Global warming debate continued

[Berzerker]

Are you serious?

You said

I am going to ask this again: given that I don't know much about the actual science behind global warming, why should I believe a random guy like you on the internet, over the consensus of the scientific community?

Are you serious?

If you dont know the science, and no one but the scientific consensus matters, you've decided to stay ignorant until they tell you what to believe. Pretty clear to me, so ask yerself why you're in this thread. Go googling for the scientific consensus and report back and put us all to shame for daring to question the scientific consensus.

 

[Berzerker]

The point is that the water vapour has an insulative effect and maybe an albedo effect (I haven't seen a study showing an increase in albedo due to cloud cover, which would be really easy to show - but I'm open to the idea, it seems obvious). The sunlight forcings reduced by albedo have to be calculated against the trapped heat due to vapour.

And the reduced albedo from less ice cover. But I saw a docu recently where some guy believes some of our pollutants enhance the albedo effect of clouds by forming crystals at the tops of major cloud formations, this is the "global dimming" theory which is said to diminish the real warming trend.

 

[Berzerker]

1) What reason do you have to believe that the next Ice Age is "overdue"? Why do you think that they must follow a regular schedule?

Not overdue, but due nonetheless if we dont figure out a way to actually make our atmosphere act like a greenhouse. The schedule is tied primarily to Milankovich Cycles, the Earth's orbital eccentricity (more is bad), changing tilt (more is good during interglacial periods like now and worse during ice advances), and precessional changes determining which pole has its summer closest to the Sun. Plenty of other variables, so many computer models are somewhat problematic, but the planet is in August of the schedule (put in seasonal terms ).

In a few thousand years the Earth's tilt will reach its minimum and we'll be heading into an ice age. I believe there is a lag time, ice advances more readily after we hit the minimum because of feedbacks like albedo and the Earth's absorption of heat during warm periods (kinda like how the N Hemisphere remains warm long after the solstice because of all that summer heating).

2) We've been pushing the system in one direction; complaining "there are mines on every side" is not a reason to stop pushing and go back where we were unless you think that the mines move.

Not really, the system has undergone massive changes without us being involved. The Holocene extinction has bearing on this debate, but just consider the mini ice age from 1350-1850. I see a graph of retreating glaciers in this thread that charts them beginning in 1850. Well, we were just coming out of the mini ice age! Of course they're gonna retreat. How skewed is that? The world was not a better place and we still haven't figured out the cause, the prime suspects are 5x the volcanic activity and reduced solar output.

3) The Earth can trap far higher amounts of heat (cf: Venus) than it can lose and has a more and easier methods of getting more heat in than it has of losing heat, so an Ice Age is less of a worry than overheating

Venus is not analogous, and looking at the last few million years of an ice world, overheating aint gonna happen. Maybe back when ocean currents inhibited the formation of ice sheets, but thats fine with me. I want a warmer world and I hope we can figure out safer ways to make it warmer.

4) By one definition, we're IN an ice age (there are large amounts of ice hanging around), meaning that being in an ice age isn't really a worry, and we're heading OUT of it at high speeds: [wiki]Retreat of glaciers since 1850[/wiki].

Oh thats where I saw that see above

Once the following starts coming back, I'll consider it a legitimate reason to worry about entering the Ice Age that you're being all Oh Noes about.

It'll be too late then, we'll have to find ways to pollute the atmosphere to trap more heat.

 

[BasketCase]

Your posts are valueless. An ice age has nothing to do with our present carbon pollution and its effects on the planet.

Random theory somebody else wrote on Exit Mundi:

Right now carbon dioxide levels are up. Unless we're measuring wrong, but assume just for kicks that they're up. Plants eat CO2. They eat it, and grow.

Now, one day, we humans suddenly come to our senses. We stop cutting down the rainforest and we start reducing our emissions big time.

Guess what? The world's plants don't care. They're going to continue eating CO2 at the same rate they always do. But CO2 is no longer being produced in the vast quantities it once was. The plants consume their food supply, CO2 drops to near-zero levels, and the planet becomes twenty to thirty degrees colder--CENTIGRADE, not Fahrenheit--within a matter of a couple decades.


So there you have it: two counterarguments in one. #1: Yes, Ige Ages and carbon dioxide pollution DO have plenty to do with each other. And #2: whoever said it takes ten thousand years for an Ice Age to get going? There's a way the planet can turn into an ice cube in twenty.

