Global Warming

[Pikachu]

How unbiased is this so called 'evidence' since there were many studies done up to the 1970's that proved that the lead in petrol was no danger to health. The research was funded by petrol companies who wanted to 'prove' that leaded petrol was no more dangerous than unleaded petrol. On this basis, who is funding the scientists to 'prove' that global warming has some big human cause.

Fortunately you don’t have to trust the most recognized scientists in this field, because you can find the evidence yourself. Read up on physics; especially about radiation and absorption properties. Then you can build your own model for the energy balance of the Earth based on only fundamental physical relations. You can use your own model to prove or disprove that humans are changing Earth’s energy balance and consequently also the global climate. I bet my copy of civ3 that you will find out that human made climate change is very real if you take the time to research this properly.

The petrol companies had an economic motive to fund misleading research. Who has an economic motive to fund misleading research FOR global warming?

The strange thing is that most of the major petrol companies seem to acknowledge that human activities do cause climate changes. I have searched the web pages of some of the largest oil companies on the planet without finding any attempts at all to claim that man made climate changes is not a problem. Most of the companies do instead write the opposite. Like I posted in the other thread:

“ChevronTexaco recognizes and shares the concerns that governments and the public have about climate change.” (http://www.chevrontexaco.com/social_responsibility/environment/global_climate.asp)

“The Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.” (http://www.shell.com/home/Framework...change/shells_approach_to_climate_change.html)

“The greenhouse effect is amplified by the accumulation in the atmosphere of large amounts of greenhouse gases generated by human activity” (http://www.totalfinaelf.com/static/en/medias/topic323/Total_2003_CSR_1Environment_en.pdf)

Yes, and it's the same one I already posted in here many times: EARTH HAS ALREADY HAD TWO HOT SPIKES IN THE PAST TEN THOUSAND YEARS. THIS IS BEFORE HUMAN BEINGS BEGAN TO INDUSTRIALIZE.

So what? Do you say that the current warming trend is caused by the same phenomena that caused those two spikes in the past? In that case: What caused those two spikes?

 

[BasketCase]

The Earth itself did.

 

[Pikachu]

How???????

 

[gene90]

I don't believe in anthropogenic global warming because the evidence just doesn't support it.

By plotting temperature trends over varying timescales, I can make the climate look like it's doing anything I want it do. This should be an image if this BBoard software supports it:

You should note that the current warming is less than the warming at the height of Rome's power and at the Medieval Climate Optimum.

Here is climate over the last 12,000 years:

And the last 100,000 years:

Which shows that temperature is definately up but that it started thousands of years before there were evil energy companies to cause it.

And, 420,000 years ago:

This latest image shows the obvious cyclicity to global temperature.



Now, compared to all the different contexts global warming can be placed in, global warming proponents always use the 150 year chart, as if 150 years means anything in terms of long-term trends. This is the one that they use:

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/Chapter 1 html old


Kind of a pathethically short interval to make such dramatic claims by, considering the cyclicity and past warmings we have historically experienced, isn't it?

There is another problem with the 150 year curve.

The above image is hosted at Stanford University. It is a chart comparing global temperatures over the last 150 years, with solar output.

Printed in: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, "Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate," Science, 254, 698-700, 1991.

So there you have it. Real scientists who publish real data in real journals (Science being a leading journal) that implicate the Sun in the current warming, more than man.

Now, somebody explain to me how driving SUVs is causing the Sun's intensity to go up?

Or, how about somebody explain why global temperature curves do not match global CO2 concentrations across Earth history?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

This is also an interesting diagram because it contradicts one of my references below. That's typical of the nature of the game.


Now, in the ten or so pages before this post, one of you has been particularly insistent in claiming that no scientists question anthropogenic global warming. My personal experience contradicts that. In my department, all the climate people and meteorologists doubt the global warming theory. (The geologists don't.)

This idea that the issue is settled in favor of global warming, is absurd and easily refuted by doing a search in a journal database. For example:

Akiyama, Masahiko (Moiwa****a 4-5-5, Hokkaido, Japan) Chikyu Kagaku = Earth Science, May 2004, Vol. 58, Issue 3, pp. 139-147

And the abstract says:

The causal mechanism producing the recent temperature rise at the earth surface is still not clear, though an increasing CO (sub 2) concentration is generally thought to be the driving force of recent global warming. An alternative hypothesis has been proposed that the driving force is due to a change of solar activity. In this short review, I describe the historical change of the surface temperature on the earth from the Precambrian to the present with reference to the CO (sub 2) concentration of the atmosphere. The survey of the spectacular history of the earth reveals that an increase of atmospheric CO (sub 2) pressure has a close relationship with the temperature of the earth during geologic time, but the causal and effect relationship between the two items is still not yet clear. Therefore, further scientific studies are needed before deciding whether global warming is caused by the increasing CO (sub 2) pressure due to fossil fuel consumption.

