PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming: Saving Us From Dying Out!



Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Feb-20, 05:58 PM
What global warming is doing exactly what its name says it does, warm the globe; earth.

The negavtive of this is that the polar ice caps are melting and are increasing the water level of the oceans and will eventually flood over current beaches, banks, shorelines, etc. ("The loss of ice from Greenland doubled between 1996 and 2005, as its glaciers flowed faster into the ocean in response to a generally warmer climate, according to a NASA/University of Kansas study" http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/greenland-20060216.html)

Also because of the tremendous amount of freshwater being poured into the ocean, this affects the dircetion of the water currents. and these currents bring warm air, cool air, wind, heat, etc. to all the continents. And when this changes, the climate of the earth changes. South America might become a south pole, and Antartica might become a tropical paradise.

But global warming is protecting us from one thing, another ice age. Im not sure about the time frame, but for some thousand years, the earth goes into an ice age (i think 100,000 yrs) then the earth goes through a warming period (i think for 10,000 yrs). See we here on earth are due for another ice age because we are at the current end of this warming period, but the thing is, because of global warming, it seems our warming period has been extended.

-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=--==-

Feel free to correct me or give information that i havent. I would also appreicate to know how long these time periods are, and what the scientific name for this is called.

cjl
2006-Feb-20, 07:03 PM
AFAIK, global warming could actually cause an ice age if it goes on for long enough. It may seem counterintuitive, but it could happen. Also, there is still some debate over whether global warming is purely our fault, or whether there could be other causes.

Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Feb-20, 07:48 PM
I believe that global warming is the cause of the greenhouse effect, plus in my own belief (just thought of it now) i think because of the things that we are doing and such, we could be warmning up the earth ourselves and such. Like the ground, core and all that is becomming warmer.

Skipjack
2006-Feb-20, 08:33 PM
Currently we are just past an intermediate cold- time that started in the 16th century and ended in the 19th. This cold- time came after a warmer period during the middle ages which again came after a colder period during the time of the big mass migration which again came after the warmer times during the roman and greek empires these are shorter warmer and colder periods during a warm time (which we have been in now for 11.000 years) and that is part of the ice age that started about two to three million years ago.
You can read some more up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
Personally I find the german Wiki- entry better though.
Anyway, while not being a climatologist, it seems logical to me that temparatures are rising at the moment.
It is still pretty cold today compared to the mesozoicum though.
Personally, I dont know what to worry about...
CU
Skipjack

Skipjack
2006-Feb-20, 08:37 PM
Hmmm Knowledge Seeker , I guess you meant: Global warming is caused by the Greenhouse effect, right?
There are many sources of greenhouse gases. One is the well known CO2, a much stronger one is methane e.g. (it is much, much, much stronger green house gas than CO2). Methane has many natural sources and one of the biggest producers of green house gases today are...drumroll... the rice fields in china!
CU
Skipjack

cjl
2006-Feb-21, 12:17 AM
I believe that global warming is the cause of the greenhouse effect, plus in my own belief (just thought of it now) i think because of the things that we are doing and such, we could be warmning up the earth ourselves and such. Like the ground, core and all that is becomming warmer.
I can tell you right now, you'll have a heck of a hard time warming up the core.

Dragon Star
2006-Feb-21, 01:41 AM
Look, global warming and ice ages are a trend, has and will continue to be for some time, do we affect it? Sure, but not that much, and it's going to happen anyways, and we will go back into another ice age.

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Feb-21, 04:12 AM
Look, global warming and ice ages are a trend, has and will continue to be for some time, do we affect it? Sure, but not that much, and it's going to happen anyways, and we will go back into another ice age.
So, CO2 levels increasing faster since the industrial revolution than any other point in time that we have records for (even by proxy) doesn't make you go, "Hmm...," at all?

jrkeller
2006-Feb-21, 04:23 AM
Hmmm Knowledge Seeker , I guess you meant: Global warming is caused by the Greenhouse effect, right?
There are many sources of greenhouse gases. One is the well known CO2, a much stronger one is methane e.g. (it is much, much, much stronger green house gas than CO2). Methane has many natural sources and one of the biggest producers of green house gases today are...drumroll... the rice fields in china!
CU
Skipjack


And the rice fields in India. The two biggest producers of rice India and China are not bound by Kyoto.

I did some calculations about 2 years ago, and found that in a one to one comparison, methane absorbs 20 times the amount of IR than CO2,

Taks
2006-Feb-21, 07:22 PM
The negavtive of this is that the polar ice caps are melting and are increasing the water level of the oceans and will eventually flood over current beaches, banks, shorelines, etc. ("The loss of ice from Greenland doubled between 1996 and 2005, as its glaciers flowed faster into the ocean in response to a generally warmer climate, according to a NASA/University of Kansas study" http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/greenland-20060216.html)this URL does not mention that the greenland icecap is actually gaining ice due to snow in the middle. it also does not mention that growth/recession of glaciers is poorly understood, and warm air is not the only factor involved.


Also because of the tremendous amount of freshwater being poured into the ocean, this affects the dircetion of the water currents. and these currents bring warm air, cool air, wind, heat, etc. to all the continents.perhaps this is the mechanism that actually triggers the ice ages... a phenomena that has been occurring for many millennia (uh, millions of years, maybe for the earth's entire history), longer than we humans have been around to influence it and certainly on a much larger time-scale than we can directly measure.


