To enter this discussion lets agree that the environment is changing, changing more rapidly than any previous period we have records from.

Global warming is happening.

The discussion is WHY it is happening.


Is it due to human action?, Natural Cycles?, a combination of the two? Something else?

God is doing it by passing gas onto Earth. :p

On a more serious note, probably a combination. Though I think its mostly human action.

I'd reckon human action. Some in the geological community is already championing the idea of the Anthroposcene as a geological time age.

Yes I heard of the idea of giving "us" an era. Kinda cool and saddening at the same time.

Carbon emmisions? CFC's? Ozone layer, Destroying the Amazon, Destroying Europes forrests thousands of years ago..which is worst?

Global warming can also be the result of a natural cycle as well. While it's not certain, it's possible that Earth was recently in a minor ice age. Thus any recent temperature increases observed can be accounted for by a natural cycle. Of course this argument is rather difficult to prove and doesn't quite fit in to your definition of "unnatural way."

Ah yes, I have restricted things some.. i didnt mean to completly.. i'll edit the OP

There is some possibility that the Earth's surface may be recieving more heat from sun.

1. the van allen radiation belty may have or may be weakening
2. Every so often the sun will produce extra amounts of heat fro a duration of time, more solar flares and such.

also I feel it is odd that when a debate about global warming arise nobody brings up the fact that the earth is being heated up thermal pollution.

Sorry I've never heard of the term thermal pollution. What's the source of the heat?

any heat produced from cumbustion. or heat wasted from electrical transfers which intern realeases heat into the enviroment.

even we as animals release excess heat into the surroundings when we burn calories.

so driving your car produce excess heat which warms atmosphere, etc.

I have never seen any numbers that project how much are planet is warmed from thermal pollution, but i think we produce enogh heat to add a measurable amount to the gobal warming trends.

I know it does not sound like much, but think of it as a "penny save a penny earned" times 6.5 billion people times 360 days.

OP more discussion friendly

But if you're going to include thermal pollution, shouldn't you also include thermal dissipation? Granted the atmosphere does a pretty good job of keeping heat in but there's a non-negligible amount of heat that dissipates out into space too.

any heat produced from cumbustion. or heat wasted from electrical transfers which intern realeases heat into the enviroment.

even we as animals release excess heat into the surroundings when we burn calories.

so driving your car produce excess heat which warms atmosphere, etc.

I have never seen any numbers that project how much are planet is warmed from thermal pollution, but i think we produce enogh heat to add a measurable amount to the gobal warming trends.

Citys tend to be 2/3 degrees C warmer due to all the human efforts. Office heating, cars, people etc etc

i would assume that the dissipation of heat back into space would be calculated in with this aswell, but because of green house gases more heat is kept in our atmosphere.

I find cities to be cooler in the winter (but my house is surrounded by evergreen trees so..), air conditioners use heat pumps so the only true thermal pullution is the heat energy released from the pump.

My complaint about "global warming" is that it is only being compared to CO2, and when convient CH4. I doubt the legitamcy of some of the people whom make claims in this and, I am left to wonder how much money do they have invested in green technologies.

I quote this to be mean: :hammer2:
I find cities to be cooler in the winter




My complaint about "global warming" is that it is only being compared to CO2, and when convient CH4. I doubt the legitamcy of some of the people whom make claims in this and, I am left to wonder how much money do they have invested in green technologies.

What about temperature readings? Rainfall? Timing of El Nino, Ice cap reduction? Groundhog's? etc

Question about greenhouses trapping heat:

So if I understand correctly, solar heat comes into the Earth and is trapped inside the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. How is it that the greenhouse gases trap heat? If the system looks like:

Earth ----- atmosphere ---- outer space

What's to keep the heat from radiating to outer space instead of back to Earth? As I understood thermodynamics, heat flows to colder regions. Since outer space is colder, shouldn't the heat "trapped" by the atmospheric greenhouse gases permeate outwards rather than inwards?

Wavelength.


Solar heat is shortwavelenght and passes through readily.
Radiated heat from earth is longwavelenght and is reflected.

http://maps.grida.no/library/files/web_greenhouse_effect.jpg

Reflection doesn't fully capture what I'm asking though. So IR is released by the surface and it goes back towards the atmosphere. It runs into the atmosphere but the atmosphere can release the heat in any direction. Why back towards the earth instead of towards outer space? This shouldn't have anything to do with wavelength. Or is it because I'm not properly distinguishing between radiation, convection, and conduction?

edit: grammar error

I am going to try to find something to support what I said early syhue, but it is time for me to sleep.

I'l go ahead and say where im going to look

greenhouse gases effect of radiant energy, and convection energy.


you've got me cornered here and im not sure if im going to be able to find my way out or not, we'll see tomorow.

Reflection doesn't fully capture what I'm asking though. So IR is released by the surface and it goes back towards the atmosphere. It runs into the atmosphere but the atmosphere can release the heat in any direction Why back towards the earth instead of towards outer space? This shouldn't have anything to do with wavelength. Or is it because I'm not properly distinguishing between radiation, convection, and conduction?

The atmostphere does not chose to realease it in any direction.

When the wave hits the atmostphere it can either bounce back, or pass through.

The shortwaves coming in pass through
The longwaves from earth, are more likely to bounce back.


Simple maths:

3 waves coming in, all get through.

Earth then releases these three

2 escape back to space, one bounces back (earth +1)

3 more waves come in

Earth releases these three

2 escape, one bounces back (earth +2)

repeat infinite and earth +many!


Basically the greenhouse effect means its is easier for heat to get in than out, and so it is building up.

I don't think we're on the same page here Abaddon. I'm questioning why the longwave is bounced back instead of passed through. What's so different about the shortwave that it passes through? Is it because UV can cause a cascading reaction in the ozone layer to pass through the energy but IR is too low energy to start a cascading reaction out of the atmosphere?

Global warming can also be the result of a natural cycle as well. While it's not certain, it's possible that Earth was recently in a minor ice age. Thus any recent temperature increases observed can be accounted for by a natural cycle. Of course this argument is rather difficult to prove and doesn't quite fit in to your definition of "unnatural way."

It WAS in a minor ice age: an "ice age" is defined as any period with glaciers at the poles. Earth is simply continuing on the warming trajectory it has been on since 30,000 years ago. Our own records cannot be called very accurate for two reasons:

1. We only have about 150 years of reliable data.

2. Just before we started taking systematic measurements, much of Europe, North America, and other places warmed considerably due to the end of the Little Ice Age. Temperatures have been bouncing around for most of human history, it's just that we've only caught on recently.

So I (partially) answered my own question after reviewing some thermo. To start with, radiation is the transfer of heat via EM radiation (UV/IR etc.), conduction is the mechanical transfer of heat from direct contact (imagine a hot plate and cold plate touching), and convection is the transfer of heat by fluids moving from a hot region to a cold region (hot water put in a cold pool so that hot and cold atoms are now mixed together)

IR is heat transfer via radiation and is absorbed by CO2 in the air. This is then converted into mechanical energy (vibrational/stretching of the CO bond). So it doesn't re-release heat back into the atmosphere via radiation. However since the CO2 molecule still has a higher energy level, it remains possible that it can transfer this energy via conduction - so my original question of why the heat doesn't go into outerspace remains unanswered (obviously it can't escape via radiation or convection). I hope that clarifies my question.

In my opinion which i have said many times before, that humans have caused significant climate change which if not stopped will likely cause drastic unforseen and forseen hard ships for the human race, along with all other life on earth which we hold in our hands.

It WAS in a minor ice age: an "ice age" is defined as any period with glaciers at the poles. Earth is simply continuing on the warming trajectory it has been on since 30,000 years ago. Our own records cannot be called very accurate for two reasons:

1. We only have about 150 years of reliable data.

2. Just before we started taking systematic measurements, much of Europe, North America, and other places warmed considerably due to the end of the Little Ice Age. Temperatures have been bouncing around for most of human history, it's just that we've only caught on recently.

:confused: We have around 600,000 years of reliable CO2 and temperature, the current CO2 levels, which have been proved in countless experiments to help increase temperature, have been rising for the last 6000 years, very slowly at first and in the last 200 years more and more rapidaly, now reaching the highest level for at least a million years. And all this came about in the last 200 years and less.

If the timescale is 30,000 years, the change we're experiencing today is too fast for that timescale.

So I (partially) answered my own question after reviewing some thermo. To start with, radiation is the transfer of heat via EM radiation (UV/IR etc.), conduction is the mechanical transfer of heat from direct contact (imagine a hot plate and cold plate touching), and convection is the transfer of heat by fluids moving from a hot region to a cold region (hot water put in a cold pool so that hot and cold atoms are now mixed together)

IR is heat transfer via radiation and is absorbed by CO2 in the air. This is then converted into mechanical energy (vibrational/stretching of the CO bond). So it doesn't re-release heat back into the atmosphere via radiation. However since the CO2 molecule still has a higher energy level, it remains possible that it can transfer this energy via conduction - so my original question of why the heat doesn't go into outerspace remains unanswered (obviously it can't escape via radiation or convection). I hope that clarifies my question.

I don't really know physics, but I would guess that the molecules in the atmosphere don't pass heat into space via conduction because there is virtually nothing in space for them to touch. Convection is going to suffer a similar fate; the atmosphere is fluid, but the vaccuum is not. Which leaves radiation as the only method for heat to get from the earth out into space.

I don't think we're on the same page here Abaddon. I'm questioning why the longwave is bounced back instead of passed through. What's so different about the shortwave that it passes through? Is it because UV can cause a cascading reaction in the ozone layer to pass through the energy but IR is too low energy to start a cascading reaction out of the atmosphere?