How about another one?

Yama****a, Masakazu (Doshisha University, Department of Molecular Science and Technology, Kyoto, Japan)
Source: Doshisha Daigaku Rikagaku Kenkyu Hokoku = Science and Engineering Review of Doshisha University, April 2004, Vol. 45, Issue 1, pp. 1-7

And the abstract:

The view that global warming is caused by an increase in the CO (sub 2) level in the atmosphere has become an international issue without evaluation of the phenomenon or scientific investigation of its causes. In this study, I showed that increases in carbon dioxide are not associated with climate changes. I also presented the hypothesis that changes in the earth's temperature caused by some mechanism induce changes in the CO (sub 2) concentration in the atmosphere.

Kukla, George J. (Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, NY, United States); Gavin, Joyce. Global and Planetary Change, January 2004, Vol. 40, Issue 1-2, pp. 27-48

(From the abstract) Association of recent positive seasonal anomalies of global mean temperature with El Nino events suggests that the ongoing global warming may have a significant, orbitally influenced natural component. The warming could continue even without an increase of greenhouse gases.

Karlen, Wibjorn (Stockholm University, Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm, Sweden) Ambio, September 2001, Vol. 30, Issue 6, pp. 349-350

This paper addresses the fact that measurements show global temperature has increased recently, along with atmospheric concentration of CO (sub 2) , CH (sub 4) and other gases. Measurements indicate, however, most of the increase in temperature occurred prior to the anthropogenic release of CO (sub 2) became a potentially important factor (1950). Global temperature as well as both solar irradiation and the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases have increased since the mid-1800s. The combined effect of solar irradiation and greenhouse gases is examined. (MTE)

Zangerl, R. (Field Museum of Natural History, Department of Geology, Chicago, IL, United States); Turnbull, W. D.TER-QUA Symposium Series - Institute for Tertiary-Quaternary Studies, 2002, Vol. 3, pp. 99-107.

The abstract:

Our essay discusses CO (sub 2) and other greenhouse gasses, their formation, global sinks, and how they may, or may not, be contributing to a calamitous deterioration of the Earth's environment. Accurate, detailed climatic record-taking began only about 100 years ago, and these data form the basis for most climatic models. We are convinced that such a short term base is totally inadequate to permit determination as to whether the Earth is warming or cooling. We do not know in any great detail how the Earth's sinks for C; H; O; and N have operated in the past, or what the "normal" fluctuations have been, and the little we do know does not seem to be an intimate part of those models.

The reality of climate change is that it will happen if we drive SUVs or not. Earth's climate has never been stable, it has always been either getting colder or warmer. Over the last 150 years it seems to have been getting warmer, and nobody knows why. The fact is that sea levels are going to bob up and down and there's not a thing any of us can do about it. Killing our economy with Kyoto isn't going to change what is geologically inevitable.

Further, all the concerns about anthropogenic global warming are driven by computer models and not by actual observation or data collection. I have an inherent distrust of people do all their work with computers and never go into the field to test models. There are several different computer models for predicting the weather for the next 48 hours, and their outputs are internally inconsistent and sometimes all are wrong. Why, then, should we trust modelers who want to predict climate 50 years from now?

Having said that, anthropogenic global warming is worthy of scientific study. However, the legions of government agencies, politicians, and the media, who almost always take it as unquestionable truth to either boost ratings with fear or help themselves politically (*cough* Democrats *cough*) need to either butt out or present the facts fairly. Since they will never do the latter, I suggest the former.


