The continuing climate debate.

[TC]

Part One.

Granted in my earlier years regarding climate change I allowed my enthusiasm to present a picture of this subject in rather simplistic terms, and for the most part within a layman's view point. So my apologies to my faithful antagonists who had issues with this fact, and a bit of thanks for pushing me back to school to go beyond those simplistic opinions.


So,I'd like to continue this debate with some solid science. During the last 3 years some creditable information from field studies points to some of the larger arguments regarding climate change. Probably the biggest issue involved in so called man made CO2s is the real effect on climate as the prime greenhouse gas, but the facts are that it is not. Water vapor is now recognized as the key element involved in temperature fluctuation as it represents some 97% of our atmospheric make up, where as the remaining 3 % is CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O.

Secondly, the next largest debate was centered around which came first, or which was the trigger factor, CO2s or temperature rise. The original base for the man made argument was relying heavily on CO2s as the cause to global warming, yet the last two years studies have shown this earlier conclusion to be false, in other words, temperature rise precedes CO2 release.

Ice core research is confident in its study, as the trapped gas partials give undisputed evidence of what percentages did exist during a given geological period along side fauna that existed at the same time. ( which verifies temperature that allow said fauna) Field work in sediments confirms their relationship, and there is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally due to cyclic solar orbital influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result. Big point here...

Solar Cycles and global warming:
"A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
Abstract: “During much of the Quaternary, the Earth's climate has undergone drastic changes most notably successive glacial and interglacial episodes. The past 150 kyr includes such a climatic cycle: the last interglacial, the last glacial and the present Holocene interglacial. A new climatic-time series for this period has been obtained using delta18 O data from an Antarctic ice core."

This is critical in any honest debate regarding climate change.

Granted that BOTH sides of the debate would try to link so called "studies" as being influenced by business interests, and to be honest, this does indeed exist. But as the old adage would suggest, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Current study has drawn forced radiation into the equation of earlier climate models, and most important, is the delayed effects within the feedback parameters. ( another big point)

Some may argue that non-radiatively forced changes in ocean circulation associated with the El Niño/Southern Oscillation would negate the solar effects of increased temperatures, but none the less both these factors play a vital role in climate.

In conclusion, we have to see water vapor as the prime mover of climate change, and we have to accept solar cyclic actions as a key player along side the percentages of human influences.


Credit references.

Roy W. Spencer * and William D. Braswell
ESSC-UAH, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Cramer Hall, Huntsville, AL

NASA Terra satellite data NOAA and NASA data: 2000/ 2011

National Academy of Sciences, United States of America.

Continued:

[alpha]

good post TC and spot on.

apart from the little ice age from 1600's-1800's we've been an interglacial warming period. Up until 1998 when temps have been on the slide, globally, year on year.....

CO2 has nothing to do with climate change whatsoever. How we have let this come in to being we will hopefully know soon and the truth will out!

some say we MUST dispand the UN and the EPA. These climategate policies will help drive us in to the dust!!

have a read of some sense!

http://climaterealists.com/?id=8672

[dcookcan]

Rather than starting a new thread on this 'new to me' theory on climate science. These researchers talk about clouds controlling climate and link cloud cover with cosmic rays. The correlations in the video are impressive. Why was their research refused by scientific journals? Some dutch at the beginning but most is in english.

+ YouTube Video

[dcookcan]

Here is a simple explanation of cosmic rays and cloud formation that anyone can grasp.

+ YouTube Video

[GamerGal]

39 degrees out. What should it be? Negatives at best. We should have had a couple feet of snow and so far... don't even think we've had an inch. Antartica has had the warmest summer EVER. But the planet isn't getting warmer, not in the least.

[dcookcan]

You can go find the other four videos if you want to go through this more thoroughly.

+ YouTube Video

[dcookcan]

Interplanetary climate change. Why are the other planets in our solar system going through dramatic climate change?

+ YouTube Video

[TC]

Nice links Dcookan. Our information is so limited when it comes to this debate, our models don't come close to making a valid diagnose towards climate, the "variables" are just to many to get a picture. Granted the planet is warming, and the ramifications are truly profound when put in perspective with our species future, perhaps the need to adapt is fundamental, rather than pointing a finger towards our actions as a direct result.

I believe all this is a repetitive cycle, a rebirth if you will every 100,000 years. Our planet sleeps during a glacial period, then awakens for a 20,000 warming interglacial. I also believe its needed to hold the planet in balance, both climatically and geologically.

