My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[engineerdude]

Solar activity does not account for everything.

 

 

NASA - Solar Minimum has Arrived

 

Solar variation can not account for all of the observable effects we've witnessed while observing climate systems.

 

The earth's climate is a complex thing, of course - cloud cover changes, volcanos erupt, all kinds of things happen here to affect the overall picture.

 

But solar radiation is the only external input we have, and it has been shown that the brighter the sun shines, the hotter the earth generally gets. And the sun has been shining brighter than average over the past century or so.

 

There is no measurable variable that I can find that seems to have any predictive value for global temperature other than the sun. And it is a pretty much dead-on predictor.

 

My goal in this thread is not to espouse any new theories though, and I only have a couple second-hand charts to back up what I say. My goal is to debate existing popular theories of global warming. I put forth the solar-idea to debunk the idea that no one has any competing theories as to why the glaciers melted.

[engineerdude]

EDude! Cool that your serious about this stuff!

I have some neat points about the "CO2 follows temp change" thing, but later.

...and yes the solar stuff is detailed in the IPCC report... something like 'accounting for ~15% of observed warming.'

===

 

But... first let me go to your last link (above). Easily discredited... :(

(ordinarily I like to answer specifics, so this is for others' benefit; but you should know your sources).

===

...from historycommons.org....

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Profile: Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)

 

"1998: Petition Calling on US to Reject Kyoto Protocol Employs Misleading Tactics

Frederick Seitz, a former tobacco company scientist and former National Academy of Sciences president, writes and circulates a letter asking scientists to sign a petition calling upon the US government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was authored by an obscure group by the name of “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.” [seitz, 1998] Seitz includes in his letter a report arguing that carbon dioxide emissions do not pose a threat to the global climate. The report—which is not peer reviewed—is formatted to look like an article from the esteemed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). ...."

 

"...is formatted to look like an article from the esteemed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)."

Gee, where have I seen this tactic still being employed (htp:/ww.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf...

hint, hint).

===

 

...and hey, look at the first graph on that link which concludes that glacier retreat started before large-scale fossil fuel usage.

What!? Look at the graph. It almost exactly matches! Admittedly the retreat line is narrower (attenuated) relative to the usage cumulation line, but....

 

They have almost the exact same shape and duration. The rate of change of slope for the retreat line is closely proportional to the usage line. They match almost exactly.

 

Except for the "smoothed average" that they've added, I can see no reason to say the two lines do not show a close linkage.

Does anyone else see that these two lines are not closely proportional?

 

~ Carry on (...back to specifics)!

 

Hiya

 

Please either prove or disprove what I am saying - who cares where a chart comes from, as long as it is correct? Try to show that the chart is wrong, that the data has been manipulated, whatever, but don't simply try to cast doubt without any basis.

 

I will state again that using the charts Reason has posted are basically contributing to fraud. Guess why his temperature chart starts in 1850 but his CO2 chart starts in 1960? Because those charts show what he wants it to. A chart of CO2 levels from 1850 to present would show levels hitting around 400 ppm in 1857 and in 1942. There was a sharp decrease in atmospheric CO2 between 1942 and 1960, and now it is picking back up again. Reason's chart starts at the bottom of the cycle, and using a chart of the complete cycle would show that current CO2 levels, while high, are just part of a natural upswing.

 

Here's one link to data supporting this. There are many, this was just the first one in my bookmarks:

 

The Real History of Carbon Dioxide Levels

 

I personally think that people are probably adding a bit to the CO2 levels, but I also think that when the Earth decides someday that CO2 levels need to drop no number of SUV's are going to prevent it. And, as previously posted, CO2 is a trace gas and has no predictive value for global temperature (someone needs to try and prove me wrong on that!).

[CraigD]

Here's a link to a site that has a combined chart of solar activity, CO2 levels, and fossil fuel usage. It's on the first page near the bottom.