No, it has to do with the characteristics of gas atoms/molecules. Each
reacts to the spectrum of radiation in one of three ways : transparent,
absorption, reflection. The greenhouse gases are reflective in a portion
of the IR wavelengths, hence they help retain heat.

As to the OP : I think it's a combination. As has been mentioned, CO2 was
rising before the Industrial Revolution, and has accelerated since. So while
the warming trend already existed, human activity is accelerating and intensifying it.

Thanks folks. That makes more sense now. Boy I'm out of touch with thermo now...

As to the OP : I think it's a combination. As has been mentioned, CO2 was
rising before the Industrial Revolution, and has accelerated since. So while
the warming trend already existed, human activity is accelerating and intensifying it.

Also, the average temperature of Mars has been increasing, helping to suggest that Solar cycles do seem to be one of the reasons for increased temperatures. But as stated human activity hasn't helped counter it...

EDIT: NASA - A Gloomy Mars Warms Up (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html)

EDIT2: after reviewing the article more closely it appears the warming of Mars seems to be more due to changes in dust distribution and coloration then solar cycles, but I'll leave the link.

Also, the average temperature of Mars has been increasing, helping to suggest that Solar cycles do seem to be one of the reasons for increased temperatures. But as stated human activity hasn't helped counter it...

EDIT: NASA - A Gloomy Mars Warms Up (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html)

EDIT2: after reviewing the article more closely it appears the warming of Mars seems to be more due to changes in dust distribution and coloration then solar cycles, but I'll leave the link.

Yeah, that article was trumped out by the GW-deniers, but if you actually think about it, TWO planets warming up and all the rest NOT warming up doesn't really say anything positive about a solar trend. :lol:

Fact is: earth is warming, no known mechanism BUT retention of heat via suddenly and massively increased greenhouse gasses can explain the warming, and we happen to have blasted a few billion tons of them into the air over the last 8,000 years or so, with a steep increase since ~1750.

Yep, sounds man-made to me!

Yeah, that article was trumped out by the GW-deniers, but if you actually think about it, TWO planets warming up and all the rest NOT warming up doesn't really say anything positive about a solar trend. :lol:

Fact is: earth is warming, no known mechanism BUT retention of heat via suddenly and massively increased greenhouse gasses can explain the warming, and we happen to have blasted a few billion tons of them into the air over the last 8,000 years or so, with a steep increase since ~1750.

Yep, sounds man-made to me!

and you know that how?

and you know that how?

what do I know how?

What do you expect here - do you want me to give you a course in climatology or what?

I know earth is warming up from the many different sources of data we have: direct measurements, fossil and subfossil pollen samples, tree rings, foraminifera and other plankton and nekton fossil data, etc.

I know it is not any other mechanism than heat retention, since the sun is not increasing radiation, and the amount of radiation reaching earth is coupled to Milankovic cycles. These are known, and do not explain the current warming, while they DO explain a bunch of past temperature ups and downs. Also, other suggested phenomena, such as solar flare cycles, that fall into the category of 'increased solar radiation' have shown to be not responsible - the solar flares specifically were supposed to correlate, but recent data shows that the correlation was
a) based on bad data
b) does not extend into the 1990 and on.

I know how greenhouse gases work - chemistry textbook.

I know that we pumped loads of them out - records on amount of coal, oil, gas from fossil sources burnt. Also, historical documents show a pretty good account of the amount of deforestation and spread of rice paddies (the latter being a main source of methane).

Ergo: we have a mechanism, we have the substance, we have no other explanation, as all other known mechanism which could be at fault can explain only ancient, but not the current trend.

OK, maybe it's the spaghetti monster doing it, but somehow I do not believe that.

all the rest NOT warming up

how do you know that?

all the rest NOT warming up

how do you know that?

your vocabulary seems rather limited! :lol:

I'll answer that question once you comment on the rest of my post. You are not a High Inquisitor, so please do not behave like one. :)

<LURKER NOTICE>

Sweeeeeeet! Found another Global Warming thread.

Don't worry, I'll keep my mouth shut and just read for the time being. :)

Well, lurker mode sure didn't last long. :)

Reflection doesn't fully capture what I'm asking though. So IR is released by the surface and it goes back towards the atmosphere. It runs into the atmosphere but the atmosphere can release the heat in any direction. Why back towards the earth instead of towards outer space? This shouldn't have anything to do with wavelength. Or is it because I'm not properly distinguishing between radiation, convection, and conduction?

edit: grammar error
You're mostly spot-on. Referring to the boldface part: heat does generally radiate evenly--via all three mechanisms. The thing that keeps the Earth warm is the fact that a fraction of the heat goes back down; some of the energy of the Earth stays on/in the Earth for a longer time. If the planet had no atmosphere, almost all of the Sun's energy would bounce right back out into space immediately.


Edit: Whoops. Got it wrong--on planets with no atmosphere, the daytime side is sizzling hot and the night side is an ice cube. The amosphere slows down heat transfer and helps spread the heat all over the planet evenly.

EDIT: NASA - A Gloomy Mars Warms Up (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html)

EDIT2: after reviewing the article more closely it appears the warming of Mars seems to be more due to changes in dust distribution and coloration then solar cycles, but I'll leave the link.

Yes, exactly -- the mechanisms for Mars' warming and Earth's warming are completely different. And nothing to do with the Sun.

your vocabulary seems rather limited! :lol:

I'll answer that question once you comment on the rest of my post. You are not a High Inquisitor, so please do not behave like one. :)

He is from croatia. His english may not be as good as yours, so please make some allowances for that.

my English is rather good (at least when I read) :sad:

anyway, or whatever, global warming as a consequence of human activities is just a theory with good marketing

1. Earths mechanisms are way to complex to draw any kind of definite conclusion(s)

2. about all the rest NOT warming up--> seriously, how can you know that (planets far from Sun aren't very afected by it's radiation, and effects on let's say Mercury (very close to the Sun, practicly no atmosphere) aren't something we can really measure/understand/interpret correctly

3. so let's assume you all are right, and global warming is consequence soley of human activities. No offense, but the things suggested for stoping it will just make things crappier (solar energy etc.)
as usually, the road to hell is paved with good intentions

my English is rather good (at least when I read) :sad:

anyway, or whatever, global warming as a consequence of human activities is just a theory with good marketing

1. Earths mechanisms are way to complex to draw any kind of definite conclusion(s)

2. about --> seriously, how can you know that (planets far from Sun aren't very afected by it's radiation, and effects on let's say Mercury (very close to the Sun, practicly no atmosphere) aren't something we can really measure/understand/interpret correctly

3. so let's assume you all are right, and global warming is consequence soley of human activities. No offense, but the things suggested for stoping it will just make things crappier (solar energy etc.)
as usually, the road to hell is paved with good intentions

1 and 2

How will action hurt us even if it wasn't caused by humans?

3

How?

anyway, or whatever, global warming as a consequence of human activities is just a theory with good marketing

It may be a theory, but it is one with large quantities of evidence backing it up, what do the scientists get out of it? Nothing.

1. Earths mechanisms are way to complex to draw any kind of definite conclusion(s)

So because we have found ways to predict earthquakes, understand quantom theory and have been to the bottom of the oceans, we don't understand something much simplerer (but still complex) as climate change.

2. about --> seriously, how can you know that (planets far from Sun aren't very afected by it's radiation, and effects on let's say Mercury (very close to the Sun, practicly no atmosphere) aren't something we can really measure/understand/interpret correctly

We can measure stuff from Mars and other planets, we also know how there Mechanics (what little they have) work.

3. so let's assume you all are right, and global warming is consequence soley of human activities. No offense, but the things suggested for stoping it will just make things crappier (solar energy etc.)
as usually, the road to hell is paved with good intentions

How does solar energy which uses a Renewable source, which does not increase CO2 or methane into the atmosphere.

It may be a theory, but it is one with large quantities of evidence backing it up, what do the scientists get out of it? Nothing.



So because we have found ways to predict earthquakes, understand quantom theory and have been to the bottom of the oceans, we don't understand something much simplerer (but still complex) as climate change.


We (OK, scientists, whatever) don't know more than we know.



We can measure stuff from Mars and other planets, we also know how there Mechanics (what little they have) work.



We eaven more don't know more than we know.



How does solar energy which uses a Renewable source, which does not increase CO2 or methane into the atmosphere.

Solar energy is a dissaster already happening. Ecological and economical. OK, in the short run large investments in solar energy can slow down rise in CO2 emission for few percentages, but
solar collectors and batteries they need are very toxic
solar energy simply isn't economical in ~95% of time, so to be applied it needs subventions from the government, so government will take that money from private sector and general population, and so the end result will be less investment (which also includes investment in more efficient technologies that spend less energy, design of products that spend less energy etc.)
:scan:

we ended up debating this here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=262571) as well on the BTS forum

a reasoning that i find logical is Henrik Svensmarks research on clouds which let him to discover that they was linked to cosmic rays, leading him onwards and found that Solar activity was the sinner due to cosmic rays (or something like that) ... short of long his research have 'proven' that the global warming is due to that the Sun is circleing around the center of the Milky way 'jumping' from arm to arm, and he have together with diffent people found out that his calculations fits going back as many years as its viewable (both from datas from the earth and data from space)

we ended up debating this here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=262571) as well on the BTS forum

a reasoning that i find logical is Henrik Svensmarks research on clouds which let him to discover that they was linked to cosmic rays, leading him onwards and found that Solar activity was the sinner due to cosmic rays (or something like that) ... short of long his research have 'proven' that the global warming is due to that the Sun is circleing around the center of the Milky way 'jumping' from arm to arm, and he have together with diffent people found out that his calculations fits going back as many years as its viewable (both from datas from the earth and data from space)


Svensmarks, who has actually a pretty bad rap for creating magic fits in a previous paper?

