My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[freeztar]

Stabilize?

 

The historic proportions of CO2 (as I understand it) indicate this current ppmv is an anomaly in the averages of the earth and quite low for what is the 'average' over the history of life on earth itself. I am unsure where this 'tipping point' exists.

Image:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Additionally, it appears the whole of human development occurred during one of these unusual cold snaps and to try to attempt to alter the big picture of what is normal for the earth based a limited perception of what we think is best seems quite impossible and likely a waste of resources. Climate change happens whether or not we are here to observe it personally.

 

Image:Phanerozoic Climate Change.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Image:65 Myr Climate Change.png - Wikimedia Commons

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

 

If you really want to talk about 'tipping points' I would suggest that occurred around the time we hit 4 billion people (and rising).

 

 

I'm not exactly sure what your argument is Cedars but it seems like you are trying to justify an increase in [ce]CO2[/ce] concentrations because of historic levels. Is this correct?

[InfiniteNow]

It's not so much the overall concentration that matters as it's the rate of increase. Slower increase means that natural mechanisms can adjust. Rapid increase (which we are in right now) means that the natural mechanisms simply cannot keep up.

 

Even if we stopped inputting 100% of our CO₂ today, the effects on the climate would continue for a few decades.

 

So... uhhh... let's stop our inputs and contributions as a goal, and more pragmatically, work as hard as we can to reduce them now through every possible means.

 

Why is this still being cast in the dim light of false uncertainty?

[CraigD]

With this in mind, we should be making preparations to try and stabilize the conditions before they reach the dreaded "tipping point" at which it will be beyond our ability to control.

Stabilize?

 

The historic proportions of CO2 (as I understand it) indicate this current ppmv is an anomaly in the averages of the earth and quite low for what is the 'average' over the history of life on earth itself. I am unsure where this 'tipping point' exists.

IMHO, much of what drives rational arguments for “stabilizing” or “preserving the climatic status quo” is the lack of certainty about and confidence in climate model predictions.

 

A review of the history of climate modeling is highlighted by unexpected discoveries about its limitations (eg: von Neuman’s optimistic and incorrect predictions, Lorenz’s 1960s work, which can be considered the origin of modern chaos theory), and significant failed predictions of both the “good news” (eg: the North Atlantic current not “stalling”, despite high volumes of polar melt water) and “bad news” (eg: much faster than expected melting of Artic Ocean ice) kind.

 

On one hand, “global warming deniers” argue that this indicates few or no measures should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On the other, “global warming alarmists” argue that catastrophe involving unprecedented loss of human life is imminent. There is, IMHO, a significant third point of view, “global warming conservatives”, who conclude that as we lack confidence in our ability to predict the outcome of significant differences in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration, we should attempt to arrest and reverse the last century’s increases, because if there are not significant changes in these and other climate-effecting factors, climate model predictions are no longer of great practical significance.

Additionally, it appears the whole of human development occurred during one of these unusual cold snaps and to try to attempt to alter the big picture of what is normal for the earth based a limited perception of what we think is best seems quite impossible and likely a waste of resources.

This “seeming” is more properly, IMHO, the domain of mathematical risk analysis.

 

Consider, given the uncertainty of climate models, the range of probabilities (“error bars”) of various climate change scenarios, and the associated costs in terms of resources financial, political, and humanitarian, and I believe you’ll find that the expected value of cost of unchecked global warming far exceeds the cost of proposed measures to check it. For example, a scenario in which there is an unexpectedly great rate of sea level increase on the northern European coast, resulting in great loss or heavily developed, very valuable real estate in countries like Denmark and Holland, can yield practically incalculable bad financial and political consequences – a scenario I like to call “lots of [formerly] rich, politically powerful refugees”.

 

Although complex social predictions are the domain of a discipline even more uncertain that climate modeling, I’m of the strong opinion that much of the reluctance of economically and politically individuals, businesses, and governments to commit to large expenses in the result of “lack of vision in boardroom accounting” – that is, unwillingness to incur costs “on our watch” to avoid greater costs years later, “on the next poor guy’s watch”. This lack of financial and political vision may, I fear, prove a bad thing on a par with the decline and fall of the Roman empire and the subsequent European dark ages.

