PDA

View Full Version : Sun not responsible for global warming



ToSeek
2004-Aug-04, 04:54 PM
How Strongly Does The Sun Influence The Global Climate? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040803093903.htm)


Two scientists from the MPI for Solar System Research have calculated for the last 150 years the Sun’s main parameters affecting climate, using current measurements and the newest models: the total radiation, the ultraviolet output, and the Sun’s magnetic field (which modulates the cosmic ray intensity). They come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation. However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

kucharek
2004-Aug-04, 05:06 PM
How Strongly Does The Sun Influence The Global Climate? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040803093903.htm)
That's a somewhat silly headline. Of course, the sun has the strongest influence on the climate here. Without the sun, it would be cold as hell here and pretty dark, too. 8-[

Harald

EFossa
2004-Aug-04, 05:40 PM
If the Sun has had an influence on the climate for the last 130 years out of 150 as these researchers suggest, contrary to the the headline of this thread, I would say it has a pretty major impact on climate change. And is a significant source for the warming seen this century.

Swift
2004-Aug-04, 08:05 PM
If the Sun has had an influence on the climate for the last 130 years out of 150 as these researchers suggest, contrary to the the headline of this thread, I would say it has a pretty major impact on climate change. And is a significant source for the warming seen this century.
I don't agree. If human-caused increases in CO2 levels are the cause of global warming, it is going to be a cumulative effective that will increase over time. The first 130 years are the baseline of solar variations. Now the human caused effects are becoming great enough that they are having a bigger impact than the variations caused by solar variations.

Glom
2004-Aug-04, 08:24 PM
The thread title seems more certain than they make it sound in the article.

One other thing, if the sunspot cycle is at its peak at the moment, then how is it that it is still cooler than the medieval warm period, especially given these catastrophic emissions? Maybe the solar-terrestrial relationship is more complex than they give it credit for.

rleyland
2004-Aug-04, 10:11 PM
How Strongly Does The Sun Influence The Global Climate? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040803093903.htm)


Two scientists from the MPI for Solar System Research have calculated for the last 150 years the Sun’s main parameters affecting climate, using current measurements and the newest models: the total radiation, the ultraviolet output, and the Sun’s magnetic field (which modulates the cosmic ray intensity). They come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation. However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

Interesting ToSeek, every other report of this I've read (bbc, Guardian etc) have the reverse headline... being Sun MORE responsible, not less.

cheers,
Robbo

PS. in response to others, CO2 is such a minor fraction of the atmosphere (0.03%), water vapor is the primary "greenhouse" gas, and even Methane has a higher "greenhouse" factor.

dgruss23
2004-Aug-05, 01:13 PM
Finally somebody is tackling this problem with the right mindset. =D> You have to account for the Sun's influence before you can claim humans are causing global warming. This study seems to have taken into account not only the Sun's energy output, but also the effect that cosmic rays have on cloud formation. I wish the person that wrote the article had put a number on the "only a small part of the warming the last 20-30 years." What's small? 5% or 30%?

N C More
2004-Aug-05, 01:55 PM
What really makes me wonder about all of this climate speculation is that there are some who think we're actually on our way towards another ice age (http://www.hevanet.com/kort/ICE1.HTM). According to this train of thought the entire world doesn't have to become colder for there to be another ice age, in fact moisture may be the determining factor. Here's a snip:


The conventional wisdom that the climate has to be a lot colder is also in error. Even at the depth of the last ice age the tropics and subtropics were only four degrees cooler than they are now. Temperatures in the Equatorial Rain Forest Belt remained much as they are today. According to Maurice Ewing, former directory of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, it's cold enough right now to cause an ice age - all we need is more moisture. And the record rains and flooding around the world demonstrate that increased evaporation from warm oceans is already providing that additional moisture

It's an interesting theory but I don't know if it really "holds water" or not. So, which will it be....fried or frozen?

Glom
2004-Aug-05, 01:57 PM
Also, you have to consider other natural earthbound factors as well in global warming. These are rarely mentioned, primarily because natural emissions and solar variance can't be blamed on capitalism.

*Quickly running full speed away from the p word!*

In addition, to say that solar effects are only immediate and cannot cause longer term changes (I say longer term but twenty-five years is hardly long term) is being a bit naive. The biosphere is a chaotic system. Smeg happens. (I say this as a first year physics student so I am obviously qualified to render such an arrogant opinion. 8-[ :^o )

Disinfo Agent
2004-Aug-05, 02:21 PM
How Strongly Does The Sun Influence The Global Climate? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040803093903.htm)
That's a somewhat silly headline. Of course, the sun has the strongest influence on the climate here. Without the sun, it would be cold as hell here and pretty dark, too. 8-[

Harald
I think you're misreading the headline. It doesn't question the fact that the Sun has an influence on climate; it only questions how significant is that influence.

Joe87
2004-Aug-05, 03:31 PM
Here are a few of my thoughts about global climate change:

1. The global climate is not static. It has changed continually and sometimes rapidly in the past and it shows no signs of becoming more stable. Change is inevitable, with or without human intervention.

2. In the short run, any change in temperature, up or down, is bad for someone, somewhere. Probably a lot of people. Sea level change is never good for port cities.

Items 1 and 2 mean that bad things WILL happen, it's just a question of when.

A warmer earth will support a larger human population than a colder earth. The next ice age WILL happen and it will remove large amounts of arable land from production, leading to lower population levels.

In contrast, the Cretaceous climate was on the order of 10deg C warmer than the current climate. There were no ice caps. Plants and animals flourished near the poles. In the long run, warmer is better than colder. It may be that if the current global warming melts the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, the next ice age will be delayed a few tens of thousands of years. The long-term benefits of global warming would seem to outweigh the short-term disadvantages, but we really don't know, because

We don't yet have good models for "predicting" past climate changes, much less future changes. So we really don't know how much change will result from increased anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. In any case, the fossil fuel supply is rapidly being used up, which means CO2 release by human activities will end, probably in less than a century or two.

Interesting times lie ahead, whether we curb our CO2 generation or not.

bobjohnston
2004-Aug-05, 09:36 PM
A major problem with this report is that it is not at all clear that substantial warming has occurred since 1980. Ground-based and balloon/satellite-based measurements diverge during this time period, with the latter showing little increase. Part of the issue is different response at different levels of the atmosphere, but what is largely ignored is bias effects on the ground based measurements--urban heat island effects and skewed sampling from available ground stations. If little warming has occurred in this period, then the solar influence is fully vindicated.

dgruss23
2004-Aug-08, 01:27 AM
A major problem with this report is that it is not at all clear that substantial warming has occurred since 1980. Ground-based and balloon/satellite-based measurements diverge during this time period, with the latter showing little increase. Part of the issue is different response at different levels of the atmosphere, but what is largely ignored is bias effects on the ground based measurements--urban heat island effects and skewed sampling from available ground stations. If little warming has occurred in this period, then the solar influence is fully vindicated.

Didn't satellite measurements in the mid-90's even suggest a cooling?

bobjohnston
2004-Aug-08, 02:37 AM
Didn't satellite measurements in the mid-90's even suggest a cooling?

Very slight, yes. There is a more recent spike from an El Nino event which, throws the whole satellite record into a slight warming if you try to do a linear fit and ignore the transient nature of the spike, but even this slight warming is substantially below the highly acclaimed and poorly examined ground based record.

Diamond
2004-Aug-08, 03:31 AM
If the Sun has had an influence on the climate for the last 130 years out of 150 as these researchers suggest, contrary to the the headline of this thread, I would say it has a pretty major impact on climate change. And is a significant source for the warming seen this century.
I don't agree. If human-caused increases in CO2 levels are the cause of global warming, it is going to be a cumulative effective that will increase over time. The first 130 years are the baseline of solar variations. Now the human caused effects are becoming great enough that they are having a bigger impact than the variations caused by solar variations.

Except for two important facts:

1. Human-caused increases in CO2 are extremely small compared to the natural cycle. Also CO2 levels in the atmosphere as measured by ice core records do not bear out the "Greenhouse Warming" effect of rising CO2. Instead, the temperature starts rising and then 800-1000 years later , CO2 begins to rise. In no ice-core records at all, does a rise in CO2 cause (ie precede) a warming. The current rise in CO2 may be little more than the delayed effect of a strong warming that caused the "Medieval Warm Period" of 1000 years ago.

2. Not even the IPCC could identify ANY anthopogenic component to temperature variation in the last 150 years. And I quote in Chapter 1 of Climate Change 2001, page 97:


"The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural."

The above quote may come as a shock since the Summary for Policymakers (the bit written by bureaucrats and the only bit reported by journalists) says:


"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

It's impossible to reconcile the two statements - the scientists are clearly being misrepresented by another agenda. I leave it to you to work out what that agenda is (which is probably outside the scope of this board)

Glom
2004-Aug-08, 04:38 AM
It's impossible to reconcile the two statements - the scientists are clearly being misrepresented by another agenda. I leave it to you to work out what that agenda is (which is probably outside the scope of this board)

See my above post and we'll leave it there.

Didn't jrkeller also mention something a while back about temperatures increases being given being within the margin of error for the measurement equipment?

The thing that is weird about the cycle is that the sun is more active than ever before in the last 1500 years and yet the climate isn't at its warmest. Solar-terrestrial interactions must be more complicated than that. Dr. Chaplin of the University of Birmingham, who has contributed to a lot of this work, says that a first order approximation places the solar role at 30%, but he stressed that this figure is just a simple radiant transfer calculation and doesn't take into account the complexities of the chaotic biosphere.

Candy
2004-Aug-08, 07:46 AM
Forgive me if I missed it, but I'm tired. Did we ever hear back from NASA launches satellite to study pollution, global warming (http://www.wastenews.com/headlines2.html?id=1089995613)? It was launched July 15, 2004. I'm excited what EOS Aura (http://aura.gsfc.nasa.gov/) will find. 8-[

Diamond
2004-Aug-08, 09:48 AM
It's impossible to reconcile the two statements - the scientists are clearly being misrepresented by another agenda. I leave it to you to work out what that agenda is (which is probably outside the scope of this board)

See my above post and we'll leave it there.

Didn't jrkeller also mention something a while back about temperatures increases being given being within the margin of error for the measurement equipment?

He did. In talking about an increase in "global temperature" I have to make the assumption that such a construct is physically meaningful - a rather big assumption since temperature is an intensive variable and there is no physical basis for collapsing thousands of temperature measurements across the globe down to a single number.


The thing that is weird about the cycle is that the sun is more active than ever before in the last 1500 years and yet the climate isn't at its warmest. Solar-terrestrial interactions must be more complicated than that. Dr. Chaplin of the University of Birmingham, who has contributed to a lot of this work, says that a first order approximation places the solar role at 30%, but he stressed that this figure is just a simple radiant transfer calculation and doesn't take into account the complexities of the chaotic biosphere.

..or I might add the complexities of a loosely coupled chaotic system. The global climate is perhaps the hardest thing in science to quantify, and I am very skeptical of some scientists who make "offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts [they] might have"

dgruss23
2004-Aug-08, 12:38 PM
Diamond: 1. Human-caused increases in CO2 are extremely small compared to the natural cycle. Also CO2 levels in the atmosphere as measured by ice core records do not bear out the "Greenhouse Warming" effect of rising CO2. Instead, the temperature starts rising and then 800-1000 years later , CO2 begins to rise. In no ice-core records at all, does a rise in CO2 cause (ie precede) a warming. The current rise in CO2 may be little more than the delayed effect of a strong warming that caused the "Medieval Warm Period" of 1000 years ago.

Diamond, do you (or anybody else) have a reference about that. I recall reading that somewhere a while back but I haven't been able to find a reference to it. I think about the tracking of CO2 and Temperatures the ice cores and wonder if all possibilities are being considered. If warming precedes CO2 increases, then that blows the GW theory out of the water. Its possible that warming causes the permafrost areas to release more CO2 and thus the CO2 simply increases in response to a warming instead of the other way around.


..or I might add the complexities of a loosely coupled chaotic system. The global climate is perhaps the hardest thing in science to quantify, and I am very skeptical of some scientists who make "offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts [they] might have"

And the computer models are extremely unreliable as we've discussed on other threads.

N C More
2004-Aug-08, 01:51 PM
Diamond, do you (or anybody else) have a reference about that. I recall reading that somewhere a while back but I haven't been able to find a reference to it. I think about the tracking of CO2 and Temperatures the ice cores and wonder if all possibilities are being considered. If warming precedes CO2 increases, then that blows the GW theory out of the water. Its possible that warming causes the permafrost areas to release more CO2 and thus the CO2 simply increases in response to a warming instead of the other way around.

It's a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" sort of issue. This entire subject is very confusing and conflicting. Then you have the group that doesn't think warming is leading to an upward change in global temperature but rather another ice age (http://www.hevanet.com/kort/ICE1.HTM)!


Even as we're told to change our ways because of global warming, record snowfalls and low temperatures are being reported around the globe. During recent winters snow has been reported in such previously snow-free places as Guadalajara, Mexico City, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. USDA Plant Hardiness Zones are shifting south. We're told that the edges of the ice packs are melting and some glaciers are receding, but when they found the "lost squadron" of planes abandoned during WWII on the Greenland Ice Sheet, the planes were buried under the over 200 feet of new ice that had accumulated since the war. The situation in Antarctica is much the same with the old Byrd Station being crushed under 40-50 feet of new ice, and a new station having to be built on what is now the surface of the ice.

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets represent far more area than all the world's glaciers put together, and they aren't melting - they're growing. But all we hear about is the melting on the edges where the ice is exposed to the warmer ocean waters. The oceans are getting warmer, but not because of global warming or anything mankind is doing. Ocean temperatures are following the same pattern that preceded every other ice age and for the same reasons. Just prior to the last ice age ocean temperatures shot up 10-18 degrees - the same as they're doing today.



Hey, the whole thing has me pretty confused, I don't know what to think!

ToSeek
2004-Aug-08, 02:03 PM
Forgive me if I missed it, but I'm tired. Did we ever hear back from NASA launches satellite to study pollution, global warming (http://www.wastenews.com/headlines2.html?id=1089995613)? It was launched July 15, 2004. I'm excited what EOS Aura (http://aura.gsfc.nasa.gov/) will find. 8-[

It's way too soon for any definitive scientific results. They're probably still checking out the instruments.

Brady Yoon
2004-Aug-08, 07:19 PM
My opinion is that humans don't have the power to destroy the Earth and it's life. Life and Earth (even more so), are very resilient. The importance of conservation and environmental protection isn't to save the Earth-the Earth can survive without us. It's to make sure that people and their future generations can live a safe and good life. Sorry if I'm off topic though.

Glom
2004-Aug-08, 09:58 PM
It's a good thing to do the environmental thing (the scientific kind not the Green kind) regardless of whether or not we are causing problems. The only difference is that if we're innocent, we don't have to panic.

Joe87
2004-Aug-09, 02:03 AM
degruss23 wrote: Diamond, do you (or anybody else) have a reference about that. I recall reading that somewhere a while back but I haven't been able to find a reference to it.

The Vostok ice core data indicate that CO2 and Temperature increase more or less simultaneously when the climate is warming up from a glaciation, but that the CO2 level lags when the climate is cooling down going into a glaciation.

This reference says: (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm)
According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.

Paleotemperature data from deuterium (ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt) and CO2 data (ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt) from the Vostok ice cores can be found at a noaa website. It looks to me like the data show what Barnola and Petit say it does. No lag when temp is rising, significant lag when temp is falling.

The Vostok CO2 data also show that the CO2 level has not exceeded 300 ppm at any time over the past 420,000 years until recently. It now is around 370 ppm. At least some of the 70 ppm excess is likely to be anthropogenic.

Launch window
2004-Sep-05, 04:35 AM
The Majority of Americans believe in big black eyed Aliens walking around naked and abducting humans, yet they won't consider the facts of Global warming

ESA craft watches bad weather (http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMPMB0XDYD_index_0.html)

Envisat sees through the Storm,

Rapid Climate change impossible to turn back ? (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3024358a11,00.html)

here's one eduacted American who thinks it may be too late


Flames and Anger at Geographic magazine for Global Warming stroy (http://www.mmegi.bw/2004/August/Friday27/8714118231095.html)

Many Americans are so angry with National Geographics recent story on Global warming that they will even terminate their memberships. So much for the Kyoto treaty :-? . So cutting down on emissions and more toxins is going to cost industy a bit and raise prices a little, big deal !! . Are people really that selfish about the price of gas in their SUVs so that they are willing to pollute Mother Earth just so our petroleum prices stay a few cents lower ?

Very sad to see this angry and bitter reaction against the National Geographic magazine and Tv station

[-(

Kaptain K
2004-Sep-05, 12:29 PM
Are people really that selfish about the price of gas in their SUVs so that they are willing to pollute Mother Earth just so our petroleum prices stay a few cents lower ?
Consider that Daimler-Chrysler makes a car (the Smart Fortwo) that is fabulously successful in Europe and gets 40-60 MPG. They will not import it into the US, but plan to import the Formor (a mini-SUV) starting in '06.

mrrabbit
2004-Sep-05, 05:14 PM
1. We humans are very very very puny...and complete idiots if we think we are the cause of global warming OR cooling short of a nuclear winter launched by us.

2. Global warming and cooling exist whether we exist or not...and in this century alone have gone through several minor cycles - independent of anything we have done.

3. When the crew that dug up the lost squadron at Greenland finally found their aircraft...the project leader was scratching his head and asking himself: "What global warming?" The aircraft were landed on a non-glaciated area covered in snow - only to be found 40+ years later buried in 350 feet of solid ice? To make the point short...there's regional warming and cooling as well as global warming and cooling - and the regions also have their periodic tendencies.

4. When the Titanic went down - it went down in the midst of a sea of ice period that followed a hug increase in Arctic ice break up and flow into the Atlantic. Yet today - environmental extremists are screaming CASTROPHY at the supposedly UNHERALDED worst ice breakup ever in the Arctic region - never mind prior history.

5. Oh, no doubt about it...the sun plays a HUGE role in our warming and cooling. So does our position relative to it. Next in line in terms of effect are volcanoes, dust storms, asteroids, etc.

6. Oil? Fossil fuel? Fossils? Dead dinosaurs? Come on folks...that is a hundred year old myth! Hope you folks follow the latest in geological sciences. Turns out that oil MAY BE A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE. At the very least scientists studying the above real possibility have concluded that our oil reserves are more like 200-400 years instead of 40-50. Turns out that oil may be constantly generated by the inner-layer process of earth...is relieved through the mantle several ways:

- through oil sands.
- through volcanic activity.
- through natural gas - NG is found where oil is found.
- through fissures in deep ocean areas. (Oh heavens!!!)
- through below-ground wells deep and shallow which we tap.

Oh and on the way up - the oil gets contaminated by you guessed it - biological materials. Basically, some scientists have been following drillers who have been removing the caps on old and "expired" wells and testing them only to discover that those wells have returned to their previous output and reserve levels.

For the conspiracy theorists here like myself...I wonder if the increased tendency of OPEC and refineries in the U.S. to keep supplies short in order to keep prices somewhat higher than normal may be a response to this? (Better rake in what we can before the scientists confirm what we suspect!!!) Might also explain why some oil companies are only too happy to close productive oil fields for conversion to environmental reserves - would help keep oil accessibility low under the guise of protecting the environment and prices high. The news has been slowly making its way around the last decade.

7. WE WILL have another ice age. I agree wholeheartedly with the poster who has already noted that. We will also have another warm age afterwards. The key question is will we be prepared going in? And will we remember coming out of it and be prepared again? Why?

We humans were in one before - and we obviously didn't remember it...or at the most we have very vague references to it in several religions around the world and some folks tales - and a supposed legend know as Atlantis.

While a lot of folks like to point to a mythical Atlantis some place in the Med. or Atlantic, I like some scientists who are actually doing expeditions into the topic prefer to think of Atlantis as a reference to one or more civilizations that existed a long time ago that did travel globally and communicated and traded goods and technology. The scientists in question have found roads that disappear into the ocean for miles at a time in various parts of the world the predate know civilizations. They have found under-ocean cities in various parts of the world that predate known civilizations. And of course they continue to find to this day cities buried in the jungle of South America that predate know civilizations. Also, the evidence is showing more and more that whites have been all over the world before, the same for asiatic populations, and the same for african populations - it is know appearing that aborigines who originated from Africa didn't just stop in Australia...but may have also shown up in South America.