[Ningishiddza]

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food. According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ing-again.html










The only thing in my mind to debate is how the global warming fear-mongers should be punished.

[TC]

I think in retrospect that a lot of this was out right media bombardment, and it came in such a huge amount that the average person didn't have a chance to see the counter argument ( or sadly chose not to). The 90s were the global warming threat, every where one turned, it was the topic of the day, and anyone questioning the status quo was ostracized as backing big oil or some other corporate interest. Even the scientific world jumped on the band wagon, perhaps due to the fact that grants were being handed out like candy for studies backing the man made theory.

Today we see a substantial regression from the academic side who once backed the man made CO2 issue as being prime, even those who signed the UN assessment. Research has shown dramatic results in both solar and water vapor effects, enough to question the original theses as being a human factor. Personally my classes with Paleoclimatology led me to pursue the issue during this last two years, thus my trip to Egypt last January, and my current attempts to present this with factual science.

If people can put away their bias and political ideals and examen some of the later research, perhaps there is a chance that some may change their opinions that have been driven into their heads by an overzealous media. ( fat chance huh...lol) We have several good threads regarding both factors, ( solar and water vapor) if people would like some clean research to go by.

[MaximumPain]

All us old men will be dead by the time it matters anyway. And our descendents will shit on our graves.

I do know that the US Navy is preparing for an Ice free north pole (sorry less Ice not ice free) and higher sea levels.
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=53562

The Climate Change Roadmap is intended to be a companion document to the Navy Arctic Roadmap, released in November 2009. While the Arctic Roadmap serves to promote maritime security and naval readiness in a changing Arctic, the new Climate Change Roadmap examines the broader issues of global climate change impacts on Navy missions and capabilities.

"We issued the Arctic Roadmap first because that is where the most significant evidence of climate change is occurring," Titley remarked, "but the Arctic is not a vacuum. The changes that are occurring there, from both an environmental and political standpoint, reflect changes that will occur in the rest of the world."

Phase 2, which is targeted for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, identifies as a priority the development of recommendations for Navy investments to meet climate change challenges. These challenges include protecting coastal installations vulnerable to rising sea levels and water resource challenges and being prepared to respond to regions of the world destabilized by changing climatic conditions.

I suppose though the right leaning daily mail is a better source then the US Navy right? Or are they in on the conspiracy theory as well?

This shit is happening no matter how you guys want to hide your heads in the sand.

[Ningishiddza]

All us old men will be dead by the time it matters anyway. And our descendents will shit on our graves.

Is that before or after this happens:



Are you dyslexic or can you not read this map?



Which part of this map do you not understand?



How many people will be living on Earth, when it returns to this state?

I suppose though the right leaning daily mail is a better source then the US Navy right? Or are they in on the conspiracy theory as well?

Your link doesn't prove global warming. Because you don't understand anything, you can't comprehend the possibility that your spheroidal Earth is moving toward it's maximum vertical point of obliquity, and that causes the oceans to absorb more UV particles and become warmer, which causes warmer water to circulate north. You do no what albedo is, don't you? For each 1' (minute) of arc that the Earth moves toward the vertical point, millions of square miles of oceans absorb a greater percentage of UV particles, instead of reflecting them back into space.

This shit is happening no matter how you guys want to hide your heads in the sand.

Assuming that it is, who cares? You won't have to worry about this:

[MaximumPain]

How much research did you do to check the accuracy of your temperature graph posted from the conservative leaning daily mail?

Sure the loss of the arctic Ice has nothing to do with the globe getting warmer! How was I so silly. Its obvious that if the ice goes we wont get higher sea levels duh... Im so glad you cleared this up by posting the same map of the ice age 5 times!

Its not a question that CO2 has a heat trapping effect.
And its not a question that we as humans are putting extra CO2 in the atmosphere above and beyond what is already there.
Whatever else is happening with the tile of our axis and our relative position to the sun was going to happen anyway.

Its a fact that the US Navy is preparing for higher sea levels and more access to the arctic and its a security issue.
Are they in on the conspiracy as well?

The scientists that actually study the atmosphere overwhelmingly agree that humans are helping this process along.

The fact that you want to punish those who are telling us this only weakens your position.... or are you also a paleoclimatologist Ning? Its hard to know sometimes your an expert on so many things. Or are we going to slip to the conspiracy theory aspect now.

Im not 100% surehow much of this humans are causing this but it IS happening.