The above person said that "The Earth itself did" (increase CO2 concentrations). There are plenty of ways this could happen. Essentially the geologic/climate system is too complex to model but there are plenty of scenarios we can try. Suppose you have a warming (say, induced by increased solar output). The ice sheets retreat a bit from Canada, and some permafrost thaws out. What's frozen in that permafrost? A great deal of carbon, which is suddenly open to organisms to digest and respire. Millions of square kilometers of thawed permafrost dumps large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Suppose you freeze over the northern oceans and close off vertical circulation. The Antarctic icesheet advances offshore to the continental shelf. But when it reaches the shelf, it is suddenly in deep water that it cannot chill all the way down. The result would be water encountering the edge of the ice sheet, becoming denser and sinking, causing convection to occur in the formerly stagnant ocean. It turns over, and CO2-rich bottom waters rise to the surface, releasing CO2. (Sorry, I saw that scenario recently I think in Earth and Planetary Science Letters and don't have the reference. As for the permafrost scenario, I didn't make that up either, right now there is concern about melting from the current alleged increase in temperature.)

Then, of course, you have volcanoes, which release CO2, sulfur dioxide, methane, and dust into the atmosphere naturally, and which are an eight ball for any climate model.

 

[BasketCase]

Welcome to CFC Off Topic, gene90. And congratulations on one royal piledriver of a first post!

I believe planetary weather is the best explanation for the planet's hot spikes in the last ten thousand years (by "the earth itself did", I was referring to temperature instead of CO2 levels, because during that time period temperature and CO2 levels have not been correlating). Weather is extremely fickle and is also what controls the number one greenhouse gas on Earth--water vapor.

In the end, however, I don't actually have to know or prove what caused the Earth's previous hot spikes. It is enough to know that those spikes happened. Since they happened before human industry existed, those spikes were caused by something besides human-induced global warming. If our current simulations can't account for those past spikes, then the simulations are flawed.

 

[MattII]

Also filter in the fact that the van allen belts are decreasing in strength due to the fact that the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker in preparation for a magnetic reversal, which happens to the sun every 11 years or so, and has been supposed t happen on earth every 10,000 years.

 

[BasketCase]

Egads! Magnetic fields weakening! Solar radiation!!
WE'RE ALL GOING TO GET MICROWAVED!!!!!
Uhhhhh....scuse me, I gotta take a break and go change my shorts....

 

[Pikachu]

That was an impressive post, gene! But I am afraid you are confusing the physical phenomena and the actual observations.

Humans evidently are causing an increase in the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Fundamental physical relations give directly that this must trap more energy inside Earth and therefore give climate changes. This phenomenon is plain physics and leaves no room for interpretation. It simply must happen.

The greenhouse effect is however not the only phenomenon that affects the global climate. Other phenomena, like sun activity and aerosols for example, also have big impact on the global climate. The observed temperature change is a result of the combination of all the phenomena that affects global climate.

So yes, it is a connection between global temperature and sun activity, and it is also a connection between greenhouse gas concentration and global temperature. If we change one parameter we will necessarily change the total balance, but if another parameter changes at the same time, it might cancel out the effect so that we are not able to observe it. We cannot except to always see a perfect match between the global temperature and one single parameter because the temperature is dependant on a combination of many different parameters.

As I have said before: The observed temperature change is not proof for man made climate change. The theory that increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere must lead to a different climate than if it hadn’t increased is however undeniable unless you also deny some well accepted laws of physics.

The reality of climate change is that it will happen if we drive SUVs or not. Earth's climate has never been stable, it has always been either getting colder or warmer. Over the last 150 years it seems to have been getting warmer, and nobody knows why. The fact is that sea levels are going to bob up and down and there's not a thing any of us can do about it. Killing our economy with Kyoto isn't going to change what is geologically inevitable.

OK, so we are doomed anyway. Let’s do what we can to speed up the process and get over with it!

By the way, the Kyoto bluff is a very moderate agreement that will not significantly damage our economy. It is more useful to ensure a soft transition from fossil fuels to renewable than it is to reduce coming climate changes. The Kyoto bluff is way too little to solve the coming global warming problems!

 

[gene90]

Humans evidently are causing an increase in the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Fundamental physical relations give directly that this must trap more energy inside Earth and therefore give climate changes. This phenomenon is plain physics and leaves no room for interpretation. It simply must happen.

I disagree. Geology and climate aren't like classical physics or chemistry. You are correct in that in the lab we would expect such a simple relationship of more CO2 = Higher Temperatures. But lab work is made to be simplistic, and Earth is not a laboratory; it is made of thousands of subsystems and feedback loops that we barely understand.

For example, if increased concentrations of CO2 increase temperature, you will increase evaporation as well, which will increase global cloud cover, which will increase the planetary albedo, which in turn will decrease the amount of heat getting in.