 

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

But... first let me go to your last link (above). Easily discredited... :(

(ordinarily I like to answer specifics, so this is for others' benefit; but you should know your sources). …

To continue with Essay’s advice to “know your sources”, it’s important, I think, to consider what the OISM is, and who comprise it, and what their beliefs are, and what other groups it is affiliated with or sympathetic toward

 

OISM appears to be primarily an advocacy organization for claims such as the one linked to in post #???. It consists of 8 people, 2 of who are dead. It’s headed by Arthur B Robinson, a biochemist. Robinson is signed the petition “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, and appears to be sympathetic to the goals of the Discovery Institute, a group well known for attempting to promote skepticism toward science in general in order "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions", and specifically, with opposing the idea of biological evolution in favor of religious creation stories, and promoting such movements as Intelligent Design.

 

As someone who likes and promotes materialistic worldviews, I dislike the goals and methods of the Discovery Institute, the OISM, and similar groups, and approach any publication by these groups with great wariness and skepticism.

 

The most sound advice I think I can offer (and which I think I sorely need to follow myself) is to gain more knowledge about climate modeling. In my experience, nearly all science enthusiasts and opponents know of the existence of such models, but few of us have practical experience with them. Without the knowledge gained from such experience, we must resort almost entirely to reliance statement by widely acknowledged and self-proclaimed experts and credible organizations. This reliance makes us vulnerable to manipulation by groups pursuing agendas with which many of us would not agree, such as creationism.

[Zythryn]

But solar radiation is the only external input we have, and it has been shown that the brighter the sun shines, the hotter the earth generally gets. And the sun has been shining brighter than average over the past century or so.

...

My goal is to debate existing popular theories of global warming. I put forth the solar-idea to debunk the idea that no one has any competing theories as to why the glaciers melted.

 

Regarding the text I bolded, where has this been shown?

It is well accepted that if the earth receives more radiation from the sun it will warm, but simple brightness doesn't take into account the entire radiation reaching the earth.

Measurements made over the last 30 years show no appreciable change in the irradiation from the sun welcome to pmodwrc.

 

This is a very valid place to look for a cause for the increase in temp. But measurements seem to rule it out.

 

Debate is good, but the theory that has stood up to the most tests and predictive ability is that CO2 is a big part of the cause.

 

As for CO2 lagging temp in the past, that is a very valid point as well. To me it indicates that CO2 increase was a positive feedback in past events.

Since it is increasing first, I would suggest it is a driver this time. CO2 is much more potent a greenhouse gas than water vapor. And, its concentration in the atmosphere can be altered while that of water vapor is can only be altered as the temp changes. So CO2 is capable of being a driver, while water vapor is not (although it can be a positive feedback).

[engineerdude]

Regarding the text I bolded, where has this been shown?

It is well accepted that if the earth receives more radiation from the sun it will warm, but simple brightness doesn't take into account the entire radiation reaching the earth.

Measurements made over the last 30 years show no appreciable change in the irradiation from the sun welcome to pmodwrc.

 

This is a very valid place to look for a cause for the increase in temp. But measurements seem to rule it out.

 

Debate is good, but the theory that has stood up to the most tests and predictive ability is that CO2 is a big part of the cause.

 

As for CO2 lagging temp in the past, that is a very valid point as well. To me it indicates that CO2 increase was a positive feedback in past events.

Since it is increasing first, I would suggest it is a driver this time. CO2 is much more potent a greenhouse gas than water vapor. And, its concentration in the atmosphere can be altered while that of water vapor is can only be altered as the temp changes. So CO2 is capable of being a driver, while water vapor is not (although it can be a positive feedback).

 

I would love to debate the effects of the sun on global temperatures - maybe start a new thread on it? I think there is vast evidence to show a direct correlation between sun activity and the earth's temperature. But I am trying to stay on point for this thread, which is to discuss pop-global warming theories.

 

As for CO2 being more potent than water vapor as an infra-red absorber - I agree. But there is virtually no CO2 in our atmosphere (400 ppm is pretty close to zero) and there is a whole bunch of water vapor (10,000 ppm).

 

For an example, spend an evening in south Florida, where with all the humidity there is probably 20000 ppm of water vapor in the air. The sun sets, and the temperature drops very little, just a few degrees. Then go out in the desert at sunset, where water vapor concentrations are 2000 ppm - the temperature drops from 100 degrees to 50 degrees in just a few minutes. CO2 levels are about the same for both places, but they behave vastly different, and are totally correlated to the amount of water vapor in the air.