A great respone can be found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/#more-476

so: it's not so easy....


We (OK, scientists, whatever) don't know more than we know.

We eaven more don't know more than we know.

That's a pretty cryptic answer - do you mean to say that we can't measure the amount of IR radiation off e.g. Mercury, and the amount of radiation of the sun? Cause as long as we CAN, we can tell whether the planet heats up because of additional solar energy output.....

Solar energy is a dissaster already happening. Ecological and economical. OK, in the short run large investments in solar energy can slow down rise in CO2 emission for few percentages, but
solar collectors and batteries they need are very toxic
solar energy simply isn't economical in ~95% of time, so to be applied it needs subventions from the government, so government will take that money from private sector and general population, and so the end result will be less investment (which also includes investment in more efficient technologies that spend less energy, design of products that spend less energy etc.)
:scan:


I bolded three IMHO totally false statements of yours - please back them up!



basically, it seems that you are arguing that

a) CO2 and methane have no influence on the climate
b) we have a economy problem because of solar cells.

From where I sit I can't see either - could you please explain how a greenhouse gas in the athmosphere is supposed NOT to have a greenhouse effect? And how subsidies for solar energy, which have been significant to get the development going, but are now being reduced, have any more negative influence than any other subsidies? And how will specific subsidies result in LOWER investment in exactly that field? To me, your theory of how economy works seems highly flawed....... it is not like people will say 'Oh, $10 higher taxes because of subsidies for solar cells, so I will not make them or buy them' :lol:

How will action hurt us even if it wasn't caused by humans?
There are several different ways.

#1: Right about now, the Earth is due to enter its next Ice Age. And by Ice Age, I don't mean a "Little Ice Age" ala the 1800's. I mean a BIG Ice Age. Some scientists say that Big Ice Age should have already started. Action could reduce greenhouse levels too far and make the planet too cold.

#2: Plant rebound. Increased carbon dioxide levels cause plants to grow faster--up to a point. Exactly where that point is, doesn't really matter. Here's the theory: as CO2 goes up, plants grow faster. Then humans come to their senses and clean up their emissions. CO2 emssions stop growing--but the extra plants are still there. The result is very common in nature: a population increases, consumes its food supply, and starves. Plants keep consuming CO2, reducing it to near-zero levels--and setting off an Ice Age.

#3: Global dimming. In addition to warming, our particulate emissions are reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. In the 70's, Americans were in fact very concerned about cleaning up pollution. So they took action and cleaned it up. That is, they cleaned up their particulate emissions. This is a problem because back then, nobody was working to cleanup greenhouse gas emissions. The unintended result: particulate emissions go down, more sunlight reaches the Earth, and our cleanup efforts make global warming worse.


I had a really long list somewhere, but I couldn't find it, so I just posted a few ideas that came to mind at the moment. We can't simply cut emissions and cut emissions and cut emissions. In order to keep Earth at the temperature we want, we need carbon dioxide concentration to be at some specific level. Right now we think that level is too high, but according to Idea #1 above, it may not be. Also, we don't know how far we need to cut emissions to keep the planet just right.

Action can hurt us. We need to take the right action.

Right about now, the Earth is due to enter its next Ice Age. And by Ice Age, I don't mean a "Little Ice Age" ala the 1800's. I mean a BIG Ice Age. Some scientists say that Big Ice Age should have already started.

Do you have a source for this? (up-to-date source, not all that global freeze hysteria from the 70s or whenever)

and you know that how?

Because of what we've seen on Venus. IIRC most of the initial
research on the greenhouse effect was done on Venus.

There are several different ways.

#1: Right about now, the Earth is due to enter its next Ice Age. And by Ice Age, I don't mean a "Little Ice Age" ala the 1800's. I mean a BIG Ice Age. Some scientists say that Big Ice Age should have already started. Action could reduce greenhouse levels too far and make the planet too cold.

Yup, so let's heat earth up like crazy and roast, rather than freeze :lol:

#2: Plant rebound. Increased carbon dioxide levels cause plants to grow faster--up to a point. Exactly where that point is, doesn't really matter. Here's the theory: as CO2 goes up, plants grow faster. Then humans come to their senses and clean up their emissions. CO2 emssions stop growing--but the extra plants are still there. The result is very common in nature: a population increases, consumes its food supply, and starves. Plants keep consuming CO2, reducing it to near-zero levels--and setting off an Ice Age.

And where are those magical plants that grow like crazy? We have a plant biomass loss, and we have been having it for centuries! Where are those new forests, new algae, new meadows? I see deforestation, I see denudation, I see desertification, and I see a bloom of jellyfish, but I see no significant plant growth.

#3: Global dimming. In addition to warming, our particulate emissions are reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. In the 70's, Americans were in fact very concerned about cleaning up pollution. So they took action and cleaned it up. That is, they cleaned up their particulate emissions. This is a problem because back then, nobody was working to cleanup greenhouse gas emissions. The unintended result: particulate emissions go down, more sunlight reaches the Earth, and our cleanup efforts make global warming worse.


So you are arguing that we should use two forms of pollution, kind of like 'two wrongs make a right'?

Hell, instead of cleaning our act up we can simply explode a few hydrogen bombs and create a nuclear winter [/sarcasm]


I had a really long list somewhere, but I couldn't find it, so I just posted a few ideas that came to mind at the moment. We can't simply cut emissions and cut emissions and cut emissions. In order to keep Earth at the temperature we want, we need carbon dioxide concentration to be at some specific level. Right now we think that level is too high, but according to Idea #1 above, it may not be. Also, we don't know how far we need to cut emissions to keep the planet just right.

Action can hurt us. We need to take the right action.


:lol:

Indeed, now you pretend that we must restore earth to the exact correct climate AND correct for the underlying, natural changes as well? Buddy, climate changes - albeit much more slowly than we change it right now. No stopping the change - all we can hope to do is mitigating the extreme, unnatural change we induced.

Do you have a source for this? (up-to-date source, not all that global freeze hysteria from the 70s or whenever)

Oh, that freezing hysteria wasn't so hysteric - after all, if we had not cleaned the pollutants up, who knows - the ice age might have come! But we did clean up, so the scenario lost its basis.

As for the 'current ice age' - the Milankovic cycles should have induced one, with a downwards trend about 8000 years ago. I think that human action, mainly massive deforestation for agriculture, and later the massive spread of artificial swamps (know to you as rice paddies) countered that cooling trend by increasing greenhouse gases. There is a publication somewhere to be found that has a title like 'The anthropogenic greenhouse started 8,000 years ago' or so - I'll see if I can find it.

Svensmarks, who has actually a pretty bad rap for creating magic fits in a previous paper?

A great respone can be found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/#more-476

so: it's not so easy....



That's a pretty cryptic answer - do you mean to say that we can't measure the amount of IR radiation off e.g. Mercury, and the amount of radiation of the sun? Cause as long as we CAN, we can tell whether the planet heats up because of additional solar energy output.....




I bolded three IMHO totally false statements of yours - please back them up!



basically, it seems that you are arguing that

a) CO2 and methane have no influence on the climate
b) we have a economy problem because of solar cells.

From where I sit I can't see either - could you please explain how a greenhouse gas in the athmosphere is supposed NOT to have a greenhouse effect? And how subsidies for solar energy, which have been significant to get the development going, but are now being reduced, have any more negative influence than any other subsidies? And how will specific subsidies result in LOWER investment in exactly that field? To me, your theory of how economy works seems highly flawed....... it is not like people will say 'Oh, $10 higher taxes because of subsidies for solar cells, so I will not make them or buy them' :lol:

:crazyeye:

basically, I'm arguing that

a) we can't be sure that man is behind climate change, and we definitly can't be sure that climate change is caused *soley* or *in the greates part* by man
b) solar energy technology damages environment more than a lot of "dirty" technologies
c) subsidies for solar energy will increase investment in *solar energy*, but will have negative effects on investments generally, and naturally on investmenst in other technologies in energy industries --> that's a bad thing
d) solar energy can't solve anything, it's a dead end (ok, satelites will get better solar cells:rolleyes:)

There are several different ways.

#1: Right about now, the Earth is due to enter its next Ice Age. And by Ice Age, I don't mean a "Little Ice Age" ala the 1800's. I mean a BIG Ice Age. Some scientists say that Big Ice Age should have already started. Action could reduce greenhouse levels too far and make the planet too cold.

#2: Plant rebound. Increased carbon dioxide levels cause plants to grow faster--up to a point. Exactly where that point is, doesn't really matter. Here's the theory: as CO2 goes up, plants grow faster. Then humans come to their senses and clean up their emissions. CO2 emssions stop growing--but the extra plants are still there. The result is very common in nature: a population increases, consumes its food supply, and starves. Plants keep consuming CO2, reducing it to near-zero levels--and setting off an Ice Age.

#3: Global dimming. In addition to warming, our particulate emissions are reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. In the 70's, Americans were in fact very concerned about cleaning up pollution. So they took action and cleaned it up. That is, they cleaned up their particulate emissions. This is a problem because back then, nobody was working to cleanup greenhouse gas emissions. The unintended result: particulate emissions go down, more sunlight reaches the Earth, and our cleanup efforts make global warming worse.


I had a really long list somewhere, but I couldn't find it, so I just posted a few ideas that came to mind at the moment. We can't simply cut emissions and cut emissions and cut emissions. In order to keep Earth at the temperature we want, we need carbon dioxide concentration to be at some specific level. Right now we think that level is too high, but according to Idea #1 above, it may not be. Also, we don't know how far we need to cut emissions to keep the planet just right.

Action can hurt us. We need to take the right action.

1. The damage caused by an ice age will be a lot less than the worst-case scenario of GW as it will be slower. If we cut CO2 we sure can heat up the planet even if it cools too much, but if we don't we might just boil.