If you warm up a just a little, and increase precipitation with it, you may increase annual snowfall enough to produce continental glaciers in the far north. This would increase albedo.

If the GW predictions at least partly comes true, and sea level rises enough to to flood all the carbonate platforms of the world, how much CO2 will the sudden increase of coral habitat sequester? What if the North Atlantic Gyre gets shut down and northern Europe ices over (and then albedo increases)?

I don't disagree that in the simplest possible form, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming makes sense. I simply argue that the Earth is far more complex than most GW proponents will allow. I also argue that the current evidence for anthropogenic warming is inadequate (as expressed in my above post) and that certain interests are using it from their own gain.

So yes, it is a connection between global temperature and sun activity

A huge connection, as shown by the figure published in Science. So much that it seems to leave little room for anthropogenic influence, or much of anything else.

If we change one parameter we will necessarily change the total balance, but if another parameter changes at the same time, it might cancel out the effect so that we are not able to observe it. We cannot except to always see a perfect match between the global temperature and one single parameter because the temperature is dependant on a combination of many different parameters.

Yes. And, most of these factors are interconnected.

The theory that increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere must lead to a different climate than if it hadn’t increased is however undeniable unless you also deny some well accepted laws of physics.

I don't deny laws of physics, I do deny that geology and climate are as simple as people assume that it is.

Weather, for example, is nothing more than physics at large. It follows laws of physics that are well known to us. Yet people seem to have the darndest time trying to predict it! That's because the system is too complex for us to understand.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I also argue that the current evidence for anthropogenic warming is inadequate (as expressed in my above post) and that certain interests are using it from their own gain.

WHAT gain?
I think this was said earlier: the oil companies have a profit motive for denying global warming, who has a motive for showing it exists?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Anyone who is willing to apply to the IPCC for a research grant, for one.

 

[carlosMM]

gene90: I have very little time now, but I know the 1991 paper by Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, "Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate," Science, 254, 698-700 had to be taken back - it was factually wrong!


Also, to totally fail to address that
a) the current temp rise it OUT OF cycle (should see at most a moderate warming)
b) the current temp rise is a magnitude larger at the very least than any observed historic one (but for a few that are directly connected to impacts or massive sudden volcanism - we do not have either atm!)
c) that there are many more mechanisms but only CO2 to influence temp

Or, how about somebody explain why global temperature curves do not match global CO2 concentrations across Earth history?

You seem to know a lot about the matter - why do you ask such oversimplifying questions? WHY????

 

[carlosMM]

Anyone who is willing to apply to the IPCC for a research grant, for one.

Don't you think they'd be EXTREMELY happy to have someone prove we are not causing global warming?

But they never fund research that does so, despite any sane man being interested in it, so I guess they enver get grant requests that make sense

 

[Pikachu]

I disagree. Geology and climate aren't like classical physics or chemistry. You are correct in that in the lab we would expect such a simple relationship of more CO2 = Higher Temperatures. But lab work is made to be simplistic, and Earth is not a laboratory; it is made of thousands of subsystems and feedback loops that we barely understand.

So you do know that more greenhouse gasses would give global warming unless feedback mechanisms disturb the effect. That’s good! We can work from there then.

You say that the feedback mechanisms necessarily will cancel out the initial human caused effect, so we have nothing to worry about. At the same time you know that nobody fully understand all the feedback phenomena, and consequently nobody is able to predict how nature will respond to the human interruptions. How can you know that nature will reduce the effect? I think it is just as likely that the feedback will amplify the human caused effect!

I don’t think we can know which way it will go. All we know is that we are changing an important parameter for our climate and consequently we know that something has to change, but we don’t know how things will change.

So we know we are changing something important, but we don’t know what consequences it will have. Does this sound like responsible behavior?

For example, if increased concentrations of CO2 increase temperature, you will increase evaporation as well, which will increase global cloud cover, which will increase the planetary albedo, which in turn will decrease the amount of heat getting in.

Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, so increased evaporation will also cause increased greenhouse effect and trap more energy within Earth. I cannot say if the increased cloud formation or the increased greenhouse effect will have the biggest effect, so I just have to assume that this could go either way.

Anyway, this effect will not happen at all before the climate already has changed. Significantly increased cloud cover is in itself a climate change! In the long run the increased cloud cover cannot be maintained unless the temperature is kept at a higher level than before either, and a higher global temperature is also a climate change.

If you warm up a just a little, and increase precipitation with it, you may increase annual snowfall enough to produce continental glaciers in the far north. This would increase albedo.