Basically, the data just keeps coming...and it keeps turning tables on those who maintain so called established "facts" in academic circles.

Exciting stuff...until you ask? What happened? Oh...oh....there must be a reason why suddenly or over time a bunch of places became buried in water...and some place just seemed to become isolated - with some surviving and some just seemingly coming to a halt with the gardener taking an extended vacation.

Scary thought. I just hope our current warm age lasts at least a few thousand more years so that Scotty arrives in a crib...

=8-)

Post cut short by my wife we thinks I talk too much...

=8-)

Glom
2004-Sep-05, 06:39 PM
Interesting stuff, mrrabit. I think JPax suggested the abiotic process of oil formation on the board but I believe he was rebuked by other members who contested it. The archeology is interesting though. Do you recommend any good reading material on it? I thought Atlantis was a city of the Ancients in the Pegasus galaxy used to seed planets with their own life form. :-s

John Kierein
2004-Sep-05, 07:03 PM
The earth's pole's changing inclination to the ecliptic is probably the cause of the warming near the artic and antarctic circles. The arctic circle is moving northward at a faster rate than one might imagine.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eischao.html

mrrabbit
2004-Sep-05, 08:53 PM
Some links...

Sustainable Oil?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645


Aborigines in South America (Overly general...)

http://www.pip.com.au/~paceman/ABORIGINE.html



Most information, unfortunately in today's politically correct world has to be dug up from racialist websites and race-based publications. They at least do hardcore research to uncover what is being dug up and buried at higher echelons in academia...but then these websites tend to use it to endless finger pointing including words such as genocide, rape, extermination, theft...etc...as part of a racial political agenda. So you find yourself often having to clear away the fog just to get the facts and source references for followup.

Sometimes I'm inclined to leave a comment along the lines of:

"Let he who is without sin launch the first nuke!"

I find that at the years go by...it is getting harder and harder to find scientific sources that keep their ****ing opinions and agendas out of their studies and research and presentations. Just give me the facts Jack - and a few theories with some "indicatory" evidence and leave it at that! I'll figure out and decide the rest for myself thank you!

I think Michael Savage shed light on what further mucks things up - government and private grants which drive research to find a certain avenue or conclusion - whereas in the past you often went into a line of research prepared not only to prove or disprove your hypothesis - but also for anything else that may be uncovered accidentally along the way.

But politcal bias and agendas in research and analysis is what drives me nuts the most.

Enjoy the links...

=8-)

mrrabbit
2004-Sep-05, 09:13 PM
http://www.gasresources.net

Here you can see a personal view of some of the folks putting out the latest research on petroleum...links to science publications...etc.

Also including in the political section is a rebuttal to a publication and author who misrepresented the info in the aritcle I linked earlier.

=8-)

Do a search in Google for:

"The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum"

and you'll see lots of links to examine...

Enjoy!

=8-)

Launch window
2004-Sep-06, 02:45 AM
NASA strom pic (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/camex_pix/bonnie_0825.jpg)


Shuttles' fate unknown after Hurricane (http://www.floridatoday.com/blogs/centralbrevard/2004/09/kennedy-space-center-shuttles-fate.htm)

:D mr rabbit :lol: where did you find that info, in some Alice in Wonderland book with too many mushrooms :) I hope not :-? Just kidding !
Here's a post to ponder on the subject




QUOTE



Firstly, let me say this news that Sunspots are reaching thousand-year high is very intresting news indeed, the Sun is an amazing object and we should study it a whole lot more.

However on global warming and man made global warming :-?



Global warming is real
I'm very sorry to say, but it can sometimes appear that some Americans are back in the middle ages when it comes to the science behind global warming. Maybe its the fact that a number of Enrun and Taxaco corps sometimes got their paws around certain areas within the US. I don't have a problem with the US and I think the USA has done wonderful things and it has a great industry and system but I think some of this false Global-Warming information happens to come from the USA.


It's true that there are many other factors and variation that will change the history of climate on our Earth such as Volcanic eruptions affecting the weather, thousand year solar cycles influence on climate, ice ages, , changes in the Earth orbit and tilt in rotation axis, meteor impacts and so forth. However to answer global warming we must focus on Global mean standard temperatures. If we look at the level of pollutants over time we see something disturbing, in the atmosphere in Colorado in 1967 there were a proportion of 290 of CO2 in the atmosphere, in 1974 there was 325 ppm in the atmosphere, in 1983 there were 340 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere and the list goes up and on,
and not only does it go up and on in Colorado it also rises in many other parts of the world. And we also see an increase in the global mean standard temp. Now we know what happens to a planet filled with those nasty molecules which have electric dipoles which allow them to absorb IR radiations? It gets hot like an oven! So most of the probes ever sent to Venus were soon turned to liquid.


Now of course you will get a number of psuedo scientists that are willing to bend the facts for money, heck I've read a tonne of articles in which lame professors say Smoking will never give you cancer or other illness, smoke tobacco it's good for the Chinaman..these guys are only in science for the paycheck so you have to take what they declare with a pinch of salt. That's the way the world is. It just happens that having crack pot scientists say smoking and all other nonsense is good for you happens to be big business in China
while have big fuel guzzling Cars and big Fat Companies putting stuff in the air happens to be big business in the States.




As I've said it's terrible to see this angry and bitter reaction against the National Geographic magazine and Tv station for covering the global warming issue. I suppose science is ok as long as it doesn't affect the profits of big business and the oil giants, many prefer to keep the real science quiet and hear the lie instead. What would Galileo say ?

Tunga
2004-Sep-06, 03:44 AM
Global Warming Theory is just a theory, but unfortunately in some parts of the world, it is being treated as a dogma. Those scientists who object are being treated as heretics. In order for scientists to accept a theory as valid, it must be supported by hard data. In the case of the Global Warming Theory this had not occurred. Global Warming models do not match temperature measurements from satellites nor from weather balloons. The present theory is not a slam dunk.

eburacum45
2004-Sep-06, 07:56 AM
I had thought that the idea of abiogenic oil had few supporters after the death of Dr Tom Gold;
but of course there are plenty of supporters of this theory in Eastern Europe...

an intersting exercise, but unlikely to be true.

And the provenance of our oil reserves does'nt really have much bearing on global warming; the influence of anthopogenic carbon dioxide on the climate may not be anything like as bad as some climatologists think, or it could possibly be even worse;

the carbon cycle is part of a whole braid of linked feedback loops, including water vapour content, salinity, cloud cover, albedo, even methane hydrate deposits;

we are in the middle of a huge experiment with unknown input and uncertain results.

dgruss23
2004-Sep-06, 01:00 PM
Launch Window: Here's a post to ponder on the subject

And here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=74158#74158) is another. And here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10177&start=0) is a good thread on the topic.

Glom
2004-Sep-06, 06:34 PM
Thanks for the links, mrrabbit.

Launch window, I don't see the relevance of those links about Frances. Hurricanes are not a new occurence and neither does their existence automatically validate any climate change theory anthropological or not.

Is climate change happening? You can bet your life on it. It's been happening non-stop for the past four and half billion years since this planet first coalesced from the protoplanetary disc. The way people talk about it, they make it sound like the climate was static until the industrial revolution when our activities sent it into a frenzy. That's naive.

mrrabbit
2004-Sep-07, 06:30 AM
Gold was neither the originator nor the leader nor the theorists behind the theory...

Goes back to Russians...then Germans and French...and since 1951 has been put into practice since 1951 by the Russians...and Ukranians...Uzbekstanians...etc.

Explains why even when locked out of Iran and other places during the cold war...the Soviet machine was still able to get its oil....

Also explains why the Eastern Europeans are the biggest producers of oil nowadays and are just pumping away confident that they have oil for centuries to come for themselves and their customers.

Also note that one of the links notes verification in Lousiana, The Gulf of Mexico...and Uzbekistan.

=8-)

Read the links...

=8-)

I think what still needs to be proven is the following:

Is it renewable oil or just so much that we'll be unlikely to run out?

=8-)

Glom
2004-Sep-07, 12:18 PM
Found this about the Arctic. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3631764.stm)

Clearly, what we're alleged to be doing is nothing new.

Tunga
2004-Sep-07, 08:24 PM
A few individuals have tried to link the hurricanes in Florida with evidence of Global Warming. But the data does not support this hypothesis. Refer to http://www.co2science.org/subject/h/summaries/hurratlangwe.htm

bobjohnston
2004-Sep-07, 09:48 PM
As I've said it's terrible to see this angry and bitter reaction against the National Geographic magazine and Tv station for covering the global warming issue. I suppose science is ok as long as it doesn't affect the profits of big business and the oil giants, many prefer to keep the real science quiet and hear the lie instead. What would Galileo say ?

The reaction is not to NG's covering of the subject, but the way they cover the subject. You seem to say the debate is science vs. an industrial lie, but the scientific observations don't particularly favor NG's interpretation. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone bothered by these NG articles would have stuck with the magazine this long. I cancelled my subscription over a decade ago.

mrrabbit
2004-Sep-07, 10:11 PM
Makes me wonder how soon we'll see a related article and similar finding from the Antarctic.

=8-)

Since there is more land mass under the Antarctic...offers the opportunity to grab cores that will go a little further back in time...

=8-)

loandbehold
2004-Sep-09, 08:34 AM
2. Not even the IPCC could identify ANY anthopogenic component to temperature variation in the last 150 years. And I quote in Chapter 1 of Climate Change 2001, page 97:


"The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural."

The above quote may come as a shock since the Summary for Policymakers (the bit written by bureaucrats and the only bit reported by journalists) says:


"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

It's impossible to reconcile the two statements - the scientists are clearly being misrepresented by another agenda. I leave it to you to work out what that agenda is (which is probably outside the scope of this board)

It's possible if you read the first quote in context:

IPCC TAR WG1 (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/045.htm) (near bottom of page).


The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural. A more detailed analysis is required to provide evidence of a human impact.

I've bolded the part you quoted. If you read the last sentence of the paragragh, which you left off, you'll see that the bolded part isn't concluding that the observed warming may be natural in origin, but is merely saying that observation of global warming isn't proof, by itself, that humans have caused it. You need a further analysis to do that, and the text then goes on to outline this analysis, concluding near the end of the page:


In this way the SAR found that “there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record”. Since the SAR new results have become available which tend to support this conclusion.

which is close in meaning to your second quote. So there's no discrepancy between the two statements.

ToSeek
2004-Oct-01, 04:09 PM
Evidence Shaky For Sun's Major Role In Past Climate Changes (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041001092000.htm)


Computer models of Earth's climate have consistently linked long-term, high-magnitude variations in solar output to past climate changes. Now a closer look at earlier studies of the Sun casts doubt on evidence of such cycles of brightness, their intensity and their possible influence on Earth's climate. The findings, by a solar physicist and two climate scientists funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), appear in the October 1 issue of the journal Science.

Evan
2004-Oct-01, 04:28 PM
It's all the fault of the people that live inside the Earth. They have the thermostat turned up too high. Someone needs to mount a polar expedition and go down and school them. :D

http://www.tarotplanet.com/Mekka/articles/Hollow%20Earth.htm

Tunga
2004-Oct-01, 04:36 PM
I recently added a webpage titled The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate to the Impact website. This resource provides a inventory of references on the subject. When most individuals consider the suns variability to affect Earth's climate, they focus on the thermal radiation coming from the sun. But the sun also generates a strong magnetic field intertwined with the solar winds. This magnetic field is responsible for shielding the Earth from Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs). GCRs have been shown to produce an uptick in cloud formation which causes global temperatures to decline. Refer to the last section in:

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm

dgruss23
2004-Oct-01, 05:44 PM
I recently added a webpage titled The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate to the Impact website. This resource provides a inventory of references on the subject. When most individuals consider the suns variability to affect Earth's climate, they focus on the thermal radiation coming from the sun. But the sun also generates a strong magnetic field intertwined with the solar winds. This magnetic field is responsible for shielding the Earth from Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs). GCRs have been shown to produce an uptick in cloud formation which causes global temperatures to decline. Refer to the last section in:

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm

Here (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0409123) is a good example of a paper that has looked at the effect of cosmic rays.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2004-Oct-08, 05:33 AM
Try this one



While Antarctica has mostly cooled over the last 30 years, the trend is likely to rapidly reverse, according to a computer model study by NASA researchers. The study indicates the South Polar Region is expected to warm during the next 50 years.

Findings from the study, conducted by researchers Drew Shindell and Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), New York, appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters. Shindell and Schmidt found depleted ozone levels and greenhouse gases are contributing to cooler South Pole temperatures.

Low ozone levels in the stratosphere and increasing greenhouse gases promote a positive phase of a shifting atmospheric climate pattern in the Southern Hemisphere, called the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). A positive SAM isolates colder air in the Antarctic interior.

In the coming decades, ozone levels are expected to recover due to international treaties that banned ozone-depleting chemicals. Higher ozone in the stratosphere protects Earth's surface from harmful ultraviolet radiation. The study found higher ozone levels might have a reverse impact on the SAM, promoting a warming, negative phase. In this way, the effects of ozone and greenhouse gases on the SAM may cancel each other out in the future. This could nullify the SAM's affects and cause Antarctica to warm.

"Antarctica has been cooling, and one could argue some regions could escape warming, but this study finds this is not very likely," Shindell said. "Global warming is expected to dominate in future trends."

The SAM, similar to the Arctic Oscillation or Northern Annular Mode in the Northern Hemisphere, is a seesaw in atmospheric pressure between the pole and the lower latitudes over the Southern Ocean and the tip of South America.

These pressure shifts between positive and negative phases speed-up and slow down the westerly winds that encircle Antarctica. Since the late 1960s, the SAM has more and more favored its positive phase, leading to stronger westerly winds. These stronger westerly winds act as a kind of wall that isolates cold Antarctic air from warmer air in the lower latitudes, which leads to cooler temperatures.

Greenhouse gases and ozone depletion both lower temperatures in the high latitude stratosphere. The cooling strengthens the stratospheric whirling of westerly winds, which in turn influences the westerly winds in the lower atmosphere. According to the study, greenhouse gases and ozone have contributed roughly equally in promoting a strong-wind, positive SAM phase in the troposphere, the lowest part of the atmosphere.

Shindell and Schmidt used the NASA GISS Climate Model to run three sets of tests, each three times. For each scenario, the three runs were averaged together. Scenarios included the individual effects of greenhouse gases and ozone on the SAM, and then a third run that examined the effects of the two together.

The model included interactions between the oceans and atmosphere. Each model run began in 1945 and extended through 2055. For the most part, the simulations matched well compared with past observations.

Model inputs of increasing greenhouse gases were based upon observations through 1999, and upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mid-range estimates of future emissions. Stratospheric ozone changes were based on earlier NASA GISS model runs that were found to be in good agreement with past observations and similar to those found in other chemistry-climate models for the future.

Shindell said the biggest long-term danger of global warming in this region would be ice sheets melting and sliding into the ocean. "If Antarctica really does warm up like this, then we have to think seriously about what level of warming might cause the ice sheets to break free and greatly increase global sea levels," he said.

In the Antarctic Peninsula, ice sheets as big as Rhode Island have already collapsed into the ocean due to warming. The warming in this area is at least partially a result of the strengthened westerly winds that pass at latitudes of about 60 to 65 degrees south. As the peninsula sticks out from the continent, these winds carry warm maritime air that heats the peninsula. For information and images related to the research on the Internet, visit:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/0927sam.html

bobjohnston
2004-Oct-08, 04:46 PM
The solution is obvious--bring back freon!

Glom
2004-Oct-08, 06:17 PM
"Science is about questioning the status quo- questioning authority..." (browny point to anyone who can guess where I got the quote from)

No scientific fact is to be accepted as a truism. We don't accept Newton's laws as truisms. We accept them because we constantly question them and they prove themselves through the predictable behaviour of motion in our daily lives.

A dangerous precedent is being set by Sir Lysenko.

dgruss23
2004-Oct-09, 12:00 AM
The solution is obvious--bring back freon!

You know this reminds me of that 1975 newsweek article which referred to the speculations of some at that time that we should sprinkle the polar caps with soot to melt them as a way to stop the ice ages they thought were coming. Now they think that the melting of the polar caps will be a catastrophe.

All this is going to create environmental whiplash syndrome!

Pollution is going to cause ice ages ... wait - pollution is going to cause global warming ...

melt the polar caps ... wait - don't melt them ....

The planet will not be able to support 4 billion people ... ok 5 billion ... ok 6 billion is too much - and I mean it this time ... ok ...

generate electricity with wind power ... wait - the wind mill blades are killing birds ...

Use hydroelectric power ... wait - that's a problem for salmon ...

We need to protect the alligator from extinction ... wait did you know those suckers are trying to eat people! ...

Electric cars are the way to go ... wait - what do you mean they're burning down houses and using more energy than regular cars? ...

We need to protect the forests from logging companies ... wait - you mean if we don't thin the forests out then natural fires are more catastrophic ...

DDT is bad, bad, bad ... wait, you mean numerous people in tropical countries die from malaria if we don't use DDT?

Glom
2004-Oct-09, 02:27 PM
That's the result of allowing our views on "environmental friendliness" to be shaped by those who just want to make things difficult for civilisation.

Tunga
2004-Oct-09, 04:07 PM
Joe87 wrote:

"The Vostok CO2 data also show that the CO2 level has not exceeded 300 ppm at any time over the past 420,000 years until recently. It now is around 370 ppm. At least some of the 70 ppm excess is likely to be anthropogenic."

The above statement may be a myth.
Swiss scientists drilled three kilometers down into the ice cap to collect ice samples from the past 740,000 years. They found that there were eight ice ages during that period, separated by spells of global warming when the atmosphere contained as much carbon dioxide as it does today.

Refer to the recent article at:
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=105&sid=5255973

Russ
2004-Oct-09, 05:33 PM
As I've said it's terrible to see this angry and bitter reaction against the National Geographic magazine and Tv station for covering the global warming issue. I suppose science is ok as long as it doesn't affect the profits of big business and the oil giants, many prefer to keep the real science quiet and hear the lie instead. What would Galileo say ?

Since you do not seem to be aware of the fact, I will point out that National Geographic IS big buisiness. Check Here (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/index.html) if you have any doubts. Just a few endevours they admit to: Five magazines, Cable TV network, E-Store, movie production, radio production and museum. I'm sure there is more that they don't have space to tout.

Since you also seem to be unaware of the fact, NGM's report on global warming was a political manifesto in scientific report clothing. Presenting speculation and uneducated guess as fact is the stuff of junior high school term papers, not responsible journalism. :roll: :-? :lol:

Glom
2004-Oct-09, 06:42 PM
We're not the ones standing against scientific debate. It is Sir David 'Lysenko' King.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-09, 06:49 PM
That's the result of allowing our views on "environmental friendliness" to be shaped by those who just want to make things difficult for civilisation.
Ad hominem. And unproven. [-X

Glom
2004-Oct-09, 07:24 PM
Not ad hominem. I didn't call them fat. I questioned their motives. But I will speak on this no further. I don't intend to start a flame war.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-09, 07:41 PM
Not ad hominem. I didn't call them fat. I questioned their motives.
Questioning your opponents's motives instead of their arguments and evidence is also an ad hominem.

Glom
2004-Oct-09, 08:08 PM
I've questioned their arguments countless times. I'm now entitled to a little questioning of the motives behind those arguments.

dgruss23
2004-Oct-09, 09:48 PM
That's the result of allowing our views on "environmental friendliness" to be shaped by those who just want to make things difficult for civilisation.
Ad hominem. And unproven. [-X

Well, I'd say that each can judge for themselves by looking at the US Greenpeace website (http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/) and International Greenpeace website (http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/). People are going to have differences of opinion but if you look at what they're advocating, it has/does/will make things difficult for certain segments of civilization - primarily because of concern of global climate change.

We've been through this quite a bit, but I find it interesting that they blame ExxonMobile (http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/campaigns/intro?campaign_id=512702) as one of the primary causes of global warming. Now if I'm not mistaken, Exxon merely provides a resource which people use.

So it is fair to question the motives of those that are making these claims. First, their claims and calls for action are well beyond what the scientific evidence supports. Second, Exxon is providing a resource, not the demand for the resource. How does Greenpeace expect to fix the problem when they aren't going after the source of the problem.