2. So we should breed less. Simple. Contraception to developing countries.

3. Another reason why we should get rid of greenhouse gases too. To be able to safely get rid of dimming particles which cause countless deaths.

GW is causing millions of innocent deaths, and I don't see any good sides in it.

:crazyeye:

basically, I'm arguing that

a) we can't be sure that man is behind climate change, and we definitly can't be sure that climate change is caused *soley* or *in the greates part* by man


That's a claim, not an argument. WHY can't we be sure, and WHAT ELSE is happening with all the CO2 and methane?
b) solar energy technology damages environment more than a lot of "dirty" technologies

Another claim, please bring proof!

c) subsidies for solar energy will increase investment in *solar energy*, but will have negative effects on investments generally, and naturally on investmenst in other technologies in energy industries --> that's a bad thing
If you above claim is wrong, then this one is wrong, too. So please show how solar energy is damaging to the environment.

d) solar energy can't solve anything, it's a dead end (ok, satelites will get better solar cells:rolleyes:)

That's not even a claim to back up.

I just seem to have this magical ability to drive people bonkers whenever I post in a global warming thread......it's uncanny. :)

Right about now, the Earth is due to enter its next Ice Age. And by Ice Age, I don't mean a "Little Ice Age" ala the 1800's. I mean a BIG Ice Age. Some scientists say that Big Ice Age should have already started.
Do you have a source for this? (up-to-date source, not all that global freeze hysteria from the 70s or whenever)
How about the Earth itself?

Temperature charts for the last half a million years show that the planet is actually in Ice Age conditions most of the time. The upward spikes that bring the planet to the conditions we see today are very regular--and also very brief. We're right on the tip of one such spike right now. We're due for Freezy Pop mode, man.

Then there's the science people with the thick glasses and two dozen pens in their shirt pockets. Several of them say the planet should already have entered its next Ice Age, and I agree with their assessment because it squares with the fact that the Earth's temperature graph is poised way up high and getting ready to take a nose dive (into the aforementioned Freezy Pop mode).

To their credit, all of these people say they don't actually know for sure when the planet is supposed to go Freezy Pops. And this is the core of the problem. What effect are we actually having on the planet? Are we going to cook the planet? What if we already did? Our own emissions may indeed have already produced a disastrous ten degrees' worth of warming--while at the same time the planet's natural Ice Age cycle cooled it down by ten degrees.


The damage caused by an ice age will be a lot less than the worst-case scenario of GW as it will be slower.
From to what I've read about how things were during the planet's last Ice Age, I observe the following two effects:

#1: This one is prime real estate in Obviousville--a smaller percentage of the planet's land will be inhabitable.

#2: Of the land that is habitable, a smaller percentage will be arable (i.e. farmable).

An Ice Age will drastically reduce our available space (on a planet that's already crowded to begin with) and also drastically reduce the planet's food-producing capacity. Believe me, these two results will be far, far worse than anything we're going to see from global warming.

How about the Earth itself?

You know what I meant. I don't care about debating the point, I was just interested in reading the material if you have any reasonable sources to support the assertion.

Yup, so let's heat earth up like crazy and roast, rather than freeze :lol:
Why is it always "either we have an Ice Age or we microwave the planet"???

How about a third possibility: we balance the planet just right so it neither freezes nor overheats?

BLAM

Uhhh.......just a moment, I think that was the sound of somebody's brain exploding in the next room. I better go check.


Edit: .......someone call a doctor........fast............

An Ice Age will drastically reduce our available space (on a planet that's already crowded to begin with) and also drastically reduce the planet's food-producing capacity.

Yes and no. :)

During the last glaciation sea level was roughly 200m lower than we find it today - that cave painting in France that a scuba diver found? It was way up the side of a hill overlooking a vast plain when it was created.

But you can't rush soil formation, and any new land revealed by a lowering sea level won't be arable for a couple thousand years (unless we figure out a way to speed that up!)

Why is it always "either we have an Ice Age or we microwave the planet"???

How about a third possibility: we balance the planet just right so it neither freezes nor overheats?

BLAM

Uhhh.......just a moment, I think that was the sound of somebody's brain exploding in the next room. I better go check.


Edit: .......someone call a doctor........fast............

Indeed. We need to find a balance, getting 100% solar in the next 50 years is not the best option, but now that the pattern has been disrupted we do not know what will happen. We should reduce significantly our CO2 output so that the earths CO2 levels do not continue to rise rapidally. But neither do we want to go into a ice age.

During the last glaciation sea level was roughly 200m lower than we find it today
I need to make a minor correction.

During the last Ice Age, the amount of habitable land in acres (i.e. the absolute value, not the percentage) was lower than it is today. My mistake was in using a percentage here.

Yes, there was more land, due to the lower sea level. But there was still less habitable land. And a lower percentage of that habitable land was farmable--the word "percentage" is not a problem here.

Why is it always "either we have an Ice Age or we microwave the planet"???

How about a third possibility: we balance the planet just right so it neither freezes nor overheats?

BLAM

Uhhh.......just a moment, I think that was the sound of somebody's brain exploding in the next room. I better go check.


Edit: .......someone call a doctor........fast............

hm, as funny as your posts read there is a huge problem with your suggestion: I distinctly remember you claiming that 'we don't know enough' - about the effects of CO2, about the reaction of biomass, etc. So how are we supposed to be able to balance anything so perfectly? :confused:

btw,

Then there's the science people with the thick glasses and two dozen pens in their shirt pockets. Several of them say the planet should already have entered its next Ice Age, and I agree with their assessment because it squares with the fact that the Earth's temperature graph is poised way up high and getting ready to take a nose dive (into the aforementioned Freezy Pop mode).

linky? pleaaaase!

So much for a scientific debate, huh? All the usual nutjobs are here.

Basketcase: you totally wrecked your credibility in the last thread, when after several pages of dismissing evidence and coherent argument out of hand you suddenly did a u-turn because you'd picked up a new pet theory with no more substantiation than anything else you come up with.

hm, as funny as your posts read there is a huge problem with your suggestion: I distinctly remember you claiming that 'we don't know enough' - about the effects of CO2, about the reaction of biomass, etc. So how are we supposed to be able to balance anything so perfectly? :confused:
You know what? I have no freaking idea. It's true--we don't know enough about climate change to control it properly.

But control over climate is what everybody wants. All these people in these threads who are screaming "we're destroying the planet, WE MUST ACT NOW!!!"? Climate change is exactly what they're so terrified of. That changes in climate will destroy wildlife, displace native peoples, drown cities, etc etc etc.

If we cannot abide a planet that's too hot, and if we cannot abide a planet that's too cold, and if we cannot abide a planet that changes too radically between the two, then the only thing left that will shut everybody up and get them to put the picket signs away is to control the environment so it's just right.


If we don't know how to do it? Then we need to learn how. And, frankly, I'm all for that. While I do not think global warming can be accepted as fact, I'm all for putting money and resources into learning more about climate change. Because this planet we're standing on is eventually going to throw us another climate curveball sometime soon, even if global warming doesn't turn out to be it.


Then there's the science people with the thick glasses and two dozen pens in their shirt pockets. Several of them say the planet should already have entered its next Ice Age, and I agree with their assessment because it squares with the fact that the Earth's temperature graph is poised way up high and getting ready to take a nose dive (into the aforementioned Freezy Pop mode).
linky? pleaaaase!
Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8014.html)
A little difficult, because I got the idea from an actual hardcover book. You don't see those very much any more. :)

Wiki has a brief description:
William Ruddiman's Scary Idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdue-glaciation)

Basketcase: you totally wrecked your credibility in the last thread, when after several pages of dismissing evidence and coherent argument out of hand
No. You destroyed your credibility. You (and several others) were the ones dismissing evidence and coherent arguments out of hand.

you suddenly did a u-turn because you'd picked up a new pet theory with no more substantiation than anything else you come up with.
No, I didn't pick up a new theory--I dismissed one of my own old theories. The irony there was just so delicious. You and Ziggy and others were trying to destroy that magnetic-field theory, and failing constantly, and then the only guy who found any actual evidence to disprove it.....turned out to be me. I found evidence that disproved my own theory.

Proving that I've got a stronger grasp on science than most people.

Also, I should probably remind you that I only dismissed ONE of my own theories--I had fourteen others which neither you nor anybody else ever addressed.

The standard debate tactic at that point would be to say you didn't address them because you knew you couldn't disprove them, but actually it's likely eveybody got distracted by something else. I certainly did--I finally aced Raining Blood on hard difficulty (that first mosh session is brutal).

hm, Ruddiman seems to have a split personality then :lol:

btw: I agree that we should have an ice age now, and I agree with Ruddiman that it was man himself who altered the climate - and I agree with him that currently we are heating the planet up in an unprecedented manner, which is a totally different league compared to 8,000 BC to 1700AD.

Its all a case of scale, those Ice Ages were ~15,000 years appart arn't they?

Bit hard to say if we should have one NOW or in another 500 years!

Haven't you heard? We're 10,000 years into an Ice Age right now!

Well humans havn't even been industrialised long enough to effect it then!

Well humans havn't even been industrialised long enough to effect it then!

but there's other factors: deforestation, artificial swamps (rice paddies!), etc. and THAT started 8,000 years ago.

'Scientific Global Warming'? Uh, okay?

Coldest Year on Record (http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm)

'Scientific Global Warming'? Uh, okay?

Coldest Year on Record (http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm)


So?

second warmest winter on record where I live.

Doh!

So?

second warmest winter on record where I live.

Doh!
And if the same data had showed that the planet had warmed over the last year, would you be equally as dismissive?

And if the same data had showed that the planet had warmed over the last year, would you be equally as dismissive?