Interesting, I presented this theory in my first post in this thread. It is a possible result of global warming, but global warming could also possibly cause icecaps to melt instead. We cannot know for sure. But of course, if glaciers grow enough to significantly increase albedo, it would be a sure sign of a major local climate change. If this happen as a result of human activities, it would truly be a human caused climate change!

If the GW predictions at least partly comes true, and sea level rises enough to to flood all the carbonate platforms of the world, how much CO2 will the sudden increase of coral habitat sequester? What if the North Atlantic Gyre gets shut down and northern Europe ices over (and then albedo increases)?

That would indeed be a major human caused climate change!

A huge connection, as shown by the figure published in Science. So much that it seems to leave little room for anthropogenic influence, or much of anything else.

Now you are exaggerating. Your graph indicates that changes in sun activity give temperature changes in a range up to about 1-2C or something. Human contributions to the greenhouse effect are estimated to cause a little more change than that in the coming century. It seems like our influence on our climate is at least comparable to the influence from changes in sun activity.

Oh, and if carlos is right that this source was factually wrong, I don’t think we should take it too seriously.

Could you give us a source to back up that claim, carlos?

 

[Dragonlord]

I don’t think we can know which way it will go. All we know is that we are changing an important parameter for our climate and consequently we know that something has to change, but we don’t know how things will change.

So we know we are changing something important, but we don’t know what consequences it will have. Does this sound like responsible behavior?

The very point I was trying to make earlier in the thread!

We know we're changing the parameters and don't know what effects it will have, except that, unless some kind of feedback cycle kicks in to nullify exactly what we have done, it will cause change.

The long-term temperature charts that the let's-do-nothing proponents have been using to bolster their arguments actually can be used the other way:

They show that climate can change drastically, so obviously feedback loops can't be relied on to keep global temperature constant. They could just as well act to accelerate change.

Did you notice in one of Gene's graphs how global temperature has been relatively constant since the beginning of agriculture? Turn that around and think about what it will mean to leave that temperature range...

As I said before, does it really matter whether mankind is the sole source of global warming? If a large part is due to other factors, such as solar activity, does that make it unimportant that we are contributing to the temperature rise?

IMO, there are indeed some stabilizing factors in world climate that work to reduce sudden changes, feedback cycles of different sorts that Gene has already named. The problem is that these stabilizing factors must logically have limits, otherwise climatical changes as have occurred in the past would not have been possible.
The more greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, the closer we must logically get to those limits, so it's in our best interests to slow emissions as much as possible.

 

[bigfatron]

Killing our economy with Kyoto isn't going to change what is geologically inevitable.

Thanks Gene90, an interesting post and not one that I would like to lightly dismiss.

I do think, though, that you have fallen into the trap you yourself identify with the comment above. You refer to Kyoto as 'killing our economy' without any evidence whatsoever to support that contention.

Here in the UK we have been aiming not just to achieve the Kyoto target but to go further and reduce emissions below historic levels. Over the period since that decision was enacted, UK emissions have fallen 15%. If you are a Republican senator you would insist this would impact UK growth severely, yet in the same period the UK has achieved 36% growth and the longest sustained period of continuous growth in our history.

In fact there is no apparent correlation between energy efficiency/emission control and economic weakness, either in the UK or in any other countries that have taken such steps.

So, while the case for global warming may be 'not proven', IMHO the case for emissions restraint 'killing' the economy is non-existent.

makes you wonder why some people use it so much......

 

[gene90]

WHAT gain?
I think this was said earlier: the oil companies have a profit motive for denying global warming, who has a motive for showing it exists?

Politicians use global warming as a stalking horse to advance their agendas. If I scare my constituency with it, and then blame all the future problems on my opponents, I can win votes.

Government agencies use it to extend their own authority, thus serving the bureacrats in charge. If I am running a Federal agency, I will be competing with the rest of the government for funding. That means it would behoove me to keep searching for "problems" that need to have money thrown at them in order to justify the agency.

The media use it because any kind of a scare will boost ratings. When was the last time you got people to watch the news by saying that nothing was ever wrong? But if you threaten them with something, you will keep them watching.

Activists that advocate various forms of wealth distribution can use Global Warm as an excuse to penalize Western Nations and place further industrial advantage upon Third World nations, which are less affected by the Kyoto Treaty.

 

[gene90]

had to be taken back - it was factually wrong!