[REASON]

Although complex social predictions are the domain of a discipline even more uncertain that climate modeling, I’m of the strong opinion that much of the reluctance of economically and politically individuals, businesses, and governments to commit to large expenses in the result of “lack of vision in boardroom accounting” – that is, unwillingness to incur costs “on our watch” to avoid greater costs years later, “on the next poor guy’s watch”. This lack of financial and political vision may, I fear, prove a bad thing on a par with the decline and fall of the Roman empire and the subsequent European dark ages.

 

I wonder if Cedars' concerns are primarily around an increase in government policy/bureaucracy, law making, and regulations directed at private industry. Based on previous posts of hers that I've read, any additional government intrusion into our lives represents another thorn in our backsides.

 

If this is true Cedars, I don't completely disagree with you. But considering the motivations of increased profit and control of losses, I don't believe private industry will do the right thing and properly regulate itself when it comes to operating in an environmentally friendly manner. There have been too many instances in the past where industry was perfectly content to polute the air and improperly dispose of toxic chemicals in local water supplies in order to avoid the financial burden of having to deal with these issues in a way that is environmentally conscious. Thus, we have the EPA.

 

I can't help but agree with Craig and suggest that the resistance to jumping on the global warming bandwagon is associated with the fear of more government regulations which can be so easily translated into more financial costs, for everyone. But what are the long term costs of doing nothing? Does protecting profit always have to be the number one priority? Is there really no way to encourage industry to modify their practices without some form of government regulation? Is there no way to make it profitable long term? This is a total lack of vision.

 

It's interesting to compare the alarmism associated with global terrorism to the alarmism associated with global warming, and the current responses to each by our government and its corporate masters. To me, it is clear that the former is treated with utmost importance, not because of national security, but because of the ability, through financing the so called "Global War on Terror," to funnel so much profit to the private sector and the military industrial complex. The latter, on the other hand, is rejected because dealing with Global Warming appears to only represent costs.

 

In my opinion, treating both of these issues in the manner that we currently are, is leading to yet unrealized costs that are far greater than we are apparently willing, with our obvious lack of vision, to consider.

[Cedars]

I'm not exactly sure what your argument is Cedars but it seems like you are trying to justify an increase in [ce]CO2[/ce] concentrations because of historic levels. Is this correct?

 

Not justify, just point out in the big picture the current (and what we call normal) CO2 levels are on the whole remarkably low rather than the oft used term "unpresidented in history". The 'norm' for the planet seems to be twice the amount as is current.

 

And the temperature measurements, based on O18 also indicate we havent neared what is 'normal' for the planet.

 

The current 'global warming' hype is based on a cooled earth average and bears little resembalance to the averages on the whole, which MUST be taken into account when trying to conclude anything about global climate.

[freeztar]

What about (as IN pointed out) the rate of increase Cedars?

[Cedars]

IMHO, much of what drives rational arguments for “stabilizing” or “preserving the climatic status quo” is the lack of certainty about and confidence in climate model predictions.

 

Although complex social predictions are the domain of a discipline even more uncertain that climate modeling, I’m of the strong opinion that much of the reluctance of economically and politically individuals, businesses, and governments to commit to large expenses in the result of “lack of vision in boardroom accounting” – that is, unwillingness to incur costs “on our watch” to avoid greater costs years later, “on the next poor guy’s watch”. This lack of financial and political vision may, I fear, prove a bad thing on a par with the decline and fall of the Roman empire and the subsequent European dark ages.

 

I hated to snip any of your post Craig, but the basics of the issue (for me anyways) is until you reduce the number of people gathering the limited resources, the end of the story will remain much like the cycle of lemmings. Delay it until theres 20 billion people fighting over the last drops of oil and you create more carnage than addressing the real issue. Create all the kyotos politicians can stammer out, but as long as the majority of people are exempt you create no gain as china has overtaken the us in co2 output. Whats going to happen when they all have cars to drive around in?

 

Adapt to the environment or become extinct.

 

But please dont move to Minnesota to avoid rising waters. I have enough trouble with the yuppies moving out of the cities with their delusions of country life (meaning they move out here and drag the city with them, cant get a one of them to shut off their outside lights at night).*

 

NOTE: This comment is not directed at Craig, and it should have been noted that it is a general comment much like the "tourists go home" pun t-shirts.