Indeed - as you well know by now, it is the general trend that matters, not short term and/or localized data.

Now, the nine out of the ten hottest summers of the 20th century happened in between 1990 and 2000 - THAT is more than a tiny blip. And between 2000 and now, three more made the top ten, and two more would have made it into the top then if it had not been for the three just mentioned.
That I call a trend, and if that trend is global, and if that trend builds on an old warming trend since the 50s - then I am worried. Which it does.

Indeed - as you well know by now, it is the general trend that matters, not short term and/or localized data.

Now, the nine out of the ten hottest summers of the 20th century happened in between 1990 and 2000 - THAT is more than a tiny blip. And between 2000 and now, three more made the top ten, and two more would have made it into the top then if it had not been for the three just mentioned.
That I call a trend, and if that trend is global, and if that trend builds on an old warming trend since the 50s - then I am worried. Which it does.

Except your numbers are wrong. NASA data, which was the source for that claim, was flawed. It was found and quietly rectified (and even before that, it wasn't 9 of the top 10).

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/216695/Global_Warming_Debate_Reignited_After_NASA_Quietly _Corrects_Temperature_Data
Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.

Except your numbers are wrong.
Except I was talking about the summers in my home town, which do not correlate perfectly with the global data.

Shows again how careful we must be comparing data.

Indeed - as you well know by now, it is the general trend that matters, not short term and/or localized data.

Now, the nine out of the ten hottest summers of the 20th century happened in between 1990 and 2000 - THAT is more than a tiny blip. And between 2000 and now, three more made the top ten, and two more would have made it into the top then if it had not been for the three just mentioned.
That I call a trend, and if that trend is global, and if that trend builds on an old warming trend since the 50s - then I am worried. Which it does.

Except I was talking about the summers in my home town, which do not correlate perfectly with the global data.

Looks like you were actually referring to global figures to me.

That report makes note of the fact that the error only applies to US data, and has no discernable effec on the Global averages. Which are of course going up.

Looks like you were actually referring to global figures to me.

actually, no - but I see how I should have been more clear.

anyways, I know global warming deniers will not even accept if God should shout in their ears that man warms the climate, so there's actually no need to debate.

anyways, I know global warming deniers will not even accept if God should shout in their ears that man warms the climate, so there's actually no need to debate.
And by your reasoning, do you think proponents would be any different?

When one side of the debate screams loaded terms like "deniers", do you think that's conducive to a debate?

No more conducive than the other side not being able to see a straightforward trend on a temperature graph.

anyways, I know global warming deniers will not even accept if God should shout in their ears that man warms the climate, so there's actually no need to debate.

If God is all powerful, well, he should just like, stick the Earth in the fridge for a year or two, you know?

A temperature graph does not equate to absolute temperature. So far, no graphs have been displayed that show a linked correlation over a set period of time that shows global temperatures rising from the pro-global warming side of the field, brennan.

Also, how do you explain the trends of the graphs I posted, hm?

I'd say the trend is clearly upwards. Obviously you are only looking at the very end where it has gone down briefly, as it has before: e.g. between about 25 and 60 months and between around 120 and 155 months. If you must insist on using these peak to trough examples as the 'trend' I suggest a course in elementary maths, they cover basic stuff like interpreting graphs there, quite a lot of deniers seem to be incapable of this simple task.

As that site itself admits, evidence for cooling is anecdotal, and largely based on the cool spots over central Asia and North America. Everywhere else is still warmer than usual or did you not notice that the current figure overall is still above average?

And i'll note that they mention the increase in Antarctic sea ice without bothering to mention that overall the Antarctic ice mass is decreasing.

Its funny when people who aren't scientists insist on global warming when even the alarmists have backed away from calling it warming. Those same people will call any cooling anecdotal. Despite it being colder in large areas across the northern hemisphere. Call them "spots" all you want but when those "spots" are 1000s of miles wide those are big "spots". Then they talk about averages over time. What is the scope of those averages? How far back do they go to make their point? There was a time a few hundred years ago when it was warmer then it is to day. Do they go that far back? No they don't. To do that would alter the average to some much closer to the temp. today. And when they are done doing that they will attack studies that say its not man made in every way possible except for the actual study and its scientific conclusions.

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf

Some scientists don't agree with all the alarmists. They raise questions. Questions the alarmists don't want asked. Those questions put all that alarmist bunk to task. That's why "global warming" is now " global climate change".

Its hard to have a scientific debate if the alarmists call all who dare to disagree the fringe and loons and paid off by big companies.

Wow. You've posted the same unscientific bollocks here that you posted on OT.

Er, the weather does tend to occur across fairly large areas Skad. When's the last time you heard about a cold front over a village and a warm front across the valley? You don't do you? Your argument is worthless isn't it?

I love the way we are 'alarmists'. You'll be having a go at me for ad-homs in a bit, completely oblivious to your hypocrisy.

Wow. You've posted the same unscientific bollocks here that you posted on OT.

Er, the weather does tend to occur across fairly large areas Skad. When's the last time you heard about a cold front over a village and a warm front across the valley? You don't do you? Your argument is worthless isn't it?

I love the way we are 'alarmists'. You'll be having a go at me for ad-homs in a bit, completely oblivious to your hypocrisy.

So what exactly is unscientific about scientists doing a study and releasing its findings?

Wait so pointing the extremely large "spots" is wrong?Yup large areas of the globe being colder is irrelevant. Nope those numbers don't matter only the warm ones do. Curse me for putting things in perspective. I must be worthless along with my arguments because I'm not in the global warming...or is it global climate change camp. Doesn't matter does it. As long as I'm not in the alarmist camp I'm just a hack as are all the others who don't agree even the scientists who happen to be experts.
I love how you people work. Any data or conclusions that fit your agenda are worthless, hackery, bollocks and everything else you can use to minimize and rebuke with out actually doing the scientific thing and adding in with all the other data and conclusions.

So your scientific approach has been to belittle me and those who don't follow your line.:lol:

Did you know the oceans have been cooling over the last few years? Is that anecdotal too? I guess NOAA and NASA are hacks and worthless too for daring to take actual measurements that show cooling.:lol:

So cooling oceans and record cold winters across very large swaths of land is nothing of importance. Yeah we'll just forget all that data.:rolleyes:

So what exactly is unscientific about scientists doing a study and releasing its findings?1) There isn't any science in it.
2) The 'study' is entirely partisan. As is totally clear if you read it. it's about as scientific as a polemic on immigration by Al da Great.
Wait so pointing the extremely large "spots" is wrong?Yup large areas of the globe being colder is irrelevant. Nope those numbers don't matter only the warm ones do. Curse me for putting things in perspective. I must be worthless along with my arguments because I'm not in the global warming...or is it global climate change camp. Doesn't matter does it. As long as I'm not in the alarmist camp I'm just a hack as are all the others who don't agree even the scientists who happen to be experts.Is the global average still above average? Yes. Are you being selective with your data? Yes. Is your analysis and resultant conclusion scientifically sound? No.
I love how you people work. Any data or conclusions that fit your agenda are worthless, hackery, bollocks and everything else you can use to minimize and rebuke with out actually doing the scientific thing and adding in with all the other data and conclusions. .Wrong. your data are little better than anecdotes as they do not reflect the overall picture (global average temperatures are still above average even if you ignore the fact that you are concentrating on recent data rather than the long term trend) and your conclusions are therefore unsound. That is what makes your comments worthless, unscientific bollocks.
Did you know the oceans have been cooling over the last few years? Is that anecdotal too? I guess NOAA and NASA are hacks and worthless too for daring to take actual measurements that show cooling.:lol:No it's called La Nina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Ni%C3%B1a), a well known and understood phenomenon that is part of climate modelling, whose contributions to the overall picture has therefore already been considered by the people who say there is warming going on. Sorry, did you have a point?
So cooling oceans and record cold winters across very large swaths of land is nothing of importance. Yeah we'll just forget all that data.:rolleyes:We know why the oceans are cooling somewhat right now and we know that global average temperatures are still above the recent norm. It is also plain that you wish to use a recent dramatic looking change as the 'trend' rather than the actual trend as anyone who can read a graph would understand it. Your conclusions are therefore, i'm sorry to say: Unscientific bollocks.

skadistic, brennan:

Stop with the personal attacks and loaded language. Debate the points, without insulting each other.

I find it incredible that no one is pointing out the questionable nature of the Heartland Institute's studies. The term "science" seems to be spelled more like "agenda" with these folks :lol:

Heartland Institute is, in the truest sense of the term, a extraordinary group. It is funded almost entirely by free-market and libertarian concerns, not to mention some huge corporations with an keen interest in the climate debate .

For years now, they have been peddling carefully crafted 'studies' that support a pro-business, pro-properties-rights response to populist and scientific evaluations of environmental issues.

I'd love to know if any studies they financed were ever published in a peer-reviewed journal :rolleyes:

I did that already in OT Peter. :)

No 'study' such as Skadistic linked is going to be published anywhere that peer reviews as it is almost entirely politics and rhetoric. Actual scientific content = 0.

Just in today:

'No Sun link' to climate change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm)


Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.
The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.
The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.
But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years. Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.

And just for Basketcase:

The Svensmark hypothesis is that when the solar wind is weak, more cosmic rays penetrate to Earth.
That creates more charged particles in the atmosphere, which in turn induces more clouds to form, cooling the climate.

The planet warms up when the Sun's output is strong.

Professor Sloan's team investigated the link by looking for periods in time and for places on the Earth which had documented weak or strong cosmic ray arrivals, and seeing if that affected the cloudiness observed in those locations or at those times.

"For example; sometimes the Sun 'burps' - it throws out a huge burst of charged particles," he explained to BBC News.

"So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing."

