It must be "Global Warming"

by Warlock 93 Replies latest social current

Kudra

and, wozadummy, that "example" is one of the arguements used by climate skeptics that has been shot down time and time again: that stance was never advocated by the scientific community as a whole. The only group that "reported" on that was the popular media, based on a shorter cooling trend (decade or so) and the notion that we SHOULD be headed into a cooling period right now.

That cooling period, expected based on past timing of ice ages during the quaternary was reversed, as it is thought, by massive rice cultivation (methane release) agriculture and forest clearing in europe (but mainly rice cultivation i think) that took place starting about 5000 years ago.

-K
SWALKER

scientists talked of another ice age coming, now it's global warming
Simple answer: First the global warming, then the Ice Age.
Swalker
AllAlongTheWatchtower

"When I was at school scientists talked of another ice age coming, now it's global warming" -wozadummy
I remember that too, late 70's I believe it was, there was a lot of talk about how average temps were 2-3 degrees LOWER than average. I was a kid in the WWCG at the time, Armstrong used that (along with any other headlines he could use to advantage, much like Awake articles) as a harbinger of doom and said it proved his prophecies were on the right track.
Because of that, and because of my skepticism of those who trumpet this in the streets the loudest (the Al Gores, Michael Moores, etc), I have until recently been in the 'doubter' category on the global warming issue. My opinions are beginning to swing though, currently I guess you could say I'm on the fence, not really sure one way or the other. One big thing that got me re-thinking my stance was the recent ice shelf break-off you're probably all aware of.
The trouble is, for an average citizen it can be difficult to discern the truth, there is so much information out there; you have to read it, then consider the source, track it back to the sponsors, etc. to formulate an opinion. Regarding that hole in the ozone somebody mentioned, I thought I remembered a couple years back actually hearing that it was shrinking...? The thing is, contrary to what Kudra said which implied that the "naysayers" are only basing their opinion on "backyard weather" and past memories, I HAVE done some research on this. I COULD cite articles which claim or theorize that warming trends are caused by sunspots and other sun related info (solar variation theory), or mention 'Urban Heat Islands' which are thought by some to falsely inflate temperature data, etc. As with religion though, it seems to me that many people's opinions are already set in stone, based on their political leanings.
Notes: It is also worth mentioning that even the advocates of some of these alternate theories admit that they are either flawed or cannot account for 100% of the warming trend findings, many of them readily accept that anthropogenic causes are at least partially to blame as well. Another thing is that meteorology is a relatively new science; reliable, accurate data only goes back about 150 years.
And just because I can't resist playing devil's advocate:
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html
While the above article specifically states that they do NOT discount greenhouse gasses and other anthropogenic causes of warming, they DO believe that it has been overstated due to a lack of attributing solar causes, which they believe to be responsible for between 10-30% of the problem. It is things like this that cause me to remain on the fence and be undecided overall as to who is right. While I won't go as far as to say it's all "much ado about nothing", it seems to me that it might be 'much ado about somewhat less than some people would have you think'.
FreeWilly

Abbadon: To be blunt, I think anyone who has spent more than a week researching the subject superficially, and still thinks there is not a fossil-fueled link warming trend, is not looking in the right places.
I'm interested in comparing notes. Maybe you could answer a few sincere questions I have about the assumption that CO2 is causing Global Warming.
Q Earth has been much hotter before (holocene, Medievil periods) What do you think was the cause of this?
Q How would you explain the "lag effect" of CO2 exiting previous Ice ages - namely, temperature rise preceding CO2 concentration increases in nearly all glacial terminations?
Q If humans were never on the Earth, what would you expect Earths climate, specifically in regards to temperature, to be doing? Does it makes sense that the ~18,000 year warming trend that is exiting us from the last ice age would continue, stall or reverse?
Q What role does CO2 play as a Greenhous Gas? Specifically, of all the known greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, what portion or percentage does CO2 occupy? How does Co2 compare to say... water vapor?
I'm just curious what your research leads you to understand in these areas.
Warlock

And does your post mean that you don't really live in Spain and that you're not 100+ years old?? Hey. man, what gives? I'd love to come to Spain and visit!! We could wander the beaches or mountains, drinking wine and arguing literature, science, art and religion, then swear undying brotherhood.
107 and Spain are my cover. They could change at any time, too. Maybe someday we could get together here in the good old USA.
I read the interview, and I do have some issues with the way he sees it. I really don't want this to turn into some huge debate, so I'll just leave it there. Thanks for the link.
Warlock
Abaddon