[REASON]

...the basics of the issue (for me anyways) is until you reduce the number of people gathering the limited resources, the end of the story will remain much like the cycle of lemmings. Delay it until theres 20 billion people fighting over the last drops of oil and you create more carnage than addressing the real issue.

 

Adapt to the environment or become extinct.

 

Ah Ha! Let the Earth go ahead and get a fever and maybe it will wipe out a significant portion of the already overly abundant human population on the planet.

 

My, how diabolical. :phones:

[Cedars]

What about (as IN pointed out) the rate of increase Cedars?

 

I have seen no ill effects related to the increase of CO2. There is nothing going on now that hasnt happened before, including melting of arctic/antarctic ice, deserts expanding/contracting, droughts of varied magnitudes, etc. I posted a link long ago to a study being done on past high waters (in a different thread) showing the antarctic was open 800K years ago and supporting tropical shelled creatures (currently they live in tropics around samoa iirc). I have seen no indication in the long run any life suffers via increased co2.

 

Most currently are tidbits leaking out about rethinking the ozone damage and cycle of damage and just how much is natural i.e. Is it normal to have an ozone hole over the antarctic.

 

You bet I am skeptical of man's influence on the temperature of the earth and whether this current phase is long term or short term, on the global climate scale and whether or not anyone can assign any probability to the impact of man and keep a straight face while insisting such things.

[InfiniteNow]

Am I the only one who is reminded of arguing evolution with a creationist when it comes to global warming deniers and human impact?

 

 

Cedars, the whole "it's just a natural cycle" concept has been THOROUGHLY refuted, and no matter how much you stand there with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears, that refutation is complete and valid.

 

Nobody argues that there aren't natural cycles. The issue is that human activity has greatly surpassed them in both scope and impact.

 

 

Show me a half a lung. :phones:

[freeztar]

I have seen no ill effects related to the increase of CO2.

 

It depends on what you mean by ill-effects. Is the Artic ice melting an ill-effect? Not for the oil companies, but certainly for the polar bears.

 

There is nothing going on now that hasnt happened before, including melting of arctic/antarctic ice, deserts expanding/contracting, droughts of varied magnitudes, etc.

 

Ah, but there is something going on that hasn't happened before, the massive anthropogenic release of locked away carbon. It's quite an experiment.

 

I posted a link long ago to a study being done on past high waters (in a different thread) showing the antarctic was open 800K years ago and supporting tropical shelled creatures (currently they live in tropics around samoa iirc). I have seen no indication in the long run any life suffers via increased co2.

Sure, things change. The thing to consider is the rate of change. Antarctica was "tropical" and then changed to it's present state, how long do you think that took? How long do you think it will take to become tropical again?

What if [ce]CO2[/ce] has a lot to do with the rate of change?

 

Most currently are tidbits leaking out about rethinking the ozone damage and cycle of damage and just how much is natural i.e. Is it normal to have an ozone hole over the antarctic.

Do you have a link for this?

You bet I am skeptical of man's influence on the temperature of the earth and whether this current phase is long term or short term, on the global climate scale and whether or not anyone can assign any probability to the impact of man and keep a straight face while insisting such things.

 

What would it take for your skepticism to disappear?

[Cedars]

It depends on what you mean by ill-effects. Is the Artic ice melting an ill-effect? Not for the oil companies, but certainly for the polar bears.

 

The polar bear is a recent divergence from other populations of bear. Specialist species run the risk of extinction at a higher rate simply due to their specialist nature.

 

From Wiki:

According to both fossil and DNA evidence, the polar bear diverged from the brown bear roughly 200 thousand years ago. The oldest known polar bear fossil is less than 100 thousand years old.

 

However, more recent genetic studies have shown that some clades of Brown Bear are more closely related to polar bears than to other brown bears, meaning that the polar bear is not a true species according to some species concepts.[15] In addition, polar bears can breed with brown bears to produce fertile hybrids,[14][16] indicating that they have only recently diverged and are not yet truly distinct species

 

 

Ah, but there is something going on that hasn't happened before, the massive anthropogenic release of locked away carbon. It's quite an experiment.

Massive? Its 7-10% (yearly) of all natural atmospheric co2 (around 750 metric gigatons daily). Its way less if you add in the 2000 metric gigtons in the ocean (daily).

 

Sure, things change. The thing to consider is the rate of change. Antarctica was "tropical" and then changed to it's present state, how long do you think that took? How long do you think it will take to become tropical again?