 

[Berzerker]

eliminating industrial CO2 wont effect plants that much, there's plenty of natural CO2 and they like nitrogen too and thats something like % 70 of the atmosphere

 

[Shaihulud]

One good thing about the scientific consensus is that it is almost impossible to get scientists to all agree on a single thing unless the evidence was overwhelming. We are well read individuals, but few of us are proffessional scientists studying climate changes. Therefore there is a good reason why we rely on authority in this matter, being well read on the issue is of course a necessity in any discussion.

Here I found an interesting article about the little "Ice Age", it was by no means a global event at most a regional one for the Northern latitude. Global Warming is by no mean all due to human factors, now if the Milankovitch cycle would have us undergoing a "cooling" phase for the next 23,000 year, I would say that it is a worrying trend that global temperature seems on the increase. Surely that is a endorsement for global warming isn't it? We warmed the planet so much despite the onging Milankovitch cycle.

Humans cannot say what is the optimum temperature of the planet for every species, but the rapidly increasing global temperature is not good. Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas, and plants cannot utilize it without the help of other organisms.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

eliminating industrial CO2 wont effect plants that much, there's plenty of natural CO2 and they like nitrogen too and thats something like % 70 of the atmosphere

What Basket continues to fail to understand, shown clearly by his reasoning in his last post, is this:

Remove humans from this picture and the plants will keep consuming CO2, without CO2 dropping to near zero levels. It's a rediculous claim to make and it really does show how alien this science business is to him.

 

[Berzerker]

Unfortunately many of the scientists on the global warming bandwagon aren't professional climatologists either. From your links

In New Zealand the warmest conditions occurred between about 10 to 8 ky BP, when there was a more complete forest cover than at any other time. Glacial activity was at a minimal level in the Southern Alps and speleothem analyses indicate temperatures were about 2°C warmer than present (Salinger and McGlone, 1989; Williams et al., 1999).

Thats the early holocene when people cant be blamed (maybe the Atlanteans were polluting )

No one said the mini ice age was global (or that nitrogen was a greenhouse gas), those of us familiar with it already know it was regional. And your link suggests 2 possible causes - a change in Atlantic circulation and a change in wind patterns over Europe from west to east/northeast. Thats 4 possibilities I've heard, but the increased volcanic activity would tend to cool the entire planet as opposed to a region.

The current orbit is not conducive to an ice advance and wont be for a few thousand years, if that. The severity of an ice advance depends on the cycles lining up and they do that on a longer scale (was 40 k in the past, now its 100 k). Astronomers have identified a 30-40 k warm period 400,000 years ago with similar orbital characteristics to today. If other factors are good, its possible we can go thru a minimum tilt without seeing an ice sheet a mile high covering NYC

Oh, and bacteria like warmth so those organisms helping plants feed wont mind a warmer world

 

[Woody1]

If somebody thinks you're being illogical, why should they respond to you?

Yup, that's pretty much it. Most of the GW alarmists are little more than religious zealots. Al Gore is their prophet, and pseudo-science is their scripture. You'll never convince a religious zealot that their beliefs are false. It's faith to them, nothing more.

 

[Shaihulud]

By no mean do they attribute every instances of global warming throughout earths history is entirely due to human causes. You do the report an injustice by insinuating that they do. earth has gone through hotter temperatures than we experience now obviously in its million years old history.

Since we have concluded that earth is not winding down from a mini "ice-age", then we can safely discard the hypothesis that the warming up of earth and the melting of glacial ice is a return to a warmer climate, The warming up of earth is due to other things then. Strange, I have read that earth is 6,000 years in the Milankovitch warming cycle, but am not an expert in this matter. I am not unwilling to compromise Now for a possible abation of a future Ice-Age thousand of years in the future.

Any major change in global temperature in a short time is by any definition bad. We need to prepare for things,

 

[Berzerker]

By no mean do they attribute every instances of global warming throughout earths history is entirely due to human causes. You do the report an injustice by insinuating that they do.

Yeah right, I'm insinuating that paleo-climatologists dont know the Earth has been warmer So where did I say they attribute every warming trend to human activity?

Since we have concluded that earth is not winding down from a mini "ice-age", then we can safely discard the hypothesis that the warming up of earth and the melting of glacial ice is a return to a warmer climate, The warming up of earth is due to other things then.