Over the course of one of the Sun's natural 11-year cycles, there was a weak correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover - but cosmic ray variability could at the very most explain only a quarter of the changes in cloudiness.

And for the following cycle, no correlation was found.

I have a question:

One of the main concerns about global warming is the concern of a positive feedback loop. It is hypothesized that an increase in CO2 (a greenhouse gas) will lead to an increase in temperatures, which lead to more evaporation (or more correctly, more water vapour in the atmosphere). With water vapour also being considered a greenhouse gas, then this in turn leads to more warming, and more water vapour and more warming... etc.

Now - nature tends to abhor positive feedback loops (how many do you see?), which is one (anecdotal) reason that I am sceptical of alarmist claims.

The question I have is why we haven't seen the results of these feedback loops previously? The world has had higher CO2 concentrations before - if it did cause a positive feedback loop, then what was the negative influence that prevented the climate warming uncontrollably? What broke the cycle? And why is the requisite negative feedback loop not in play now?

Background: I have read a few claims of the NASA aqua satellite providing data that shows that increased water vapour is actually the cause of a negative feedback loop, which is at odds with most climate models that assume a positive feedback loop. I am therefore asking the question, not strictly on a climate science basis, but more on a intuition / mathematical modelling basis - systems I have modelled are either self-limiting (negative feedback dominated), or completely unstable (positive feedback dominated). Given a few billions of years, the climate doesn't really seem that unstable to me....

In the past (I'm talking about deep geologic time, here) increased concentrations of CO2 and water vapor have resulted in a response from the biosphere to this change of environment. The expected positive feedback loop was short circuited by biological activity.

Today, with humans effectively engineering vast swaths of the biosphere for our own interests, the biosphere is not allowed the freedom of action that prevented prior positive feedback loops from going over the tipping point.

[/speculation]

(thanks for bringing this thread back to more of a conversation than a shouting match :goodjob:)

Ainwood: I don't think anyone's seriously predicting that Earth will be like Venus in a few decades. What we are worried about is forcing the climate into a new equilibrium at a higher average temperature - a temperature rise of just a few degrees over a short space of time will do enormous environmental damage, not to mention the economic damage. I for one do not want the tsetse fly to spread. I do not want to see the havoc caused by rising sea levels should the main Antarctic Ice Mass be threatened, I do not want the gulf stream to shut down and put Western Europe in the deep freeze. I don't want to see the Sahara spread, I don't want to see a new Sahara where the Amazon rain forest used to be.

None of that requires a runaway positive feedback loop. The suggested positive feedback mechanisms merely suggest that the new equilibrium will be at slightly higher temperatures.

Ainwood: I don't think anyone's seriously predicting that Earth will be like Venus in a few decades. What we are worried about is forcing the climate into a new equilibrium at a higher average temperature - a temperature rise of just a few degrees over a short space of time will do enormous environmental damage, not to mention the economic damage.
Well, the 'solutions' are already starting to do economic damage.

I for one do not want the tsetse fly to spread. I do not want to see the havoc caused by rising sea levels should the main Antarctic Ice Mass be threatened, I do not want the gulf stream to shut down and put Western Europe in the deep freeze. I don't want to see the Sahara spread, I don't want to see a new Sahara where the Amazon rain forest used to be.

Antarctica is getting colder. Malaria was present in europe, but was eradicated. The biofuels hysteria is causign more deforestation of the amazon.


None of that requires a runaway positive feedback loop. The suggested positive feedback mechanisms merely suggest that the new equilibrium will be at slightly higher temperatures.
Well, a positive feedback loop will not suggest a slightly higher average temperature - by definition, it suggests an unstable system where temperatures will go ouot of control.

The issue is that many people are claiming that there is a positive feedback loop. If this were the case, then it won't result in a 'slightly higher average temperature', unless a negative feedback loop kicks-in to mitigate its effect. Unfortunately it appears that anyone suggesting a negative feedback loop is labelled a 'denier', and science is all the worse for it.

Well, the 'solutions' are already starting to do economic damage.

Everything we do does economic damage from someone's perspective. Sheepherding in Ireland prevents a healthy forestry industry, Salmon fisheries in Spain reduce the tourism potential, etc. These are completely fabricated examples I use only to illustrate my point - not facts intended to prove it.

Antarctica is getting colder. Malaria was present in europe, but was eradicated. The biofuels hysteria is causign more deforestation of the amazon.

I don't know if Antarctica as a whole is getting colder or not, but I'm not sure that really matters so much. Sea level rise, which could result in a mass migration out of Bangladesh and other heavily populated river deltas, will happen whether or not the regional temp in Antarctica falls or not. It's really more about the existing icesheets collapsing and 'uncorking' the glaciers. Since the icesheets are already floating, sea level won't rise. But once those glaciers are able to slide into the sea, sea level rise will be a fact. The icesheets' stability has more to do with the underlying sea temp and precipitation than the air temperature. So even if regional temps are lowering, the icesheets could still be threatened. Take that all with a grain of salt, though - I'm not really sure if it's correct; just the line of reasoning. :)

Malaria, and other tropical diseases, will naturally move as the ecosystems slowly adjust to local and regional (and global) climate change. Areas that haven't seen endemic diseases will start to. There will be other areas where endemic diseases dissipate as well.

I completely agree that Biofuels should be a four-letter word - unless you restrict the raw materials to waste-stream sources. Hysteria is precisely the right word to describe the situation, sadly.

I don't know if Antarctica as a whole is getting colder or not, but I'm not sure that really matters so much. Sea level rise, which could result in a mass migration out of Bangladesh and other heavily populated river deltas, will happen whether or not the regional temp in Antarctica falls or not.
Like the refugees flocking to New Zealand that Al Gore made up was mistaken about?

How much will the sea level really rise? If its feet, then that would be a problem. If its a few millimetres?


It's really more about the existing icesheets collapsing and 'uncorking' the glaciers. Since the icesheets are already floating, sea level won't rise. But once those glaciers are able to slide into the sea, sea level rise will be a fact. The icesheets' stability has more to do with the underlying sea temp and precipitation than the air temperature. So even if regional temps are lowering, the icesheets could still be threatened.
Antartica is mostly continental ice, hence the regional temperatures ARE the important variable.

Malaria, and other tropical diseases, will naturally move as the ecosystems slowly adjust to local and regional (and global) climate change. Areas that haven't seen endemic diseases will start to. There will be other areas where endemic diseases dissipate as well.Well, they might - its not certain. In fact, Al Gore's claims re malaria have been pretty-much proven incorrect.

My concern is that the alarmism that we are seeing now has a disturbing amount in common with the alarmism that we saw with DDT use: on the surface, banning stuff is done with good intentions. But ultimately, the ban can do more harm than good.

Hysteria is precisely the right word to describe the situation, sadly.Yep. Which is a sure sign that its no longer a scientific issue, but a political one.

And here is another political problem:
A research review published March 23 in Nature Geoscience online shows that black carbon particles in the atmosphere have a more powerful global-warming effect than any of the greenhouse gases except carbon dioxide. And these particles are 60 percent as effective as CO2 itself. That’s far more powerful than the estimate in last year’s report of the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

So: Soot emissions have a big impact on global warming (I guess soot settling on ice would also promote melting).

It would therefore make a lot of sense to get the likes of the Chinese to invest in 'clean coal' to mitigate soot. But from a political perspective, would getting the Chinese to clean-up their soot emissions from coal plants be akin to tacit endorsement of coal? A message that "if you clean up the soot emissions, the coal burning is probably OK?"

It would certainly be a decent compromise, but no one really wants compromise at the moment.


Edit: There does seem to be a flawed statement in that article:
black carbon particles in the atmosphere have a more powerful global-warming effect than any of the greenhouse gases except carbon dioxide - this implies that CO2 is the worst greenhouse gas - it isn't.

I'm not sure that nobody is interested in compromise. After all, both extremes of the policy are untenable. Compromise and pragmatism are the only realistic options.

Coal will continue to be mined and burned. Since that's the case, we should make sure to do it as 'cleanly' as possible.

Antarctica is getting colder. I'm getting distinctly bored of seeing people post these half truths:
An analysis of NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA) satellite data from 1979-1999 has shown that areas of Antarctica where ice is increasing outnumbers areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-0). This was significant because there is a large amount of ice in the area and climate models predicting global warming also predict that some of the most severe events from warming should occur in Antarctica. The general trend shows that a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would transport more moisture to Antarctica causing the interior ice sheets to grow, while calving events along the coast will increase, causing these areas to shrink[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-BASurvey). More recent satellite data suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-1).
The model as it stands runs roughly as follows:
1) Increased warmth means increased precipitation
2) Increased precipitation means that more ice will form in many areas of Antarctica. (that's your half truth)
3) BUT: Increased warmth means that the glaciation/calving process speeds up at the edges.

IOW both the gains and losses to the Antarctic Ice Mass increase. What's the net result? Currently the Ice Mass is thought to be decreasing.

On your positive feedback loops: yes positive feedback automatically leads to runaway in principle, but in practice there are too many other factors limiting this.

I'm getting distinctly bored of seeing people post these half truths:
Are you? Then don't post half-truths yourself.


An analysis of NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA) satellite data from 1979-1999 has shown that areas of Antarctica where ice is increasing outnumbers areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-0). This was significant because there is a large amount of ice in the area and climate models predicting global warming also predict that some of the most severe events from warming should occur in Antarctica. The general trend shows that a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would transport more moisture to Antarctica causing the interior ice sheets to grow, while calving events along the coast will increase, causing these areas to shrink[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-BASurvey). More recent satellite data suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-1).

The model as it stands runs roughly as follows:
1) Increased warmth means increased precipitation
2) Increased precipitation means that more ice will form in many areas of Antarctica. (that's your half truth)
3) BUT: Increased warmth means that the glaciation/calving process speeds up at the edges.