What if [ce]CO2[/ce] has a lot to do with the rate of change?

Then how do you explain the lack of disaster when co2 levels were much higher for many more years? Earlier this summer as I was researching plants from the meadows, link after link led me to a recent discovery of iceland or greenland meadow flowers. I wish I had kept the link but it wasnt what I was looking for (canadian mayflowers and their reproductive rates) Some researchers were looking for stuff under a recent melt area and found pollens from wildflowers under this former glacier area and via dating measures discovered that this area was an alpine meadow 600K years ago. Blew their minds. This they did not expect.

 

Do you have a link for this?

Its a login subscription:

Access : : Nature

 

However this is supposed to be a quote from the above article:

 

"This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being." What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

 

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

 

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum

is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. "Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart," says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany."

 

The Rex mentioned is this guy: Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany

 

As I said, information is trickling out.

[Michaelangelica]

Hi everybody,

 

I consider myself to be a life-long environmentalist. I have, in my own small ways, worked against aerosols, acid rain, general pollution, and of late Co2/Global Warming.

We will be friends

 

The earth is a complex system

 

So, what am I missing?

There are dozens of threads here on Global warming.

I am sure you will find many to argue the case, pro or con, with you.

 

Welcome to hypography :)

[REASON]

The polar bear is a recent divergence from other populations of bear. Specialist species run the risk of extinction at a higher rate simply due to their specialist nature.

 

From Wiki:

According to both fossil and DNA evidence, the polar bear diverged from the brown bear roughly 200 thousand years ago. The oldest known polar bear fossil is less than 100 thousand years old.

 

However, more recent genetic studies have shown that some clades of Brown Bear are more closely related to polar bears than to other brown bears, meaning that the polar bear is not a true species according to some species concepts.[15] In addition, polar bears can breed with brown bears to produce fertile hybrids,[14][16] indicating that they have only recently diverged and are not yet truly distinct species.

 

Geez Cedars, are you really so botanically oriented that you don't care about Polar Bears? :)

 

What does it mean to consciously allow, or willfully cause, the extinction of a species, even if you don't think it should qualify as one? You essentially equated the majestic Polar Bear with nothing more than deadwood. Your forensic analysis made me think I was listening to Data from Star Trek Next Gen. Although I imagine he would probably be able to come up with something more positive to say.

 

This attitude sure doesn't sound much like something you'd hear from an environmentalist or a naturalist.

 

 

Then how do you explain the lack of disaster when co2 levels were much higher for many more years?

 

When was this specifically?

 

 

However this is supposed to be a quote from the above article:

 

"This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being." What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

 

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. "Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart," says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany."

 

The Rex mentioned is this guy: Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany

 

As I said, information is trickling out.

 

As you read your quote above, do you not hear how flimsy it sounds? It's like, grasping.

 

What is it that makes you choose to align your views on this subject with trickling information from random researchers as opposed to the extensive studies that have been conducted by hundreds of climatologists and Earth scientists working in behalf of the IPCC? Why is this stuff more compelling to you? Do you really believe that Cedars from Minnesota has been able to uncover information critical to understanding the reality of this condition, that has somehow eluded the collective of specialists contributing to the ongoing IPCC reports?

 

This is reminiscent of debating with someone who believes in Intelligent Design. :)

[freeztar]

The polar bear is a recent divergence from other populations of bear. Specialist species run the risk of extinction at a higher rate simply due to their specialist nature.

 

From Wiki:

According to both fossil and DNA evidence, the polar bear diverged from the brown bear roughly 200 thousand years ago. The oldest known polar bear fossil is less than 100 thousand years old.

 

However, more recent genetic studies have shown that some clades of Brown Bear are more closely related to polar bears than to other brown bears, meaning that the polar bear is not a true species according to some species concepts.[15] In addition, polar bears can breed with brown bears to produce fertile hybrids,[14][16] indicating that they have only recently diverged and are not yet truly distinct species

 

So, since polar bears are specialists that have only recently (ie around a hundred thousand years ago) diverged from brown bears, then it's up to them to fend for themselves? In my mind, that's the equivalent of saying as long as there are primates, who cares about the humans. :confused:

 

But I digress. The real issue is that the relatively rapid increase in global temps is causing harm to several unique species. The rapid increase of temps is attributable (at *least* in part) by [ce]CO2[/ce].