Glom has discussed the evidence as have I, jrkeller, bobjohnson and others I'm probably forgetting. The various points we've made are not refuted here or on the websites of organizations like Greenpeace in the case of the latter because they are ignoring the evidence for the Sun's role in climate. Again, what exactly are their motives if they don't want to have rational dialog about the evidence.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-09, 10:02 PM
People are going to have differences of opinion but if you look at what they're advocating, it has/does/will make things difficult for certain segments of civilization - primarily because of concern of global climate change.
Just because the measures that they propose will have certain effects, you cannot conclude that that's the reason why they propose those measures.

Glom
2004-Oct-09, 10:39 PM
This thread is in a spiral dive over lockage city.

dgruss23
2004-Oct-09, 11:13 PM
This thread is in a spiral dive over lockage city.

Well as long as the discussion is focused on the scientific evidence. I don't think your statement was an ad-hominem attack, but rather your personal interpretation as to what the behaviors of some suggest their motives are. Not to mention a true ad-hominem is attack is against a specific adversary. Who is attacked when you say "those who just want to make things difficult for civilisation"?

I think the point is that if the global warming advocates won't engage in rational dialog about the evidence for the Sun's influence in this matter, then they're obviously not primarily concerned about what the science says. The paper I linked to earlier finds about 2/3 of warming can be attributed to the Sun/cosmic ray activity which leaves only 1/3 for the anthropogenic sources. Are Greenpeace et al capable of acknowledging the importance of this scientific result - or will they continue their efforts to blame it all on capitalism and oil companies.

Sometimes politics is part of the scientific debate. I think we can acknowledge this fact in the climate issue and still keep the discussion appropriate.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-11, 06:50 PM
Not to mention a true ad-hominem is attack is against a specific adversary.
Have you got a source for that?

Swift
2004-Oct-11, 07:06 PM
I have a thought experiment I'd like to ask those of you who propose that global warming is from solar variation.

Let's say that we determined that 67% of the increase in global temperature in the last 100 years was from solar effects and 33% was from human-generated carbon dioxide (I made those numbers up and I'm even giving the solar-group the edge). I don't suspect any of you have any practical ideas about changing solar output, and so we just have to live with that.

Would you support measures to limit CO2 generation? Should the human race try to do what it can to mitigate global warming so that the rise was only 2C average, instead of 3C (which it would be if we did nothing - again, I'm making up the numbers). I'm just curious about the various thoughts.

dgruss23
2004-Oct-11, 07:19 PM
Not to mention a true ad-hominem is attack is against a specific adversary.
Have you got a source for that?

Sure. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)

First, can you specify who is being attacked by Glom's statement? Second, can you explain what argument is being avoided by Glom making his statement?

The fact is that Glom, jrkeller, bobjohnson, and myself are waiting for someone to make a case based upon solid evidence that humans are causing significant global warming and that the results of that warming will be catastrophic. No such scientific case has been made which is exactly why I do not support an anti-capitalistic treaty like Kyoto. Kudos to both Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican President George Bush for refusing to sign it! This is a perfect example of how our elected officials should treat scientific issues. Public policies that are connected with science should be based upon scientific evidence not hysteria.

Huntsman
2004-Oct-11, 07:20 PM
Swift:

I'd say it depends. I'm currently undecided, as the data is still incomplete and there's too much disagreement everywhere. We quite simply don't know enough now to determine what's going on with any high degree of accuracy.

Now, assuming we do find out it's true, again, I don't know if we should or not. Is warming necessarily a bad thing? While some coastal areas would suffer from melting ice caps, some have postulated that higher temperatures would move belts of farmable land further north (or south in the southern hemisphere), which would result in a larger amount of arable land. We just don't know enough about the causes, or the effects, of global climate change yet to make a safe prediction.

I've used the anaolgy of piloting a ship, carrying livestock, in a thick fog. You're pretty sure you're in an iceberg field. You may be heading dead ahead for an iceberg. Of course, if you turn, there might be even bigger ice bergs on either side. You could slow down or stop, but a longer time spent at sea means more deaths in the livestock cargo. And, of course, the clear path might be the one you're already on. It's just an unclear situation right now.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-11, 07:38 PM
Not to mention a true ad-hominem is attack is against a specific adversary.
Have you got a source for that?

Sure. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)
I don't see where that says that the target of the attack must be "specific".


First, can you specify who is being attacked by Glom's statement?
The same people to whom you were implicitly referring (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=344815#344815) in the post to which Glom was replying?


Second, can you explain what argument is being avoided by Glom making his statement?
Whatever arguments those people have used to justify the policy proposals that you were criticizing.

dgruss23
2004-Oct-11, 07:43 PM
I have a thought experiment I'd like to ask those of you who propose that global warming is from solar variation.

First, I don't accept that significant global warming is happening. As jrkeller (or is it bobjohnson?) has repeatedly pointed out, the amount of measured warming is less than the uncertainty in temperature records. Second, as the article I cited earlier points out, the effect from solar influences the last century should amount to 0.37K leaving only 0.20K for anthropogenic sources. A whopping 0.2K over the last century because of fossil fuels! And we're to believe a 3-10K warming is coming in the next 100 years? I'm going to need to see more than the flawed computer models to buy that one.


Let's say that we determined that 67% of the increase in global temperature in the last 100 years was from solar effects and 33% was from human-generated carbon dioxide (I made those numbers up and I'm even giving the solar-group the edge). I don't suspect any of you have any practical ideas about changing solar output, and so we just have to live with that.

Would you support measures to limit CO2 generation? Should the human race try to do what it can to mitigate global warming so that the rise was only 2C average, instead of 3C (which it would be if we did nothing - again, I'm making up the numbers). I'm just curious about the various thoughts.

Not just based upon warming estimates. You see this fails a rigorous scientific test on so many levels.

1. They've yet to demonstrate significant warming is happening.
2. They've yet to demonstrate reliable computer models to predict how much warming will happen.
3. Until 2 is accomplished they can't even begin to rigorously show that the effects of any warming will actually be bad.

Plants grow better when its warmer and more CO2 is in the atmosphere. Anybody stop to think that maybe we'll be able to get MORE from our crops resulting in a need to clear less land to feed the population? I mean for goodness sakes - its ridiculous the complete lack of evidence to justify the hysteria!!!

You see, the environmental movement has perhaps identified a valid target, but for the wrong reason. Global warming is not the reason to go after fossil fuels. Here are two measures I support:

1. Increased conservation efforts - from computers, to homes, to appliances,to businesses such efforts are being made! It costs people less to be efficient with energy resources.

2. Increased fuel efficiency.

Swift
2004-Oct-11, 07:51 PM
Thanks Huntsman for your answer. Your ship in an iceberg field is an interesting analogy. I don't think the fog is as thick as some people think, but that's just my humble opinion. And stopping is not an option, we're moving, even if we don't know which way, or into more or less danger.

Three other thoughts from me.....

I think we should keep separate the Kyoto Treaty and global warming, in the sense that some of us (well, me at least :wink: ) think that human-caused global warming is a real effect, but that the Kyoto Treaty is still a bad treaty and not likely to solve anything.

The other idea is that even if global warming is not real or is not caused by the human releases of CO2, many of the things proposed to deal with this are good ideas anyway, such as increasing the efficiency of our hydrocarbon powered machines (like cars), looking for cleaner power sources (even forgetting CO2, you still have NOx, SO2, soot, etc.), and decreasing our dependence upon foreign reserves of particular fossil fuels.

The last regards some of dgruss23 comments about proof. The problem is that if we wait till we have proof, such as a 5C rise in temperatures, it will be too late by then. Unfortunately this is not a problem that is experimentally testable. Well maybe it is, but there is only a single data point (one planet Earth), we won't be finished the experiment for a long time, and we are our own test animals. If the experiment goes badly, the test animal will really suffer. Again, Huntsman has a good analogy. I understand the dissatisfaction with modeling, but I find wait-and-see equally disatisifactory.

(editted to fix some things and add something I forgot)

dgruss23
2004-Oct-11, 07:57 PM
Not to mention a true ad-hominem is attack is against a specific adversary.
Have you got a source for that?

Sure. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)
I don't see where that says that the target of the attack must be "specific".

There has to be an opponent in the debate:


First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim).

The attack must be used to divert from the arguments:


Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).


First, can you specify who is being attacked by Glom's statement?
The same people to whom you were implicitly referring (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=344815#344815) in the post to which Glom was replying?[/quote]

Who would those people be? And who says they were attacked? The inconsistency in their arguments illustrated and the point was about specific contradictory claims, not some personal traits of the people making those claims.


Second, can you explain what argument is being avoided by Glom making his statement?
Whatever arguments those people have used to justify the policy proposals that you were criticizing.[/quote]

They don't defend their arguments with sound science or acknowledge when shown to be wrong. Find for me a website by a major environmental group that takes a serious look at the Sun's role in climate change. Greenpeace, Nature conservancy, Audobon Society, ... do they have any comment on the scientific evidence for the Sun's role?

Swift
2004-Oct-11, 08:22 PM
They don't defend their arguments with sound science or acknowledge when shown to be wrong. Find for me a website by a major environmental group that takes a serious look at the Sun's role in climate change. Greenpeace, Nature conservancy, Audobon Society, ... do they have any comment on the scientific evidence for the Sun's role?
I wouldn't lump Greepeace and Nature Conservancy together, but that's just my opinion, thought it's based on 20+ years involvment in the environmental movement.

As far as trying to answer your question...
This (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=498) is part of the Union of Concerned Scientists website. Here is what they say on solar variation

Fiction: An increase in solar irradiance is the main cause of the Earth's current warming trend. Therefore, reducing fossil fuel emissions would not impact the Earth's temperature.

Fact: Current scientific understanding leaves little doubt that the sun's radiant output impacts the Earth's climate on both decadal and centennial time scales. However, it is only one of many components affecting terrestrial climate. According to the findings of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, the warming effect due to increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is estimated to be more than 8 times greater than the effect of solar irradiance.


That's all I could find on a quick search and I don't have the time or knowledge to make a better search. I'm sorry dgruss23 if that is unsatisfactory :-?

aurora
2004-Oct-11, 08:29 PM
First, I don't accept that significant global warming is happening. As jrkeller (or is it bobjohnson?) has repeatedly pointed out, the amount of measured warming is less than the uncertainty in temperature records.

We've been around this topic before.

If global warming is not happening, then you have to explain why essentially all glaciers in the world are shrinking.

Glacier National Park in the US, for example, will be devoid of glaciers unless the Earth starts to cool again.

ToSeek
2004-Oct-11, 08:35 PM
The fact is that Glom, jrkeller, bobjohnson, and myself are waiting for someone to make a case based upon solid evidence that humans are causing significant global warming and that the results of that warming will be catastrophic. No such scientific case has been made which is exactly why I do not support an anti-capitalistic treaty like Kyoto. Kudos to both Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican President George Bush for refusing to sign it! This is a perfect example of how our elected officials should treat scientific issues. Public policies that are connected with science should be based upon scientific evidence not hysteria.

I want to know why, when certain human activities are demonstrably changing the composition of the air we breathe (and otherwise depend on), the burden of proof is for some reason on those who say that this is a bad thing, rather than on the people who are shoving this stuff at us.

Demigrog
2004-Oct-11, 08:39 PM
First, I don't accept that significant global warming is happening. As jrkeller (or is it bobjohnson?) has repeatedly pointed out, the amount of measured warming is less than the uncertainty in temperature records.

We've been around this topic before.

If global warming is not happening, then you have to explain why essentially all glaciers in the world are shrinking.

Glacier National Park in the US, for example, will be devoid of glaciers unless the Earth starts to cool again.

Global warming is the net temperature of the whole planet. It is fallacy to assume warming in one area means that the rest of the world is warming as well. Clearly, many areas are cooling.

I've no doubt that human activity is the cause of at least some climate change, especially on the regional and local level. Net, Global changes are much harder to link to human activity, however, without really stretching statistical correlations.

aurora
2004-Oct-11, 08:46 PM
If global warming is not happening, then you have to explain why essentially all glaciers in the world are shrinking.

Glacier National Park in the US, for example, will be devoid of glaciers unless the Earth starts to cool again.

Global warming is the net temperature of the whole planet. It is fallacy to assume warming in one area means that the rest of the world is warming as well. Clearly, many areas are cooling.

You are saying that glaciers only occur in one place on the planet? Or are you saying that only some are shrinking while others are growing?

Glaciers occur in both hemispheres. They also have multiple types (alpine, which occur from the tropics to the polar regions, as well as sheets such as Greenland and Antartica and ice caps over the polar sea. ) The reports and evidence I've seen all state that all of these are shrinking. Can you find a glacier that is growing?

(edited to add a closing paren)

Swift
2004-Oct-11, 08:53 PM
Global warming is the net temperature of the whole planet. It is fallacy to assume warming in one area means that the rest of the world is warming as well. Clearly, many areas are cooling.
With that statement I absolutely agree. IIRC global warming models that model specific responses in different areas show that some warm and some cool, with an overall net warming.



I've no doubt that human activity is the cause of at least some climate change, especially on the regional and local level. Net, Global changes are much harder to link to human activity, however, without really stretching statistical correlations.
Now I would think the opposite, at least as far as global warming (as opposed to more local/regional pollution, like acid rain or water pollution). I would think that showing a net effect for the world as a whole would be easier (you can average over a bunch of statistics).

I also recall the argument from some people (maybe not on BABB) of local/regional cooling as proof against global warming.

aurora
2004-Oct-11, 08:56 PM
Can you find a glacier that is growing?



Let me mention that there are some calving glaciers, including several in Alaska, that have been growing. However, these are the exception and they seem to move in the opposite to global trends, for example they shrunk during the Little Ice Age. See:

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/fs-001-03/

bobjohnston
2004-Oct-11, 09:26 PM
If global warming is not happening, then you have to explain why essentially all glaciers in the world are shrinking.

Glacier National Park in the US, for example, will be devoid of glaciers unless the Earth starts to cool again.

First, I agree with those posts that question your premise that all the glaciers are shrinking, plus pointing out the difference between global warming and effects on glaciers.

I would also point out that your question makes the unsubstantiated assumption that glaciers would be static if there was no change in global temperature. It may well be that the mean temperature of the last several hundred years is warmer than that needed for equilibrium of continental glaciers in temperate zones. Note that such glaciers have been retreating ever since the last ice age, so continued retreat may not be an indicator of any current change.

This being the case, the level of cooling needed to save the glaciers you mention could be disasterous!

Demigrog
2004-Oct-11, 09:28 PM
You are saying that glaciers only occur in one place on the planet? Or are you saying that only some are shrinking while others are growing?

The second choice, obviously.



Glaciers occur in both hemispheres. They also have multiple types (alpine, which occur from the tropics to the polar regions, as well as sheets such as Greenland and Antarctica and ice caps over the polar sea. ) The reports and evidence I've seen all state that all of these are shrinking. Can you find a glacier that is growing?

Easily. In Norway, Greenland, parts of Canada, New Zealand parts of the US, etc. Also, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are actually getting thicker. The general trend at the moment is shrinking glaciers, of course. In any given year, some are growing, some are shrinking, due to local weather conditions. If you get a couple of warm summers, you get shrinking glaciers. The fallacy is in assuming that the warm summers are due solely to greenhouse gasses, when there are many other weather patterns involved.

For example, soot deposits on ice increase the amount of heat absorbed from the sun, increasing the surface temperature and accelerating the melting of the ice. Some researchers have attributed a significant part of the climate changes (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994508) in the Arctic to soot. If that is true, it greatly alters the global climate picture, and what we can do to control global warming. If the soot is mostly from human activities, we're in good shape-- our current drive for pollution controls are making good progress, and much more can be done there.

dgruss23
2004-Oct-11, 09:50 PM
They don't defend their arguments with sound science or acknowledge when shown to be wrong. Find for me a website by a major environmental group that takes a serious look at the Sun's role in climate change. Greenpeace, Nature conservancy, Audobon Society, ... do they have any comment on the scientific evidence for the Sun's role?
I wouldn't lump Greepeace and Nature Conservancy together, but that's just my opinion, thought it's based on 20+ years involvment in the environmental movement.

As far as trying to answer your question...
This (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=498) is part of the Union of Concerned Scientists website. Here is what they say on solar variation

Fiction: An increase in solar irradiance is the main cause of the Earth's current warming trend. Therefore, reducing fossil fuel emissions would not impact the Earth's temperature.

Fact: Current scientific understanding leaves little doubt that the sun's radiant output impacts the Earth's climate on both decadal and centennial time scales. However, it is only one of many components affecting terrestrial climate. According to the findings of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, the warming effect due to increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is estimated to be more than 8 times greater than the effect of solar irradiance.


That's all I could find on a quick search and I don't have the time or knowledge to make a better search. I'm sorry dgruss23 if that is unsatisfactory :-?

No that's fine. A group of scientists I would expect to at least acknowledge the Sun's role. It wouldn't be very scientific if they didn't. That's quite a contrast with most of the sites. Greenpeace hammers away at GW as caused by humans without even acknowledging the Sun's role.

However, they seem to be a bit behind on the evidence. The new study I cited earlier in this thread concludes solar variations account for 2/3 of the warming leaving only 1/3 for anthropogenic sources.

In addition some recent studies (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=74158#74158) have found that the Sun-climate connection may even be responsible for ice ages.

dgruss23
2004-Oct-11, 09:56 PM
The fact is that Glom, jrkeller, bobjohnson, and myself are waiting for someone to make a case based upon solid evidence that humans are causing significant global warming and that the results of that warming will be catastrophic. No such scientific case has been made which is exactly why I do not support an anti-capitalistic treaty like Kyoto. Kudos to both Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican President George Bush for refusing to sign it! This is a perfect example of how our elected officials should treat scientific issues. Public policies that are connected with science should be based upon scientific evidence not hysteria.

I want to know why, when certain human activities are demonstrably changing the composition of the air we breathe (and otherwise depend on), the burden of proof is for some reason on those who say that this is a bad thing, rather than on the people who are shoving this stuff at us.

Because they are the ones making a claim and calling for actions that they cannot back up with evidence. It's the job of those who say it is a bad thing is to show it is a bad thing.

No significant warming has been demonstrated. Computer predictions are unreliable both with regard to the amount of warming and the claimed bad effects.

And I don't know what you mean by "shoving this stuff at us". What stuff? Who's shoving?

ToSeek
2004-Oct-11, 10:26 PM
Because they are the ones making a claim and calling for actions that they cannot back up with evidence. It's the job of those who say it is a bad thing is to show it is a bad thing.

I disagree. If someone is messing with the air I breathe, the water I drink, or the environment I live in, then the burden of proof should be on them to show that what they're doing is not harmful, not the other way 'round.


And I don't know what you mean by "shoving this stuff at us". What stuff? Who's shoving?

Carbon dioxide, and, well, lots of folks. "Shoving" was probably not the best verb to use. :oops:

dgruss23
2004-Oct-11, 11:48 PM
Because they are the ones making a claim and calling for actions that they cannot back up with evidence. It's the job of those who say it is a bad thing is to show it is a bad thing.

I disagree. If someone is messing with the air I breathe, the water I drink, or the environment I live in, then the burden of proof should be on them to show that what they're doing is not harmful, not the other way 'round.

I'm going to agree and disagree at the same time.

Disagreement#1: CO2 is not a toxic component of the atmosphere in the concentrations were talking about. If you were referring to Cl2 I'd whole-heartedly agree. But CO2 is a natural component needed for photosynthesis. In fact Lovelock proposed in one of his Gaia books that there is a danger to the current ecosystems if CO2 drops too low (I'm thinking ~180 was the point he said would become too low).

Disagreement#2: Some have put forward a scientific hypothesis: Increases in CO2 will lead to significant warming with catastrophic consequences. It is always the responsibility of those that put forward a scientific hypothesis to seek evidence to verify that hypothesis. It is irresponsible to make these claims and then place the burden entirely on those who have questions and doubts about the claims - especially when significant public policy proposal are being made based upon the hypothesis.

Agreement: All scientists that are interested in the Earth's climate and climate issues should make sure they are paying attention to all the relevant research results. So those that have doubts about CO2's influence should be looking at all the evidence from past climate records, current observations and so on.

The study I linked to earlier on this thread is a perfect example. He finds ~2/3 of the warming has been from solar influence leaving ~1/3 from anthropogenic sources. What is new about this study is that it is one of the first to account for the influence of cosmic rays - which are affected by the solar cycle - and affect the Earth's climate.

