Forums - General Discussion - Anybody who believed global warming was man made are having questions now?

Just tagging this thread to keep an eye on it.



Around the Network

Which is the point however, if the CO2 plays a HUGE feedback mechanic then the problem should be worse because of record outputs with less carbon sink abilties.

Yet there isn't. Though the problem with the historical records is... they aren't exact and a prone to alteration and interptetation.

For example the widespread denial of the europeon warm period because of "relative lack of data in non western areas."

Even though the data that does exist points to it being warmer in other places as well. The problem is, a lot of the historical data isn't really historical data but historical guesses based on climate models.



Kasz216 said:
Which is the point however, if the CO2 plays a HUGE feedback mechanic then the problem should be worse because of record outputs with less carbon sink abilties.

Yet there isn't. Though the problem with the historical records is... they aren't exact and a prone to alteration and interptetation.

For example the widespread denial of the europeon warm period because of "relative lack of data in non western areas."

Even though the data that does exist points to it being warmer in other places as well. The problem is, a lot of the historical data isn't really historical data but historical guesses based on climate models.

Sorry just to clarify, is your first point referring to the fact that a run-away greenhouse didn't occur in the historical data? If so then yes I agree that it suggests CO2 probably isn't a huge feedback mechanic. At worst I expect it does act to further increase temperature but that either CO2 concentrations become so great that the sinks become greater than the sources (through oceanic uptake and increased silicate rock weathering). Or, perhaps the temperature begins to drop as the orbital variation changes and CO2 consequently goes down suggesting that temperature really is the main driving force and CO2 is relatively 'ineffective'.

Yes the historical data is based on climate models but these models are reasonable enough to trust the data (within a margin of error) as they are backed up by numerous isotopic and organic proxies.



CrazyHorse said:

I think most of the concern about global warming comes from data which goes back a lot longer than those 15 years. Climate records from the past ~500,000 years show that there is a clear correlation between CO2 increases and temperature increases. Most current climate research is focussed on how the Earth will respond IF the temperature does increase (i.e sea level rise, ocean circulation and heat distribution ect). It's clear from the graph (below) that temperature and CO2 are related and according to the data, CO2 increases precede temperature increase. However, the error in the measurements is more than large enough for the opposite to be true. So for me the biggest question we need to solve right now is which of the two cases is true.

I'm inclined to lead towards temerature being the driving force behind CO2 increases as there is a clear mechanism we know off that allows for this (orbital variations which correspond to the cycles seen in the graph raise the Earth's temp which in turns causes the oceans to release more CO2 into the atmosphere). As far as I know there is no mechanism which could account for CO2 increasing before temperature. If that is the case the only issue left to be resolved is how large an impact the CO2 had as a feedback role in further rasing the temperature. If the CO2 did act as a feedback mechanic then that presents problems for us as our CO2 levels are currently far higher than they have ever been over the past 500,000 years.

 

@the bolded red comment,

Is that a typo on your part? The red line rises on the right side of the blue line and appears to fall on the right side as well (this is clearly seen if you look at the peaks and troughs of each line relation to one another). 

Second, to my knowledge both sides of the climate debate agree that there is an 800 year lag between when temperatures begin to rise and when C02 outgassing occurs as a result.  Warmists believe that C02 acts in the natural system as purely a feedback mechanism but that in the case of AGW is becoming an initiator of that warming. This has been my experience reading warmist opinions like that of Gavin Schmidt of realclimate, but it is possible I assumed too broadly.

For now I'll add that until recently I thought the claim about C02 as a natural feedback for glacial to interglacial temperature transitions seemed logical and reasonable, but a recent mathematic assessment of C02 in Nature asserts that it has second-order stationarity, and that has me questioning the natural feedback concept.  The paper is a recent one though so there hasn't been a lot of reaction to it yet that I've seen, for now it's a bit of a question mark both ways to me, but from my (relatively) limited mathematical skills the paper appears to be solid.



To Each Man, Responsibility

Well, I wont say anything about climate change since I admit I dont know much, but I think some people just want free cards to pollute, I feel some people just want to discredit climate change to be able to do more things that will help their pocket, when these things may not be associated with CC but in the end cause damage anyway.

