Global Warming

[gene90]

I was talking about how the warming associated with urban heat-island effect is easily observable. Statistically, you can even find out how storms and precipitation vary by such subtle differences in things like crop and soil type. These situations can allegedly create moisture and temperature boundaries that affect storm development. This is a mesoscale phenomenon though, not global. I am sure that there is a net global component.

Yeah, watts/m^2 are up, I am satisfied with your remote sensing data. But the cause-and-effect with the climate is troublesome. And I'm not going to stop asking for direct testing.

Personally, I'd like one of those sats in orbit above Mars. We'll collect data for 20 years or so, and compare it to Earth. This is why:
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSSpace0112/06_mars-ap.html

Or the more humorous, more biased blogger's version:

Republicans Cause Global Warming on Mars!

http://jerhad.typepad.com/jerhad/2003/12/republicans_cau.html

 

[gene90]

Climate models can reproduce many data sets representing climate over the last 150-200 years.

And it is my understanding that pre-Copernican astronomers were able to do a pretty good job of generating predictions of the planetary positions with the Ptolemaic system.

But that does not mean that the Solar System has Earth at the center and all the other planets are encased in crystal, does it?

 

[Gothmog]

?? Are you trying to imply that the current state of human knowledge is the ultimate truth ??

Scientific models are as good as the data they explain and the validated predictions they make.
Truth is an illusion.

You moan about global warming, but you agree with all the science behind it apparently.

You haven't disputed anything I've said except with nonsense like 'my opinion keeps falling'.

You agreed to this

There is scientific consensus that humans have significantly changed the radiative balance of our earth system, and that such a significant change will have some effect on our climate on short and long time scales.

Are you saying that you don't believe that greenhouse gases are the largest factor in changing that balance (as shown in the plot by Hansen et. al.)?

 

[BasketCase]

Can you describe an experiment where it would be possible to directly test for global warming?

If not, do you believe that if it is not possible to test something then it must be false?

If it's impossible to test, you can't know that it's true, either. If you can't prove that it's true, you have no right to expect everybody on the planet to join hands and solve the problem.

 

[onejayhawk]

Just throwing in a wrench at this point (or not).

Could someone summarize the main points of this beast to save us poor ignorant (lazy) people from reading through all the pages.

As I understand what little I have seen, the argument is that there is no way to model the climactic trends of the last century or two, without adding a human element. The other side argues that this is not the case, that a similar spike occured before civilization. The first side claims that this is modelable, but current trends are not, absent a human element.

This begs the question "So what of it?" Are the effects significant, even if true? In what time scale? How many of the elements are clearly understood? To what extent does agriculture account for the effect? Volcanic activity? What if anything can reasonably be done (and ceasing the use of petrolium based energy in the next generation falls under "Not Reasonable"). Are there buffering agents? Can they be reinforced or are substitutes available?

I understand well enough the need for discussion in a relatively sterile environment, but of what practical use is all this?

J

 

[10Seven]

It is my understanding that there have been no similar spikes in the past.

Where my definition of similar excludes the previous ice-age warming as that took place over thousands of years - a cyclic phenomenon - as opposed to the current changes which have taken place within 100.

Thus, I would summarise my points:
1. Current climate change is very much beyond the scope of natural - as compared to past climate change, such as ice-age/current age. The current speed of change is so much greater as to be an obvious point.

2. Current climate change shows direct correlation to industrial development and increase in 'green-house' emissions.

3. Climate change as a result of human intervention does not appear to be a new thing - but is currently so many orders of magnitude greater, contrast appears obvious. For instance, there is growing evidence that deforestation and agriculture carried out, particularly in the last 5000 years, had and has an affect.

Ultimately, while their appears a growing consensus on cause and existence of 'global warming', there appears a more widely spread body of opinion as to the affects.

One collection of oppinion is in a report made by the Pentagon 1 or 2 years ago - presumably still available.

More extreme theories include the 'global superstorm', which appears to be possible, though, again, extreme.