The mini ice age ended in the mid 19th century, maybe 150 years ago. Using that as a starting point for anything regarding climate must take into account the climate before the mini ice age and past climates. Telling me, for example, that glaciers have been retreating since 1850 doesn't say much, during interglacial periods glaciers should retreat. If they start growing I'd be worried... We have evidence of ice advances starting very quickly.

Strange, I have read that earth is 6,000 years in the Milankovitch warming cycle, but am not an expert in this matter. I am not unwilling to compromise Now for a possible abation of a future Ice-Age thousand of years in the future.

A bit longer than that, the tilt alone takes 41,000 years for 1 cycle - 1 max to the next. Thats 20,500 years to go from the min to max and we're a little over halfway between the two so thats a little less than 10,250 y bp.

Any major change in global temperature in a short time is by any definition bad. We need to prepare for things,

That aint true, civilization has blossomed thanks in part to a large increase in temperatures. The problem with the global warming theory is that the Earth has been warmer in recent times, so as long as the Earth stays in the vicinity of normal parameters its hard to prove we're really screwing things up. So how do we prepare? Remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere?

 

[El_Machinae]

And the reduced albedo from less ice cover. But I saw a docu recently where some guy believes some of our pollutants enhance the albedo effect of clouds by forming crystals at the tops of major cloud formations, this is the "global dimming" theory which is said to diminish the real warming trend.

Was it the Great Global Warming Swindle?

Yup, that's pretty much it. Most of the GW alarmists are little more than religious zealots. Al Gore is their prophet, and pseudo-science is their scripture. You'll never convince a religious zealot that their beliefs are false. It's faith to them, nothing more.

I have known about, and been concerned about, Global Warming well before Al Gore popularized it. In the mid-nineties, I would say that the average adult had heard about it and was a little bit conversant at the predictions. There used to be jokes about how idling the car in the winter was a good idea because it contributed to global warming.

Al Gore made some mistakes in his presentation: I certainly did not like his handling of the various 'tipping point' concerns. While most of what he said was true, his presentation conflated various urgencies and made it seem like disaster was looming NOW. Of course that's not true, tipping points are inevitable in a warming scenario, but they're hard to absolutely predict, since they're fast-feeding mechanisms.

But a lot of his presentation was bang-on. There's no point tilting against windmills by attacking strawmen of the Global Warming theory. I would suspect that your partisan dislike for Al Gore is one of the main reasons why you're resistant on the issue. It's the politicization of Evolutionary Theory, all over again. And second-hand smoke. And overfishing concerns. And the ozone hole.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, and bacteria like warmth so those organisms helping plants feed wont mind a warmer world

Bacteria have LOVED every single climate that we've had, all throughout history. You cannot find a climate where they won't thrive relative to every other organism. They evolve so fast, it's actually funny.

But we're not bacteria. There's no topsoil underneath the ice in Greenland. All the places where there IS excellent topsoil are places where a steady (over millenia) climate has laid down successive life/death cycles.

We DON'T want those areas to become less hospitable. Who cares if the desert becomes better? There's no topsoil there! We've already co-opted 50% of Earth's landmass to farming, often to farming ideal to that region. If we shift the climate, we lose all that optimization and reduce our ability to optimize the improperly developed regions.

Ecofarm studied farming in Kenya. He looks at the climate history and the indigenous ecosystems in order to generate ideas of how to get better farming there. If we change the climate, all of his hard work is nearly useless. And the Kenyans cannot afford to have the rug yanked out from under them.

 

[Shaihulud]

Yup, that's pretty much it. Most of the GW alarmists are little more than religious zealots. Al Gore is their prophet, and pseudo-science is their scripture. You'll never convince a religious zealot that their beliefs are false. It's faith to them, nothing more.

I should use you in my signature! No I don't expect you to respond in a reasonable manner, so buzz off fly.

Yeah right, I'm insinuating that paleo-climatologists dont know the Earth has been warmer So where did I say they attribute every warming trend to human activity?

When you quoth from the article and mention Atlanteans, there was no Atlanteans. Did you just call them...climatologist? Just kidding I know what you mean.

The mini ice age ended in the mid 19th century, maybe 150 years ago. Using that as a starting point for anything regarding climate must take into account the climate before the mini ice age and past climates. Telling me, for example, that glaciers have been retreating since 1850 doesn't say much, during interglacial periods glaciers should retreat. If they start growing I'd be worried... We have evidence of ice advances starting very quickly.