Though the worlds temperature may not be a cause to stop polluting, there are many, like soil and water contamination, and the things pollution may cause to our health, extinction of some species induced by our actions and such. Besides, polluting less brings technology and a more healthy envoirment, whnch in the long run can favor economy in a great way.

Im just saying just because the effect we cause on the planets temperature may not be as big or present as some people want us to think it doesnt mean we dont cause any effect, good or bad, in a large scale to the planet or ecosystems. Im begining to think the people that warn us so much about climate change and are not scientists just use the term for people to stop pulluting, which may work, but if its not prooved people will think polluting is ok and that is the risk politicians run when they dont speak clearly.



Around the Network
pastro243 said:
Well, I wont say anything about climate change since I admit I dont know much, but I think some people just want free cards to pollute, I feel some people just want to discredit climate change to be able to do more things that will help their pocket, when these things may not be associated with CC but in the end cause damage anyway.

Though the worlds temperature may not be a cause to stop polluting, there are many, like soil and water contamination, and the things pollution may cause to our health, extinction of some species induced by our actions and such. Besides, polluting less brings technology and a more healthy envoirment, whnch in the long run can favor economy in a great way.

Im just saying just because the effect we cause on the planets temperature may not be as big or present as some people want us to think it doesnt mean we dont cause any effect, good or bad, in a large scale to the planet or ecosystems. Im begining to think the people that warn us so much about climate change and are not scientists just use the term for people to stop pulluting, which may work, but if its not prooved people will think polluting is ok and that is the risk politicians run when they dont speak clearly.

This is a typical viewpoint.  Allow me to point out the biggest problem with it: CO2 is not pollution.  Carbon dioxide is what plants use for food and what animals exhale (including humans).  CO2 is no more pollution than water vapor (which, incidentally, is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 by many times by all accounts).  So when speaking of "carbon pollution," realize that using such a term to refer to CO2 is an oxymoron.

Secondly, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are historically at a very low level.  They are rising now, but before recorded history they were many times today's levels.  The Earth did not have a runaway greenhouse effect then.  One more reason to be skeptical of one being triggered now, with much lower concentrations.

Finally, since CO2 is plant food (it's what you pipe into greenhouses to help plants grow), plant productivity has increased worldwide as a result of increasing concentrations.  In fact, studies have estimated that a doubling of CO2 would significantly increase food production due to more productive crops.  Of course, you don't read about something like this in the newspapers.  Nor do you read that if the theory of global warming is proved true that less people will be under water stress than they are today because of increased evaporation (thus, increased clouds and rain).

There are many pollution problems in the world.  Until more proof is offered as to how CO2 emissions are dangerous, it's foolish to concentrate on them instead of the air, water and soil pollution right in front of us.



In Memoriam RVW Jr.

SSBB Friend Code = 5455-9050-8670 (PM me if you add so I can add you!) 

Tetris Party Friend Code = 116129046416 (ditto)

Sqrl said:
CrazyHorse said:

I think most of the concern about global warming comes from data which goes back a lot longer than those 15 years. Climate records from the past ~500,000 years show that there is a clear correlation between CO2 increases and temperature increases. Most current climate research is focussed on how the Earth will respond IF the temperature does increase (i.e sea level rise, ocean circulation and heat distribution ect). It's clear from the graph (below) that temperature and CO2 are related and according to the data, CO2 increases precede temperature increase. However, the error in the measurements is more than large enough for the opposite to be true. So for me the biggest question we need to solve right now is which of the two cases is true.

I'm inclined to lead towards temerature being the driving force behind CO2 increases as there is a clear mechanism we know off that allows for this (orbital variations which correspond to the cycles seen in the graph raise the Earth's temp which in turns causes the oceans to release more CO2 into the atmosphere). As far as I know there is no mechanism which could account for CO2 increasing before temperature. If that is the case the only issue left to be resolved is how large an impact the CO2 had as a feedback role in further rasing the temperature. If the CO2 did act as a feedback mechanic then that presents problems for us as our CO2 levels are currently far higher than they have ever been over the past 500,000 years.