[MaximumPain]

Oh and TC just explained that water vapor is also a driver of the greenhouse effect. So what happens when you heat water? Yup it gets turned into vapor. What about the methane trapped in the perma frost? At what temp does that get released into the atmosphere.

Oh and before anyone accuses me of doom and glooming I dont believe this will result in the destruction of the earth or even the destruction of civilization.... its just going to suck and for what? So we can keep burning all the oil and coal we want for another 100 years?

[MaximumPain]

The 11 warmest years on record have been the last 11
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
Actually the daily mail graph would show this as well but they didnt like how it would look if you extended out to show more of the total record. Wonder why they left that out?

21st Century
Year Rank
1 = Warmest
Period of Record:
2011 11
2010 1 (tie)
2009 7 (tie)
2008 13
2007 7 (tie)
2006 6
2005 1 (tie)
2004 9
2003 4
2002 5
2001 10

The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 0.64°C (1.15°F) above average.

Or can I use NOAA as a source?

[MaximumPain]

More shit from the US Navy.

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The National Research Council of the National Academies released the "National Security Implications of Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces" report, March 10.

The newly-released study was commissioned by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead in 2008, and indicates that the most moderate trends in climate change, if continued, will present new national security challenges for the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

"This report represents the most detailed and analytical look at the impact of climate change on naval forces to date," said Rear Adm. David Titley, the Navy's senior oceanographer and director of Task Force Climate Change. "It provides superb guidance for long-term strategic planning and investment considerations."

I would think the Navy would take this shit seriously as they will be the ones who need to deal with it.

Another recommendation of the study is that naval forces prepare for new mission requirements due to the opening of international and territorial waters in the Arctic Ocean as the sea ice continues to decrease. It identifies the Arctic as a place where "recent climate change may have the most immediate and obvious implications for maritime operations."

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=59021

[MaximumPain]

Your not going to threaten me with punishment for arguing this with you are you?

The only thing in my mind to debate is how the global warming fear-mongers should be punished.

It actually detracts greatly from your argument and makes you into a big bully.

Your link doesn't prove global warming. Because you don't understand anything, you can't comprehend the possibility that your spheroidal Earth is moving toward it's maximum vertical point of obliquity, and that causes the oceans to absorb more UV particles and become warmer, which causes warmer water to circulate north. You do no what albedo is, don't you? For each 1' (minute) of arc that the Earth moves toward the vertical point, millions of square miles of oceans absorb a greater percentage of UV particles, instead of reflecting them back into space.

You just proved global warming. Or at least another effect that will contribute to the increasing temperature. Yes I know about the Milankovich cycles and that they are yet another factor in our changing climate. What ever man does is just the extra gravy on the top.

[TC]

Speaking for myself, I have tried to keep my information within the realm of applied science, and not trying to hide anything in regards to cause. We have had repetitive cycles in the past that mirror what we see today, and collective evidence leads us to take ALL factors into the climate model before we drop the hammer on a final evaluation. Again, ice core research is confident in its study, as the trapped gas partials give undisputed evidence of what percentages did exist during a given geological period along side fauna that existed at the same time. ( which verifies temperature that allow said fauna) Field work in sediments confirms their relationship, and there is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally due to cyclic solar orbital influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

Something to think about regarding methane gas, it is during a glacial maximum that this also reaches a high point, as tremendous amounts of sea water is trapped in continental glacial ice, subsequently the ocean levels are much lower than during a warming cycle, what takes place is the sediment muds at near coast boundaries having been relieved of the huge weight of sea water, begin to release huge quantities back into the atmosphere, the trigger so to speak that throws the earth into an interglacial warming period. This is repetitive.

The last 2 intern periods of Ice ages had the same results that we see today, only minus mankind, yet the cycle is the same. We have only put around 30 years of serious study into the realm of this science, not fully understanding the reasons, but each year we make good progress in the field work necessary to draw conclusions. And given the evidence, it would be a tad bit hasty to put the cause solely on the impute of man.

( and this opinion is NOT drawn from a news paper mind you....

[Cartesiantheater]

A: What is all this talk about global warming? If we're talking about climate science, the phrase is "climate change."

B: Green house gases, whether man-released or otherwise, impact the climate. They are one of many factors. MANY factors.