 

Some people claim that CO2 acts as a feedback mechanism, that concentrations of it cause other gases to act differently and it can cause a cascade effect. I cannot find any science that actually backs this up, and the geologic record clearly shows that high levels of CO2 have never kept the world from cooling down and low levels have never kept the planet from warming up. Atmospheric CO2 levels are mostly based on how warm the planet is.

 

The essence of a feedback mechanism is that if we take two mechanisms, call them A and B, that changes in one produces changes in the other. The mechanisms can either dampen each other or they can produce an explosive effect. The ice records show that overall historic temperature has changed quickly at times, and CO2 levels do not change until hundreds of years later. How can CO2 affect climate if concentration does not change until after temperature is done changing?

[goku]

Yes speaking of Box turtles, I raise and breed them, box turtles not only do not migrate they stay in close proximity to where they are born and if taken away from that place they will try to go back. The do not migrate. so in addition to all the other silliness you insist on interjecting you are wrong about box turtles as well.

 

thanks for the info. i said migration because of what i observed. i can't say exactly but seems like every year at the same time i see box turtles on the road, moving. cute little fellars, i try not to hit them. point is i saw something, wasn't sure what i saw so i had to compare it to something else that i have seen. canadian geese, i see them migrating, ergo, possibly maybe box turtles migrate.

 

in relation to this thread, what are scientists seeing?

what are they comparing?

that is science, comparing things. taking at least two known factors and tweaking them to see how the third jiggles.

 

now if we had a complete temperature record from the begining, that would help boo koos.

 

just a few simple thoughts from a simple mind :(

[modest]

OK, in response to reason's post, where he showed a chart of temperature from 1860 to present, which he got from Wikipedia.

 

That chart is a very selective chart, which begins at the point our planet emerged from what is known as the little ice age. People use this particular time frame to make the record appear like a "hockey stick". Why start in 1850?

 

The chart shown by Reason is an instrumental record of global average temperatures. This means the data was obtained directly via measurement rather than reconstructed via other means. Unfortunately, such precise and reliable data only goes back to the mid 19th century. The data range is therefore chosen by necessity in an attempt to show the most accurate data rather than “to make the record appear like a “hockey stick”. :(

 

People were still getting around by horse-and-buggy in 1850, and our oil addiction didn't even get going until the 1940's or later. We did not really start pumping carbon into the atmosphere until the 1950's - why did the temperature jump so much for the hundred years people were producing negligible CO2?

 

Estimates done by the Department of energy:

 

 

This is consistent with the temperature data.

 

The CO2 chart you show and the temperature data are clear uses of selective charting in an effort to mislead.

 

The CO2 graph Reason uses is data collected at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii. The wikipedia page for the image explains that Mauna Loa has the longest record of such direct measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide which is the data set shown. This is then simply the best and most accurate info available and NOT selective charting as you claim.

 

~modest

[engineerdude]

The chart shown by Reason is an instrumental record of global average temperatures. This means the data was obtained directly via measurement rather than reconstructed via other means. Unfortunately, such precise and reliable data only goes back to the mid 19th century. The data range is therefore chosen by necessity in an attempt to show the most accurate data rather than “to make the record appear like a “hockey stick”. :)

 

 

 

Estimates done by the Department of energy:

 

 

This is consistent with the temperature data.

 

 

 

The CO2 graph Reason uses is data collected at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii. The wikipedia page for the image explains that Mauna Loa has the longest record of such direct measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide which is the data set shown. This is then simply the best and most accurate info available and NOT selective charting as you claim.

 

~modest

 

I acknowledge that the Hawaiian facility did not exist before 1960, and that direct measurement of CO2 was not possible before that. But the lack of a historical context pretty much makes the data only useful for very short-term studies. Data certainly exists from periods before 1960, though it is not as precise. The longer-term data shows a cyclical picture that waxes and wanes over time, and also show that Mauna Loa started collecting data during one of the upswings. If they had built the facility in 1947, people would have been terrified we were going to run out of CO2 by 1970, until they saw the upswing in 1960.

 

To sum all this up, you can't really use such short time frame data to get any real feel about what is happening for such a long-term thing as global climate. Look at long-term charts, you'll see what I mean.