But if you listen to the environmental movement as a whole you get the message that CO2 is the whole deal. The science doesn't back that up. Shouldn't the Greenpeace people be as interested in understanding the influence of the Sun's role as they are about the CO2 influence?

I have to wonder- do they want to be right? Shouldn't the recent discoveries that the Sun's influence is significant be good news? For me what it boils down to is this:

1. We must understand all (as many as reasonably possible) the influences on the climate.
2. We must gather evidence demonstrating something significant is happening.
3. We must develop computer models that reliably predict how the CO2 changes will affect the future climate.
4. We must develop reliable models about the consequences of any climate changes that can be reliably predicted.
5. Then we can brainstorm public policy solutions to deal with it.

My problem with the environmental movement is that they take a sliver of #1 (CO2 increases) and from that and jump right down to #5 without dealing with the fact that computer models are unreliable at this point - and evidence for significant warming is scant.

The glaciers is a good example of the faulty logic. Lets assume that glacial meltback is indisputable. The solar influence is accounting for 2/3 of the measured warming. Why then are the glacial pictures taken as proof of anthropogenic global warming?

If the environmental movement is going to demonstrate their concern is something besides self-serving hysteria, then its time they start talking about the full scope of this issue!

tracer
2004-Oct-12, 03:26 AM
Also, you have to consider other natural earthbound factors as well in global warming. These are rarely mentioned, primarily because natural emissions and solar variance can't be blamed on capitalism.

*Quickly running full speed away from the p word!*
Pangaea? 'Pocalypse? Prions? Postdoctoral? Porridge?

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-12, 09:35 AM
There has to be an opponent in the debate:
I disagree with your interpretation of the excerpt you quoted. In my opinion, there does not need to be a debate. The "opponent(s)" may even be absent from the conversation, as is the case here.
Using their presumed motives to judge their policy proposals is still wrong.


The attack must be used to divert from the arguments:
It was. It was implied that the policies were wrong because of the motives of the people who had proposed them - not because the evidence to justify them was flawed.


And who says they were attacked?
Glom accused them of wanting to make things difficult for civilisation.


The inconsistency in their arguments illustrated and the point was about specific contradictory claims, not some personal traits of the people making those claims.
That may have been your point, but it was not Glom's. He was indeed using personal traits to dismiss their proposals. That's an ad hominem.
Although I suppose Glom was just expressing his exasperation.


They don't defend their arguments with sound science or acknowledge when shown to be wrong. Find for me a website by a major environmental group that takes a serious look at the Sun's role in climate change.
Based on past conversations, I suspect that it won't be easy to meet your standards for seriousness. :)

Glom
2004-Oct-12, 01:11 PM
If you don't mind, Disinfo Agent, since we're accusing each other of logical fallacies, I'd like to accuse you of fallacy of limited scope not to mention a straw man. The limited scope being that you pay attention to one short insignificant post and not to all the posts where I joined in the discussion of the actual science.

The straw man is where you accuse me of saying that my interpretation of their motives is the sole basis for me dismissing their case.

I bet you wouldn't dare hold JayUtah to account for all the times he accused David Percy of just running a money making scam. Why not? Because he doesn't use that insinuation to dismiss Percy's case. He refutes Percy's case with science and then, using what he's observed, makes a judgement about Percy's motives.

Swift
2004-Oct-12, 01:42 PM
But if you listen to the environmental movement as a whole you get the message that CO2 is the whole deal. The science doesn't back that up. Shouldn't the Greenpeace people be as interested in understanding the influence of the Sun's role as they are about the CO2 influence?
Sorry dgruss23, I'm sure this is somewhat off topic, but this is a huge pet peeve of mine. I hate when people discuss this and similar issues and talk about the "environmental movement's" position on something, particularly if the position is given by Greenpeace or Earth First! or similar groups. If you are getting some of this information off of the Greenpeace website, I would give it very little credence at all. IMHO Greenpeace is one small step away from environmental terrorists, and groups like Earth First or PETA are even worse. If Greenpeace told me the sky was blue I would go outside to check, make sure they hadn't colored my glasses, and then still not be convinced. :-?

However, there are environmental groups that take a very careful approach to positions, including Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature Conservancy, and almost as good, Sierra Club, Audubon, etc. There is almost universal agreement among these groups, and the vast majority of atmospheric scientists, that human are pumping signficant quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere at rates of increase that are beyond what the Earth can handle and that this is causing a warming of the Earth's atmosphere. I don't have the time or expertise to argue all the data (I need a global warming JayUtah :D ) but I trust these sources of information.

One point I think that gets forgotten in these discussions (IMHO) is the rate of increase. Yes, there have been times in the Earth's history with equally high amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. And yes the Earth has mechanism to sequester this increase (plant uptake leading to eventual incorporation as peat and coal, dissolution in ocean water and precipitation as calcium carbonate) but I think the rate we are increasing the CO2 concentration is faster than these mechanisms can take it.

Similarly, as the climate has changed gradually in the past (and even ice ages are relatively gradual events, compared to what we are doing now), species and eco-systems have adapted or changed. But again, the rate of change is so rapid now, that the eco-systems can't keep up.

Tunga
2004-Oct-12, 02:28 PM
Swift writes:


One point I think that gets forgotten in these discussions (IMHO) is the rate of increase. Yes, there have been times in the Earth's history with equally high amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. And yes the Earth has mechanism to sequester this increase (plant uptake leading to eventual incorporation as peat and coal, dissolution in ocean water and precipitation as calcium carbonate) but I think the rate we are increasing the CO2 concentration is faster than these mechanisms can take it.

Yes but is your believe grounded in firm scientific analysis or is it ground in distorted scientific analysis?

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Swift
2004-Oct-12, 03:51 PM
Swift writes:


One point I think that gets forgotten in these discussions (IMHO) is the rate of increase. Yes, there have been times in the Earth's history with equally high amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. And yes the Earth has mechanism to sequester this increase (plant uptake leading to eventual incorporation as peat and coal, dissolution in ocean water and precipitation as calcium carbonate) but I think the rate we are increasing the CO2 concentration is faster than these mechanisms can take it.

Yes but is your believe grounded in firm scientific analysis or is it ground in distorted scientific analysis?

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
My belief is grounded in the opinion of the majority of atmospheric scientists and my own scientific background (Ph.D. in Inorganic Chemistry). That does not make me an expert on global warming, freelance or otherwise.

I'm briefly read through Prof. Jaworowski's written testimony (your link); as best as I could tell his argument revolved around one particular piece of data analysis; without spending a ton of library time pulling up references, I can't make a very informed analysis. I did notice that the references to his own critique of this were well over 10 years old. I found it interesting that Prof. Jaworowski's describes himself as a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection and seems to have some expertise in radiation measurement, but not particularly environmental or atmospheric studies.

Warwick Hughes, self described "free lance earth scientist" has a huge website. I don't have a good feeling about his data or his analysis (it comes across as Bad Climatology IMHO), but again, I don't have the energy to do a good JayUtah analysis of this.

aurora
2004-Oct-12, 04:02 PM
Easily. In Norway, Greenland, parts of Canada, New Zealand parts of the US, etc. Also, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are actually getting thicker.

Can you point me to sources for that?

dgruss23
2004-Oct-12, 05:21 PM
Based on past conversations, I suspect that it won't be easy to meet your standards for seriousness. :)

:) True, since most of these groups ignore the Sun's role entirely.

Do you feel my standards are too stringent? :

1. I want to see that all claims have accounted for the Sun's influence. The paper I cited that indicates solar/anthropogenic is about 2/3 to 1/3 at this point is a good example. The result should be verified by other studies.
2. I want to see any claims based upon computer simulations based upon reliable computer models that can accurately predict the present climate from past conditions.
3. I want to see any claims about consequences backed up by hard data that the consequences are happening. I don't want to see hysteria based speculations that have the effect of scaring people without proper supporting evidence.

I feel this is the only way to responsibly evaluate this issue precisely because public policy is being proposed based upon this science.

Demigrog
2004-Oct-12, 05:26 PM
Easily. In Norway, Greenland, parts of Canada, New Zealand parts of the US, etc. Also, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are actually getting thicker.

Can you point me to sources for that?

www.google.com

dgruss23
2004-Oct-12, 05:42 PM
But if you listen to the environmental movement as a whole you get the message that CO2 is the whole deal. The science doesn't back that up. Shouldn't the Greenpeace people be as interested in understanding the influence of the Sun's role as they are about the CO2 influence?
Sorry dgruss23, I'm sure this is somewhat off topic, but this is a huge pet peeve of mine. I hate when people discuss this and similar issues and talk about the "environmental movement's" position on something, particularly if the position is given by Greenpeace or Earth First! or similar groups. If you are getting some of this information off of the Greenpeace website, I would give it very little credence at all.

I agree. I give greenpeace very little credence. In my opinion you have three levels to this:

Scientifically thinking people: People who are taking a look at all the evidence and following proper scientific reasoning in drawing conclusions and suggesting public policies.

environmental movement: Those who have a genuine concern about the environment but a clear bias against business and the American lifestyle. These people have as a core belief that any environmental changes are bad and a sense of inevitability about any environmental disaster that is proposed. These people have good intentions but do not place a high enough value on scientific evidence or a willingness to face evidence contrary to their core beliefs.

environmental extremists: These are the people you describe below: violent, anti-capitalist, agenda driven, I personally do not believe these people even genuinely care about the environment.


swift: IMHO Greenpeace is one small step away from environmental terrorists, and groups like Earth First or PETA are even worse. If Greenpeace told me the sky was blue I would go outside to check, make sure they hadn't colored my glasses, and then still not be convinced. :-?

I agree 100%.


However, there are environmental groups that take a very careful approach to positions, including Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature Conservancy, and almost as good, Sierra Club, Audubon, etc. There is almost universal agreement among these groups, and the vast majority of atmospheric scientists, that human are pumping signficant quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere at rates of increase that are beyond what the Earth can handle and that this is causing a warming of the Earth's atmosphere. I don't have the time or expertise to argue all the data (I need a global warming JayUtah :D ) but I trust these sources of information.

But this is where I have a problem (I've bolded in your quote). Sure there is evidence that the CO2 is increasing. Nobody disputes that. But what is lacking is clear evidence that significant warming is occurring and that the effects of any warming that will occur will be bad.

Stop and think ... everyone ... The paper I've cited (on this thread - I've cited numerous on other threads) breaks down the last century warming this way:

0.37 K --> solar influence and cosmic ray variations (affected by sun)
0.20 K --> remaining warming for anthropogenic sources

And there aren't any computer models that are reliable enough to trust about predictions of future warming. Frankly, I don't understand why so much trust is being placed in these predictions. I don't understand why people are so eager for this global warming hysteria to be right. And I say eager because there is a genuine lack of verifying evidence and yet normally scientifically minded people are willing to toss aside the normal standards of scientific verification to buy into the global warming theory. Concern I can understand, but lack of sufficient skepticism given the evidence mystifies me.



One point I think that gets forgotten in these discussions (IMHO) is the rate of increase. Yes, there have been times in the Earth's history with equally high amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. And yes the Earth has mechanism to sequester this increase (plant uptake leading to eventual incorporation as peat and coal, dissolution in ocean water and precipitation as calcium carbonate) but I think the rate we are increasing the CO2 concentration is faster than these mechanisms can take it.

Without a doubt since the CO2 levels are increasing. But that's not the issue - the issues are outlined above.


Similarly, as the climate has changed gradually in the past (and even ice ages are relatively gradual events, compared to what we are doing now), species and eco-systems have adapted or changed. But again, the rate of change is so rapid now, that the eco-systems can't keep up.

But where is the evidence for that? (rapid changes now - ecosystems not keeping up)

Swift
2004-Oct-12, 06:52 PM
But this is where I have a problem (I've bolded in your quote). Sure there is evidence that the CO2 is increasing. Nobody disputes that. But what is lacking is clear evidence that significant warming is occurring and that the effects of any warming that will occur will be bad.


Similarly, as the climate has changed gradually in the past (and even ice ages are relatively gradual events, compared to what we are doing now), species and eco-systems have adapted or changed. But again, the rate of change is so rapid now, that the eco-systems can't keep up.

But where is the evidence for that? (rapid changes now - ecosystems not keeping up)

Here (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=509) is a discussion from the UCS website on some of the environmental effects, with references. For example:

A shorter duration of ice cover due to an earlier spring has the potential to affect the productivity, life history, and reproduction of aquatic organisms. Earlier break-up (and later freeze-up) of sea ice in the Arctic shortens the time available for feeding and rearing of certain marine mammals and may change the health or size of a population. A new study of polar bears in Hudson Bay indicates that because of earlier melting, the bears now have less time to hunt on the sea ice and must return to shore before they have adequately replenished their fat by feeding on seal pups (Stirling et al., 1999). Ice break-up in western Hudson Bay now occurs an average of three weeks earlier compared to the mid-1970s.

One way (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=508) that global warming could be bad (spread of tropical diseases into temperate zones).

As far as proving warming is happening...I think that part of the problem is that there is a natural lag in the system; that even after the CO2 increase, the temperature effects take longer (a lot of thermal inertia for a whole planet). That is further complicated by the "noise" of the natural day-to-day, season-to-season, and year-to-year variation (the difference between climate and weather). So to prove warming, we probably need 50 years of data collection with our current level of coverage and instrumentation (wild guess for the years). So if we study the problem for the next 50 years, we'll know. However, if the models are close to correct and if continue to introduce CO2 into the atmosphere at our currently accelerating rate, it will be kind of too late by then. And so we use models to predict, rather than the actual data.

So, do we act now on incomplete data or do we wait and see what happens? If we decide to act now, what are those actions and what are the costs? How do we execute those actions in a "fair" way across the planet? Who wins and who losses? These are very tough questions, and they involve the strange interaction of science, public policy, and morals.

One action, that to me is close to a no-brainer is increasing energy efficiency. It is well within our technology, for example, to increase the average fuel economy of an American car from around 25 mpg to 50 mpg (my wife and I own a Honda Hybrid Civic), and it cost about 10% more than a regular car. If we forced more of the auto industry to produce hybrids, would that be the end of the American lifestyle and our civilization. I think not. And even if global warming doesn't happen, we'll save fuel costs and help our trade deficit.

dgruss23
2004-Oct-12, 11:30 PM
I'm going to take a look at that site and try to get a hold of those references.


swift: As far as proving warming is happening...I think that part of the problem is that there is a natural lag in the system; that even after the CO2 increase, the temperature effects take longer (a lot of thermal inertia for a whole planet). That is further complicated by the "noise" of the natural day-to-day, season-to-season, and year-to-year variation (the difference between climate and weather). So to prove warming, we probably need 50 years of data collection with our current level of coverage and instrumentation (wild guess for the years). So if we study the problem for the next 50 years, we'll know.

What you're outlining is that the issue is complicated - one of the major reasons I think there is need for everyone to calm down about this and let the scientific process do its job!

For example, we've got studies that suggest 0.37K of the 0.57K warming is related to solar activity -- outside of our control. Now this study (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/apr/HQ_04140_clouds_climate.html) found evidence that jet contrails can account for all of the warming between 1975 and 1994. And computer models say CO2 should be causing warming. In fact it seems that we have more ability to account for the warming than we have actual warming!!! What is CO2 actually doing?

Should we stop flying planes to avoid further warming from contrails? What will we do if the Sun starts into a significant cooling trend in 50 or 100 years? We might then be faced with another Maunder minimum event and be thankful for extra CO2.

But it really boils down to this:


However, if the models are close to correct and if continue to introduce CO2 into the atmosphere at our currently accelerating rate, it will be kind of too late by then. And so we use models to predict, rather than the actual data.

Computer models should be run to show that they predict the present climate from the past. Until they can do that whatever they say about the future is worthless. And if the models are worthless, then public policy based upon them is worthless too. What scientists should be doing is vigorously running these things to figure out how to get them to accurately predict present climate - then they can worry about future climates.


So, do we act now on incomplete data or do we wait and see what happens? If we decide to act now, what are those actions and what are the costs? How do we execute those actions in a "fair" way across the planet? Who wins and who losses? These are very tough questions, and they involve the strange interaction of science, public policy, and morals.


These are great questions. I think part of the answer is do what we reasonably can now. Energy conservation and increased efficiency and research into alternative energy sources are responsible actions that are beneficial regardless of GW concerns.

And maybe we're just going to have to live with it. Climate changes naturally and continuously. Our ancestors managed to survive an ice age that ended only 10000 years ago. I suspect they might have preferred a warmer climate. I'd prefer the medieval maximum warming to the maunder minimum cooling any day.

Jerry
2004-Oct-13, 01:26 AM
Didn't satellite measurements in the mid-90's even suggest a cooling?
NO! This has all been traced to a calibration error: the readings were in the lower atmospheric quandrant, and they didn't correct properly the changes in the upper - big thing on this on the NOAA site.

I don't know how anyone can welcome a warmer world. Both Venus and Jupiter have warmer, more energetic atmospheres, and the storms are rather viscious. What concerns me most is once the polar caps have melted, the huge, these reflective heat sinks may be lost forever! The Ice sheets are tearing off at alarming rates! girglegirglegirle

Final two bits: the mean atmosheric temperature increase over the last eight years is at least four sigma above the 200 year average, as is the CO2 content: modest changes in the total co2 content directly increase the moisture content of the air as well - this is not difficult physics to follow - what is difficult is the increases are at the high, rather than the low end of the predictions made in the 70s...no one thought the permafrost in Fairbanks would be gone by 2000....

rleyland
2004-Oct-13, 02:35 AM
If global warming is not happening, then you have to explain why essentially all glaciers in the world are shrinking.

Glacier National Park in the US, for example, will be devoid of glaciers unless the Earth starts to cool again.

Global warming is the net temperature of the whole planet. It is fallacy to assume warming in one area means that the rest of the world is warming as well. Clearly, many areas are cooling.

You are saying that glaciers only occur in one place on the planet? Or are you saying that only some are shrinking while others are growing?

Glaciers occur in both hemispheres. They also have multiple types (alpine, which occur from the tropics to the polar regions, as well as sheets such as Greenland and Antartica and ice caps over the polar sea. ) The reports and evidence I've seen all state that all of these are shrinking. Can you find a glacier that is growing?

(edited to add a closing paren)

Aurora: go check on the ,measurements of Glaciers in New Zealand, Antarctica, South America and I think there were some mentioned in Norway also.

see, for example:
http://members.tripod.com/NZPhoto/south/04Glaciers.htm

cheers,
Robbo
[/url]

Glom
2004-Oct-13, 08:32 AM
I don't know how anyone can welcome a warmer world. Both Venus and Jupiter have warmer, more energetic atmospheres, and the storms are rather viscious. What concerns me most is once the polar caps have melted, the huge, these reflective heat sinks may be lost forever! The Ice sheets are tearing off at alarming rates! girglegirglegirle

I don't know how anyone can welcome a cooler world. Mars is a freeze-dried desert as a result. Try to avoid straw men. Slightly warmer temperatures over now is better for agriculture than slightly cooler temperatures.

Of course, that doesn't prove what's responsible. All to often, evidence of AAGW is simply evidence of some form of climate change. They then say, "Look at what America is going!" That is affirmation of the consequent.

Of course, you didn't do that, Jerry, so I shouldn't pick on you for that.

I've seen evidence that there is no actual warming, although I find it hard to believe that the climate could ever be static at any point. I think change is going on of some form.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-13, 09:41 AM
If you don't mind, Disinfo Agent, since we're accusing each other of logical fallacies, I'd like to accuse you of fallacy of limited scope not to mention a straw man. The limited scope being that you pay attention to one short insignificant post and not to all the posts where I joined in the discussion of the actual science.
I wasn't judging your general contribution to the discussion. Only this particular one.
Nine sound objections do not excuse a faulty one.


The straw man is where you accuse me of saying that my interpretation of their motives is the sole basis for me dismissing their case.
I have never accused you of saying that.


Do you feel my standards are too stringent?
Only a climate scientist would be truly capable of answering that question. Or, better yet, a panel of them, since even they seem to be somewhat divided on the issue.

Glom
2004-Oct-13, 11:40 AM
I wasn't judging your general contribution to the discussion. Only this particular one.
Nine sound objections do not excuse a faulty one.