Seeming concrete predictions seem to be quite short term - such as the melting icecaps, which is already advanced, and expansion of the 'tropic' zones.

 

[BasketCase]

It is my understanding that there have been no similar spikes in the past.

Where my definition of similar excludes the previous ice-age warming as that took place over thousands of years - a cyclic phenomenon - as opposed to the current changes which have taken place within 100.

There have been at least two such spikes--that is, during the planet's current warm period. Both spikes occurred suddenly, both warmed the planet by one to two degrees, and both topped out warmer than the planet is right now. This is all after the previous Ice Age ended.

 

[BasketCase]

Just throwing in a wrench at this point (or not).

Could someone summarize the main points of this beast to save us poor ignorant (lazy) people from reading through all the pages.

I understand well enough the need for discussion in a relatively sterile environment, but of what practical use is all this?

J

Next to none, at this point. The thread is dead in the strict definition, but like a zombie from Night of the Living Dead, it still roams the Earth in search of posts.

It's reached the point where one camp tosses some facts at the other, and then the other camp pretends it didn't hear the first camp, and goes "these are the facts...." and then spouts some "facts" of its own that directly conflict with the "facts" posted by the first camp.

Which is sufficient proof to me that nobody really knows what the hell the planet is doing. What's going to happen is we humans are going to continue this all-fired panic about reducing global warming, and then we'll cool the planet too much and set off the next Ice Age--which is already overdue anyway. I've got my cold-weather gear packed!

 

[10Seven]

For interest:

Global Warming and We’re to Blame

Studies looking at the oceans and melting Arctic ice leave no room for doubt that it is getting warmer, people are to blame, and the weather is going to suffer, climate experts said yesterday.

New computer models that look at ocean temperatures instead of the atmosphere show the clearest signal yet that global warming is well under way, said Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the America Association for the Advancement of Science, Mt Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures were weak because most of the evidence for global warming was not there.

“The real place to look is in the ocean,” Mr. Barnett said.

His team used millions of temperature readings made by the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to calculate steay ocean warming.

“The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people”

And the affects will be felt far and wide. “Anywhere that the major water source is fed by snow… or glacial melt,” he said. “The debate us what we are going to do about it.”

Other researchers found clear effects on climate and animals.

Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that melting ice was changing the water cycle, which in turn affects ocean currents and, ultimately, climate.

“As the earth warms, it’s water cycle is changing, being pushed out of kilter,” she said. “Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet.”

A circulation system called the ocean conveyor belt was in danger of shutting down, she said. The last time that happened, Northern Europe experienced extremely cold winters.

She said the changes were already causing droughts in the US West.

Greenland’s ice-cap, which contained enough ice to raise sea levels globally by seven metres, were starting to melt, and could collapse suddenly, Ms Curry said. Already freshwater is percolating down, lubricating the base and making it more unstable.

Sharon Smith, of the University of Miami, found melting Arctic ice was taking with it algae that formed an important base of the food supply for a range of animals.

Also, the disappearing ices-helves meant big animals such as Walruses, polar bears and seals were loosing their homes.

Reuters. Via The Dominion Post. Saturday, February 19.

A weakness in the article is in the first paragraph:

“Studies looking at the oceans and melting Arctic ice leave no room for doubt that it is getting warmer, people are to blame, and the weather is going to suffer, climate experts said yesterday.”

In that it makes no quotes as to the human causes – the article appears to concentrate on the issue of global warming/existence of.

From my experience, the issue of ocean temperature is very much more an issue for discussion than atmosphere, as a large portion of the local economy depends on the ocean. Considerations such as krill stock – if I recall the correct animal – being the basis of the entire ocean food/ecology is massively affected by this, and already significant declines in population have been measured.

This is an even wider issue, given that the ocean supports by far the greatest population.

 

[10Seven]

There have been at least two such spikes--that is, during the planet's current warm period. Both spikes occurred suddenly, both warmed the planet by one to two degrees, and both topped out warmer than the planet is right now. This is all after the previous Ice Age ended.

I would like to look these up - would you mind, or be able to give me some pointers, such as years, and sources?