FreeWilly
Q Earth has been much hotter before (holocene, Medievil periods) What do you think was the cause of this?
Previous highs and lows in average global temperatures have happened for a variety of natural reasons; solar variation, several orbital/rotational cycles, etc.
Never before have billions of tons of stored CO2 been released into the atmosphere in such a short space of time. At the same time we see an unprecidentedly rapid change in temperatures. All the various natural factors do not explain this. We should be somewhere else on the graph according to previously observed natural variations, given the solar and orbital etc. inputs.
Now, it might just be a big-ass coincidense, and there is some natural cycle we don't know about. Or it might be using fossil fuels like they're running out... oh, yeah...
Q How would you explain the "lag effect" of CO2 exiting previous Ice ages - namely, temperature rise preceding CO2 concentration increases in nearly all glacial terminations?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
Q If humans were never on the Earth, what would you expect Earths climate, specifically in regards to temperature, to be doing? Does it makes sense that the ~18,000 year warming trend that is exiting us from the last ice age would continue, stall or reverse?
That is almost begging the question with a reply that isn't relevent... the general trend does not explain the current rapid rise, nor is the level of CO2 consistent with what it would 'normally' be at this point in a general trend. What the climate WOULD be isn't the question, why it is as it is, is. I love that last bit, "it is as it is, is". LOL
Q What role does CO2 play as a Greenhous Gas? Specifically, of all the known greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, what portion or percentage does CO2 occupy? How does Co2 compare to say... water vapor?
Again, begging a question that the reply of which does mean anything in this context. So what if water vapour is the main greenhouse 'gas'. We are not talking about an increase in water vapour, we are talking about an increase of CO2 coinciding with a period where some other factor (like an increase in water vapour) can not explain the temperature rise. Funny point though; an increase in temperature also leads to an increase in water vapour...
Would you believe someone who told you the smell in the room had nothing to do with them farting? And saying the room would get smelly anyway at this time of day? When the room had never smelled that bad at that time of day before the farting?
LittleToe

Have any of you done indepth research into the affects of global warming on the gulf stream (undersea currents that carry warm water from Florida, etc. under the Atlantic to Europe)?
Maybe it's just because it's a subject close to my heart as it's the only thing that keeps the weather temperate on the West coast old Scotland, but the repercussions of it shifting even a hundred miles South would be catastrophic.
Why do ya think I'm marrying an American chick (aside from the obvious reasons )? If the termperatures plummet we're getting the heck out of Dodge!

FreeWilly

Never before have billions of tons of stored CO2 been released into the atmosphere in such a short space of time.

Actually our atmosphere is CO2 impoverished. For most of Earths living history CO2 has been MUCH higher than they are now. During almost all of the paleozoic period (spanning ~300 million years) atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 10-15 times as high as they are now! Remember, we are at ~380 ppm atmospheric CO2. The Paleozoic/Cambian period had CO2a levels of ~7000 ppm. The Paleozoic/Ordovician period had levels of over 4000 ppm. The Triassic and Jurrassic had levels between 1000-2000 ppm CO2a. One interesting observation is that during the Ordovician period, when CO2a was 10 times higher than they are now, Earth experienced one of it's many ice ages.

So with a significant portion of Earth's history containing CO2a much, much higher than today, while experiencing glacation and deglacations (ice ages) is it unreasble to question the role of atmospheric CO2? Must we be lumped into a neo-con, oil loving, Bush/Cheney conspiracy to question the link?

Sources:

http://earth.usc.edu/~geol150/evolution/paleozoic.html,

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf -(skip to page 201 unless you want to be bored to death)

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Q How would you explain the "lag effect" of CO2 exiting previous Ice ages - namely, temperature rise preceding CO2 concentration increases in nearly all glacial terminations?
Abaddon: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

PRECISELY!!! I hope you did read the article. Do you agree with it, particularly the admission that previous CO2a rises were NOT a cause of temperature rise, but rather a response to it. Here are some excerpts:

"From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO 2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO 2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO 2 release. So CO 2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words,CO 2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway." -http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Q) What does this historical phenomenom of CO2 responding to temperature change, rather than causing it tell us? Is it unreasonable to question CO2's role as the CAUSE of increased planetary temperatures, particularly when it's rise has been attributed as an effect rather than a driver?