It was not an argument, it was a conclusion. I am entitled to draw a conclusion about their motives based on what I'm observed. If you disagree, go tell JayUtah that his conclusions about David Percy's motives are ad hominem as well.


I have never accused you of saying that.

Yes you did.


He was indeed using personal traits to dismiss their proposals. That's an ad hominem.

I dismissed their proposals first and then drew a conclusion about their motives for making those proposals.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-13, 11:54 AM
I have never accused you of saying that.
Yes you did.
No, I never said it was your only argument.



I wasn't judging your general contribution to the discussion. Only this particular one.
Nine sound objections do not excuse a faulty one.
It was not an argument, it was a conclusion.
Fine. An invalid conclusion, then.


I dismissed their proposals first and then drew a conclusion about their motives for making those proposals.
Explain how their being wrong about the science proves that they wanted "to make things difficult for civilisation".

Glom
2004-Oct-13, 12:22 PM
No, I never said it was your only argument.

Very well, but it was not an argument at all.


Fine. An invalid conclusion, then.

Good. Glad that's sorted.


Explain how their being wrong about the science proves that they wanted "to make things difficult for civilisation".

I don't draw that conclusion based on their science being wrong, because the science could be right and they could still have that motive. It's based on observations of attitude.

TheGalaxyTrio
2004-Oct-13, 07:43 PM
Questioning your opponents's motives instead of their arguments and evidence is also an ad hominem

Maybe this is fine within the confines of "Stephen's Guide To Logical Fallacies (http://datanation.com/fallacies/)", but in the real world such consideration is valid. I say it's mandatory when it comes to anything that is even slightly above room temperature politically.

These political arguments in the media are not an exercise in a university debate class where everyone is following some sort of rigid debate protocol.

As far as I'm concerned, *anyone* who issues *anything* into the media on a controversal topic should have their motivations taken into consideration and discussed.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-13, 08:33 PM
Questioning your opponents's motives instead of their arguments and evidence is also an ad hominem
Maybe this is fine within the confines of "Stephen's Guide To Logical Fallacies (http://datanation.com/fallacies/)", but in the real world such consideration is valid.
We're not in the 'real world', we're in the BABB. :)
Questioning people's motives in here would quickly lead the conversation away from the science and into politics, IMHO.

Demigrog
2004-Oct-13, 08:55 PM
Questioning your opponents's motives instead of their arguments and evidence is also an ad hominem
Maybe this is fine within the confines of "Stephen's Guide To Logical Fallacies (http://datanation.com/fallacies/)", but in the real world such consideration is valid.
We're not in the 'real world', we're in the BABB. :)
Questioning people's motives in here would quickly lead the conversation away from the science and into politics, IMHO.

Unfortunately, politics and science are inseparable with Global Warming at the moment. Some political parties have made “environmentalism” a plank in their campaign strategies, and thus try to use scientific arguments to show their opponents as stupid, evil, or both. With political power on the line, you simply cannot ignore the source of papers, or even raw data. For every legitimately unbiased paper, there are probably 3 politically motivated ones. (biased both ways, I might add—equal opportunity bad science.) Global Warming has a life of its own now as a public policy subject—totally independent of the real science.

aurora
2004-Oct-13, 10:11 PM
Aurora: go check on the ,measurements of Glaciers in New Zealand, Antarctica, South America and I think there were some mentioned in Norway also.

see, for example:
http://members.tripod.com/NZPhoto/south/04Glaciers.htm


The example is shrinking, as stated in the linked page. It is not an example of a glacier that is growing.

aurora
2004-Oct-13, 10:24 PM
Easily. In Norway, Greenland, parts of Canada, New Zealand parts of the US, etc. Also, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are actually getting thicker.

Can you point me to sources for that?

www.google.com

Cute. :P

So you have no sources for your statements?

I keyed in the latter part of your phrase (regarding Greenland and Antartica) and came up with a link to the UK Antartic Survey which says they don't know whether the ice sheet is getting thicker. They say, "the progressive retreat of smaller ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula may well be linked to the changing climate." But near as I can tell, they do not have an definitive answer, except they surmise that the interior might get thicker while the boundary shrinks if the Earth is warming and snowfall increases.

The second link was a science daily article by researchers studying Greenland, and basically they do not know whether the ice sheet is getting thicker.

The third link was a space daily article about ICEsat, which was to measure elevations across the world's ice sheets. It was a 2001 article, so I found the NASA ICEsat web site and read a 2003 press release that says they will be able to measure trends over time. But it sounded too early for them to make conclusions.

So, following the technique you suggested I found no evidence for your statements.

Evan
2004-Oct-13, 11:32 PM
I don't intend to get involved in this general debate but would like add an observation. I live in British Columbia, Canada. A hobby of mine is wilderness canoeing. There are tall mountains throughout British Columbia with many glaciers and ice sheets. I have seen some of these since the 1970s. I have observed them shrink steadily, some have vanished altogether. I just took a trip last weekend through the Columbia Icefields in the Banff and Jasper National parks. First time in 33 years. I was suprised at the amount the icefields have retreated. They have had to close the ice cave tours because of disintegration of the fields. Something is happening, at least in this neck of the woods.

bobjohnston
2004-Oct-14, 12:10 AM
Easily. In Norway, Greenland, parts of Canada, New Zealand parts of the US, etc. Also, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are actually getting thicker.

Can you point me to sources for that?

www.google.com

...So you have no sources for your statements?

...So, following the technique you suggested I found no evidence for your statements.

I tried google and easily found a variety of examples:

Briksdal Glacier and others in western Norway growing:
http://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.html

Hubble Glacier in Alaska advancing (previously mentioned):
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/fs-001-03/

Southern Alps glaciers in New Zealand growing:
http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=810

The last IPCC admits a number of glaciers/icecaps are growing:

Nigardsbreen in Norway
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/413.htm

Greenland in balance: "Together, these results indicate that this area of the Greenland ice sheet has been nearly in balance for two decades"
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/416.htm#11231

Elsewhere in the report you find that the bulk of Antarctic ice is in equilibrium and predicted to grow, that several glaciers around the world have been growing in the past couple of decades--the very period the IPCC falsely claims is the warmest in millenia, and that in contrast to anecdotal observations only a relatively small number of glaciers have accurate mass balance observations.

Even Greenpeace(!) admits the following:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic99/html/content/factsheets/oldreports/glaciers2.html


* Central Asia: From the 1950s to the 1980s, 73% of glaciers were retreating, 15% were advancing and 12% were stable.
* New Zealand: Most glaciers have retreated during the 20th century... Since 1983, the recession of western glaciers has reversed and these glaciers are growing (e.g. the Franz Josef glacier).
* South America: ...while the Pio XI glacier in Patagonia is larger now than at any time in the last 6,000 years.
* Europe: For the Alps as a whole, the glacial area since about 1850 has been reduced by 30-40 percent, with about a 50 percent reduction in ice volume. However, this has been counterbalanced by the recent growth of some larger glaciers in the Alps such as the Grosse Aletsch in Switzerland and many Scandinavian glaciers, resulting in a small net increase in glacial ice over the last 30 years.


Changes in continental ice are mixed--and again, this is aside from the fact that any observed changes are a poor indicator for global change.

Glom
2004-Oct-14, 09:54 AM
Is it a crime for glaciers to shrink? They grow huge and heavy during ice ages, they deserve a break during warm periods.

TheGalaxyTrio
2004-Oct-14, 04:40 PM
We're not in the 'real world', we're in the BABB. :)

...discussing a real world controversy. :P Don't make me come over there.


Questioning people's motives in here would quickly lead the conversation away from the science and into politics, IMHO.

Welcome to Planet Earth.

Is it any wonder I personally consider ideology to be a mental illness? I'm serious. Read abook by John Douglas or another serial criminal profiler, and then watch the more extremist pundits on the Sunday morning politico-fests. It will be disturbing.

Demigrog
2004-Oct-14, 05:51 PM
Cute. :P

So you have no sources for your statements?


As bobjohnston pointed out, it only takes a few seconds of searching to find examples. My list would so greatly resemble the results page of a Google search for "+glaciers +growing" that I didn't see any point in posting it.

Wolverine
2004-Oct-14, 06:35 PM
Fascinating, informative thread.

Interesting, in addition, that a simple Google search does seem to indicate evidence of a number of glaciers advancing, and curious that they don't seem to make headlines like their receding counterparts.

Evan
2004-Oct-14, 06:40 PM
Interesting info on the glacier issue is here.

http://glacier-bay.gsfc.nasa.gov/hall.science.txt.html

Demigrog
2004-Oct-14, 06:54 PM
Fascinating, informative thread.

Interesting, in addition, that a simple Google search does seem to indicate evidence of a number of glaciers advancing, and curious that they don't seem to make headlines like their receding counterparts.

Well, it doesn't make headlines because the overall trend is shrinking glaciers. There is no doubt that many glaciers are shrinking, and surely it does indicate change in many local weather patterns. However, weather is such a complicated set of processes that it is difficult to link something like glaciers melting to global processes, and it is a terrible mistake to attribute the melting to a single cause like carbon dioxide emissions.

Wolverine
2004-Oct-14, 07:06 PM
Well, it doesn't make headlines because the overall trend is shrinking glaciers. There is no doubt that many glaciers are shrinking, and surely it does indicate change in many local weather patterns. However, weather is such a complicated set of processes that it is difficult to link something like glaciers melting to global processes, and it is a terrible mistake to attribute the melting to a single cause like carbon dioxide emissions.

#-o

Perhaps I should have instead asked why the above doesn't seem to be widely covered in the headlines we do receive.

Swift
2004-Oct-14, 09:30 PM
IMHO, some glaciers growing is not inconsistent with global warming models for two reasons. First, models that look at regional variations find that with many global warming scenerios there are parts of the world that actually get cooler, though the overall average of the world is to higher temperatures. IIRC, this is particularly true early in the warm-up.

Second, it is possible that initially warming would allow glaciers to grow. How big a glacier is comes from a balance between how quickly new snow is added, how quickly the glacier moves (particularly if it exits into the sea) and how quickly it melts. If it initially was in a very cold region (well below freezing) than a little warm-up might actually mean more local snowfall (the very cold Antarctic interior actually gets very little snowfall, it just never melts). But eventually, things will get warm enought that it starts melting.

rleyland
2004-Oct-14, 10:39 PM
Aurora: go check on the ,measurements of Glaciers in New Zealand, Antarctica, South America and I think there were some mentioned in Norway also.

see, for example:
http://members.tripod.com/NZPhoto/south/04Glaciers.htm


The example is shrinking, as stated in the linked page. It is not an example of a glacier that is growing.

Did you look at the graph? 1983-present advancing.

It has been cited in numerous other places as generally advancing.

bobjohnston
2004-Oct-14, 10:40 PM
IMHO, some glaciers growing is not inconsistent with global warming models for two reasons...

This brings up one of the reasons the global warming hypothesis is fundamentally bad science: it is not falisfiable. If any climate variation is attributed to global warming, including contrasting ones, we're not talking science.

Of course, you're talking about something a little more specific; I would argue that the lack of inconsistency you note actually reflects a reason to distrust the models.

bobjohnston
2004-Oct-14, 10:41 PM
Well, it doesn't make headlines because the overall trend is shrinking glaciers. There is no doubt that many glaciers are shrinking, and surely it does indicate change in many local weather patterns. However, weather is such a complicated set of processes that it is difficult to link something like glaciers melting to global processes, and it is a terrible mistake to attribute the melting to a single cause like carbon dioxide emissions.

#-o

Perhaps I should have instead asked why the above doesn't seem to be widely covered in the headlines we do receive.

To put it another way, the question is not why growing glaciers are not headlines, but why shrinking glaciers are headlines.

rleyland
2004-Oct-14, 10:48 PM
Well, it doesn't make headlines because the overall trend is shrinking glaciers. There is no doubt that many glaciers are shrinking, and surely it does indicate change in many local weather patterns. However, weather is such a complicated set of processes that it is difficult to link something like glaciers melting to global processes, and it is a terrible mistake to attribute the melting to a single cause like carbon dioxide emissions.

#-o

Perhaps I should have instead asked why the above doesn't seem to be widely covered in the headlines we do receive.

To put it another way, the question is not why growing glaciers are not headlines, but why shrinking glaciers are headlines.

"Chicken Little"

You get a lot more attention when you make predictions of doom and gloom. If the galciers are retreating, it's because the latest doom-fad (Climate Change) is causing it.

polytropos
2004-Oct-15, 02:17 AM
Aside from educating anyone so unfortunate as to be as ignorant as I was and affirming the necessary effort involved in being even fractionally informed, have we made progress here? Without exceeding the topical limits of this BB, is there anything useful we can do or any area we can improve our knowledge in that will thin the oft-cited metaphorical fog?

In other words, can we concieve of any research conducted within a reasonable time span that would improve our models? Or are we too subjective and short-lived (neither condition used perjoratively, in this case) to do better than extended trial and error?

Apologies for the pragmatic stance. It sometimes offends.
And again, excellent posts and vigorous debate. Great to see good arguments and good evidence.

Jerry
2004-Oct-15, 02:47 AM
One planet. One Experiment. No controls - not on population, fuel consumption, rain forest clearing, temperate forest elimination, over fishing...

One chance is all we get.

Don't tell me we are being smart, because this is one stupid experiment.

Bad science!

bobjohnston
2004-Oct-15, 02:29 PM
In other words, can we concieve of any research conducted within a reasonable time span that would improve our models? Or are we too subjective and short-lived (neither condition used perjoratively, in this case) to do better than extended trial and error?


I don't think we can nail it down in the near term, but there definitely are some things we can do to improve the models--to start with, trust observations more than the models. In an entirely different field someone was recently describing to me that when models and observations differ, it's appropriate to adjust the model to incorporate missing physics. However, he had encountered a problem when fudge factors were added to the model to remove the discrepancy without a physical basis, after which the model was being trusted for policy decisions. This is exactly what is happening with global warming models. The science is not robust enough to claim we can make these sorts of policy decisions. In part that reflects the fact that the climate system is so large and so chaotic that a decision one way or another in the next few decades probably doesn't matter--even the IPCC models affirm this.

Some areas of research that are badly needed include research into Sun-Earth connections: there is strong indirect evidence for indirect links between solar activity and climate. The mechanisms have been proposed, but we need to pin these down. (I think these mechanisms may have implications for astrobiology as well.) We need to properly review the ground-based temperature record. Satellite and ground-based measurements disagree; the satellite record has been reviewed, but not the ground-based record.

Demigrog
2004-Oct-15, 07:27 PM
In other words, can we concieve of any research conducted within a reasonable time span that would improve our models? Or are we too subjective and short-lived (neither condition used perjoratively, in this case) to do better than extended trial and error?

The models will improve over time, like with all science-- one reason why we should be careful not to create an environmental dogma in popular culture. However, current models are sufficiently accurate to give us pretty good guidance on environmental issues. Certainly reducing emissions of CO2, waste heat, soot, and ozone depleting chemicals are good ideas—taking care not to overreact. Stifling the economy with over-restrictive laws will hurt the environment worse in the long run, because it takes money to develop and deploy new, cleaner technology.



"Chicken Little"
You get a lot more attention when you make predictions of doom and gloom. If the galciers are retreating, it's because the latest doom-fad (Climate Change) is causing it.

I think there is a little more to it. The environmental lobby is very good at public relations, and one of the worst things you can do is dilute your message with too much detail. They are keeping it simple—demonize Carbon Dioxide, because limiting CO2 emission is a good, simple way to curtail industrial growth in general, which is undeniably good for the environment. To make their point, they find simple examples that the general public can relate to—melting glaciers is pretty straightforward. So, if you support an anti-growth, pro-nature future, what the environmentalists are doing isn’t so bad.

Those of us that would prefer a more moderate approach would prefer to reduce emissions through technology (freedom for fission...), control growth with careful planning, and continue to improve our quality of life while simultaneously reducing environmental impact. It is really a basic difference of opinion on lifestyle, one that IMHO is not one where either side is “right”, but one where quality of life is simply defined differently.

Tunga
2004-Oct-15, 07:34 PM
I read something interesting today.

Richard A. Muller wrote:


It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an
unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a
mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the
value of caution.

The article can be found at:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp

dgruss23
2004-Oct-15, 08:04 PM
I read something interesting today.

Richard A. Muller wrote:


It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an
unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a
mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the
value of caution.

The article can be found at:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp


Ironic that you link to this because I just came across their site (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html) a few days ago. I haven't had a chance to read it all yet.

Demigrog
2004-Oct-15, 08:26 PM
I read something interesting today.

Richard A. Muller wrote:


It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an
unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a
mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the
value of caution.

The article can be found at:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp

This is another example of why I distrust any research that does not fully disclose raw data upfront. Environmental research is riddled with reports that are impossible to verify, particularly government reports-- the EPA has occasionally even refused to disclose data to Congress, the source of their funding. At least in natural sciences like chemistry, the methods are usually described fully and are reproducible. Environmental research usually depends on data from satellites and weather stations that are not reproducible (without a time machine), and are often not easily available. That is one reason environmental science is so easy to politicize. Grrr…

bobjohnston
2004-Oct-15, 09:00 PM
Certainly reducing emissions of CO2, waste heat, soot, and ozone depleting chemicals are good ideas—taking care not to overreact...

...limiting CO2 emission is a good, simple way to curtail industrial growth in general, which is undeniably good for the environment.

I'll deny it: I disagree with your assertion that we can be sure the pre-industrial amount of CO2 is the optimum one. The evidence for the climatic impact is debatable, whereas the evidence is stronger that global vegetation benefits from more CO2. Further, I disagree that industrial growth is automatically bad for the environment. Industrial growth accompanied by technological improvements tends to minimize environmental impact.

dgruss23
2004-Oct-15, 09:46 PM
Certainly reducing emissions of CO2, waste heat, soot, and ozone depleting chemicals are good ideas—taking care not to overreact...

...limiting CO2 emission is a good, simple way to curtail industrial growth in general, which is undeniably good for the environment.

I'll deny it: I disagree with your assertion that we can be sure the pre-industrial amount of CO2 is the optimum one. The evidence for the climatic impact is debatable, whereas the evidence is stronger that global vegetation benefits from more CO2. Further, I disagree that industrial growth is automatically bad for the environment. Industrial growth accompanied by technological improvements tends to minimize environmental impact.

Here (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf) is an excellent article that details some of the evidence for the effects of increased CO2 on plant growth. It confirms what you're saying.

In fact this is an excellent overview of the weaknesses of the entire global warming case. It is extremely well referenced and very readable for anybody scared by technical lingo. Perhaps some of the people convinced that global warming is a serious problem would be willing to comment on specific evidence presented in this article?

dgruss23
2004-Oct-18, 05:02 PM
Certainly reducing emissions of CO2, waste heat, soot, and ozone depleting chemicals are good ideas—taking care not to overreact...

...limiting CO2 emission is a good, simple way to curtail industrial growth in general, which is undeniably good for the environment.

I'll deny it: I disagree with your assertion that we can be sure the pre-industrial amount of CO2 is the optimum one. The evidence for the climatic impact is debatable, whereas the evidence is stronger that global vegetation benefits from more CO2. Further, I disagree that industrial growth is automatically bad for the environment. Industrial growth accompanied by technological improvements tends to minimize environmental impact.

Here (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf) is an excellent article that details some of the evidence for the effects of increased CO2 on plant growth. It confirms what you're saying.

In fact this is an excellent overview of the weaknesses of the entire global warming case. It is extremely well referenced and very readable for anybody scared by technical lingo. Perhaps some of the people convinced that global warming is a serious problem would be willing to comment on specific evidence presented in this article?

Thoughts on the evidence in this article anyone?

aurora
2004-Oct-18, 07:07 PM
Aurora: go check on the ,measurements of Glaciers in New Zealand, Antarctica, South America and I think there were some mentioned in Norway also.

see, for example:
http://members.tripod.com/NZPhoto/south/04Glaciers.htm


The example is shrinking, as stated in the linked page. It is not an example of a glacier that is growing.

Did you look at the graph? 1983-present advancing.

It has been cited in numerous other places as generally advancing.

I did look at the graph.

The recent advance is just a small blip, it is clear that the general trend of that glacier (from the linked article) is one of shrinking. Certainly there can be small variations in an overall trend. The page also said the shrinking started again in 2002.

I don't think that glacier is a good example of a glacier that is growing, since the pattern in post industrial times for it is clearly one of shrinkage.