 

As for your chart showing global CO2 emissions from people, that is very common-sense stuff. We are of course belching out enormous quantities of CO2 and all other kinds of pollution. But global CO2 levels have fluctuated greatly over time, without any interference from people. In 1857, when human activity was very low, atmospheric CO2 levels were about as high as they are today. Levels dropped off then, peaked in the 1940's, dropped off, and is rising again. During the past 150 years, temperature has risen steadily, regardless of what levels of CO2 are in the air.

 

Humans probably are increasing the overall CO2 levels somewhat, but from a practical standpoint, who cares? The end result of all my yapping is that global temperature does it's own thing, and basically ignores CO2 levels.

[Essay]

...so little time. Maybe at lunch....

 

But real quick...

 

My point in post # 934 was that the graph of glacial retreat WAS right, accurate, revealing, etc.,

BUT, that their (OISM) interpretation of the meaning was wrong.

 

Their point that the two lines are apparently unrelated is wrong; and yet because it looks like a scientific paper, people feel free to quote them, cite them, believe them, and make decisions based on their rhetoric.

 

The point of my post was to look at that first graph yourself and examine the lines as I described, and draw your own conclusion before reading their conclusion.

 

That is what made me go check the source.

 

===

...and speaking of sources (so much for quick):

Again, that Energy & Environment "source" is the only "publication" that gets cited by science savvy denialists because it looks and sounds "sciency."

Unfortunately it is a private newsletter. You will not find it cataloged in any library in the world (unlike any reputable newsletter or any other publication) -except maybe the local library where the guy who "publishes" this lives. This is the only place that unreviewed "research" can get "published" that looks official and citable, but it's no better than the other newsletters and blogs put out to the public by that handful of organizations created for, and dedicated to, casting doubt on mainstream science (sometimes for philosphical/ideological reasons, and sometimes for specific economic interests).

...sorry, I really wanted to keep it to that first part; but, though I haven't read the last few posts closely yet, I had noticed that old penny, "Energy & Environment" mentioned, and had to rant (20 years working in a research library will do that...)....

 

~ :)

 

p.s. oops, that newsletter is "cited" by the "real history of CO2" link that you posted, not in a post itself.

"The Real History of Carbon Dioxide Levels"

Prof. Beck's paper "180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS" has now been published in the journal Energy and Environment.

 

ABSTRACT

"More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. ....

Wow! Accurate analyses!

Finally!

 

Why isn't this in a real journal!!!

~ :phones:

[modest]

-source

 

The longer-term data shows a cyclical picture that waxes and wanes over time

This is the crux of your issue. You somehow seem to believe that natural fluctuations in [ce]CO_2[/ce] preclude the possibility of anthropogenic global warming. In other words, carbon dioxide has always fluctuated, so humans can't throw the system out of balance. That's not reasonable thinking.

 

Mauna Loa started collecting data during one of the upswings. If they had built the facility in 1947, people would have been terrified we were going to run out of CO2 by 1970, until they saw the upswing in 1960.

The Mouna Loa data shows the same thing as the graph above. Temp is corollary with atmospheric carbon dioxide in the shorter and longer term—on top of which humans have increased [ce]CO_2[/ce] by an accelerated amount. Your claim of selective charting is shown to be wrong.

 

In 1857, when human activity was very low, atmospheric CO2 levels were about as high as they are today.

 

This is completely wrong. According to the data represented above, atmospheric levels of [ce]CO_2[/ce] are higher now than they've been in a thousand years. According to the link you posted yesterday, atmospheric levels of [ce]CO_2[/ce] are higher now than they've been in four hundred thousand years. And, according to the graph below which comes from here, levels are higher than they've been in six-hundred and fifty thousand years.

 

 

No part of what you say can be supported.

 

~modest

[goku]

i could say the same to you.

 

history and research are only as good as the faith you have in the person who wrote it.

 

i believed moontanman when he spoke of the turtles, but that doesn't make him right.

 

my point is you must look at the bigger picture. "you'll know a tree by the fruit it bares"

the EPA is given power to protect the envornment, right?

they (EPA) place regulations on the construction of automobile engines, right?

if yes then tell me how you can burn more fuel and pollute less?