And when this changes, the climate of the earth changes. South America might become a south pole, and Antartica might become a tropical paradise. a) so and b) you're really pushing the extremes, do you not agree? just because some rant website says we are all doomed does not make it so. also, antarctica is mostly cooling, with the exception of the peninsula that sticks out into the warm south pacific waters.


But global warming is protecting us from one thing, another ice age.and you know this how? we know the cycle, but not necessarily the actual cause. it is a little more complex than what you paint here.


Im not sure about the time frame, but for some thousand years, the earth goes into an ice age (i think 100,000 yrs) then the earth goes through a warming period (i think for 10,000 yrs).i think you should do some fact checking.


See we here on earth are due for another ice age because we are at the current end of this warming period, but the thing is, because of global warming, it seems our warming period has been extended.we are in the middle of a glaciation period. there is no way to tell exactly when the next is going to occur. there is also still no conclusive evidence as to what is causing the current warming (mild) trend. more than likely, it is part of a natural cycle.


Feel free to correct me or give information that i havent. I would also appreicate to know how long these time periods are, and what the scientific name for this is called.there are many threads floating around with much more accurate information. try not to let yourself get caught in the hype.

taks

Taks
2006-Feb-21, 07:28 PM
So, CO2 levels increasing faster since the industrial revolution than any other point in time that we have records for (even by proxy) doesn't make you go, "Hmm...," at all?uh, no, this is not true. in fact, CO2 levels in the past were typically MUCH higher than now and changed drastically in relatively short periods of time (up and down). in fact, historically, based on ice core sampling, CO2 increases actually lag temperature increases. that may or may not be true now and ice core data is suspect for various reasons that have not been fully explained (depletion).

taks

Dragon Star
2006-Feb-21, 09:34 PM
uh, no, this is not true. in fact, CO2 levels in the past were typically MUCH higher than now and changed drastically in relatively short periods of time (up and down). in fact, historically, based on ice core sampling, CO2 increases actually lag temperature increases. that may or may not be true now and ice core data is suspect for various reasons that have not been fully explained (depletion).

taks

Thanks Taks.:)

Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Feb-22, 03:17 AM
thanx taks, but the thing was the i was not able to find anything that was based around talking about anything like this because i hate to say it bt i had just one source in this, a pbs documentary.

and as for the antartica becomming tropical and all, those were just drastic examples to show my point about the water currents :)

Taks
2006-Feb-22, 07:55 AM
yes, but drastic responses require even more drastic evidence, which does not currently exist. there are about three or four global warming threads in here, which all have some very relevant data and discussion. you'll find, however, that many of us do not agree on the particulars, though most are shying away from the apocalyptic hype.

taks

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-22, 06:47 PM
Well said, Taks. Global warming will not save us from an ice age. It's part of the same cycle that alternates between periods of warming and cooling. Solar variation, and all that. As you said, Taks, lots of threads exist on this forum discussing the issue.

Fram
2006-Feb-22, 08:02 PM
Well said, Taks. Global warming will not save us from an ice age. It's part of the same cycle that alternates between periods of warming and cooling. Solar variation, and all that. As you said, Taks, lots of threads exist on this forum discussing the issue.

(If I read you incorrectly, please correct me) It looks to me as if you consider global warming solely as a part of the natural cycle, and being caused by natural (i.e. non-human) means only. Most studies point to it being partly natural and partly anthropogenic though, with the main discussion being on the percentages. Of course, you'll be able to find examples of studies pointing only to human causes or only to natural causes, but these seem to be the exceptions.
That doesn't mean that the anthropogenic part of the warming is as such a cause for anxiety (or jubilation) of course.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-22, 08:25 PM
I'm of the opinion that the effect that humans have on climate change is so minimal that it can pretty much be ignored in discussions like this one. So I ignored it. Global warming (and cooling) is for the most part a purely natural process.

Fram
2006-Feb-23, 08:36 AM
Thanks. We disagree, but know I'm more certain that I understand your position correctly.

cjl
2006-Feb-23, 08:44 AM
I'm of the opinion that the effect that humans have on climate change is so minimal that it can pretty much be ignored in discussions like this one. So I ignored it. Global warming (and cooling) is for the most part a purely natural process.
I'd be inclined to say that, while the human factor exists, it is so small as to be almost insignificant, and the vast majority of global warming (all of it that matters) has a purely natural cause. I'm not implying we should all go take road trips cross-country with hummers, but we don't have as much (or even close) impact as the apocolyptic doomsayers would imply.

Duane
2006-Feb-23, 08:53 AM
Based on all of the evidence I have seen (a vanishing small cross-section I admit) I have to disagree. While the human factor may be small (and may not be!), to call it insignificant is to ignore too much evidence to the contrary. Even if the cause is natural, then any human factor becomes an important wild card.