Laser Jock
2004-Oct-18, 07:15 PM
Certainly reducing emissions of CO2, waste heat, soot, and ozone depleting chemicals are good ideas—taking care not to overreact...

...limiting CO2 emission is a good, simple way to curtail industrial growth in general, which is undeniably good for the environment.

I'll deny it: I disagree with your assertion that we can be sure the pre-industrial amount of CO2 is the optimum one. The evidence for the climatic impact is debatable, whereas the evidence is stronger that global vegetation benefits from more CO2. Further, I disagree that industrial growth is automatically bad for the environment. Industrial growth accompanied by technological improvements tends to minimize environmental impact.

Here (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf) is an excellent article that details some of the evidence for the effects of increased CO2 on plant growth. It confirms what you're saying.

In fact this is an excellent overview of the weaknesses of the entire global warming case. It is extremely well referenced and very readable for anybody scared by technical lingo. Perhaps some of the people convinced that global warming is a serious problem would be willing to comment on specific evidence presented in this article?

Thoughts on the evidence in this article anyone?

I find the last paragraph interesting:


Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

Counter-intuitive, but they may be right.

aurora
2004-Oct-18, 07:40 PM
I tried google and easily found a variety of examples:

Briksdal Glacier and others in western Norway growing:
http://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.html



That article says: "The growth of Norway's glaciers is unparalleled, as most of the world's glaciers are melting as a result of global warming. In the Alps, glaciers have melted to about half of their size since the 1850s. "

I wonder if the SEPP would have posted that article if they had read that last sentence? The reason I ask is that in a quick glance around their web site it appears that they have a pre conceived point they are trying to make. I know nothing about them, though, as this was the first I have heard of them.

I wonder if the glaciers in Norway that are growing, as mentioned in the link, are calving glaciers like the Hubble glacier. I didn't see that detail, I suppose I could search more.



Hubble Glacier in Alaska advancing (previously mentioned):
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/fs-001-03/

Yes, I am the one that mentioned it, and as indicated by the USGS, calving glaciers like Hubble retreated during the Little Ice Age, and are advancing now -- moving in the opposite direction from the climate change.


Southern Alps glaciers in New Zealand growing:
http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=810

The above article is talking about a single year in which the glacier(s) advanced. That does not make a trend or indicate that the long term trend is for the glaciers to grow.


The last IPCC admits a number of glaciers/icecaps are growing:

Nigardsbreen in Norway
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/413.htm

The above article says "While glaciers in most parts of the world have had negative mass balance in the past 20 years, glaciers in New Zealand (Chinn, 1999; Lamont et al., 1999) and southern Scandinavia (Tvede and Laumann, 1997) have been advancing, presumably following changes in the regional climate."

So, again, we see a pattern of shrinkage worldwide with a few localized (in time or geography) exceptions. This link does not support the notion that the world climate is in equilibrium or is getting colder.

As to Greenland and Antartica, the studies I linked to back a page or three propose that a warmer climate would increase snowfall which would increase the thickness at the center of the icepack while at the same time the boundaries were shrinking.

I know it is attractive to think that the Earth's climate is not changing, but the evidence seems to support the notion that the long term trend (probably since the end of the little ice age, and accelerating in post-industrial times) is toward warming. It is however an overall trend, and local conditions can overwhelm large scale trends temporarily (sort of like how the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us even though the universe is expanding). And certainly here in North America the trend is for glaciers to shrink.


Even Greenpeace(!) admits the following:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic99/html/content/factsheets/oldreports/glaciers2.html

I don't think that is a very good article to support the notion that glaciers are growing or in equilibrium, as it states that "There are major differences over time as well. From 1960-80, a period with a small cooling trend in North America, Asian and subpolar glaciers contributed almost of the glacier contribution to sea level rise, and North American glaciers were stagnant. However, from 1981 to 1990, the rate of Asian glacier melting was reduced somewhat, and North American glaciers began shrinking much more rapidly. As a result, Asian and North American glaciers made about equal contributions to sea level rise between 1980 to and 1990.

Overall glacial contribution to sea level rise has been accelerating in recent years. 1990 is estimated to have had the most negative mass balance in the entire 1961-90 period, with a sea level rise contribution of about 0.9 mm, or about half the total estimated long term annual sea level rise. "

Again, overall trend with local variations.

I'm interested to learn more about glaciers in Norway and New Zealand, and will take the time to do that in the near future.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-18, 08:14 PM
We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.
Assuming we don't keep chopping them down or killing them ourselves. :)

Glom
2004-Oct-18, 08:27 PM
Everyone exhale heartily. The biosphere needs your carbon emissions.

Demigrog
2004-Oct-18, 08:43 PM
Certainly reducing emissions of CO2, waste heat, soot, and ozone depleting chemicals are good ideas—taking care not to overreact...

...limiting CO2 emission is a good, simple way to curtail industrial growth in general, which is undeniably good for the environment.

I'll deny it: I disagree with your assertion that we can be sure the pre-industrial amount of CO2 is the optimum one. The evidence for the climatic impact is debatable, whereas the evidence is stronger that global vegetation benefits from more CO2. Further, I disagree that industrial growth is automatically bad for the environment. Industrial growth accompanied by technological improvements tends to minimize environmental impact.

I’m not claiming anything about CO2, beyond that it is not the sole (or even primary) impact of humans on the environment. Growth is environmentally “bad” not because of CO2 emissions, but because it chews up undeveloped land, increases pollution in all categories, increases energy demand, promotes “sprawl”, etc. The increase in energy demands is key—more energy requires more CO2 emissions. Thus, some environmentalists oppose CO2 with their eye on the larger goal of limiting growth in general—they use CO2 emissions as a straw-man argument.

I also agree that we don’t know for sure if increasing CO2 causes significant warming, or even if global warming is bad in the first place. Climate change happens whether we like it or not, but many people think that if we stop global warming that the world will simply remain “static”. Anthropology and history shows that is absolutely not the case—from worldwide sea level changes to the freezing of Greenland to lush river valleys becoming deserts and vice versa.


Thoughts on the evidence in this article anyone?
As I said earlier, take care to examine the source of papers in the Global Warming field. The one you linked is from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine—a nice name, but not exactly a major research institution. PR Watch has this article (http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html). Of course, PR Watch itself is hardly unbiased. :roll: They dismiss OISM’s paper more on their distribution method than its actual content, which is an obviously political straw-man.

Getting past the source, the major scientific issue with the OISM paper is an assumption that plant growth will directly correlate to CO2, when there are other limiting factors: Sunlight, water availability, nutrients, increases in wildfires, human activity (meaning deforestation and agriculture), pollution, and increases in animal populations that consume plant life. Thus, the actual effect on plant growth is hard to predict, though the trend would likely be towards more plant life, especially in ocean plants.

The temperature data in the OISM is the usual assortment of cherry-picking that frustrates the heck out of me. There are definitely temperature plots that show little or no temperature change in recent decades, just as there are plots that show clear upward trends. I’ve yet to read what I’d call an unbiased attempt to correlate all of the data—the flawed Mann paper (http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp) brought up earlier is a good example of what is available.

Glom
2004-Oct-18, 09:10 PM
I’m not claiming anything about CO2, beyond that it is not the sole (or even primary) impact of humans on the environment. Growth is environmentally “bad” not because of CO2 emissions, but because it chews up undeveloped land, increases pollution in all categories, increases energy demand, promotes “sprawl”, etc. The increase in energy demands is key—more energy requires more CO2 emissions. Thus, some environmentalists oppose CO2 with their eye on the larger goal of limiting growth in general—they use CO2 emissions as a straw-man argument.

I'm unsure what you're saying. Are you just conveying the anti-civilisation arguments of the luddite groups (there you go Disinfo Agent), or do you actually believe that limiting growth is good overall. We have the right to raise the standard of living of ourselves and other people. We need industrial growth for this. Industrial growth is good because it gets more done with less investment. It's better for sustainability than 6 billion people living hunter gatherer lives.

bobjohnston
2004-Oct-18, 09:37 PM
I wonder if the SEPP would have posted that article if they had read that last sentence? The reason I ask is that in a quick glance around their web site it appears that they have a pre conceived point they are trying to make. I know nothing about them, though, as this was the first I have heard of them.


Not willing to presume intellectual honesty on their behalf? If you think their conclusions are preconceived, let's see evidence.



So, again, we see a pattern of shrinkage worldwide with a few localized (in time or geography) exceptions. This link does not support the notion that the world climate is in equilibrium or is getting colder.


As to the first point, I don't disagree with the pattern. The issue in prior discussion had been the claim that all glaciers are in retreat, which is false. On the second point, one of my points is that trend of retreating continental glaciers is not evidence in any direction for current climate change. It is only evidence that we are warmer now than when they were formed--during the last ice age.



As to Greenland and Antartica, the studies I linked to back a page or three propose that a warmer climate would increase snowfall which would increase the thickness at the center of the icepack while at the same time the boundaries were shrinking.


The competion between growth at the center and melting at the edges is ongoing and indepedent of climate change. Studies cannot resolve which effect would prevail in the future, or even which is prevailing now. IPCC models generally predict net growth in Antarctica and net loss for Greenland (rather less than the Antarctica growth), even for their ridiculous predictions of future temperature change.



I know it is attractive to think that the Earth's climate is not changing, but the evidence seems to support the notion that the long term trend (probably since the end of the little ice age, and accelerating in post-industrial times) is toward warming.


I don't know why it would be attractive; most of the attraction seems to be to the notion of change. But the issue is not attractiveness, the issue is evidence. Certainly climate changes, and certainly today is warmer than the little ice age. But is warming accelerating now? Evidence for the latter is quite questionable.

bobjohnston
2004-Oct-18, 10:05 PM
I’m not claiming anything about CO2, beyond that it is not the sole (or even primary) impact of humans on the environment. Growth is environmentally “bad” not because of CO2 emissions, but because it chews up undeveloped land, increases pollution in all categories, increases energy demand, promotes “sprawl”, etc. The increase in energy demands is key—more energy requires more CO2 emissions. Thus, some environmentalists oppose CO2 with their eye on the larger goal of limiting growth in general—they use CO2 emissions as a straw-man argument.


How are you defining "growth" to conclude it is necessarily bad? Historically, industry has developed more efficient technology with a smaller environmental footprint--partly in response to regulation, but also in part due to utilization of better technology. Even without regulation, industry will prefer technologies that use less land and less energy because it saves them money. The current environmental impact of U.S. industry is less than in the past, despite net growth. This doesn't detract from your final point: you are correct that some environmentalists oppose CO2 in order to indirectly oppose growth.



As I said earlier, take care to examine the source of papers in the Global Warming field. The one you linked is from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine—a nice name, but not exactly a major research institution. PR Watch has this article. Of course, PR Watch itself is hardly unbiased. They dismiss OISM’s paper more on their distribution method than its actual content, which is an obviously political straw-man.


Several of PR Watch's claims regarding OISM are false and some are slanderous. In any case, they are ad hominem attacks by a group unwilling to evaluate the evidence.



Getting past the source, the major scientific issue with the OISM paper is an assumption that plant growth will directly correlate to CO2, when there are other limiting factors: Sunlight, water availability, nutrients, increases in wildfires, human activity (meaning deforestation and agriculture), pollution, and increases in animal populations that consume plant life. Thus, the actual effect on plant growth is hard to predict, though the trend would likely be towards more plant life, especially in ocean plants.


The OISM doesn't "assume" more CO2 will increase plant growth; it offers verifiable evidence. Besides the laboratory studies which don't address the additional issues you list (of which some are rather dubious as major factors), it also points out the increased amplitude of the annual variation in atmospheric CO2. This is indirect evidence in support of the lab results (at least, I'm not aware of credible efforts to blame this on non-biological effects).



The temperature data in the OISM is the usual assortment of cherry-picking that frustrates the heck out of me. There are definitely temperature plots that show little or no temperature change in recent decades, just as there are plots that show clear upward trends.

I don't see what you mean by cherry-picking. Their point in part is that the plots that show upward trends are biased by various effects and that they are refuted by other measurements. One issue they raise is some serious cherry-picking by the IPCC.

Swift
2004-Oct-18, 10:13 PM
For those of you discussing CO2 and plant growth, you might be interested in this (http://www.co2science.org/co2tables/plantgrowth.htm) website.


In this section of our web site we maintain an ever-expanding archive of the results of peer-reviewed scientific studies that report the growth responses of plants to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Results are updated weekly and posted according to two types of growth response (Dry Weight and Photosynthesis).


Here (http://aob.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/short/mch101v1) is an abstract and conclusions of a paper from the journal Annals of Botany and here (http://www.bio.uu.nl/~oecofys/people/hendrik/PDF/2001_Poorter&Perez-Soba_Oec.pdf) is a paper from the journal Oecologia, that hint at the complexity of modeling this. I don't think it is a one-to-one relationship (in fact IIRC, it is far from it).

Evan
2004-Oct-18, 10:36 PM
There is no doubt that increased CO2 increases plant growth, given that other factors are not limiting. The funny tobacco growers have known this for years.

see here (http://www.sgs-hydroponic.com/product_details.php?id=33&cat=14&parent=)

dgruss23
2004-Oct-18, 10:53 PM
Thoughts on the evidence in this article anyone?
As I said earlier, take care to examine the source of papers in the Global Warming field. The one you linked is from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine—a nice name, but not exactly a major research institution. PR Watch has this article (http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html). Of course, PR Watch itself is hardly unbiased. :roll: They dismiss OISM’s paper more on their distribution method than its actual content, which is an obviously political straw-man.

I'm not interested in what organization the paper was written for. Sallie Baliunas (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&sim_query=YES&aut_xct=NO&au t_logic=OR&obj_logic=OR&author=baliunas&object=&st art_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic= OR&title=&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=100&star t_nr=1&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_ent ry_year=&min_score=&jou_pick=ALL&ref_stems=&data_a nd=ALL&group_and=ALL&sort=SCORE&aut_syn=YES&ttl_sy n=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3 &txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&tx t_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1) is doing some fine research in the astrophysics field. I've been particularly impressed with what she's finding about the stellar cycles of other stars. Many of you may have access to her 1996 S&T (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1996S%26T....92...38B&db_key =AST&high=3e5c03c80a22085) article.



Getting past the source, the major scientific issue with the OISM paper is an assumption that plant growth will directly correlate to CO2, when there are other limiting factors: Sunlight, water availability, nutrients, increases in wildfires, human activity (meaning deforestation and agriculture), pollution, and increases in animal populations that consume plant life. Thus, the actual effect on plant growth is hard to predict, though the trend would likely be towards more plant life, especially in ocean plants.

That was important discussion, but I thought the discussion of the weather balloon measurements was at least as important. They pointed out that Radiosonde balloon measurements do not indicate an increase in temperature - in fact a decreasing trend the last 20 years is indicated (figs 5-7). Fig 13 shows the surface temperature "increases" are correlated with county population indicating a possible contamination from the urban heat island effect. And fig 11 shows how poorly the predicted warming compares with the observed temperature trend the last 20 years. The caveat there is that the satellite measurements may suffer from calibration errors as Jerry had suggested.


The temperature data in the OISM is the usual assortment of cherry-picking that frustrates the heck out of me. There are definitely temperature plots that show little or no temperature change in recent decades, just as there are plots that show clear upward trends. I’ve yet to read what I’d call an unbiased attempt to correlate all of the data—the flawed Mann paper (http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp) brought up earlier is a good example of what is available.

I don't think there is cherry picking going on. If anything they point to cherry-picking of others (see figure 14).

dgruss23
2004-Oct-18, 11:10 PM
Demigrog: As I said earlier, take care to examine the source of papers in the Global Warming field. The one you linked is from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine—a nice name, but not exactly a major research institution. PR Watch has this article. Of course, PR Watch itself is hardly unbiased. They dismiss OISM’s paper more on their distribution method than its actual content, which is an obviously political straw-man.

Let me add something here - the article I cited is extremely well referenced - as are most of the articles I've linked to on this topic. The PR Watch article is ... well I don't know what you call it but it does nothing to dispell this well referenced article or any of the others I've cited over the last year.

Demigrog
2004-Oct-19, 06:34 PM
I'm unsure what you're saying. Are you just conveying the anti-civilisation arguments of the luddite groups (there you go Disinfo Agent), or do you actually believe that limiting growth is good overall. We have the right to raise the standard of living of ourselves and other people. We need industrial growth for this. Industrial growth is good because it gets more done with less investment. It's better for sustainability than 6 billion people living hunter gatherer lives.

I am not in the anti-civilization camp, certainly, nor am I an environmentalist in the extreme sense. I do support solving environmental problems through improved technology. The fundamental difference between my position and an extreme environmentalist is that I believe our environmental problems can be solved by less drastic means than artificially limiting our standard of living. Since I get to help invent that better technology every day, my view is understandable. :)

I started out saying industrial growth when I should probably just say “growth”. Industrial growth is a relatively small part of the environmental picture in the US, mostly because much of our heavy industry is being replaced by imports. However, suburban sprawl is a very real growth issue, and much harder to deal with than industrial pollution. I’m not sure what to do about sprawl, other than making cities more attractive to live in. Certainly reducing CO2 emissions will not help that problem any, unless you make gasoline so expensive that nobody can drive to work anymore. (I don’t support that, in case it isn’t clear ;) )



How are you defining "growth" to conclude it is necessarily bad? Historically, industry has developed more efficient technology with a smaller environmental footprint--partly in response to regulation, but also in part due to utilization of better technology. Even without regulation, industry will prefer technologies that use less land and less energy because it saves them money. The current environmental impact of U.S. industry is less than in the past, despite net growth. This doesn't detract from your final point: you are correct that some environmentalists oppose CO2 in order to indirectly oppose growth.

Hope I clarified in my response to Glom, but just to make sure: I don’t think growth is bad, just unplanned growth. I do think you underestimate the impact of regulation though. Coal power plants, for example, have scrubbers to reduce the pollution of their emissions. These scrubbers are very expensive themselves, and actually reduce the efficiency of the powerplant somewhat. I very much doubt that the industry would be using them if they were not required by law. Regulation has also forced the use of cleaner, more expensive coal—without regulation you can be sure our sulfur emissions would be much, much higher.

One side benefit of this regulation has been growth of high technology in industrial applications—one of the reasons I have a job. :)



Several of PR Watch's claims regarding OISM are false and some are slanderous. In any case, they are ad hominem attacks by a group unwilling to evaluate the evidence.

Oh, I know. But mixed in between slander and ad hominem are occasional good points. I don’t just take their word for it, of course—I examine the points they raise and see for myself which ones are legitimate (a very low ratio, in this case).



The OISM doesn't "assume" more CO2 will increase plant growth; it offers verifiable evidence. Besides the laboratory studies which don't address the additional issues you list (of which some are rather dubious as major factors), it also points out the increased amplitude of the annual variation in atmospheric CO2. This is indirect evidence in support of the lab results (at least, I'm not aware of credible efforts to blame this on non-biological effects).

I should clarify: they assume that the increased plant growth shown in the lab will follow the same curve in the real world when predicting that increased CO2 will have benefits. I pointed out several factors that would alter the curve, leading to diminishing returns at the least.



I don't see what you mean by cherry-picking. Their point in part is that the plots that show upward trends are biased by various effects and that they are refuted by other measurements. One issue they raise is some serious cherry-picking by the IPCC.

Cherry-picking was too strong a term. However, it isn’t hard to select temperature data to support a particular viewpoint; take figure 2 for example. Being limited to the Sargasso Sea and thus its local weather, that particular temperature graph is of little use by itself as a gauge of global climate. Figures 4 to 8 represent temperatures measured by particular methods. These graphs only paint a partial climate picture—all other temperature data would also need to be included to see the global temperature change picture. Figure 13 is an excellent example of urban heat island bias—but that isn’t relative to the problem, as nobody (at least in the last 30 years) is claiming global warming based solely on urban surface temperatures.

I’ve yet to see such a comprehensive study, like the famous Mann hockystick graph, that was not flawed in some significant way. (Not saying such a study does not exist, just that I haven’t found it yet. Feel free to educate me :) )



I'm not interested in what organization the paper was written for.
Nor am I, when examining a specific paper. When looking for references to support my own research, however, I’d probably not use an OISM paper.