 

@the bolded red comment,

Is that a typo on your part? The red line rises on the right side of the blue line and appears to fall on the right side as well (this is clearly seen if you look at the peaks and troughs of each line relation to one another). 

Second, to my knowledge both sides of the climate debate agree that there is an 800 year lag between when temperatures begin to rise and when C02 outgassing occurs as a result.  Warmists believe that C02 acts in the natural system as purely a feedback mechanism but that in the case of AGW is becoming an initiator of that warming. This has been my experience reading warmist opinions like that of Gavin Schmidt of realclimate, but it is possible I assumed too broadly.

For now I'll add that until recently I thought the claim about C02 as a natural feedback for glacial to interglacial temperature transitions seemed logical and reasonable, but a recent mathematic assessment of C02 in Nature asserts that it has second-order stationarity, and that has me questioning the natural feedback concept.  The paper is a recent one though so there hasn't been a lot of reaction to it yet that I've seen, for now it's a bit of a question mark both ways to me, but from my (relatively) limited mathematical skills the paper appears to be solid.

No it wasn't a typo but probably a mistake on my part. It was based off a couple off papers which I read a few years ago claiming that CO2 preceeded temperature by several hundred years (although their error margins were much higher than this). In fairness I was referring to the changes observed during the transition from glacials to interglacials which have generally been reported to be 'simultaneous' as opposed to the longer interglacial to glacial periods were CO2 cleary lags. I appreciate I didn't make that clear and to be honest I think you are right anyway, the new consensus does seem to be that there is a lag between the temperature rising and the CO2 following suite even regrading the glacial-interglacial periods.

Although as I mentioned in the second paragraph of the post, CO2 lagging behind temperature isn't surprising (and as you say in now generally accepted by both sides, obviously I was slighlty out of the loop on that!). This is where I just can't make up my mind on what goes on. So we have CO2 outgassing lagging ~800 years, probably caused by ocean warming likely started by weak orbital forcing. As far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong) the view now is that the orbital forcing should be too weak to account for the full extent of the temperature variation seen. That is why it has been suggested that the CO2 acts as a feedback. The CO2 itself though is only thought to be directly responsible for around 1 degree of further warming (source at bottom) and so it is generally thought that further feedbacks are triggered by this warming which account for the further temperature increase seen (e.g melting ice, water vapour, ocean circulation).

This is where the issue currently lies with me. If CO2 did act as a feedback mechanism and in doing so created further positive feedbacks then the drastic increase in current CO2 levels could be a potential problem. That said, the feedbacks cleary didn't run out of control in generating a run-away greenhouse effect which would suggest there is a control on CO2 (i.e. it only ever follows temperature). Furthermore, during the interglacial-glacial transitions CO2 again lags temperature which is the opposite effect you would expect to see if CO2 was acting as a feedback.

The best conclusion I can draw is that CO2 is purely a consequence of temperature and that other feedback mechanims (ice sheet waning ect) are wholey responsible for amplifying the weak initial increase in temperature caused by orbital forcing.

 

Do you have a link to that Nature paper you mention? I would be interested in reading it.

source

Jouzel et al, 1989. Global change over the last climatic cycle from the vostok ice core record (Antarctica), Quaternary International, Vol. 2, pp. 15-24, 1989.



^^  The paper is linked in the post you quoted actually =)

"mathematical assessment"

 



To Each Man, Responsibility
Sqrl said:

^^  The paper is linked in the post you quoted actually =)

"mathematical assessment"

 

Oops!

Cheers.



You know what amazes me? That several people I know can look at this information being released and in one hand be "100% sure" that global warming exists while in the other, hold complete and utter contempt for religion.

A little off-topic but that kind of hypocrisy just baffles me.

Global warming theories stopped being led by scientists years ago. It has passed into the state of religion with data being withheld from "non-believers" to data not being released, period. If you questioned their science on the subject, you were ostracized.

This is the best thing that could happen to the world population as a whole. Out the zealots, push them out of the limelight, and let the real scientists get to work to figure out what is happening to the Earth. Because, let's face it, if you're not initially skeptical about a scientific result, you're DOING IT WRONG. Skepticism is the key component of what separates science from faith.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/