Taks
2006-Feb-23, 04:38 PM
While the human factor may be small (and may not be!), to call it insignificant is to ignore too much evidence to the contrary. no, there's not. you're confusing the terms correlation and causation. there is NO direct evidence connecting any perceived trend in the climate and human influence.

taks

Fram
2006-Feb-23, 08:09 PM
no, there's not. you're confusing the terms correlation and causation. there is NO direct evidence connecting any perceived trend in the climate and human influence.

taks

CO2, Methane, ... are known (shown) to be greenhouse gases and to increase the amount of radiation (heat) from the Sun that stays trapped in the atmosphere. Can you give a reason (based on some evidence) why the anthropogenic rise in the amounts of these gases does not have an impact on the global temperature. In other words, do you have any evidence that makes you think that the known cause of a greenhouse effect in this case is not the cause of (part of) the warming, but that the rise of the amount of those gases is just a coincidence?

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-23, 08:20 PM
The current warming trend could simply be occurring at the same time as the current trend in increased emissions. This does not imply that these emissions are causing a large portion of the warming: it just means that both the warming and the emissions are occurring at the same time. It can't be said that there is no impact, but it can be said that the impact is minimal and that it is incorrect to assume that these emissions are the majority cause of warming. All that can be known is that emissions and warming occur at the same time.

Fram
2006-Feb-23, 08:24 PM
No, because we also have a mechanism by which these emissions can cause warming. So the question is: why would in this case the increased emissions not have that effect?

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-23, 08:25 PM
But there is no doubt that they do have an effect. The thing is, if the effect is only, say, 0.00001% of the total, there is no reason to fret over it.

Duane
2006-Feb-23, 09:14 PM
no, there's not. you're confusing the terms correlation and causation. there is NO direct evidence connecting any perceived trend in the climate and human influence.

taks

That's not right. That's not even wrong. -- Wolfgang Paulii

Yes, there is, and lots of it. While the evidence (which is so volumous that I can only suggest you do a simple internet search to start reviewing it) does not, necessarily, suggest that anthopogenic contributions are the only factor, to suggest that human activity has no affect is willful blindness.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-23, 09:19 PM
The thing is, if the effect is only, say, 0.00001% of the total, there is no reason to fret over it."If" being the key word. Where did you draw that number from?

Duane
2006-Feb-23, 09:21 PM
But there is no doubt that they do have an effect. The thing is, if the effect is only, say, 0.00001% of the total, there is no reason to fret over it.

The butterfly effect SC??

Regardless, in a subjective review of the evidence for and against anthropogenic contribution to the hundred or so year trend of global temeprature rise, the precentage is more probably on the high end of the scale, nbot the low end. I am not a proponant, nor an opponant of the theory that manmade emmisions etc have and are playing a role, per se. I am simply looking objectively at the evidence, as would a juror.

On the balance of probabilities, I would vote guilty. If the measure was beyond a reasonable doubt, I would vote not guilty.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-23, 09:23 PM
Heh. I knew someone would mention that. The number is made up, but it doesn't matter. I'm using it as a hypothetical. We don't know what the percentage of total warming caused by human sources is. I'm of the opinion that it is vanishingly low (hence the example). Others are of the opinion that it is high.

We don't have proof either way. So we have to remain at the level of opinion and conjecture. And, of course, keep digging until we find the answer.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-23, 09:27 PM
The butterfly effect SC??

How would that mechanism work in this instance? If there is already a process that does exactly the same thing as the minor cause, but does it on a much larger scale, the minor cause is unlikely to push things over the edge.


Regardless, in a subjective review of the evidence for and against anthropogenic contribution to the hundred or so year trend of global temeprature rise, the precentage is more probably on the high end of the scale, nbot the low end.

But when you look at climate trends over a longer period of time, you see that there existed a periodic cycle of warming and cooling long before human emissions existed. And we're coming out of a cool period in that cycle. This by no means excludes the possibility that human sources contribute a great deal to warming, but it does provide an equally viable alternative to that theory.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-23, 09:34 PM
Heh. I knew someone would mention that. The number is made up, but it doesn't matter. I'm using it as a hypothetical.It does matter, because your number isn't just hypothetical. It's also counterfactual.


We don't know what the percentage of total warming caused by human sources is.No one ever 'knows' anything in science; that's beside the point. The evidence points to a much higher percentage than your 'hypothetical' value.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-23, 09:46 PM
Fine then. What number does it point to?

From what I've read, human emissions account for ~2% of total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. And then you need to take solar variation into account. So the number is low.

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Feb-23, 09:58 PM
Fine then. What number does it point to?

From what I've read, human emissions account for ~2% of total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. And then you need to take solar variation into account. So the number is low.
You seem to think ~2% is a small percentage given the system involved? That would seem to me to be a very significant change in the conditions of a long-term system, especially in a relatively "chaotic" one, natural cycle or not. It adds up...

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-23, 11:07 PM
~2% is small when you consider the fact that greenhouse gasses are only part of the issue. Solar variation needs to be taken into account. Which means that human impact on the total system is less than ~2%. Probably significantly less.

Duane
2006-Feb-23, 11:16 PM
Which means that human impact on the total system is less than ~2%. Probably significantly less.

Your opinion flies in the face of the bulk of the evidence.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-23, 11:29 PM
Is that so? For every paper supporting your view, I find one supporting mine. The whole issue is so obfuscated that I will readily admit to being confused. Since I am unable to find conclusive evidence either way, I think it is reasonable to look at any incontrovertible evidence that is available.