It's a bit of a bummer, but, ultimately good, when someone can point out something like this - especially when making a definitive statement (I mean the existence of two spikes, not sources, and in relation to my 'definitive statement'.

 

[BasketCase]

See pages 6 and 10 of this thread for some nifty graphs--especially those posted by gene90 on page 10.

Erik Mesoy also posted a couple of links somewhere on page 9.

Sources are mostly archaeological data; mine are from antarctic ice cores.

 

[10Seven]

See pages 6 and 10 of this thread for some nifty graphs--especially those posted by gene90 on page 10.

Erik Mesoy also posted a couple of links somewhere on page 9.

Sources are mostly archaeological data; mine are from antarctic ice cores.

Thanks - I should have read a little better.


I've read some preliminary findings from Antarctic ice cores - I missed reference to spikes you mentioned, but there seemed to be some consensus as to current temperatures - in that it was thought they suggest we are overdue for a period of cooling, as opposed to warming.

I wondered whether you had an impression as to that?

 

[BasketCase]

It looks to me like a cooling period (8-10 degrees Celsius) is definitely overdue; I get that impression from looking at the planet's temperature graph over the last half a million years. There's been a very regular pattern of "major" warm spikes, followed by long cold spells--and we're on the tail end of a major warm spike right now.

Edit: please note that these graphs haven't convinced anyone from the "human global warming is a threat" camp to change sides. In fact, some of the SAME graphs have been used by BOTH sides. So you're under no pressure.

 

[Quasar1011]

What if the North Atlantic Gyre gets shut down and northern Europe ices over (and then albedo increases)?

Wait, don't you mean the Gulf Stream? Climate wouldn't shut down the North Atlantic Gyre. To do so, you'd have to either change the size or shape of the Atlantic Ocean, or stop the rotation of the Earth!

 

[10Seven]

Edit: please note that these graphs haven't convinced anyone from the "human global warming is a threat" camp to change sides. In fact, some of the SAME graphs have been used by BOTH sides. So you're under no pressure.

This is convenient

 

[BasketCase]

Wait, don't you mean the Gulf Stream? Climate wouldn't shut down the North Atlantic Gyre. To do so, you'd have to either change the size or shape of the Atlantic Ocean, or stop the rotation of the Earth!

The Gulf Stream doesn't keep the planet from icing over anyway. It just distributes heat a certain way. Shut it down, and the heat can't just magically disappear. One area will get colder, and some other area will get warmer.

@10Seven: the most important question addressed in this thread (IMO, anyway) is the question of cause and effect. Is our current warming trend natural, or caused by humans?

 

[10Seven]

I have a question about global warming. Lets not turn this into a discussion of what is causing global warming, because it is clear it is occuring. What I would like to know is, if the ice caps do melt, what nations will be hardest hit, and how would we best limit the casualties throughout the world?

Funnily enough I only just noticed the opening question

To some degree it may be answered by the article I quoted earlier - as to Greenland and 7 metre sea level rise.

This would affect every single nation of the world indirectly, and most directly - flooding huge areas of land.

One factor that was not mentioned, however, was to evaporation - as while that quantity of ice might raise to that level, not all of that water would remain as liquid - much to vapour.

I think the best way to limit casulties is to act before the fact - it seems to be the easiest and cheapest solution.

 

[carlosMM]

Hey Pikachu.

All you did in response to my attack on renewable energy was point out that it supposedly doesn't kill quite as many birds as it is reputed to.

Quite suficient, in light of my posts, which YOU left unanswered.

So, uh, why does the Audubon Society want a moritorium on all new windfarms in flyways?

bolding by me, says it all!

 

[carlosMM]

So, the bird deaths only matter to people that care about birds?

EDIT: Discrediting the Audubon Society because of their interest in bird conservation is a logical fallacy that draws attention away from the point at hand. The point of mentioning them is that people are concerned about bird casualties associated with windfarms, to the point of asking for a moratorium in important bird areas. What the society is about is irrelevant to the issue.

gene, this is a great example of your debating style:

frist, you bring up something that is NOT supporting your point, but claim it does (Audobon Society wants a ban on wind plants in ESEPCIALLY dangerous places, not anwhere else. These places make up about 0.000001% of all landscape, and about 1% of lucrative spots only).