********************************************************************************************************

Q What role does CO2 play as a Greenhous Gas? Specifically, of all the known greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, what portion or percentage does CO2 occupy? How does Co2 compare to say... water vapor?
Abbadon: Again, begging a question that the reply of which does mean anything in this context. So what if water vapour is the main greenhouse 'gas'. We are not talking about an increase in water vapour, we are talking about an increase of CO2 coinciding with a period where some other factor (like an increase in water vapour) can not explain the temperature ris

I "beg" to differ :) The question of "how much" and "to what extent" CO2 affects the atmosphere is central to the issue.

How Much:

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- That's less than 4/100ths of 1% of all Earth's atmospheric gasses.

Sources:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html

To What Extent:

In the following table we can see exactly what role CO2 plays as a "greenhouse gas". Of all the GH contributing gasses CO2 comprises just over 3%. So Ask yourself the queston, of that 3%, how much have humans manipulated? The answer is an additional 0.28% . Is it unreasonable to question what effect this 0.28% greenhous gas addition has?

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	Percent of Total	Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor	-----	95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	72.369%	3.618%
Methane (CH4)	7.100%	0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O)	19.000%	0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases)	1.432%	0.072%
Total	100.000%	100.000%

Source:http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Q) Does historical data show a climate that's vulnerable to gas fluctuations of less than 1/2 of a percent? Q) What is so powerful about the CO2 molecule that can have global effects with minute changes concentration? Please explain the mechanism.

Find a vocal, scientifically qualified (in that field) climate change cynic, and then follow the money.

OK, but I'm not following it... http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/01/are-humans-involved-in-global-warming/ "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

wozadummy

I guess I'll respond, that's what was said back then and it had the weight of the "system" pushing it as a feasible possibility - some very intelligent and well studied people came up with the the theory pushed as credible fact. Well today some very educated people are saying the opposite - just look at the data they may say ,but as we live for very short periods of time ,who can say that the very educated ones are hitting the nail EXACTLY on the head ? Where's the guarantee everything that is published scientifically is dead correct today when it may take long periods of time to evaluate the data properly and see the consequences of doing what we are doing on the planet?
It is very hard for ordinary people to make decisions on global warming based on what strangers say ,and are we expected to just believe the current theories around when money motivates everything on this planet and the people giving their "expert" opinion on both sides have their own agenda . Have we not seen this from politicians,religious leaders etc who are all looking for the support which means money?. This sounds cynical I know but just remember we believed the crap the WTS told us and what do we think now of that "knowlege".
Can anyone guarantee what they say about global warming will still hold up scientifically in 30, 50 ,100 years. Does it really matter what view we have on both sides of the debate personally? Will it make any difference ? No It's too big an issue for any individuals to make a difference really in the short term - sure an awareness of the poisoning of this planet is useful but frankly does anyone think they can beat the political and commercial system geared to use and abuse and do little to replenish and restore.
Please don't think I'm not giving a damn about the environment . The company I worked for allowed me to revegitate and restore company polluted property and I got 2 Goverment awards for this work ,but business only does this as window dressing to hide the larger picture.
This global situation is what plays into the hand of people like the WTS ,they look at the world situation and then hook on their answer to this and gain converts to their line of thinking by putting an extra-terrestial solution which could be viewed as the easy way out.
Politicians sell their solution ,business says there's no real problem and really history gives us the answer - mankind shits in his own nest ,always has and always will and time will give the TRUE outcome. We can sit in our backyards and meditate on whether the weather has changed as we remember it but we only live a little time here so what do we know? And the data is only a 100 years old or so ,can we really pinpoint the future accurately when the world has been here for such a long time and has had many changes not caused by mankind.
What we are left with is evidence that some parts of the world rejuvenate after crisis, but some parts never recover as far as we can see.(deserts etc)
So whose got the all knowing wisdom now to predict exactly the future effects of our activities ,come forward now and let's see if they're exactly right in 30,50 100 years time?
This black and white debating on different issues has gone on thru mankinds history but who calls them to account when it is found later they were wrong. The hippies of the sixtees blamed the establishment for all mans evils back then ,but they grew up and put on shirts and ties and became part of it so they did.nt fix the world (I was one of them)
Without sounding too much like an Awake magazine I think as individuals we don't stand a hope of fixing this world on our own because it's full of people who will always be divided condemning the arguer instead of the argument,only a creator god could change the people first and then the environment, that's my view anyway looking back over the time I've been here.
Zep

