the negative feedback loop that's supposed to counteract those effects? The difference between pessimists and optimists is that pessimists are, on very rare occasions, pleasantly surprised to be wrong. Optimists, on the other hand, are constantly disappointed. Rev also said "Just the other day I was reading how a village in Nunavit was in trouble because flash flooding was washing away the infrastructure from right under their feet." During the Little Ice Age, a series of massive Atlantic storms struck the sea coast of Britain causing enormous damage and loss of life. Entire fleets of ships and fishing boats were destroyed. As maritime disasters go, these were the worst in recorded history. Apart from hurricanes, nasty and damaging storms are more common in times of global cooling. And any increase in hurricanes is currently unproven. The point is that disasters happen all the time, and ascribing them to human induced global warming is just plain incorrect. Mother Nature is much meaner and nastier than we are! During the little ice age, Vikings went all the way to south of France just to score some mushrooms! Goats mated with mermaids and unicorns! Ducks could talk, but only in Latin! We aren't talking about the LIA, though. It's about as relevant to the present day as my first girlfriend is to my marriage. If you want to make the LIA relevant to the discussion, I would suggest that you first define it, second prove that it was global, and third show how it is relevant to current warming. If, and it's a pretty huge if, you can manage that, then you need to phone both my wife and some woman named Colleen (I'm pretty sure her last name has changed by now) and convince them that I deserve a threesome. Good luck with both. Or either. "Second of all, we are already facing food shortages and a further 2 degree temperature rise would cause more droughts and more floods." This is another assessment based on pessimism rather than science. All we know is that the climate is changing. Certainly some places will have more droughts and some will have more floods. That is a statistical certainty whether the change is overall beneficial or overall harmful. However, there are a number of clearly beneficial changes coming. I can't speak for Russia, but the Canadian Shield...what's north of where we already grow crops...is pretty much rock. The farmland here gets worse as you head north. Even where the topsoil is deep enough to plant a crop, the soil quality is poor, with low levels of nitrogen and other nutrients. That's without getting into the problem of clearing trees. For example : 6.000 years ago was a warmer period in climate history, and the Sahara Desert was much wetter, and supported a much larger population of people, including permanent settlements. When the climate cooled, the desert grew, and people had to leave. It has been suggested that global warming will once more green the desert. Except that desertification has increased with global warming in most of sub-Saharan Africa, and soil quality is poor in the areas where moisture levels have increased. There is little or no evidence pointing to an increased ability to mass produce food in the area. The world's largest land masses are in Russia and in Canada - precisely the areas that are most subject to warming. If we cannot, overall, grow more food than before, I have totally misjudged the human species. Nah, you've just forgotten that there's more to producing a crop than a little warm weather. Bangladesh is one of those parts of the world currently undergoing a quiet economic revolution. It is becoming much richer, and the standard of living of the people is rising. Sure, it has a long way to go. However, your predicted flooding is many decades away also. By the time the crisis comes, its people will have had time to prepare, and a much richer economy to give them the resources for that preparation. Umm, worldwide we're talking about more than a billion displaced people. And the infrastructure that supports them. And the resource base that feeds and clothes them. Much of that is in the poorest areas on the planet, but a pretty good chunk of it is in the areas you think those billion people are going to be moving to. We're already dealing with a lot of xenophobia, cultural clashes, and some pretty brutal racism. Whaddya think it's gonna look like when a billion minorities come knocking on our doors looking for homes, jobs, and a place to continue their customs? Do not forget that sea level rise is averaging only 3 mm per year. Even in Bangladesh, that means plenty of time to prepare. Unless sea level rise accelerates, that is only 300 mm in 100 years - barely more than a foot. Well the majority of the science...the vast majority...says that sea level rise will accelerate with warming. A foot is also a whole lot, since much of the world's coastline is less than a foot above sea level. There are also areas, like much of Canada's arctic and some pretty significant chunks of Europe and Asia, that are actually below sea level but protected by a stretch of coast that is less than a foot above sea level. Much of that area where you were planning, erroneously, to grow crops, suddenly becomes a saltwater marsh bigger than the Great Lakes. If we ignore the pessimists credo and go by actual data, we realise the simple truth that Bangla Desh's real problem is not the minimal sea level rise from global warming, but the much more massive short term increases during hurricanes. Bangla Desh has a crisis, but it is right now - not in some mythical global warmed future. Hurricane defenses are needed. Not global warming defenses. You know what's really interesting? The "Men in Black" episode of the X-Files (yeah the one with Alec Trebeck) where the army guy dressed like an alien gets abducted and is sitting there in his alien outfit smoking a cigarette and saying, "This can't be happening," over and over again. I love social commentary in popular culture, but I especially love the parts nobody really gets.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now