IOW both the gains and losses to the Antarctic Ice Mass increase. What's the net result? Currently the Ice Mass is thought to be decreasing.

'Thought' to be decreasing. Not exactly hard evidence to refute anything, is it?

I refer to temperature, you refer to ice coverage to refute it: Strawman.
You refer to a prediction of a climate model, and then use a further prediction of that climate model to support your contention: Strawman.

The climate model is a prediction. If I understand your assertion correctly, you are saying that precipitation in the center of the continent results in increasing icemass, but because its getting warmer, that ice melts, and results in decreasing icemass as it runs-off at the coast.

Problem is, the interior of the continent is not warming, as the model predicts. its getting colder. The only area on the continent that is warming is the antarctic peninsula.
http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/2-CSPP-antarcticatemp.pdf
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~broeke/home_files/MB_pubs_pdf/2004_vdB_AnnGlac.pdf



On your positive feedback loops: yes positive feedback automatically leads to runaway in principle, but in practice there are too many other factors limiting this.
Yes, there are, aren't there. Yet it doesn't seem to bother the alarmists to just post the "half truth" of a positive feedback loop resulting in catastrophe.

All I have to say is the world is changing every second.

Check out the link in my signature it has some stuff on the enviroment.

I refer to temperature, you refer to ice coverage to refute it: Strawman.No, You post a half truth about a scientific process you clearly do not understand and act like it implies a lack of scientific understanding of the issue.

I respond with a full description of all the processes involved, clearly indicating that climatologists have a far fuller grasp of the situation than you and are better aware of the issues involved, up to and including the 'problem' with the theory you suggested. And climatologists overwhelmingly are concerned about Global Warming.

Temperatures are dropping somewhat at the moment because we are in a La Nina oscillation of oceanic waters. It is noticeable that climate change deniers are taking the last years measurements as some kind of refutation of climate change when the mechanism explaining the current situation is known and understood. The deniers are being unscientific (giving preferential status to data points that appear to support their position) and dishonest (using a counter-intuitive but known and understood phenomenon to claim that the science is not understood).

Climate change deniers are denying climate change when when pointing out the climate changes to colder. So how does that work exactly? If some one points out that the climate is changing back to colder how is that denying climate change? Wouldn't a climate change denier be the one who says the climate isn't changing? Isn't dishonest to call one who says the climate is changing a climate change denier.

No, You post a half truth about a scientific process you clearly do not understand and act like it implies a lack of scientific understanding of the issue.

Half truth? I posted a fact. It was you who drew the inference and claimed that it didn't mean what you perceived that I was implying by it.

And how do you know that I "clearly don't understand"? Please don't confuse "don't agree with" with "don't understand". I fully understand what the model assumptions are, I just don't think that the data supports the model. The model predicts warming in the continent, which isn't present in actual measurements. And if the data doesn't support the model, then perhaps, just perhaps the scientific understanding is lacking.

Put it this way: If the science was completely understood, would anyone still have to research it?


I respond with a full description of all the processes involved, clearly indicating that climatologists have a far fuller grasp of the situation than you and are better aware of the issues involved, up to and including the 'problem' with the theory you suggested. And climatologists overwhelmingly are concerned about Global Warming.

Yes, climatologists do have a far fuller grasp of the situation than me, but they also have a far fuller grasp than you, so don't be hypocritical about it.
I did not suggest a theory, so I'm not sure what 'problem' with the theory that you feel you have addressed.


Temperatures are dropping somewhat at the moment because we are in a La Nina oscillation of oceanic waters. It is noticeable that climate change deniers are taking the last years measurements as some kind of refutation of climate change when the mechanism explaining the current situation is known and understood. The deniers are being unscientific (giving preferential status to data points that appear to support their position) and dishonest (using a counter-intuitive but known and understood phenomenon to claim that the science is not understood).
Yes, la nina provides some cooling. How much of the 'hottest decade ever' rhetoric acknowledged that El Nino had an impact?

And besides, this is of little relevance to the point I made re the interior of the antarctic continent.

Half truth? I posted a fact. It was you who drew the inference and claimed that it didn't mean what you perceived that I was implying by it.Is it a fact? Is it a fact attributable to La nina? Is it attributable to increased winds in the region? Is it not also a fact that the peripheral ice shelves are disappearing fast? It was you that posted one single fact as though it refuted the entire consensus on Global Warming. How about you tell us what significance you think it has.

To the extent that any controversy exists it is confined to the popular press and blogs. There is no similar controversy within the scientific community, as the small observed changes in Antarctica are consistent with the small changes predicted by climate models. Various global warming skeptics, most notably novelist Michael Crichton[4], have asserted that the Antarctic data contradict global warming. The few scientists who have commented on the supposed controversy state that there is no contradiction,[5] while the author of the paper whose work inspire Crichton's remarks has said that Crichton "misused" his results.[6]
Antarctica cooling controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_cooling_controversy)


Yes, la nina provides some cooling. How much of the 'hottest decade ever' rhetoric acknowledged that El Nino had an impact?El nino is an oscillation that lasts a lot less than 10 years. You cannot seriously use it to explain a decade of temperatures. In fact there have been 4 El'nino's in that period. Conversely we are currently experiencing the third La nina in that time.

Is it not also a fact that the peripheral ice shelves are disappearing fast?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Those are very pretty graphs. Tell us what you think they mean.

The second one clearly shows that every year the sea ice shelf expands and contracts to roughly the same size every year for the last 30 years. The graph makes it look like the sea ice is going through its yearly seasonal ebb and flow with little impact on it from " global warming". Looks like 2 years ago was worse then this year and the smallest its been in that graph was in 1993. The first one is simply an zoom of this last season. And that up swing at the end shows that its not disappearing fast but actually getting bigger. Something I assume typically happens when the summer is over in the SH. Just like it has year after year after year. Up and down, Summer and winter. More ice and less ice. Cyclical.

Well I would say that if you analyse the trend in temperatures there's a slight warming, most pronounced over the Antarctic Penninsula, which is totally in line with the predictions of current modelling. Which is why the amount of Sea Ice (glaciers etc) is increasing slightly.

Well, as those links I provided before show, the temperature is NOT 'slightly warming', except over the peninsula; over the rest ot the continent, it is getting colder.

You were initially telling us that the models predict sea ice to decrease, now you're saying that actually no, global warming causes sea ice to increase. Well, which is it?

And sea ice != glaciers.

And this is a problem why? It is, is it not, completely in line with what models predict? Models that predict a drastic warming over the whole continent in the next century?

When did I say sea ice was decreasing?

When did I say sea ice was decreasing?

I really don't remember.

maybe I was mistaken? :mischief:







Is it not also a fact that the peripheral ice shelves are disappearing fast?

I do not want to see the havoc caused by rising sea levels should the main Antarctic Ice Mass be threatened

satellite data from 1979-1999 has shown that areas of Antarctica where ice is increasing outnumbers areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1.
More recent satellite data suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years
IOW both the gains and losses to the Antarctic Ice Mass increase. What's the net result? Currently the Ice Mass is thought to be decreasing.

Ainwood, if you don't have anything to say why are you here? You post graphs and quotes with no commentary. One might think your position is weak...

Does this help?

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11648

It is clear that the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out from the mainland of Antarctica towards South America, has warmed significantly. The continent’s interior was thought to have warmed too, but in 2002 a new analysis of records from 1966 to 2000 concluded that it has cooled overall.

This study was promptly seized upon as proof that the world is not warming, but a single example of localised cooling proves no such thing, as the lead author of the 2002 study has tried to point out.

Climate models do not predict an evenly spread warming of the whole planet: changes in wind patterns and ocean currents can change the distribution of heat, leading to some parts warming much faster than average, while others cool at first. What matters is the overall picture, and global temperature maps show far more areas are warming than cooling.

What I find funny about all of the GW threads I saw until now is that everyone talks about CO2, rarely someone talks about methane ( cows and paddies.... ) , and no one talks about water vapour, that is by far the biggest contribuitor to the GW. Another factor that is dismissed as well is the ammount of energy that goes to space, that is drastically dependant of the cloud cover % and from the type of clouds ( some are virtually IR transparent and some are coal black in therms of IR ). Not to mention the high altitude dust effects ( you know, coal and oil burning plants exausts ... ) ....

:confused:

If we dismiss most of the things that are involved in the temperature changes on Earth, how the hell are we going to make accurate predictions? Most of the GW proponent models lack one of more crucial parts of the the known weather system ( not to mention some competely "externalities" ,like volcanos, that can easily have more influence than all human actions ( like the Pinatubo eruption showed clearly... and it was not a big one ,like Santorini or Tambore ) )and are only directed to a half dozen centuries at most ( most of them simply stop in 200 years: the computing time is expensive and the data starts to diverge badly due to the chaotic equations ). And all implicetily assume that humankind will be regularly producing CO2 ( maybe methane ) without changes and nothing more ...... like if humans were going to be stalled in time except for CO2 issues.

My conclusion? I simply don't know... data is too sparse and too self contradicting to make a solid statement. As far as I know we may be in the verge of a " A day after tommorow " kind of scenario or a "Venus-like Earth"..... and IMHO who says stronger sentences is lacking with the thruth.

So based on Ainwood's graphs, one might say that the images of crumbling ice cliffs is nothing more than global warming propaganda, as we know that the ice melts, then reforms back to it's original entirety, as the yearly cycles continue, no?

What I find funny about all of the GW threads I saw until now is that everyone talks about CO2, rarely someone talks about...If we dismiss most of the things that are involved in the temperature changes on Earth, how the hell are we going to make accurate predictions? Most of the GW proponent models lack one of more crucial parts of the the known weather system ( not to mention some competely "externalities" ,like volcanos, Actually no. People bring these things up the same way you do, with the same OMG this doesn't get taken into account triumphalism. And it's always flat out wrong.