Freewilly
Q Earth has been much hotter before (holocene, Medievil periods) What do you think was the cause of this?
This is disputed by scientists. But its not really as relevant as some like to think. Sceptics like to play on the Medieval warm period. Even if the MWP were true it tells you nothing about our current situation. For one, they dont necessarily have the same cause.
Sorry, im just gunna resort to posting links (this is a realclimate approved link)
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm.html
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/it-was-warmer-during-holocene-climatic.html
here is an article by realclimate discussing what it would mean if 'the hockey stick' (thats the temperature trend used by the IPCC) were wrong.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/
Q How would you explain the "lag effect" of CO2 exiting previous Ice ages - namely, temperature rise preceding CO2 concentration increases in nearly all glacial terminations?
obviously its a feedback process in this case. The fact that c02 wasnt an initial forcing (cause) then doesnt mean it cant be the cause of warming now. Nor does it mean it didnt accentuate the warming back then either. Consider why Venus is so hot for a minute (96% atmosphere is c02. Its has extreme temperatures despite less sunlight reaches its surface than earth).C02 has a know heating effect.
Q If humans were never on the Earth, what would you expect Earths climate, specifically in regards to temperature, to be doing? Does it makes sense that the ~18,000 year warming trend that is exiting us from the last ice age would continue, stall or reverse?
the warming trend of the ice ages stopped 1000's of years ago. In fact earth had been on a slow gradual cooling trend since then. Orbital cycles are not the cause of the current warming. They are in fact responsible for very slow cooling over these few thousand years prior to modern temperature records.
There is a theory around that states the introduction of farming practices stalled a decent into another ice age through the release of methane.
Q What role does CO2 play as a Greenhous Gas? Specifically, of all the known greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, what portion or percentage does CO2 occupy? How does Co2 compare to say... water vapor?
Yes, water vapour is the most abundant ghg...and...what does that mean?
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/climate-scientists-hide-water-vapor.html
Actually our atmosphere is CO2 impoverished. For most of Earths living history CO2 has been MUCH higher than they are now. During almost all of the paleozoic period (spanning ~300 million years) atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 10-15 times as high as they are now! Remember, we are at ~380 ppm atmospheric CO2. The Paleozoic/Cambian period had CO2a levels of ~7000 ppm. The Paleozoic/Ordovician period had levels of over 4000 ppm. The Triassic and Jurrassic had levels between 1000-2000 ppm CO2a. One interesting observation is that during the Ordovician period, when CO2a was 10 times higher than they are now, Earth experienced one of it's many ice ages.
So with a significant portion of Earth's history containing CO2a much, much higher than today, while experiencing glacation and deglacations (ice ages) is it unreasble to question the role of atmospheric CO2?
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/geological-history-does-not-support.html
C02 does not initiate warming
It did not initiate warming then. Thats not to say it cant. It has a know heating effect.Consider again the atmosphere of Venus.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.html
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/historically-co2-never-causes.html
I "beg" to differ :) The question of "how much" and "to what extent" CO2 affects the atmosphere is central to the issue.
yep climate sensitivity to c02 is the issue.
How Much:
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
This really misses the point.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/natural-emissions-dwarf-humans.html
We have caused a 30% increase in atmospheric c02. A 50% increase of c02e (equivalent c02). 280ppm (parts per million) pre industrial to 370ppm at present is approx 30% increase.
380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- That's less than 4/100ths of 1% of all Earth's atmospheric gasses.
but not such a minor player. Its stays in the atmosphere for a considerable time. It contributes 9% + plus to the greenhouse effect. Calcultate addition positive feedback processes (as the IPCC has done) and it can have significant impact
In the following table we can see exactly what role CO2 plays as a "greenhouse gas". Of all the GH contributing gasses CO2 comprises just over 3%. So Ask yourself the queston, of that 3%, how much have humans manipulated? The answer is an additional 0.28% . Is it unreasonable to question what effect this 0.28% greenhous gas addition has?
That 3% is disputed and so is the 0.28%
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/01/water-vapor-is-almost-all-of.html
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/natural-emissions-dwarf-humans.html (again)

It must be "Global Warming"

Share this