Let me add something here - the article I cited is extremely well referenced - as are most of the articles I've linked to on this topic. The PR Watch article is ... well I don't know what you call it but it does nothing to dispell this well referenced article or any of the others I've cited over the last year.
I agree, and I merely pointed out the PR Watch article to illustrate the incredible politicization of a quite complex scientific issue. The bottom line is, a paper funded by OISM is not going to be taken seriously by other scientific organizations that depend on political correctness for funding. Sad but true.

Glom
2004-Oct-19, 07:04 PM
I gecha now, Demigrog. I guess the key to dealing with sprawl is twofold. First is national parks and variations on that theme that are off limit to sprawl so at least we can be sure sprawl won't continue until there is no rural land left. The second is to get planting in the sprawl so that they are nearly as green as the untouched land.

bobjohnston
2004-Oct-19, 07:17 PM
I should clarify: they assume that the increased plant growth shown in the lab will follow the same curve in the real world when predicting that increased CO2 will have benefits. I pointed out several factors that would alter the curve, leading to diminishing returns at the least.


I don't think this is correct. The factors you cite would effect the particular curves--and Robinson et ali do discuss the fact that the curves are effected by stresses--but the literature tends to indicate that the benefits for stressed plants are still positive, just not as great.


Figures 4 to 8 represent temperatures measured by particular methods. These graphs only paint a partial climate picture—all other temperature data would also need to be included to see the global temperature change picture. Figure 13 is an excellent example of urban heat island bias—but that isn’t relative to the problem, as nobody (at least in the last 30 years) is claiming global warming based solely on urban surface temperatures.


You minimize the significance of these graphs. Three priniciple methods exist for direct measurement of global average temperature: some average of unevenly distributed surface measurements; some average of balloon radiosonde measurements, also uneven; and satellite MSU measurements, with more uniform sampling but only available from 1979. The latter two methods are consistent in indicating no significant warming in the past two decades. The first method, that preferred by the global warming community, paints a different picture. However, the ground based series is arguably contaminated by heat island bias, and this problem is worst for the last 30 years. Note fig. 13 in the article: the ground station records incorporated into the NASA GISS series are preferentially drawn from stations with high urban heat island effects.

Demigrog
2004-Oct-19, 08:44 PM
I don't think this is correct. The factors you cite would effect the particular curves--and Robinson et ali do discuss the fact that the curves are effected by stresses--but the literature tends to indicate that the benefits for stressed plants are still positive, just not as great.

We’re saying the same thing then; I’m just pointing that there is a point where CO2 concentration would fail to produce additional benefit. I don’t know what that point is, though it is probably well above current CO2 concentrations.



You minimize the significance of these graphs.

You may be right; I’ve been tracing back the references for these graphs, and I’m still learning a lot. My first impression was that such graphs could easily hide systemic sampling bias (geographic distribution of samples, etc). I have not seen anything that jumps out at me yet. I’d have to go to a university library to get to some of these journal articles though.



Three priniciple methods exist for direct measurement of global average temperature: some average of unevenly distributed surface measurements; some average of balloon radiosonde measurements, also uneven; and satellite MSU measurements, with more uniform sampling but only available from 1979. The latter two methods are consistent in indicating no significant warming in the past two decades. The first method, that preferred by the global warming community, paints a different picture. However, the ground based series is arguably contaminated by heat island bias, and this problem is worst for the last 30 years. Note fig. 13 in the article: the ground station records incorporated into the NASA GISS series are preferentially drawn from stations with high urban heat island effects.
Part of my problem with the graphs is that the relevant time period is at least 1900 to present, not just the last three decades, and that is just to detect a recent warming trend. To put the warming in perspective we need at least 10,000 years of data. Alas, we cannot get it—at least without the dubious slapping together of tree-ring data with modern weather data that Mann et al used. It amazes me that so few people notice (or care, when it is pointed out) that the sharp warming trend corresponds exactly with the introduction of modern weather measurements—an obvious source of bias.

dgruss23
2004-Oct-19, 09:57 PM
Nor am I, when examining a specific paper. When looking for references to support my own research, however, I’d probably not use an OISM paper.

I'm looking at the author and how well referenced the paper is, not the source. As I pointed out before Sallie Baliunas (http://www.facsnet.org/sources/newssources/results.php3?id=652) (one of the paper's authors) is a well respected researcher. Her papers on this topic are based upon research and not a political agenda. So I don't see the problem if she writes or contributes to a paper for OISM.



I agree, and I merely pointed out the PR Watch article to illustrate the incredible politicization of a quite complex scientific issue. The bottom line is, a paper funded by OISM is not going to be taken seriously by other scientific organizations that depend on political correctness for funding. Sad but true.

But that's irrelevant to our discussions on BABB. I thought we were looking at scientific evidence and not worrying about what spin politically motivated activists will use to avoid addressing that evidence.


However, it isn’t hard to select temperature data to support a particular viewpoint; take figure 2 for example. Being limited to the Sargasso Sea and thus its local weather, that particular temperature graph is of little use by itself as a gauge of global climate.

Now wait a minute - Fig 2 is for a 3000 year period - and it correlates with the "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Maximum". The 3000 year history has a low resolution of 50 years, but is put together by a single method of isotope ratios. That's a strength - because its not a cobbled together graph from multiple methods of estimating temperature.


Figures 4 to 8 represent temperatures measured by particular methods. These graphs only paint a partial climate picture—all other temperature data would also need to be included to see the global temperature change picture.

What do you mean by "all other temperature data"?


Figure 13 is an excellent example of urban heat island bias—but that isn’t relative to the problem, as nobody (at least in the last 30 years) is claiming global warming based solely on urban surface temperatures.

Nobody is claiming that the urban heat island effect is causing actual global warming. The point here is that the urban heat island effect is contaminating measurements of surface temperature which makes it appear as if there is global warming when surface temperatures are used. As bobjohnson noted, you do not see temperature increases with the satellite and weather balloon data. Notice on figure 13 that the smallest counties are consistent with a 0 to 0.15 deg C increase the last 55 years!

This is a very important point. Do you see the difference?

bobjohnston
2004-Oct-19, 11:44 PM
Part of my problem with the graphs is that the relevant time period is at least 1900 to present, not just the last three decades, and that is just to detect a recent warming trend. To put the warming in perspective we need at least 10,000 years of data. Alas, we cannot get it—at least without the dubious slapping together of tree-ring data with modern weather data that Mann et al used. It amazes me that so few people notice (or care, when it is pointed out) that the sharp warming trend corresponds exactly with the introduction of modern weather measurements—an obvious source of bias.

As far as the graphs for the last few decades, the purpose is not to put warming in perspective but to demonstrate that the claims of runaway warming since 1980 are bogus.

You raise an important instrumentation issue. Even the ground based temperature series must be cobbled together from generations of somewhat different instruments; this has been raised as a concern, although not one of the bigger concerns.

Jerry
2004-Oct-20, 08:57 PM
I read something interesting today.

Richard A. Muller wrote:


It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an
unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a
mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the
value of caution.

The article can be found at:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp
Muller's report is a gross miss-characterization of the statistical methods used by Mann. According to Mcintyer's analysis, Mann should have applied the same standard deviation weight factors used for temperature estimates dating back two centuries to data collected within the last two centuries. He would be correct if the same methods, sampling techniques and accuracies applied to all the data, but they clearly do not.

Mann split the sample according to analysis technique, with widening error bars into the past necessitated by extractions from the sampling norm. A Monte Carlo simulation of data weighted in this manner will always put the most weight on the most recent data, but it will not necessarily generate a "hockey stick", even though their is a probability that it will if the total range of potential varience is use in the random generater, rather than the much tighter deviations in the most local population.

What McIntyre has done is the equvalent of taking today's Dow Numbers, which run around 10,000, and backward-predicted the stock market past 1960 (when the Dow was at 100), and then said, if you take todays market and do a Monte Carlo simulation, there is a 90% probablility the market was at minus 9,900 in 1920.

A correct Monte Carlo simulation would only use year-to-year temperature variences that are somewhat consistent with current trends, just like Mann imposed. This would not produce the 'throttling effect' McIntyres crude estimates exaggerate.

In any case the principle component vectors are only marginally more important than the statistical annual mean, and the fact that the mean over the last five years is more than six sigma above the historic average, and the slope of this curve is steeper than any historic or projected slope trend in the prehistoric period should leave us no doubt I can continue to grow tomatos at 5000 ft, unheard of at this latitude a mere two decades ago.

bobjohnston
2004-Oct-20, 09:35 PM
McIntyre and McKitrick raise the issue that the Mann et al analysis is not reproducible from their claimed methodology. When they apply the stated methodology (as much as it can be pieced together) they find temperatures in the 15th century higher than today--a finding consistent with other work. Whether the current temperatures are at historic highs depends critically on the validity of the compiled global surface temperature record. This record is in doubt.

Jerry
2004-Nov-03, 04:49 AM
McIntyre and McKitrick raise the issue that the Mann et al analysis is not reproducible from their claimed methodology. When they apply the stated methodology (as much as it can be pieced together) they find temperatures in the 15th century higher than today---.That doesn't make any sense - The Mann line is the hockey stick line - if you are saying that if you apply the method they are weighing current data true to 15th data, the earth may have been as warm then as now, that would also mean an excursion such as we are seeing now, and there should have been a similar rapid reduction in glacial flows and ice pack...

Of course the record is in doubt! We don't know what kind of damage we we are doing! Should we feel good about that?

Glom
2004-Nov-03, 10:01 AM
Of course the record is in doubt! We don't know what kind of damage we we are doing! Should we feel good about that?

FUD. Stop with the guilty until proven innocent.

dgruss23
2004-Nov-03, 01:01 PM
McIntyre and McKitrick raise the issue that the Mann et al analysis is not reproducible from their claimed methodology. When they apply the stated methodology (as much as it can be pieced together) they find temperatures in the 15th century higher than today---.That doesn't make any sense - The Mann line is the hockey stick line - if you are saying that if you apply the method they are weighing current data true to 15th data, the earth may have been as warm then as now, that would also mean an excursion such as we are seeing now, and there should have been a similar rapid reduction in glacial flows and ice pack...

It doesn't bode well for Mann when McIntyre and McKitrick were not able to duplicate Mann's results from Mann's data. Have you looked at the earlier links on this thread to the McIntyre and McKitrick papers?

Jerry
2004-Nov-03, 03:48 PM
It doesn't bode well for Mann when McIntyre and McKitrick were not able to duplicate Mann's results from Mann's data. Have you looked at the earlier links on this thread to the McIntyre and McKitrick papers?
I think it can be concluded Mann took some liberties extending the curve beyond 200 years. But bad science should not be equated with a comfort factor.

It is reasonable to speculate that there have been warming trends in the past that had the same rapid slope of the current trend. It is also possible some band of dummies set the entire great plains region on fire and created a minnie warming trend - the list goes on and on.

What is clear is the CO level in the arctic is at all time highs (according to ice core estimates) and polar caps are melting. It is also certain that the last decade was the warmest in the last two hundred years, and the current trend shows no evidence of subsiding: Anyone care to predict an extending cooling trend in the next ten to twenty years?

This whole argument reminds me of the tobacco industry's eighty-year denial that there is a connection between smoking and lung and heart disease. Science is never absolute, but the observational data is clearly mirroring predictiona that have been on the table for decades now.

My biggest personal fear is a perceptual trend that I am not aware has been modeled nor can I substantiate it: It seems to me, like west coast storms, that used to get tangled up in the mountains, are more and more frequently extending fronts that bridge the entire US of A.

Why is this a concern? Look at Venus and Jupiter. If the energy in the atmosphere increases to the point that continents are unable to break up the trade winds, much of the Earth could transition into a howling desert. What happens when the reflective heat sinking ice caps disappear and half the islands and peninsula (including Florida) are gone?

Did I already go there?

Sorry, I'll get off my soap box and go start pulling the nails out of Planck's constant...it won't leave me much to stand on 8-[

badactor
2004-Nov-03, 04:18 PM
Anyone care to predict an extending cooling trend in the next ten to twenty years?

Not me, but this gentleman does.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html

Demigrog
2004-Nov-03, 04:18 PM
It doesn't bode well for Mann when McIntyre and McKitrick were not able to duplicate Mann's results from Mann's data. Have you looked at the earlier links on this thread to the McIntyre and McKitrick papers?

The most disturbing thing that M&M pointed out was that if you replace the real data sets with trendless, random data in Mann's program, you still get a hocky stick shape.

bobjohnston
2004-Nov-03, 05:25 PM
I think it can be concluded Mann took some liberties extending the curve beyond 200 years. But bad science should not be equated with a comfort factor.

It is reasonable to speculate that there have been warming trends in the past that had the same rapid slope of the current trend. It is also possible some band of dummies set the entire great plains region on fire and created a minnie warming trend - the list goes on and on.

What speculation? First, only one of three data sets gives you the current trend your talking about. Second, we've got non-speculative evidence for comparable climate change in the past.


What is clear is the CO level in the arctic is at all time highs (according to ice core estimates) and polar caps are melting. It is also certain that the last decade was the warmest in the last two hundred years, and the current trend shows no evidence of subsiding: Anyone care to predict an extending cooling trend in the next ten to twenty years?


CO2 levels are not at all time highs, although they are at highs for periods of order thousands of years. The polar caps are always melting at the edges and growing from the middle; if you mean net melting, you're not necessarily correct. The evidence doesn't clearly indicate a trend one way or another where most of the ice is, in Antarctica. No one has established that the last decade was the warmest. As previously discussed, the surface record is alone in indicating this and is in doubt. Look at the satellite record for the last 25 years: no trend, apart from an El Nino spike after which pre-spike levels were resumed.


Why is this a concern? Look at Venus and Jupiter. If the energy in the atmosphere increases to the point that continents are unable to break up the trade winds, much of the Earth could transition into a howling desert. What happens when the reflective heat sinking ice caps disappear and half the islands and peninsula (including Florida) are gone?

Venus and Jupiter are not remotely comparable to the Earth in these regards. Sticking to Earth, the reflective ice caps (which are only a heat sink if they melt!) are at the poles and have less influence on the Earth's overall albedo than general cloudiness--which could increase with higher CO2. As far as the loss of Florida, you're talking melting of all polar ice, which has no relevance to these anthropogenic climate change issues. Such melting involves time scales of thousands of years and perturbations rather different than even the alledged anthropogenic impacts.

a_unique_person
2004-Dec-08, 12:10 PM
The solution is obvious--bring back freon!

You know this reminds me of that 1975 newsweek article which referred to the speculations of some at that time that we should sprinkle the polar caps with soot to melt them as a way to stop the ice ages they thought were coming. Now they think that the melting of the polar caps will be a catastrophe.

All this is going to create environmental whiplash syndrome!

Pollution is going to cause ice ages ... wait - pollution is going to cause global warming ...

melt the polar caps ... wait - don't melt them ....

The planet will not be able to support 4 billion people ... ok 5 billion ... ok 6 billion is too much - and I mean it this time ... ok ...

generate electricity with wind power ... wait - the wind mill blades are killing birds ...

Use hydroelectric power ... wait - that's a problem for salmon ...

We need to protect the alligator from extinction ... wait did you know those suckers are trying to eat people! ...

Electric cars are the way to go ... wait - what do you mean they're burning down houses and using more energy than regular cars? ...

We need to protect the forests from logging companies ... wait - you mean if we don't thin the forests out then natural fires are more catastrophic ...

DDT is bad, bad, bad ... wait, you mean numerous people in tropical countries die from malaria if we don't use DDT?

You just shot down a lot of strawmen, but what have you to say of substance?

dgruss23
2004-Dec-08, 02:45 PM
The solution is obvious--bring back freon!

You know this reminds me of that 1975 newsweek article which referred to the speculations of some at that time that we should sprinkle the polar caps with soot to melt them as a way to stop the ice ages they thought were coming. Now they think that the melting of the polar caps will be a catastrophe.

All this is going to create environmental whiplash syndrome!

Pollution is going to cause ice ages ... wait - pollution is going to cause global warming ...

melt the polar caps ... wait - don't melt them ....

The planet will not be able to support 4 billion people ... ok 5 billion ... ok 6 billion is too much - and I mean it this time ... ok ...

generate electricity with wind power ... wait - the wind mill blades are killing birds ...

Use hydroelectric power ... wait - that's a problem for salmon ...

We need to protect the alligator from extinction ... wait did you know those suckers are trying to eat people! ...

Electric cars are the way to go ... wait - what do you mean they're burning down houses and using more energy than regular cars? ...

We need to protect the forests from logging companies ... wait - you mean if we don't thin the forests out then natural fires are more catastrophic ...

DDT is bad, bad, bad ... wait, you mean numerous people in tropical countries die from malaria if we don't use DDT?

You just shot down a lot of strawmen, but what have you to say of substance?

Wow, I'd forgotten how funny that was! Thanks for bringing that up!

Look, you've picked a post in which I was making a point with an edge of sarcastic humor. But there is truth in every one of those examples and frankly there's more substance in that post than much of what we get from the global warming panic crowd. But if you want serious discussion, you can read the substantive comments I and many others have made on this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=186116#186116) and this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=74158#74158) and this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=249409#249409) to note just a few examples.

a_unique_person
2004-Dec-10, 10:57 PM
McIntyre and McKitrick raise the issue that the Mann et al analysis is not reproducible from their claimed methodology. When they apply the stated methodology (as much as it can be pieced together) they find temperatures in the 15th century higher than today---.That doesn't make any sense - The Mann line is the hockey stick line - if you are saying that if you apply the method they are weighing current data true to 15th data, the earth may have been as warm then as now, that would also mean an excursion such as we are seeing now, and there should have been a similar rapid reduction in glacial flows and ice pack...

It doesn't bode well for Mann when McIntyre and McKitrick were not able to duplicate Mann's results from Mann's data. Have you looked at the earlier links on this thread to the McIntyre and McKitrick papers?

In fact there are more researchers doing work on past temperatures using proxies than just Mann, eg, Jones. I don't see any similar attacks on them. Can we assume their work is valid, and the fact that their estimates, which are pretty in line with the work of Mann, are correct.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-11, 01:57 PM
McIntyre and McKitrick raise the issue that the Mann et al analysis is not reproducible from their claimed methodology. When they apply the stated methodology (as much as it can be pieced together) they find temperatures in the 15th century higher than today---.That doesn't make any sense - The Mann line is the hockey stick line - if you are saying that if you apply the method they are weighing current data true to 15th data, the earth may have been as warm then as now, that would also mean an excursion such as we are seeing now, and there should have been a similar rapid reduction in glacial flows and ice pack...

It doesn't bode well for Mann when McIntyre and McKitrick were not able to duplicate Mann's results from Mann's data. Have you looked at the earlier links on this thread to the McIntyre and McKitrick papers?

In fact there are more researchers doing work on past temperatures using proxies than just Mann, eg, Jones. I don't see any similar attacks on them. Can we assume their work is valid, and the fact that their estimates, which are pretty in line with the work of Mann, are correct.

I'd like to see the references. I'm not assuming any work is valid without knowing the details of what the work is! At any rate we've linked to a number of articles in these discussions - see above threads - that discuss temperature records. This (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf) is one of the articles we discussed.

Mann is not being attacked. His work is being exposed as incorrect. Nor does his work agree with other research. His Hockey stick graph did not show the well established little ice age cooling. Nor did it show the medieval maximum warm period. Bad science.

Matt McIrvin
2004-Dec-12, 10:47 PM
The people on RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/) (a group that, granted, includes Mann) and Tim Lambert (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/McKitrick/) have some damning things to say about McKitrick and McIntyre's analyses: at various times they've involved such things as confusion of degrees and radians, selectively censored data sets, root-mean-square averaging of temperatures that are not even in an absolute scale, interpretation of missing data as zero-degree temperatures, and other mathematical strangeness. If there's something wrong with the hockey stick, I don't think I trust them to find it.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-13, 01:26 AM
The people on RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/) (a group that, granted, includes Mann) and Tim Lambert (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/McKitrick/) have some damning things to say about McKitrick and McIntyre's analyses: at various times they've involved such things as confusion of degrees and radians, selectively censored data sets, root-mean-square averaging of temperatures that are not even in an absolute scale, interpretation of missing data as zero-degree temperatures, and other mathematical strangeness. If there's something wrong with the hockey stick, I don't think I trust them to find it.