Let's take volcanoes as an example. Most years the contribution of Greenhouse gases by volcanoes is trivial compared to the amount humans are now emitting. Strike one. The enormous exeptions? They happen very rarely, and actually, if you average them out, they add less than the regular, ongoing volcanic emissions. Stike two. We discussed this in depth a couple of months back. Stike three. You're out.
So based on Ainwood's graphs, one might say that the images of crumbling ice cliffs is nothing more than global warming propaganda, as we know that the ice melts, then reforms back to it's original entirety, as the yearly cycles continue, no?
Well it's interesting that if you check that site out more fully it's mostly about the fact that the Arctic Ice Cap is dangerously close to disappearing entirely in the summer, a highly salient point that never seems to get mentioned by the deniers.

And no, the Ice does not all grow back annually. And more seems to be going every year. See, for example, the recent loss of the Larsen B Ice shelf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_B)(a 12,000 year old feature) and recent events at the Wilkins Ice Shelf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkins_Ice_Shelf).

What Ainwood and his chums never will admit to is that while it seems counter-intuitive to the fact of global warming, events such as cooling in the Antarctic interior are entirely predicted by current climate models; Models that predict drastic warming over the entire continent in the next century. But let's not let proper science get in the way of soundbites eh?

Composite (11-model) GCM-simulations for 1958-2002 with forcing from historic greenhouse gas concentrations show warming patterns and magnitudes quite similar to the corresponding observed trends with localized maximum warming near the Antarctic Peninsula. GCM projections for 2001-2100 using the IPCC-SRESA1B greenhouse gas scenarios do not continue the pattern of strongest warming over the Antarctic Peninsula, but instead show the greatest warming over the Antarctic continent.
Source (http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/Antarctic.paper.chapwalsh.2005.pdf) (it's the same guys Ainwood got his graphs from btw)

I don't want to enter in too much controversies, brennan ( BTW nice sig... ) but if you average volcanos you also have to average human actions.... Simple equipoise. The problem is that atmosphere does not work on averages ( both ways ) but on unstable equilibriums with well defined boudaries from one state to another. A big bump ( like a volcano or China starting to burn extra coal ) can ( or not ) push you to another unstable equilibrium ( read Sagan's theoretical frame on nuclear winter ) and make the world a completely diferent place in some years. And volcanos do not only drop CO2 ,you know... their major effect is the other way around: the high atmosphere dust that blocks sun even before the natural GW starts acting and that affects high altitude troposphere chemistry... Both tend to create cooling and tot warming as you suggested( P.S You're only giving me reason about that: CO2 is not all... )

And thanks for trimming my post.... and choosing a particular spot forgetting the context. Second law of the rethoric ( first one is the repetition )..... Volcanos were a minor part of that... or are you going to say that we understand well the flux of high altitude dust and their effects on weather? Or the diference in cloud types that has been noticed since the start of XX century ? Or that most computer simulations are seriously cutted in terms of variables or time due to the sheer computer power needed to run a decent atmosphere simulation?

I simply stated that facing all of that, I don't know the answer... please don't treat me as I was a GW denialist. I'm just a Biochemist that already worked in recent migration shifts and knows how sometimes people ( including scientists ) are jumpy in conclusions regarding GW.....

In my experience claims that things are not taken into account by the models are wrong. The deniers claim that some feature is not explained by the model - current example: Antarctica is cooling down; you investigate this, find out it is a half truth at best - central Antarctica has experienced a very slight cooling, the rest is warming - and that the alleged 'problem with the theory' is in actual fact predicted by the models in use, as sourced above.

And then some <really intelligent contributor> says 'but it's cold here' and shows you a graph of the last 5 minutes in Chicago as refutation for a decade of record highs across the globe.

Really, it get's boring.

I'm sorry if you feel I meant anything by cutting your post there, I *snip* purely for brevity and to give an indication of what I am responding to. Ok, or for a giggle. On occasion.

If you meant no harm , who am I to jump on you? But it is only conditioned reflex: like I said I worked in migration shifts of oceanic fish near the Strait of Gibraltar ( tuna decided to go in a less coastal route since the 60's ) and the first idea that people jump on me about that issue is Global warming ( in fact it is the other way around: tuna migrated to warmer areas.... ). I became too much suspicious of that kind of blind faithed GW followers that make everything GW consequence....

Sorry for the acidity, was not meant directly to you..... but to those kind of claims.

www.realclimate.org

search for water vapor there. Nice test by one of the authors that shows that the effect is well covered.

Ainwood, if you don't have anything to say why are you here? You post graphs and quotes with no commentary. One might think your position is weak...
:rolleyes:

Sorry - I'll make sure to spell it out in detail for you.

Lets recap on the discussion so far, so you know where I'm at and why I am here.

I mentioned that the antarctic is cooing (admittedly, a fairly general statement).

You responded, rather dismissively here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6684527&postcount=97), that it was a "half truth", outlining what a model says about ice mass, and you note that the ice mass decreasing is predicted by a model that requires antarctica to be warming. Hence, you are basically saying that the antartic must getting warmer because, err.... a model says that it needs to get warmer.

I then pointed out (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6685704&postcount=98) that you had not addressed the point about the temperature, and that you were distracting into a discussion about the area of ice. I tried to revert the discussion to temperature, and even posted three links to a study that shows that the interior of the continent is getting colder, although the peninsula is indeed getting warmer.

You again respond very dismissively. You claim that the temperature drop recently is due to la nina, despite the linked studies showing that the temperature drop over antactica is actually a long-term phenomenon.

In my next response, I address little of the issues, except to point out that you are no better than I in your claims that I post 'half truths'. I do point out that whilst the alarmists are claiming 'la nina' to explain away the recent global cooling, they neglect to mention el nino when talking about the 'hottest decade ever'.

You pick up on this point, and post about el nino, and say that it can't be used to explain a whole decade of heating.

At this point, I'll interrupt this little trip down memory lane to address this issue.

You stated that:
El nino is an oscillation that lasts a lot less than 10 years. You cannot seriously use it to explain a decade of temperatures. In fact there have been 4 El'nino's in that period. Conversely we are currently experiencing the third La nina in that time.
Well, sounds reasonable, but it does kind-of suggest / imply that the el nino & la nina weather patterns cancel each other out in intensity - you say we've had 3 in the last decade.

Well, lets look at the ESNO:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ts.gif
The red peaks are El Nino, which results in warming. The blue peaks are la nina, which results in cooling. The very last blue peak is being used by the alarmist to explain the recent global cooling. Lets consider what happened before that:
You will see that up to about 1979, the number & area of blue peaks was dominant over the red. It was about this time that some alarmists where actually worried about an ice age. Then in 1979 we had a flip, and since then, the red el nino events have been dominant, leading to a lot of warming. Any chance that this could have had any impact whatsoever on the "hottest decade ever" claims? Don't know, but I think its fairly reasonable that if alarmists are going to blame la nina for cooling this year, then they should also attribute a 25 year period that has largely been dominated by strong el nino events for at least some warming....

Of course, that's at odds with what you were saying.... But I digress.


Back to the history channel...

You also noted that "Is it not also a fact that the peripheral ice shelves are disappearing fast?"

In response to this, I posted three graphs, which I didn't explain in detail, as I thought they were fairly self-explanatory. skadistic explained them with no trouble, but I'll just point out here, for the record, that the sea ice area oscillates every summer & winter, and has done for a long time. One particular point of interest is that the current sea ice coverage is nearly 1,500,000 km² larger than the 30-year average. To put this into context, this is an area equivalent to about 3.5 times the area of california. If the 'peripheral ice shelves are disappearing fast', as you claimed, I would expect that the sea ice area would be significantly lower than the mean for 1979 - 2008.

You respond back to temperatures - claiming that warming on the antartic peninsula is causing more sea ice. You fail to comment on your complete reversal in your opinion that sea ice is decreasing.

I mention this, and you claim that you never said sea ice was decreasing.

I therefore respond quoting a few of your posts where you said various things about sea ice decreasing.

And that brings us to your post that I quoted where you ask what I am doing here.

Well, given that I provide you evidence which you don't refute, and that you change your position on sea ice a couple of times, and that you are very dismissive and rude in doing so, I do actually wonder what I'm doing here sometimes.

And it most certainly isn't anything to do with me thinking that my position is 'weak'.


Edit:
And here you are again:
And no, the Ice does not all grow back annually. And more seems to be going every year.
Which isn't quite true in the antarctic, is it?

Ainwood that is utterly and totally disingenuous.

Everything you posted is taken into account in the models that

a) Accurately model this behaviour.

b) Predict drastic future warming.

This is absolutely no argument against global warming, in fact it is an argument for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you are basically saying that the antartic must getting warmer because, err.... a model says that it needs to get warmer.
No, I said that the current models predict precisely the behaviour you describe. This is hardly, then, an argument against global warming, this an argument for the accuracy of the models that predict global warming.
I tried to revert the discussion to temperature, and even posted three links to a study that shows that the interior of the continent is getting colderNo, you posted three graphs about the area of Antarctic Sea Ice. Not a temperature in sight. Or a source - I had to look at the image properties. And you made zero attempt to explain what pertinence you thought these had.
it does kind-of suggest / imply No such implication intended.

I did not say La Nina was the cause of the Antarctic cooling, I asked if you knew it wasn't. Because it seems an obvious mechanism to explain it, in view of which it seems a little odd you have not considered it. You didn't even attempt an answer.

I already refuted your argument that El Nino is responsible for the recent warming, as the phenomenon simply doesn't last long enough to be blamed for a decade of temperatures, whereas the current La Nina can obviously be held responsible