It is a fact that climate change is periodic. It is a fact that we're coming out of a cool period. It is a fact that human emissions contribute to this warming to some unknown extent. That's all we really know. If you can provide me with compelling evidence that points to human emissions being a (if not the) major contributor to global warming, I will gladly listen.

Until then, my position is tenable. Natural cycles have been the only cause of global climate change until very recently. So they are capable of inducing climate change. Also, as evidenced by the cooling trend between 1945 and 1970, other factors seem to be able to override human causes. Natural cooling overcame human emissions that cause warming. This implies that human causes are weak relative to natural ones.

Dragon Star
2006-Feb-24, 01:15 AM
Is that so? For every paper supporting your view, I find one supporting mine. The whole issue is so obfuscated that I will readily admit to being confused. Since I am unable to find conclusive evidence either way, I think it is reasonable to look at any incontrovertible evidence that is available.

It is a fact that climate change is periodic. It is a fact that we're coming out of a cool period. It is a fact that human emissions contribute to this warming to some unknown extent. That's all we really know. If you can provide me with compelling evidence that points to human emissions being a (if not the) major contributor to global warming, I will gladly listen.

Until then, my position is tenable. Natural cycles have been the only cause of global climate change until very recently. So they are capable of inducing climate change. Also, as evidenced by the cooling trend between 1945 and 1970, other factors seem to be able to override human causes. Natural cooling overcame human emissions that cause warming. This implies that human causes are weak relative to natural ones.


I 100% agree to everything but the highlighted, although it is known that global warming is a fluctuating cycling effect, it can be in the middle of any of those changes and go the other direction just as quickly, turning this 'coming out of a cooling period' back into yet another one, even though it is a cycle it is unpredictable, and we must keep this in mind. Other then that SC I believe you expressed it perfectly.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-24, 01:18 AM
That's a good point. I stand corrected.

Duane
2006-Feb-24, 12:31 PM
Is that so? For every paper supporting your view, I find one supporting mine.

Ah, no it's about 4 to 1 against you.

As there are already several threads on this subject, I will not get into it further here. Especially when I don't think that orthropedic causes have been conclusively proven. Suffice it for me to say I disagree.

Fram
2006-Feb-24, 12:34 PM
If human contribution to green house gases is 2% (in effectivity), then that means that human contribution to the global temperature is about 0.6°K (as it is estimated that the greenhouse gases make the earth about 30°K warmer than it should be without them). This is a major part of the rise in the global temperature over the last few centuries. Our contribution is still weaker than external causes (hence the mid-century cooling), but it is gaining strength, and isn't easily reversible (if needed).

Can you give some sources for the 2% number, Supreme Canuck? I'ld like to see where they got it from, and if it is by volume or by effect.

BobK
2006-Feb-24, 02:23 PM
I found this article to be an interesting assessment of AGW doctrine. (http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429&cid=18&cname=Opinion)

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-24, 07:56 PM
Duane: Is it 4 to 1? That hasn't been my experience. Not to say that 4 to 1 isn't true: I've just not seen that.

Fram: I dearly wish I could source it, but I don't have the paper on hand. The number comes from a paper linked to in one of the other threads dealing with climate change here on BAUT. I'll dig for it, but it could take a bit. Until then, feel free to ignore my number as I have no source. I still invite all comers to present evidence for both sides of the issue, though. It bothers me that I can't get it worked out in my mind for want of information.

Fram
2006-Feb-24, 09:01 PM
Duane: Is it 4 to 1? That hasn't been my experience. Not to say that 4 to 1 isn't true: I've just not seen that.

Fram: I dearly wish I could source it, but I don't have the paper on hand. The number comes from a paper linked to in one of the other threads dealing with climate change here on BAUT. I'll dig for it, but it could take a bit. Until then, feel free to ignore my number as I have no source. I still invite all comers to present evidence for both sides of the issue, though. It bothers me that I can't get it worked out in my mind for want of information.

No worries, Supreme Canuck. It'll come when it comes!

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-28, 01:51 AM
Thanks for the understanding. It'll be a few days yet: I have three exams this week.

Taks
2006-Feb-28, 01:58 AM
Ah, no it's about 4 to 1 against you.care to elaboarte?

bobk, nice article. true, btw, that regardless of the science, the subject matter has become so politicized that rational debate is nigh impossible.

taks

Duane
2006-Feb-28, 08:32 AM
care to elaboarte?

bobk, nice article. true, btw, that regardless of the science, the subject matter has become so politicized that rational debate is nigh impossible.

taks

OK, run an internet search using the keywords cause+global+warming. Using Google I get 15,600,000 hits. Using the first 10 pages, and reading only the 2 sentence or so comment and ignorring any that do not speak to cause, I count 32 suggesting human activities as the cause, 8 suggesting the solar cycle, 3 suggesting a natual earth cycle, and 9 suggesting aliens. (Note all 9 relate to Micheal Crichton's speach). A further 6 discuss problems with approaches humans use to combat global warming.

Ok, I'll concede. Excluding aliens as the cause, it's more like three to one.