The glaciers retreated because of global warming, i am not advocating that the "mini ice age" be used as a starting point. I was thinking that someone would, to explain why the rising gloabl temperature is normal, returning back after the ice age.

The timescale of Milankovitch is extremely long then, I don't know if using it to established the cause of the current global warming is suitable. I would hate the global temperature to continue its rise though, where i live, it gets bloody hot.

 

[Berzerker]

El M

Was it the Great Global Warming Swindle?

it was a NOVA (PBS) on global dimming... It started out with some guy's interest in how clear the skies were right after 9/11 because of the restrictions on flights.

 

[Berzerker]

Bacteria have LOVED every single climate that we've had, all throughout history. You cannot find a climate where they won't thrive relative to every other organism. They evolve so fast, it's actually funny.

That dont change the fact bacteria prefer warmth over cold, or refrigeration wouldn't do us much good.

But we're not bacteria.

Thats right, and plants dont need us to give them Nitrogen (even though we do).

There's no topsoil underneath the ice in Greenland. All the places where there IS excellent topsoil are places where a steady (over millenia) climate has laid down successive life/death cycles.

We got alot of our topsoil from Canada thanks to those ice sheets But given the fact most of the land is in the northern hemisphere and much of it at higher latitudes where cooling trends are unwelcome and inhibit farming, I'd say a couple of degrees will be more beneficial to crop production than the status quo or worse.

We DON'T want those areas to become less hospitable. Who cares if the desert becomes better? There's no topsoil there!

Actually I'd be pumping ocean water into the Sahara and other deserts and basins to regulate sea levels and provide for irrigation etc. It wasn't too long ago the Sahara supported a stronger ecosystem but "global warming" has made it a huge desert. That might also reduce the fuel available for hurricane formation in the Atlantic. Climate changes with or without us, how do you assume a nice area will become bad because of a warmer world? The whole concept of a greenhouse is to moderate extremes, to provide more stability. Thats a good thing...

We've already co-opted 50% of Earth's landmass to farming, often to farming ideal to that region. If we shift the climate, we lose all that optimization and reduce our ability to optimize the improperly developed regions. Ecofarm studied farming in Kenya. He looks at the climate history and the indigenous ecosystems in order to generate ideas of how to get better farming there. If we change the climate, all of his hard work is nearly useless. And the Kenyans cannot afford to have the rug yanked out from under them.

Unless the climate improves I didn't know the Kenyans were so happy with their climate. It is not a good thing for % 70 (?) of the world's fresh water to be locked up in ice.

 

[El_Machinae]

Do you have a river near your place? How's it fed in the summer? Through snow-melt?

 

[BasketCase]

What Basket continues to fail to understand, shown clearly by his reasoning in his last post

Ziggy, there was no reasoning by me at all in my last post, because the theory I posted IS NOT MINE.

I did not write that idea, I did not make any judgements about it, nor did I post any opinions about it.

That theory was written by somebody else. I already said that when I posted it, and as usual you missed it. Makes me wonder if you actually give a crap about the truth or if you're merely interested in taking swings at me for personal reasons. Bring it, ya wuss, I can take anything you can dish out.

 

[BasketCase]

Yup, that's pretty much it. Most of the GW alarmists are little more than religious zealots.

I like to call them "global warming bible thumpers" for precisely that reason.

Quick caveat, though: in all fairness, there are some devious bastards on the anti-global-warming side of the fence as well. I remain undecided about the issue--which is plenty of grist for the global warming mill, because when I say I'm undecided, people like Ziggy just go stark raving bonkers.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Bring it, ya wuss, I can take anything you can dish out.

Oh! "Bring it ya wuss". Talking tough on an intardnet forum. Impressive. Impressed Ziggy is impressed.

You put me on your ignore list, and stated this in public, because you couldn't counter any of my arguments in the MJ vs Alcohol thread.

You posts arguments and when pressed fall back on: "they were not mine", so you don't have to defend them. Am I to conclude you rightfully believe the argument you posted, which wasn't yours, was a load of bull?

And I'm the wuss. Well, you were right in one regard: you indeed do not need weed to escape from reality.

My advice, save a little dignity and go back to ignoring me.