Cite?

a) the current temp rise it OUT OF cycle (should see at most a moderate warming)

Look at the graphs...

b) the current temp rise is a magnitude larger at the very least than any observed historic one (but for a few that are directly connected to impacts or massive sudden volcanism - we do not have either atm!)

Look at the graphs...

You seem to know a lot about the matter - why do you ask such oversimplifying questions? WHY????

That's my point. All this global warming warming is based upon the assumption that temperature increases directly follow increases of CO2 concentration. They tend to ignore any other complexities of climate and geology. These are simplistic assumptions with very little data to fall back on.

Further, the current rise in temperature is no different from historical rises that predate industry. In fact, the climate will always be getting either warmer or cooler.

 

[Gothmog]

BasketCase Wrote:

I already described what I think those holes are.

As far as I can tell the holes are that the earth climate has been quite variable on a 100000 year timescale. In my mind that established fact has very little bearing on the current theory of climate change. Obviously climate scientists know about those records, and understand their implications much better than you. In fact paleoclimatology is a relatively recent field.

If you think the global warming theory is sound and proven, you're obviously going to think the theory is NOT a screen door, and that I'm

I stated my case, you stated yours. Why should I be getting upset that you disagree with me?

I don’t think you should be upset, and I don’t think you are crazy. You made the claim that the theory of climate change is full of holes. I was just wondering if there was any fire behind that smoke. I guess not.

The ‘braniac community’ as you put it, understands the relative energy balance much better than you. If you were to actually engage yourself in study on the issue you would find that out. It is an established fact that our atmosphere is now significantly more opaque to infrared radiation.

Plus there's the fact that the planet is overdue for another 8-degree-Celsius drop in average temperature. We can't afford to "not mess with the environment" and just let it change naturally, because sometime in the next few thousand years the planet is going to naturally become a giant Safeway frozen food section. This is something I see absolutely NOBODY in the scientific community addressing.

Well, you need to get out into the scientific community more. Or just read more before you spout off, once again all smoke and no fire. I specifically addressed this issue in this very thread.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2498579&postcount=135
and
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2505176&postcount=140
Many scientists are worried about the earth entering a new ice age, have been for a long time. What makes you think that you are the only person in the world who thinks about these issues? Some people actually get paid to do it, and they are quite good at it. We have ‘messed’ with the environment. We have converted vast areas to monoculture, we have cut down forests, we have increased the flow of fixed nitrogen, we have changed the infrared opacity of the atmosphere, we have changed ozone chemistry in the stratosphere, and we have changed the aerosol loading and distribution. The point that most reputable scientists try to make is that we should try to understand how these significant changes are going to affect our global climate. Great strides have been made on that account, especially in the last decade. If we want to try and make changes that help enhance human survival, instead of just randomly changing important climate variables, we need to understand the issues. Denying that there is a problem will not make it go away.

 

[Gothmog]

Now for gene90, this is one of the reasons I typically avoid global warming threads. You have presented a mass of data, and selected publications, without any critical review. Without a full understanding of the current state of knowledge.

You showed a number of paleoclimatological plots, good. What do they mean to you?

Yes, they can be interpreted in various different ways. Have you really looked at the literature on the subject written by people who spend 80 hours a week trying to understand them?

Do you really think that is the only evidence scientists have to work with? What dramatic claims are you referring to?

You then show a plot from 14 years ago. Do you have any idea what additional work on this, important, topic has been done since then? Did you even read the website from which that plot came?

First of all, you have shown a plot of the 11 year sun spot cycle, which is not correlated significantly with solar output. Second of all this paper has indeed been subjected to much more rigorous analysis since it was published. Much of the debate took place in the decade following the publication. Science is a top journal, and work published there is typically groundbreaking and not yet fully established.

In particular this reference address specifically the data you present:
Solar cycle lengths and climate: A reference revisited
Laut, P; Gundermann, J
Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS; DEC 1 2000; v.105, no.A12, p.27489-27492

and questions the specific data selection procedure that the authors of your posted reference made. Here’s the abstract:

An article published by Friis-Christensen and Lassen [1991] appeared to indicate an association between solar cycle lengths (SCLs) and climate. It attracted worldwide attention and has since been extensively referred to. We here present an updated analysis using a recent temperature reconstruction with the time period of comparison considerably expanded. The correlation is found to be weak. In the light of this new result we analyze the question how the article by Friis-Christensen and Lassen was able to create the impression of a 'strikingly good agreement', as the authors described it. We show that the main reason is an unacceptable mixing of filtered and nonfiltered data in the graphical representation. Hereby, an artificial agreement of the solar data with the global warming since 1970 was established. The article by Friis-Christensen and Lassen has created and still creates confusion both in scientific and public discussions on climate change. We have therefore found it relevant to deliver the present analysis.