[freeztar]

Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored

 

Heres somebody who doubts the IPCC -

 

Via Michael Duffy November 8, 2008

 

Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply.

 

As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: “We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]“.

 

Now, this is completely wrong.

 

Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored - Michael Duffy

 

Michael Duffy's article is an op-ed piece for a newspaper. This does nothing whatsoever to overturn the vast amounts of *scientific* evidence.

[Turtle]

my point is you must look at the bigger picture. "you'll know a tree by the fruit it bares"

the EPA is given power to protect the envornment, right?

they (EPA) place regulations on the construction of automobile engines, right?

if yes then tell me how you can burn more fuel and pollute less?

 

Auto manufactureres added many required 'pollution control' devices to engines such as the PCV valves and catalytic converteres, but the concern here & now is CO2, not particulates and volatile chemicals. While autos are a big contributor to CO2, coal fired electric plants are the real gorillas in the room.

 

Anyway, implicit in all your objections is your religious faith and that just does not have any legitimate bearing on the science of climate. :)

[modest]

Also, I don't believe the EPA regulates automotive carbon dioxide emissions.

 

~modest

[freeztar]

Also, I don't believe the EPA regulates automotive carbon dioxide emissions.

 

~modest

 

There was a Supreme Court decision in 2007 that gave EPA the authority to regulate GHG under the Clean Air Act. As far as I know, The EPA has taken no initiative to do so. That may change with the new administration and new congress.

 

More here...

CO2 Regulations Could Affect 1 Million U.S. Companies Environmental Leader Green Business, Sustainable Business, and Green Strategy News for Corporate Sustainability Executives

[Turtle]

There was a Supreme Court decision in 2007 that gave EPA the authority to regulate GHG under the Clean Air Act. As far as I know, The EPA has taken no initiative to do so. That may change with the new administration and new congress.

 

More here...

CO2 Regulations Could Affect 1 Million U.S. Companies Environmental Leader Green Business, Sustainable Business, and Green Strategy News for Corporate Sustainability Executives

 

That rang a bell! I think I heard/read that some of those executive orders Bush is giving before he leaves office will roll back some of these restrictions? I can't find the recent thread on it just now. :shrug: It doesn't sound promising though, as the red tape in reversing them after he is gone is magnitudes greater than his signing an executive order. :naughty:

[Essay]

:hyper:

So much for lunchtime....

CO2 vs Temperature: Last 400,000 years

 

The thing to garner from all these charts is that climate has swung widely over the geologic record, in period way before people learned how to light fires. Our current temperature is higher than average, but nothing that really stands out.

 

 

I still want to talk about the "CO2 lag" mentioned in my post #934,

but I've been trying to catch up....

I'm still looking at your #932.

 

I looked at that link from geocraftdotcom/WVFossils.

What a neat site. I haven't looked around it much, but they do have some pretty editorialized opinions stated as "obvious conclusions" (re: GW) that I think are not correct.

...for instance,

Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

"2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases."

...they aren't counting land use/land cover changes!!!

...

"Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward."

...they mean glaciation, not ice-age....

 

"3. Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .

Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change."

...How are they calculating this??? (CO2/Total air?)

 

"4. If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too?

This chart adapted after Nigel Calder (6) illustrates that variations in sun activity are generally proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature (Figure 3).

Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be "effects" and our own sun the "cause"."

...Nigel Calder!!! ...uh oh, I think I recognize that name.

 

"FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE

1. Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants."

...true, but what about the CO2 absorbed every year??? (~180 Gt/yr.)

 

"2. At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished."

...not in recent "geologic times." (during mammalian times?)

 

"3. CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit [not necessarily] from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide."

...irrelevant to the greenhouse effect on climate.

 

"4. CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide."

...yes, and we have increasingly degraded the planet's ability to naturally sequester CO2 (that 'continual recycling') via our land-use & land-cover changes, farming and forestry practices, and even oceanic overharvesting, for up to several millennia now. See the first point above.

===

 

That geocraft site's GW stuff looks like good science; but just not very complete, and somewhat misleading. :(

 

...more later, I hope!

 

~