Second, someone replies by saying that they are especially concerned because they deal most with brids. Read the exact words:

The Audubon Society is more of bird lover's organization than anything else.

Well, what's wrong with this statement? they DO love birds above anything else, and they DEAL especially with birds.
YOU seem to imply that this statement gives a NEGATIVE note to the term 'bird lover' (similar to 'tree-hugger'), but there is nothing of that in the statement.

This is why they are concerned about bird deaths. It does not represent a major flaw with wind farms.

And this part is equally true: others care about their comfort, others about amphibs, the Audobon Society cares about birds. And, a MINOR flaw of wind plants is that IF PLACED IN THE WRONG PLACE they kill birds. SO the bird lobby wants them banned IN THESE PLACES!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT??????? (please do answer!)
And what is wrong with someone pointing this out? (please doa nswer this one as well)

Basically, you try to discredit a poster who speaks the truth by distorting his statement instead of arguing the facts. That is extremely bad manners and leads me to the conclusion that you put your ego alongside your position. If now your pos goes down, so does your ego, and this is why you so adamntly stickm to your position EVEN WHERE IT IS SHOWN WRONG!

So what is the point of arguing here - you make it from the outset impossible to ever change your opinion if you argue like this. Try to stick to the rules people like gothmog and I and pickachu use: always interpret posts of others the way they are meant and argue merits. If in doubt, ask. If someone clarifies, respond to that. Don't use cheap rethoric tricks like oversimplification. Another one you love is the detail-broad picture trick (attacking generalisations as too broad, then poicking on detail as not giving a complete picture). That way, a debate will center on facts.

please?

 

[Scuffer]

If climate is so susceptible to sunspots, etc., that the CO2 overprint is not the driver, then that effectively undermines the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. In fact, that's what a lot of us have been saying all along; that CO2 is not that important. This sounds almost like a concession.

It isn't a concession. It is restating something obvious. There are many factors involved in the warming and cooling of the planet. Your required evidence of a direct statistical link between temperature and CO2 is not possible.

But if GW is untestable, and it sure seems to be, it doesn't matter if the problem is inherent in the issue or not. If a premise is untestable, it is not science, period. Why it is untestable doesn't matter.

I'm not going to argue about what is and isn't science. If GW does exist, and sea levels rise 3m, I will be glad I didn't spend my time worry about whether it was science or not.

It is worth a risk assessment excerise at this point - consequences and probability. I would imagine we can agree that if GW does occur, the consequences will be hugely severe. Loss of major cities, productive land, crazy weather etc. The probability is being argued about. However, given the severity of the consequences, I find it madness that nothing much is being done. It would be more sensible to cut CO2, and if it later turns out to be nothing, we are no worse off. The route we have currently makes no sense - science or otherwise.

I think the above text means that you agree with me, at least partially, that all our decisions will have some effect upon environmental quality, and that there are no "free" choices, or sources that have no environmental impact. Of course, some energy sources have greater environmental impacts than others.

I do agree. We have to rate the sources. This is why I am not especially worried about some dead birds compared to the risks of doing nothing about CO2 emissions.

The fact that I do not accept the Aubudon Socities views on windfarms as a good reason to stop building them is not a logical fallacy. Firstly, I am not discrediting them. I am simply uninterested in their opinions for the reasons I have laid out above. Secondly I am not 'poisioning the well because of alledged biases'. The bias of the Aubdon Society towards birds is not alledged, to begin with. Nor am I trying to discredit them. It is a venerable and distinguished society. Their views on windfarms are doubtless valid and important. However, they do not represent a examination of the total environmental cost of windfarms. They do not account for damage to rare plants and animals, to economy, to human live. They are couched squarely in the terms of bird protection, and so represent the thinnest sliver of the debate.