So we have two groups criticizing each others analysis techniques. I'll have to find time to read those papers again. But regardless of that, the Mann Hockey Stick graph fails to produce the well known Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice age. In fact McKitrick&McIntyre are hardly alone in raising questions about the Hockey stick. Naurzbaev & Vaganov (http://www.co2science.org/journal/2000/v3n10c2.htm) found that the Hockey Stick graph does not appear in their proxy data. I have serious doubts about the Mann reconstruction when it fails to accurately reproduce known warm and cool periods from the historical records. Mann ought to have his own doubts about his results given how ineffective they are at reproducing the climate history of the last millenium.

Glom
2004-Dec-13, 09:40 AM
Don't forget Soon and Balinius.

bobjohnston
2004-Dec-13, 05:37 PM
I have yet to fully wade through the claims on RealClimate, but I'm not impressed with what I see so far. The discussion of the "hockey stick" controversy is rather one-sided. One of their claims is that McKitrick and McIntyre didn't use the same data as Mann et al. and used the wrong method. If this is so, this is an indictment of Mann et al. Science is supposed to be reproducible, and M&M's key complaint is that Mann et al. failed to lay out a reproducible analysis. M&M have their own discussion at http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

Glom
2004-Dec-13, 10:21 PM
Are you listening, Sir David? This is real science. The bandying back and forth of analyses like a long tennis rally, while the validity of results and method are debated vigorously, sometimes with weapons, by both sides.

Consensus is the business of politicians. Debate is the business of scientists.

No science should go unchallenged. Not Mann's. Not M&M's.

Demigrog
2004-Dec-14, 05:36 AM
I have yet to fully wade through the claims on RealClimate, but I'm not impressed with what I see so far. The discussion of the "hockey stick" controversy is rather one-sided. One of their claims is that McKitrick and McIntyre didn't use the same data as Mann et al. and used the wrong method. If this is so, this is an indictment of Mann et al. Science is supposed to be reproducible, and M&M's key complaint is that Mann et al. failed to lay out a reproducible analysis. M&M have their own discussion at http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

As I already pointed out, the real issue M&M raise is that the hockey stick shape emerges even when random, trendless data is input. The only rebuttal of that I have seen is attacking M&M as unreliable, rather than discussing the analysis itself.

I began looking at the Mann program myself, but didn't put much time into it-- Mann et al could probably win an obfusticated code contest with those programs, and I hate Fortran anyway. :wink:

Swift
2004-Dec-21, 08:06 PM
Something called "The National Commission on Energy Policy" has just issued a report, apparently two years in the making, that gives "Detailed Recommendations on Oil Security, Climate Change, Natural Gas, Nuclear Energy, and Other Key Topics"

It looks like an interesting group of people, it includes a former EPA head (Reilly), a former head of ConocoPhillips (an oil company!), a former CIA director (Woolsey), and a variety of academics.

They apparently reached a consensus of recommendations including increasing federal fuel economy standards, encouraging the use of hybrids and other advanced vehicles, various other measures to reduce oil use, limits on greenhouse gas emissions (including trading credits) and programs to support alternative energy supplies including advanced coal, nuclear, and renewable energy.

A detailed website is here (http://www.energycommission.org/)

I find it interesting that both environmentalists and industrial people (including the oil industry) could reach a consensus on this.

Glom
2004-Dec-22, 08:12 PM
That's because everyone recognises the benefits of cleaner and more efficient technology.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-23, 10:43 PM
That's because everyone recognises the benefits of cleaner and more efficient technology.

Exactly. The environmental movement is aiming at the right target with the wrong weapon. Global warming is not the reason to be pushing for better energy efficiency and less fossil fuel usage. There are plenty of other reasons:

1. Various forms of air pollution (not CO2 - CO2 is plant fertilizer).
2. Fossil fuels are a limited resource.
3. Dependence upon Middle eastern oil.
4. Greater fuel efficiency and renewable resources should ultimately be cheaper.

Global warming is a theory floundering around for supporting evidence as effectively shown in this article (http://www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf).

Astronomy
2004-Dec-24, 04:00 PM
1. Various forms of air pollution (not CO2 - CO2 is plant fertilizer).


1. There is no question CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. There is also no question that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there has been in thousands of years (as seen in ice cores).
3. It is clear that a major source of CO2 is manmade.


Global warming is a theory floundering around for supporting evidence as effectively shown in this article (http://www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf).

Depends on what you mean by global warming.

Is global warming occuring? Absolutely. Is there a danger of drastic climate change? Yes. Is it caused by humans? Maybe, probably, but there isn't a definitive link other than knowing that certain greenhouse gases that are the hallmark of human industry are in greater concentrations in our atmosphere today.

We shouldn't be over-exuberant as scientists to declare a causation, but we also shouldn't pretent like an observed phenomenon doesn't exist when it clearly does.

Glom
2004-Dec-24, 07:33 PM
It is clear that a major source of CO2 is manmade.

At present, anthropogenic emissions accounts for 5% of total discharge, which is less than the error on the measurement of natural discharge.


Is global warming occuring?

Yes, otherwise the temperature would be sub-zero.


Is there a danger of drastic climate change?

As much as there is a danger of a meteorite smacking you on the head or you getting run over next time you cross the road. We cannot know because we don't understand this system sufficiently. IPCC predictions based on clearly insufficient models, which the scientists who made them readily admit, even if no-one pays attention to it. The assertion that "climate catastrophe" awaits us is unfounded. If anything, we are headed towards climate optimum like in the Medieval Warm Period.


Is it caused by humans?

It's chaotic. Of course human activity will influence it. But the idea that emissions of carbon dioxide have single handedly propelled the climate towards Venus is unfounded and, if you think about it, absurd. There is far more to the behaviour of the climate than carbon-on-carbon-off. There are a million factors affecting the climate in totally unpredictable ways.

Brady Yoon
2004-Dec-24, 07:38 PM
Yes, otherwise the temperature would be sub-zero.

Are you sure they would be that low? Isn't that regarding the greenhouse effect?

Glom
2004-Dec-24, 07:42 PM
Yes. We did the calculation in an astronomy lecture.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-24, 10:46 PM
1. Various forms of air pollution (not CO2 - CO2 is plant fertilizer).


1. There is no question CO2 is a greenhouse gas

95% of the Greenhouse effect is water vapor. Humans account for less than 1% of the total observed greenhouse effect.


2. There is also no question that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there has been in thousands of years (as seen in ice cores).

Which means little if CO2 is not a major climate forcer.


3. It is clear that a major source of CO2 is manmade.

Absolutely not true.


dgruss23: Global warming is a theory floundering around for supporting evidence as effectively shown in this article (http://www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf).


Depends on what you mean by global warming.

Is global warming occuring? Absolutely.

On what time scale. The climate changes all the time. We're currently coming out of the little ice age. Warming at this time would not be shocking. But why is it if CO2 is such a major player that temperatures cooled between 1940 and the 70's? And why are the satellites showing very slight cooling since then. Did you know that during the era of satellite measurements, the climate projections are already too great by about 0.70 deg C? Its hardly shocking that they predict 3-8 deg C warmer conditions in 100 years. Just keep projecting the current wrong estimates and you have the answer.


Is there a danger of drastic climate change? Yes.

Based upon the dearth of evidence in favor of GW? Why is it when GW comes up, all need for rigorous supporting evidence is abondoned and the volumes of contradictory evidence is so freely ignored?

Astronomy
2004-Dec-25, 12:49 AM
1. Various forms of air pollution (not CO2 - CO2 is plant fertilizer).


1. There is no question CO2 is a greenhouse gas

95% of the Greenhouse effect is water vapor. Humans account for less than 1% of the total observed greenhouse effect.

True, but that's not what is of concern here. What's of concern is an increase concentration of the carbon dioxide. Feedback mechanisms are such that an increase in any greenhouse gas can cause a runaway effect. Just because water is the most effective doesn't mean that an increased carbon dioxide concentration isn't alarming.


Which means little if CO2 is not a major climate forcer.

But you haven't shown that it isn't a major factor in the current warmup.


Absolutely not true.

This absolutely is true. The current rise of carbon dioxide is definitely correlated from the industrial revolution. It is lower today, in fact, than it was in times past, but it is still seen to be directly the influence of modern industry.

Another way to put it is if you calculate all the carbon dioxide emissions from all the sources, you can make account for the increased level in the atmosphere.


On what time scale. The climate changes all the time. We're currently coming out of the little ice age. Warming at this time would not be shocking. But why is it if CO2 is such a major player that temperatures cooled between 1940 and the 70's?

This is a bit of a red herring. 30 year-spans of termperature averages are very difficult to use as proper trend indicators for climactic change. The point is that the trend is happening over a measured period of hundreds of years and not decades. If you look at the graph of global temperarture averages since the 1800s it is clear that warming is occuring on a rate that appears to far exceed the warming expected from coming out of the so-called "little ice age".

Looking at averages on the order of 30 years or even 50 years doesn't show trends because you aren't integrating over enough time. It's very much like looking at a fluctuating stock price for too little and extrapolating a trend to quickly.

The global warming trend is there. Whether it is human-caused is another issue.



And why are the satellites showing very slight cooling since then. Did you know that during the era of satellite measurements, the climate projections are already too great by about 0.70 deg C?

Well within the error bars expected since you get average fluctuations of one-sigma about at a degree for that length of time.


Based upon the dearth of evidence in favor of GW? Why is it when GW comes up, all need for rigorous supporting evidence is abondoned and the volumes of contradictory evidence is so freely ignored?

I'm not sure I follow. The evidence comes from simply looking at the global trends over the last hundreds of years. It doesn't come from selectively looking at trends for shorter periods of time.

Astronomy
2004-Dec-25, 12:57 AM
It is clear that a major source of CO2 is manmade.

At present, anthropogenic emissions accounts for 5% of total discharge, which is less than the error on the measurement of natural discharge.

This really isn't correct: http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/07.htm

I'm not sure where you got the 5% number, but anyway.


As much as there is a danger of a meteorite smacking you on the head or you getting run over next time you cross the road.

Now, obviously this statement is incorrect. We know how likely it is for that to occur. We don't know how likely it is for drastic climate change to occur, so it isn't a correct comparison.


It's chaotic. Of course human activity will influence it. But the idea that emissions of carbon dioxide have single handedly propelled the climate towards Venus is unfounded and, if you think about it, absurd.

That statement is indeed absurd and I never endorsed it. However, your pooh-poohing seems to swing a bit to far in the other direction of conveniently ignoring facts and exaggerating the lack of correlation.


There is far more to the behaviour of the climate than carbon-on-carbon-off. There are a million factors affecting the climate in totally unpredictable ways.

Absolutely. There is no question that the science isn't at a state yet to model with certainty the phenomena that occur.

Carbon dioxide may turn out to be a red herring or it may turn out to be the very ticket. It's too early to tell.

Astronomy
2004-Dec-25, 12:58 AM
Yes, otherwise the temperature would be sub-zero.

Are you sure they would be that low? Isn't that regarding the greenhouse effect?

Glom is indeed correct on that account. Without an atmosphere I'm afraid the Earth would be at an average of sub zero temperatures.

Astronomy
2004-Dec-25, 01:03 AM
[quote=Astronomy]This absolutely is true. The current rise of carbon dioxide is definitely correlated from the industrial revolution. It is lower today, in fact, than it was in times past, but it is still seen to be directly the influence of modern industry.[quote]

I should clarify this. The lower value isn't from measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration which has been steadily rising, but rather from industrial emissions.

Glom
2004-Dec-25, 12:17 PM
True, but that's not what is of concern here. What's of concern is an increase concentration of the carbon dioxide. Feedback mechanisms are such that an increase in any greenhouse gas can cause a runaway effect. Just because water is the most effective doesn't mean that an increased carbon dioxide concentration isn't alarming.

Carbon dioxide has varied across time. If there was a catastrophic positive feedback from it, then the planet would be dead by now.


But you haven't shown that it isn't a major factor in the current warmup.

The fact that it lags the temperature seems to indicate that it isn't.


This absolutely is true. The current rise of carbon dioxide is definitely correlated from the industrial revolution. It is lower today, in fact, than it was in times past, but it is still seen to be directly the influence of modern industry.

Another way to put it is if you calculate all the carbon dioxide emissions from all the sources, you can make account for the increased level in the atmosphere.

This doesn't take into accounts sinks. It has been suggested that the carbon dioxide levels at present are the result of MWP. The timing is about right.


This is a bit of a red herring. 30 year-spans of termperature averages are very difficult to use as proper trend indicators for climactic change. The point is that the trend is happening over a measured period of hundreds of years and not decades. If you look at the graph of global temperarture averages since the 1800s it is clear that warming is occuring on a rate that appears to far exceed the warming expected from coming out of the so-called "little ice age".

How do you figure that? It was really warm in the MWP and then is cooled dramatically in the Little Ice Age. Now it is warming again and it still hasn't warmed enough to get us back to the Medieval Climate Optimum. Given the behaviour of climate over the past 2000 years, this recovery is slow.


I'm not sure I follow. The evidence comes from simply looking at the global trends over the last hundreds of years. It doesn't come from selectively looking at trends for shorter periods of time.

The point dgruss was making is that AAGW supporters say that the temperature should be rising markedly and yet this isn't observed. He's not intending to draw a conclusion about climatic behaviour at present, merely show that the facts do not bare out the predictions of the IPCC.

Glom
2004-Dec-25, 12:41 PM
I'm not sure where you got the 5% number, but anyway.

Partly from the document that dgruss cited and also from other sources, this (http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm) being one example.


Now, obviously this statement is incorrect. We know how likely it is for that to occur. We don't know how likely it is for drastic climate change to occur, so it isn't a correct comparison.

Exactly, but you said it was certain. We don't know what is going to happen. Sure, the climate could go haywire. Those chaotic systems are unpredictable. It is the same danger that presents us from all manner of things. It is not something that should be considered controllable or desperately imminent.


That statement is indeed absurd and I never endorsed it. However, your pooh-poohing seems to swing a bit to far in the other direction of conveniently ignoring facts and exaggerating the lack of correlation.

Part of our pooh-poohing is spurred on from all the media reports that convey agreed absurdity as a certain fact. It seems that carbon dioxide levels lag temperature changes indicating that they are the consequence not the cause. That is the reason we swing in the opposite direction. It's not simply a case that, as you correctly say, correlation does not imply causation. It's a case that the historical data doesn't bare out the correlation.


Absolutely. There is no question that the science isn't at a state yet to model with certainty the phenomena that occur.

There is agreement. So you can understand that we are non-plussed when we constantly hear the media and politicians talking about GCM predictions as gospel and incentive enough for us to run around like headless chickens fighting this allegedly certain doom, while real problems are out there that need to be solved.


Carbon dioxide may turn out to be a red herring or it may turn out to be the very ticket. It's too early to tell.

Indeed. However, if we are looking for things to blame, the balance of the evidence points towards things like sunspot activity, which correlates very well with temperatures over the past 1500 years. Frankly, I'll be surprised if it could be pinpointed that easily.

dgruss23
2004-Dec-26, 03:16 AM
True, but that's not what is of concern here. What's of concern is an increase concentration of the carbon dioxide. Feedback mechanisms are such that an increase in any greenhouse gas can cause a runaway effect. Just because water is the most effective doesn't mean that an increased carbon dioxide concentration isn't alarming.

Nobody has established any compelling evidence that it is alarming! In order for it to be alarming it must be shown that CO2 is an important climate forcer. That case has not been made. In fact, as Glom and I have repeatedly pointed out. The ice cores indicate that CO2 increases occur 600-1000 years after the warming begins!

I'll give you a speculation as to why that might happen. One of the big concerns you hear about is the permafrost releasing more CO2 if it warms. Well doesn't it make sense that that process would happen in the past when warmings occurred?

And another thought on this. Isn't the theory that the ice ages were caused by Milankovich cycles (http://deschutes.gso.uri.edu/~rutherfo/milankovitch.html)? Now nobody ever seems to stop and think. If Milankovich cycles are driving ice age cycles ... and CO2 levels track (but lag) with ice age cycles, then the most sound interpretation is that the CO2 levels are responding to climate changes that CO2 is not causing!

But Milankovich cycles may not be the cause either as Sharma (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607073439.htm) finds.


But you haven't shown that it isn't a major factor in the current warmup.

If you’re going to draw an inference from the available data – the best inference is that it isn’t a major factor for the following reasons I’ve repeatedly made:

1. We’re coming out of the little ice age. Just based upon a look at the Earth’s climate on longer time scales, warming the last 150 years is expected … for natural reasons. In fact, climate reconstructions have the medieval maximum warmer than the present climate.
2. Between 1940 and 1975 the surface trends showed a cooling at exactly a time when we were pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Where’s the warming?
3. Satellites and Weather balloons the last 20+ years show a very slight cooling while CO2 forced climate models predict temperatures about 0.70 deg C warmer than it currently is. So not only do we not see any evidence for significant warming the last 65 years. The climate models are telling us the temperatures should be much warmer than they are … just during the last 25 years.

So I’m not sure what warming you’re referring to, but the observations contradict the GWT predictions. Time to bring out the epicycles to keep this GW hysteria afloat!


This absolutely is true. The current rise of carbon dioxide is definitely correlated from the industrial revolution. It is lower today, in fact, than it was in times past, but it is still seen to be directly the influence of modern industry.

Another way to put it is if you calculate all the carbon dioxide emissions from all the sources, you can make account for the increased level in the atmosphere.

Here (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf) is a nice paper that illustrates just how small a contribution humans are making to the global carbon cycle. Another good read if you’d like to get up to speed on the failings of GWT.


This is a bit of a red herring. 30 year-spans of termperature averages are very difficult to use as proper trend indicators for climactic change.

Since it’s the GWT advocates that point out every warm summer and break in a glacier as evidence of global warming you’re accusing the wrong person of red herring. And you’re also dodging the point. CO2 increases lead to predictions of linear increase in temperature. The 30 year cooling trend of the mid 20th century contradicts that expectation. Can you offer a bit of research that provides support for how such a cooling trend can occur when CO2 is supposed to be this important climate forcer?

And I would also point out that if you’ve been following these discussions, you’ll find that I’m one of the people emphasizing the large scale climate fluctuations. I’ve talked about the climate variations of the last thousands of years, tens of thousands of years, and hundreds of thousands of years.

And as Glom pointed out, my point was that the 30 year trend contradicts the GWT predictions, not that it tells us what the current climate trend is.


The global warming trend is there. Whether it is human-caused is another issue.

That’s the major issue Glom and I have. There is a complete lack of evidence that connects GWT to actual observed climate trends of the last 150 years. In fact just the opposite – the evidence contradicts GW predictions. Yet we have a giant flock of chicken littles running around proclaiming we’re causing the sky to fall.

For example, last week an article came out with the startling conclusion that lilacs bloom 4 days earlier than in 1965 … count ‘em – 4 days. This was cited as evidence for anthropogenic GW which is an absurd over-reach of the evidence the researchers actually had.
A little common sense tells us that if we look at the 1940-1975 cooling trend, then in 1965 we were still in that cooling trend. And now 40 years later the lilacs open 4 days earlier!!! There’s absolutely nothing profound in that.


Well within the error bars expected since you get average fluctuations of one-sigma about at a degree for that length of time.

No, the deviation between computer models and the uncertainty in the satellite/balloon temperature data is well outside the 1-sigma uncertainty of the data (~0.10 deg C). So the GCM’s would require a 7-sigma error in the data.


I'm not sure I follow. The evidence comes from simply looking at the global trends over the last hundreds of years. It doesn't come from selectively looking at trends for shorter periods of time.

I’ve already discussed the larger scale trends and the contradictions within the observed trends. But if you want to talk about selectively picking data, how about looking at figure 14 of the Robinson et al paper I linked to above. How about the fact that the IPCC emphasizes the surface temperature measurements that indicate a warming … but are contaminated by the urban heat island while ignoring the much more accurate and much more complete coverage the satellite measurements offer.

EFossa
2004-Dec-30, 11:01 AM
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2004/2004122218062.html

A team led by University of Maine (UMaine) scientists has reported finding a potential link between changes in solar activity and the Earth’s climate. In a paper due to be published in an upcoming volume of the Annals of Glaciology, Paul Mayewski, director of UMaine’s Climate Change Institute, and 11 colleagues from China, Australia and UMaine describe evidence from ice cores pointing to an association between the waxing and waning of zonal wind strength around Antarctica and a chemical signal of changes in the sun’s output.