C: To the more conservative on the issue of man's involvment: pointing out that similar cycles have existed before is a lame cop-out. On one hand, you admit both B above AND that Man has released his share of green house gases, but then claim that it's 100% "the same thing that happened in cycles before." So where were the humans releasing green house gases in the previous cycles? Doh! I.e., "it's just cyclical and humans have NO part" only makes sense if you disregard B above and that humans add to the green house gases, unless you claim their addition is a negligible amount in comparison to the other sources of green house gases, which seems unlikely given the 7 billion or so people we have here. I'd say it's likely human green house gases are comprable in magnitude to the several other sources of green house gases (which by simply understanding the addition of fractions, you would then understand that humans are not likely the cause of most or a significant amount of green house gases in comparison to other sources).

D: To you more liberal people on the issue of human involvement, as has been pointed out, CO₂ is NOT the only green house gas, and humans are not the only cause of their release. Nature does a fine job of releasing every green house gas. Moreover, green house gases are but one of MANY influences on climate change. More still, the climate is NON LINEAR, or chaotic beyond the ability of even the best mathematicians to model with precise formulae. Computer models are based upon linear approximations for equations that cannot be solved analytically at this point. I know that's some jargon, but basically there is so much chaos in our climate that even if it appears orderly for the short term, there is no way to model wih any reasonable certainty what will occur in the long term. Essentially this means that every scientific paper on the subject is little more than hihly technical educated guesses. Sure, we can make models that approximate some specific data, limited greatly in scope and time interval, but any macro- hodgepodge of the multitude of these models really amounts to educated guesses. The climate isn't like Newton's Laws, where we have precise differentiql equations that can be solved analytically. It's a whole other ballgame with such a massive, detail driven task like modeling the global economy.

E: Really, the above applies to both sides of the argument. If you think you know, you don't, and if you believe, well you're only right if you also happen to be lucky (and are also obviously neglecting most relevant details). As for the past, it is used to help model the present, but we are still limited mathematically by the same problem. The fact is, despite all the egos on both sides, we simply DON'T KNOW, and we frankly lack even the mathematical tools to model the climate to a high degree in the first place, let alone do we have access to and flawless knowledge regarding the physical factors in play that we would even plug in to our non-existent mathematical equations. Computers help, but if they're fed flawed programming and data, how can we trust them beyound the short term where we can clearly see that they match observation?

It's like we're using Fourier series to approximate some function we know nothing about aside from a small sample size. f(x) = x² looks a hell of a lot like f(x) = x⁵ in the first quadrant over a short interval, but they diverge pretty quickly, and one is an even function with zero negative outputs and one is an odd function with infinitely many negative outputs. In other words, we're like high schoolers stuck in the first quadrant between x = 0 and x = 5 or so. Graph those functions to see what I mean. We lack sufficient data.

Our level of arrogance on both sides of this debate regarding the specific causes of every epoch in our climate, including today's, is astounding. We simply do not have access to enough data, nor do we have powerful enough models to know much more than the short term events and that in the past the planet has gone through similar (but none IDENTICAL to each other, despite the rhetoric) climate trends (A good analogy would be the way a piece of debris in a bath tub spins around in circles when you pull the plug: each unit of time the debris makes similar conical revolutions, but each one is at a different height, different speed, has a different radius, and has a different level of eccentricity caused by movement of the person sitting in the water- each a similar occurance, but each unique in specific factors or magnitudes of influence from the same sources).

[TC]

As I mentioned before, yes the models don't come close due to this lack of data, so we are agreed on that point. As to reference to past cycles being the same, ( no doubt man wasn't around...) it was with temperature and amounts of gases reaching the same levels that we see today. Granted we had larger amounts of volcanics during the past epochs and this could very well be responsible for the higher concentrations recorded. As for methane, I do believe reduced ocean levels played the greater part in that theory.

Your right in the arrogance point existing on both sides of the fence, and as I mentioned earlier, we have maybe 30 years of serious research behind this subject, a drop in the bucket so to speak to draw any finalities in climate, so we're on the same page with this as well. Personally I think we are in the later part of this warm period, if past periods can used as a yardstick to go by, even with the variables of man and nature. And I think I made myself clear that ALL the factors must be considered in any honest debate.

[MaximumPain]

Just courious why you two (CT and TC) think most of the actual paleoclimatologists seem to agree that man is contributing to this current warming trend?

Also what do you think about the reports coming from the "man has nothing to do with it" crowd often having non qualified people listed as scientists to add weight to reports that are obviously designed to create enough doubt in public opinion to allow oil and coal use in a business as usual way?.