Others,
Solar irradiance since 1874 revisited
Solanki, SK; Fligge, M
Source: Geophysical Research Letters; 1 Feb. 1998; vol.25, no.3, p.341-4

Some implications using the group sunspot number reconstruction.
Kane, RP
Source: Solar Physics; Feb. 2002; vol.205, no.2, p.383-401

Multi-resolution time series analysis applied to solar irradiance and climate reconstructions
Oh, HS; Ammann, CM; Naveau, P; Nychka, D; Otto-Bliesner, BL
Source: JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS; JAN 2003; v.65, no.2, p.191-201

Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations.
Laut, P
Source: Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics; May 2003; vol.65, no.7, p.801-12

Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?
Solanki, SK; Krivova, NA
Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS; MAY 21 2003; v.108, no.A5, p.1200

This reference in particular is a nice example of trying to study the problem from an objective perspective and shows how science progresses. Not by dismissing, but by actively studying.

Do models underestimate the solar contribution to recent climate change?
Stott, PA; Jones, GS; Mitchell, JFB
Source: Journal of Climate; Dec 15 2003; v.16, no.24, p.4079-4093

There was also a recent back and forth in the newsletter EOS about this issue.

The most recent work of which I am aware made the argument that the sunspot cycle changed the structure of the ionosphere and allowed more cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere. This in turn affects clouds and precipitation. A very recent bit of work done in Antarctica has pretty much put the kibosh on this theory, though much of it remains to be published in peer review journals having mostly been vetted at scientific meetings.

Again, what makes you think that no-one but you is aware of such data?

A couple references I am aware of:

The proposed connection between clouds and cosmic rays: cloud behaviour during the past 50-120 years.
Palle, E; Butler, CJ
Source: Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics; Feb. 2002; vol.64, no.3, p.327-37

Cosmic rays and terrestrial temperature: Is there a direct longterm relation?
Mendoza, B; Ramirez, J; Cordero, G
Source: Advances in Space Research; 2004; v.34, no.2, p.416-419
Conference: 2nd World Space Congress/34th COSPAR Scientific Assembly; October 10-19, 2002; HOUSTON, TX

Solar variability and global warming: A statistical comparison since 1850
Krivova, NA; Solanki, SK
Source: Advances in Space Research; 2004; v.34, no.2, p.361-364
Conference: 2nd World Space Congress/34th COSPAR Scientific Assembly; October 10-19, 2002; HOUSTON, TX

Solar UV irradiance, its variation, and its relevance to the Earth
Floyd, L; Tobiska, WK; Cebula, RP
Source: ADVANCES IN SPACE RESEARCH; 2002; v.29, no.10, p.1427-1440
Conference: 1st International Solar Cycle Study Workshop; July 1998; NAGOYA, JAPAN

Now you want someone to explain why global temperature does not match global CO2 concentrations across earths history. Sigh. Why not explain why you think they should? Various feedbacks operating at various timescales have already been discussed in this thread. Do I really need to say more about that?

You provide a few more references that mostly outline the doubters point of view in the climate change topic. This is healthy, though none of these references are in top tier journals.

I agree with your assessment that politicians need to let scientists work on the topic. Though I would argue that in recent years only Shrub has actively interfered with the relevant science.

Finally, you list a few potential feedbacks. Now why would you need to ask the question you did above?

In your next post you write

For example, if increased concentrations of CO2 increase temperature, you will increase evaporation as well, which will increase global cloud cover, which will increase the planetary albedo, which in turn will decrease the amount of heat getting in.

Which is a secondary feedback. The primary feedback, which I already mentioned, is the increased evaporation increasing the infrared opacity of the troposphere – increasing the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere.

Current evidence for antropogenic climate change is quite strong. A new IPCC report will come out soon (2005 I think) and will summarize this link. The 2001 report was already pretty strong.

A huge connection, as shown by the figure published in Science. So much that it seems to leave little room for anthropogenic influence, or much of anything else.

While much of your post was good. This is crap, as I have shown in references above. No reputable scientist would make this claim.