GOURDHEAD
2006-Feb-28, 03:36 PM
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blthermometer.htm contains a brief history of thermometers and points out that they were not quantifying instruments until about 1700 ce. No doubt the thermometers were not placed uniformly about the globe until some time later, and even now I'm not sure how completely monitored nor at what cell size the oceans and atmosphere are instrumented. The most reliable and comprehensive data seem to be that taken by NASA from orbiting satellites. Again I'm not sure about accuracy and cell size nor frequency of the NASA monitoring. Also "reading" isotope ratios and CO2 content from ice core samples must allow for a lot of subjective preference to taint (maybe even paint) the analysis. We would be better served by developing more respect for truth and accuracy and the skill for expressing the truth with minimal ambiguity and assessing accuracy than the level which seems to permeate the global warming discussion. After which we have the monumental task of analysing a very complex system potentially containing sets of feedback loops directing culminations beyond our current capabilities of comprehension much less prediction.

Methinks the angels will avoid this one.

Taks
2006-Mar-01, 08:37 AM
OK, run an internet search using the keywords cause+global+warming. Using Google I get 15,600,000 hits. Using the first 10 pages, and reading only the 2 sentence or so comment and ignorring any that do not speak to cause, I count 32 suggesting human activities as the cause, 8 suggesting the solar cycle, 3 suggesting a natual earth cycle, and 9 suggesting aliens. (Note all 9 relate to Micheal Crichton's speach). A further 6 discuss problems with approaches humans use to combat global warming.
edit: oops, incorrect statement.

um, you're using a web-search as evidence? blogs and all? i'd think we'd prefer to refer to scientific studies...

either way...

edit: follow-on oops. all sorts of scientists make the claim without any real evidence other than a weak correlation between human caused CO2 and an increase in temperatures. unfortunately, if you look beyond about 1900, even 1850, temperatures were rising even then and we had almost zero impact at the time (hence the adjective weak before correlation).

even your own statements include the word "suggest" several times. correlation is NOT equal to causation, and it is even less likely to be equal when the correlation is weak.

taks

Taks
2006-Mar-01, 08:40 AM
After which we have the monumental task of analysing a very complex system potentially containing sets of feedback loops directing culminations beyond our current capabilities of comprehension much less prediction.that's been pretty much my claim all along. even NASA says that the range of "actual" global mean temperatures (whatever that means) is about +/- 1 C. if it is that large, exactly how can we be expected to measure a difference of 0.6 C over 100 years?

oh, and for the record, the CLT is not used to improve accuracy on this measurement. at least, not unless there are a whole bunch of identical thermometers in each location measuring the same general area... it could be used this way, but i've not read that it is.

taks

Fram
2006-Mar-01, 09:42 AM
that's been pretty much my claim all along. even NASA says that the range of "actual" global mean temperatures (whatever that means) is about +/- 1 C. if it is that large, exactly how can we be expected to measure a difference of 0.6 C over 100 years?

oh, and for the record, the CLT is not used to improve accuracy on this measurement. at least, not unless there are a whole bunch of identical thermometers in each location measuring the same general area... it could be used this way, but i've not read that it is.

taks

You don't need identical thermometers in different places to measure a temperature change over time. As long as they are consistent (i.e. show the temperature as +1 degree when it has actually risen one degree, and not when it has risen 2 degrees), it is allright.
And it is not because you have an uncertainty of 1 degree more or less that you can't measure a smaller difference, if you have enough measurements. The chance that temperature readings in the beginning of the last century were all at the lower side of the error range, and at the end of the century all at the upper side of it, is very slim.

dgruss23
2006-Mar-01, 01:34 PM
My daughter in 4th grade came home from school yesterday thinking we're all going to die because of a global warming article in her scholastic news bulletin. Unfortunately, the article was thrown out before I had a chance to read it.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Mar-01, 02:00 PM
Methinks the angels will avoid this one.Wishful thinking.

Duane
2006-Mar-01, 08:42 PM
edit: oops, incorrect statement.

Huh? :confused:


um, you're using a web-search as evidence? blogs and all? i'd think we'd prefer to refer to scientific studies...

um, yea ok, whatever. :eh: Lets try to stay on the same subject shall we?

I am not giving evidence of anything except that the amount of evidence suggesting man-made causes outnumber suggestions of natural causes, by about 4 to 1. The point, if you care to recall, was that for every paper "I" could point to supporting manmade causes, another could be found in counterpoint. I said it is more like four to one against. If you want to be such a dogmatic about it, do the search again and only look for actual papers among the 15 million hits. I bet the ratio is even higher.

To remind you, as you seem to have forgotten it, I do not support either side at this time.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Mar-02, 09:44 PM
Sorry to bring this back up, but I said I'd try to find the paper was talking about. No dice. Lost to the aether.

So, disregard.

Bobunf
2006-Mar-02, 10:30 PM
About Ice Ages and Global Warming:

The last glaciation, the Wisconsin, (known as the “Wurm” glaciation in Europe, after a city in Switzerland) lasted about 100 thousand years, and was preceded by an inter-glacial period similar to the current inter-glacial period and lasting about twenty thousand years. The Wisconsin glacia-tion was one of a series of glaciations that have occurred in a complex pattern over the last three million years or so. Prior to three million years ago, there hadn’t been major glaciation events on Earth for over 500 million years; and the average temperature of the Earth was about 10 degrees C warmer than at glacial maximum, or 5 degrees C warmer than the average temperature today.