 

Massive? Its 7-10% (yearly) of all natural atmospheric co2 (around 750 metric gigatons daily). Its way less if you add in the 2000 metric gigtons in the ocean (daily).

 

Sure, we are not the ocean, but to argue that we have an insignificant effect is quite bold.

 

Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[15] In 1999, 2,244,804,000 metric tons of CO2 were produced in the U.S. as a result of electric energy generation. This is an output rate of 0.6083 kg (1.341 pounds) per kWh.[16]

 

Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution.[17][18]

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Why do you suppose the [ce]CO2[/ce] concentrations have dropped so much since 500Mya? Why are they no longer declining, but rapidly inclining now?

 

Then how do you explain the lack of disaster when co2 levels were much higher for many more years?

 

Easy. There was no such thing as disaster back then, it is a human concept.

I'm sure the plants were loving it. They certainly locked away a good bit. The same bit that we're putting around town on today.

 

Earlier this summer as I was researching plants from the meadows, link after link led me to a recent discovery of iceland or greenland meadow flowers. I wish I had kept the link but it wasnt what I was looking for (canadian mayflowers and their reproductive rates) Some researchers were looking for stuff under a recent melt area and found pollens from wildflowers under this former glacier area and via dating measures discovered that this area was an alpine meadow 600K years ago. Blew their minds. This they did not expect.

 

This is not surprising to me in the least bit.

 

Its a login subscription:

Access : : Nature

 

However this is supposed to be a quote from the above article:

 

"This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being." What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

 

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

 

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum

is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. "Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart," says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany."

 

The Rex mentioned is this guy: Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany

 

Chloride chemistry is only one part of the equation.

What about Bromine? What about Methane? What about hydroxyl and nitric oxide radicals?

 

Ozone can be destroyed by a number of free radical catalysts, the most important of which are the hydroxyl radical (OH·), the nitric oxide radical (NO·) and atomic chlorine (Cl·) and bromine (Br·). All of these have both natural and anthropogenic (manmade) sources; at the present time, most of the OH· and NO· in the stratosphere is of natural origin, but human activity has dramatically increased the high in oxygen chlorine and bromine. These elements are found in certain stable organic compounds, especially chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which may find their way to the stratosphere without being destroyed in the troposphere due to their low reactivity. Once in the stratosphere, the Cl and Br atoms are liberated from the parent compounds by the action of ultraviolet light...

Ozone depletion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

As I said, information is trickling out.

 

Information is one thing, evidence is another.

[Cedars]

Geez Cedars, are you really so botanically oriented that you don't care about Polar Bears? :)

 

What does it mean to consciously allow, or willfully cause, the extinction of a species, even if you don't think it should qualify as one? You essentially equated the majestic Polar Bear with nothing more than deadwood. Your forensic analysis made me think I was listening to Data from Star Trek Next Gen. Although I imagine he would probably be able to come up with something more positive to say.

 

This attitude sure doesn't sound much like something you'd hear from an environmentalist or a naturalist.

 

This is reminiscent of debating with someone who believes in Intelligent Design. :)

 

Personally, even if I had the money to invest in one of the legal Polar Bear hunts, I would not. I do not desire to kill a polar bear. However, polar bears will not go extinct, they are not a separate species. They will evolve with their environment, pass their genes on with other bears (as they do now) and and the genetic specialist genes will remain hidden, until environmental changes allow those particular features to express themselves dominantly.

 

As I said, until people come to grips with the expanding human population, you can assemble all the kyotos you want and not change the outcome. Lemmings anyone?

 

Holocene extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I grow tired of your lack of substance. If you have a counter point to make, make it. Your personal attacks on my 'environmentalism' are ill-founded at best, and possibly a reflection of your own inadaquacies regarding your own lack of accomplishment regarding personal impact on the environment. But thats an issue for psychologists to sort out.

 

Just because I dont fall in Lock Step with Greenpeace doesnt mean I willfully slaughter the wildlife.

 

I grow tired of the attempts to drag religion into this discussion. But I will point out the assembly of the IPCC conclusions fall more along the lines of the assembly of the bible, than my looking outside of that particular political bubble for added information. Please call me a heretic next. You wouldnt be the first.

[Cedars]

Added comment to post #58 attempting to clarify direction of paragraph.