The Cenozoic Age, 65 million years ago (the extinction of the dinosaurs) to 3 million years ago: No glaciers, about 5 degrees C warmer than today, gradual cooling.
The Pleistocene Age, 3 million years ago to 10,000 years ago: Periodic glaciations
200,000 years ago, glaciation period, about 10 degrees C cooler than today
120,000 years ago, the beginning of an inter-glacial period, temperatures about the same as today
100,000 years ago, the Wisconsin glaciation begins
18,000 years ago, Wisconsin glacial maximum, about 10 degrees C cooler than today
10,000 years ago to present, the Holocene, the current inter-glacial period

What causes glaciations to occur? We don’t know.

But we have lots of ideas.

Bob

Bobunf
2006-Mar-02, 10:34 PM
The Earth was warmer for geologic periods many times in the past, if not most of the time; thus no great disaster awaits a warmer world.
Life, holding the amount of water constant, increases in quantity and diversity the higher the temperature, i.e.; the Earth on average is not optimally warm enough for life. Or, to be alarmist about it: The Earth is Too Cold for Life
The approaching next ice age needs to be staved off.
Many parts of the world will be better off a little warmer, such as most of Russia and Canada. Maybe the Sahara will get wetter, like it was the last time the Earth was two degrees warmer about six thousand years ago.

Obviously, if global warming is good, there’s no need for a solution. It does seem to me that rising sea levels as a consequence of global warming could be pretty undesirable, but nothing compared to an ice age. Think of all the new beachfront property.

Bob

Swift
2006-Mar-02, 10:48 PM
I think there are a couple of very serious problem with the "warmth is good" idea of global warming. Even if "warmth is good" is correct, there is a problem with the rate of change. The warm-up is so relatively rapid, compared to past changes, that both natural eco-systems and human structures (coastal cities, for example) will have a hard time adjusting to so rapid a change. Both humans and eco-systems will have to adjust not only to a world that is on average warmer, but to regional climatic changes that will change such things as rainfall patterns.

Bobunf
2006-Mar-02, 11:10 PM
If global warming is bad, then it doesn’t matter who’s fault it is, whether it’s the sun, us, or something else. The issue, as Lenin put it so succinctly, is, “What is to be done?’ Of course, he was speaking of a different issue.

The solution to a problem is not dictated by the cause. The cause of an infection may be poor food handling; but the solution for the individual affected is not better refrigeration and increased attention to cleaning the cookware; but antibiotics. Cause may suggest possible solutions, but causes do not exhaust nor dictate solutions. If global warming is occurring, and if the effects of the phenomena will be mostly negative, the cause is irrelevant to the solution. Which suggests that even if the cause of global warming is human activity, the solution is not necessarily a return to the Pleistocene.

What are the possible steps we could take toward amelioration? Keeping in mind that this concern is taking place in a fog of uncertain knowledge, poor understanding, and marvelous complexity. We wouldn't want to make the situation worse.

Bob

Dragon Star
2006-Mar-02, 11:42 PM
I don't thing global warming is bad at all, just a CTRL, ALT, DELETE for mother nature when the cycle completes.

Moseley
2006-Mar-03, 01:43 AM
I have to say I am startled at the opinions expressed by some members here, on what I understood to be a forum of serious scientific people, that we are having a negligible effect on the climate.
Have none of you seen the 'hockey stick' graph?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

Whilst I appreciate this does not encompass all of the potential elements that could affect the Earth's temperature, it is a composite structure that considers solar cycle, volcanic output (gg and particulate cooling effects) and is not correlative unless man-made gas emissions are included.

Dragon Star
2006-Mar-03, 01:56 AM
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html

Take a look at their graphs, your looking in the immediate past, thats not where the answer is, gotta look a lot longer then that.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Mar-03, 02:52 AM
Have none of you seen the 'hockey stick' graph?

Yes, I have seen that graph. It's wrong. The method used to create it always results in a graph of that shape, even when random input is used. From the same site:


M&M have published another Geophysical Research Letters article [15] on February 12th, 2005, claiming that the "Hockey Stick" shape was a result of a flawed principal component analysis, and that using the same steps like Mann et al., they were able to obtain the Hockey Stick graph in 99 percent of cases even if red noise was used as input.

There's a link to the original paper there as well.

Dragon Star
2006-Mar-03, 03:00 AM
Interesting point SC, what do they mean by "red noise"?

*Off to bed*

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Mar-03, 05:35 AM
Apparently this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_noise).

Bobunf
2006-Mar-03, 06:20 AM
I don't have a lot of confidence in climate models. These are the same peopel who can't tell if it will rain next week, and who have no clue when to expect the next ice age.

If we have absymal ignorance at both ends of the time scale, how is it that for some intermediate period, say 50 or 100 years, they're spot on? Seems pretty unlikely to me.

Bob

F for fudge.

Fram
2006-Mar-03, 08:19 AM
The climate isn't the same as the weather.
Astronomers can't predict where and when a meteorite will land, nor when a supernova will go off. Still, they are pretty spot on for many intermediate things...

Disinfo Agent
2006-Mar-03, 12:46 PM
I have to say I am startled at the opinions expressed by some members here, on what I understood to be a forum of serious scientific people, that we are having a negligible effect on the climate.
Have none of you seen the 'hockey stick' graph?Evidently, you have never seen this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32815). (Don't just look at the poll, though.)

Moseley
2006-Mar-03, 06:54 PM
Thanks - I am 8 pages in (having been directed to another 10 pager on the way). The mudslinging seems to have reduced a little.
I admit that blank acceptance of models (mine) is wrong however I am still concerned at the efforts of some authorities to delay or discredit research just because it disagrees with what they want to hear, for whatever reason


The scientists made the allegations in a television program airing Monday on Australia's ABC television. The climate change experts, who worked for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, say they were censored because their views reflected badly on government policy.

Australia's environment minister, Ian Campbell, says the government does not support the censorship of scientists.

I hope you agree that the second and third sentences quoted are unlikely to both be true.
If we are having any effect on the global climate, I for one would like to know the extent so that if it is significant we can plan to do something about it.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-02-13-voa33.cfm
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/192967/1/.html

Quote is from 1st link, second reiterates.

Anyway, thanks dgruss23, Disinfo Agent. Fram, Glom and others for putting me more in the picture. Off to read the rest now.

Moseley
2006-Mar-03, 08:45 PM
So that one wrapped up a week ago with the general consensus that we need more data before we can categorically tell how significant our actions are on the climate.
Having just read it all, it appears some people do believe our actions are having no effect and the changes we notice are as a result of cycles of solar activity, orbital variation, geological activity etc.
Can any of these people please tell me when we can expect a reduction in solar activity, or increase in orbital radius etc such that we can expect the next year to not produce a record temperature?
I am considerably more skeptical than I was about the significance of our actions, having read the entire discussion.
Thanks.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Mar-03, 08:52 PM
So that one wrapped up a week ago with the general consensus that we need more data before we can categorically tell how significant our actions are on the climate.Bzzz! No, Moseley! It wrapped up a week ago, without any general consensus having been reached. Please note also that every single poster in this forum is a layman as far as climate change is concerned.

dgruss23
2006-Mar-05, 05:23 PM
Bzzz! No, Moseley! It wrapped up a week ago, without any general consensus having been reached.

I think what Moseley meant is that everybody agrees we need more data, not that everybody agrees how much influence we're having on climate.


Please note also that every single poster in this forum is a layman as far as climate change is concerned.

What should be the reaction to noting that? I'm being serious. In the context of this discussion there could be any number of ways to apply significance to that fact. Some of those ways I would agree with and others I would not.

Taks
2006-Mar-06, 05:24 AM
Please note also that every single poster in this forum is a layman as far as climate change is concerned.but not every single person in here is a) a layman regarding signal analysis nor b) a layman regarding statistical analysis methods. you do not need to be a climate expert to spot flawed methods on either account, nor point out valid methods.

taks

Disinfo Agent
2006-Mar-06, 05:08 PM
I think what Moseley meant is that everybody agrees we need more data, not that everybody agrees how much influence we're having on climate.Need more data for what?


What should be the reaction to noting that?I will leave that for Moseley to decide. I just thought he might appreciate the information.

Taks
2006-Mar-06, 05:21 PM
Need more data for what?for a valid evaluation of a) what forces control climate be it solar, GHGs or other and b) what we can do about it either way, maybe?

taks

Taks
2006-Mar-06, 05:34 PM
btw, regarding the hockey stick...

a gentleman by the name of david stockwell did his own "reconstruction" and the results are here (http://landscape.sdsc.edu/~davids/enm/?p=34).

in essence, he took random noise and applied the methods used by the IPCC folks (jones, mann, et. al.) and generated the same hockey stick graphs. as noted in the article, this does not necessarily invalidate the conclusions, it simply puts them in perspective.

a lot of folks in here would like to argue that this is not all about the hockey stick. however, the primary policy vehicle being used by countries to spend countless billions on thwarting natural climate change is the IPCC, which uses as its cornerstone the results of the hockey stick team. i'd say deep down, yes, it is about the hockey stick.

the multi-proxy studies are used to show future trends via various autoregressive prediction methods. they attempt to correlate "proxies" to known current temperature records, to model past temperatures, for which we have little or no data (we've only been seriously keeping track for 150 years or so, and really seriously for 50 or so). unfortunately, the proxy-based models map well to the past century or so, yet fail to show any major trends in past climate. so the statistical conclusion is that future trends are equally doubtful.

taks

Disinfo Agent
2006-Mar-06, 05:41 PM
for a valid evaluation of a) what forces control climate be it solar, GHGs or other and b) what we can do about it either way, maybe?There already are valid evaluations of that.

dgruss23
2006-Mar-06, 06:14 PM
Need more data for what?

Need more data to better establish the % of climate change that can be attributed to direct and indirect solar forcing mechanisms and the portion that may be attributed to anthropogenic climate forcing. Numerous references have been provided on these threads that discuss the evidence for a solar influence on climate. More data is never a bad thing.



I will leave that for Moseley to decide. I just thought he might appreciate the information.

I'm not sure how one would not already know that information since nobody on BAUT is claiming to be a professional climate researcher. I do know that it would be a veiled form of ad-hominem to imply that arguments made on these GW threads should not be trusted because participants are not professional climatologists.

Taks
2006-Mar-06, 06:17 PM
There already are valid evaluations of that.no, there aren't. none that pass statistical muster, at least.

taks

Taks
2006-Mar-06, 06:19 PM
I do know that it would be a veiled form of ad-hominem to imply that arguments made on these GW threads should not be trusted because participants are not professional climatologists.most true. even professional climatologists, btw, are often nothing more than trained data analysts. most of the data used in studies are generated by only a few organizations and individuals. the rest merely crunch the numbers with their favored analysis methods.

taks

Taks
2006-Mar-06, 06:37 PM
btw, another hit (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=564#comments) to the statistical validity of the climate models has shown up in amman's paper. finally.

it seems the cross-validation statistic, R2, is as M&M have always said, very low... i.e. it shows that the relationships they claim are all but uncorrelated. they hand-wave, of course, and say that the R2 is not good for this type of analysis, but why is that? because it is low?

anyway, so much for dismissing M&M.

taks

Disinfo Agent
2006-Mar-06, 09:23 PM
More data is never a bad thing.I don't disagree with that.


I'm not sure how one would not already know that information since nobody on BAUT is claiming to be a professional climate researcher. I do know that it would be a veiled form of ad-hominem to imply that arguments made on these GW threads should not be trusted because participants are not professional climatologists.Ad hominem? I'd call it honesty!

dgruss23
2006-Mar-06, 10:05 PM
Ad hominem? I'd call it honesty!

It is honest to note that the people participating in the GW discussions are not professional climatologists. However, it would be an ad-hominem to make that the focus of discussion (implying the comments are not worthy of considerations) rather than the evidence being discussed both for and against GW.

Heck - we might as well shut down BAUT. After all -only a handful of people here are professional researchers in the topics being discussed here. And apparently we can dismiss anything anybody else says on the subject. Its safest to assume that everybody else is incapable of reading the research published by the professionals and making correct statements about what those research articles say. And certainly we know that the researchers are incapable of making any incorrect inferences based upon the data they have collected so their comments can be taken as gospel.

Now that I think about it - I think I'm going to stop reading any articles in S&T, newspapers, Discover and the like that are not written by the actual researchers in that field. And I certainly will make sure not to comment on anything I've read that is written by the professionals - because of course I'm not a professional climatologist and so clearly I'm unqualified to discuss these issues.

Wow - BAUT's going to be a real hoot now that we've realized we must sanitize it of any comments not posted by the professional researchers. We can all say "Gee that's neat" every time the handful of climatologists (are there any on BAUT?) that post here share their thoughts. That will clearly be the only way that anything reliable can be learned on BAUT.

Got that taks? Glom?

Disinfo Agent
2006-Mar-07, 12:06 AM
You have implied that I wrote an ad hominem. It's now my turn to suggest that you are trying to build a straw man. I did not attempt to focus the discussion on the credentials of its participants. My sole intention here was to clarify those credentials, for a newcomer to these discussions, so that he wouldn't make mistaken assumptions about the opinions he read in the other thread.
Your straw man isn't even a very scary one. Credentials are indeed relevant in a scientific discussion, as I have argued in previous conversations (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=567707#post567707).

dgruss23
2006-Mar-07, 01:35 PM
You have implied that I wrote an ad hominem. It's now my turn to suggest that you are trying to build a straw man. I did not attempt to focus the discussion on the credentials of its participants. My sole intention here was to clarify those credentials, for a newcomer to these discussions, so that he wouldn't make mistaken assumptions about the opinions he read in the other thread.

Nope. When you accepted this:


I do know that it would be a veiled form of ad-hominem to imply that arguments made on these GW threads should not be trusted because participants are not professional climatologists.

by responding this way:


Ad hominem? I'd call it honesty!

you made it quite clear that your original point is that the arguments on this thread cannot be trusted because the participants are not professional climatologists.


Your straw man isn't even a very scary one. Credentials are indeed relevant in a scientific discussion, as I have argued in previous conversations (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=567707#post567707).

A straw man is when you set up a false weaker version of your opponents argument and attack that. That is clearly not what I did. I've invested tremendous time reading the literature and sharing information on the Sun-Climate connection. To suggest I would waste my time with straw man arguments is ridiculous.

As to credentials - certainly they are important - but they do not insulate the researcher from making inferential errors as was demonstrated last year when researchers claimed that the 4 day earlier blooming of lilacs was strong evidence that humans are causing the climate changes.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Mar-07, 03:54 PM
When you accepted this:


I do know that it would be a veiled form of ad-hominem to imply that arguments made on these GW threads should not be trusted because participants are not professional climatologists.Who said I 'accepted' anything in your veiled straw man?
Quit trying to put words into my mouth and shift the conversation away from issues and evidence, dgruss23. It's beneath you.

skeptED56
2006-Mar-09, 10:39 PM
Reading this thread all the way through, I see no reason to attach any kind of insidious connotation to Disinfo Agent's statement. No one is arguing that we shouldn't discuss scientific issues, compare and contrast data, and perhaps attempt to reach tentative conclusions on some topics, but an online bulletin board is hardly a peer-reviewed journal. It's useful to keep that fact in mind lest we make up our minds too quickly.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Mar-09, 10:52 PM
Thank you very much, skeptED56. That was indeed my intent.