Where is the conspiracy if there is one because both sides think there is one.
Pro AGW thinks the big energy companies are creating doubt and the anti AGW crowd thinks the scientists are making it all up to keep themselves funded.

Also whats the percentage of man made carbon compared to natural sources? I often see the clame that volcanoes put out more CO2 then human causes but a quick search will reveal that the USGS does not agree with that assessment. Whats the real level and what does that real level have to reach to actually make a difference in this climate change?

[TC]

Just courious why you two (CT and TC) think most of the actual paleoclimatologists seem to agree that man is contributing to this current warming trend?

Also what do you think about the reports coming from the "man has nothing to do with it" crowd often having non qualified people listed as scientists to add weight to reports that are obviously designed to create enough doubt in public opinion to allow oil and coal use in a business as usual way?.

Where is the conspiracy if there is one because both sides think there is one.
Pro AGW thinks the big energy companies are creating doubt and the anti AGW crowd thinks the scientists are making it all up to keep themselves funded.

Also whats the percentage of man made carbon compared to natural sources? I often see the clame that volcanoes put out more CO2 then human causes but a quick search will reveal that the USGS does not agree with that assessment. Whats the real level and what does that real level have to reach to actually make a difference in this climate change?

Well I press the point that this climate change is more a result of a natural cycle, but you have to admit there was a bit of a rush to publish towards the human factor this last decade, which created a whole new industry related to so called "green" products. Now don't misunderstand me in this, I think our previous policy of dump and run really shit down the planet, but the trend became focused on the human factor as a prime suspect in climate change, at least related to greenhouse gases.

Today we have something like 380ppm with CO2s, this can flux a bit depending where you measure, and a greenhouse functions best at around 1100ppm with high humidity. A true danger zone for life would be in the 4000ppm range, something that is seldom seen on this planet, as most abundant CO2s are returned to the surface in the form fertilizer as its a re-cyclic gas.

Perhaps the greater effort should be towards adaptability, and the use of warmer zones in the higher latitudes with food production. Just a thought...

[Cartesiantheater]

Just courious why you two (CT and TC) think most of the actual paleoclimatologists seem to agree that man is contributing to this current warming trend?

Also what do you think about the reports coming from the "man has nothing to do with it" crowd often having non qualified people listed as scientists to add weight to reports that are obviously designed to create enough doubt in public opinion to allow oil and coal use in a business as usual way?.

Where is the conspiracy if there is one because both sides think there is one.
Pro AGW thinks the big energy companies are creating doubt and the anti AGW crowd thinks the scientists are making it all up to keep themselves funded.

Also whats the percentage of man made carbon compared to natural sources? I often see the clame that volcanoes put out more CO2 then human causes but a quick search will reveal that the USGS does not agree with that assessment. Whats the real level and what does that real level have to reach to actually make a difference in this climate change?

I suspect it has to do with two related factors: one, it's better to err on the side of caution. As there is much question regarding the global climate and our impact, limiting our effect, however large or small it might be, would seem prudent. Again, just in case.

And two, since limiting our impact, whether great or small, is the only thing we CAN do, most research has focused on such things. As a result, the majority of the small pieces that are fit together to form a larger picture of what is going on will inevitab
ly have an anthromorphic slant.

Basically, I think it boils down to the direction of research focusing on things humans can control, and the fact that most theories are based upon tests in labs that are restricted to short term results, and then extrapolated. However, both knowledge about the past and our ability to duplicate it in computer models is sketchy.


EDIT- Forgot to respond to the rest:

As for non-qualified "experts" like Rush, they're just idiots who already believe there is a conspiracy among academics. After all, evolution is clearly a scientific conspiracy, right? They choose to believe what they do because they want to, and enjoy feeling an undeserved sense of superiority.

As for carbon dioxide emission versus volcanos, everything I have seen agrees with what you said. TC argues that even with that, we are still not up to the levels that the world has seen in the past, and things like methane and other gases also affect the global climate. In other words, he argues the human impact is there, but ia not as important as the.media reports. or rather, there have been similar climate cycles before with humans clearly not in the picture.

Also, as far as the human impact, I believe some scientists think that while humans might have little DIRECT imact, they may have a larger INDIRECT imact. For example, doing something to slightly increase melting of ice would allow for nature to greatly increase methane release. Or cutting down too many trees might affect the natural carbon cycle, etc. But again, I still think the areas of research affect the direction of hypotheses.

[TC]

Ummm its the greater amount of ice that causes methane release with lower sea levels.

[TC]

I gotta add to this ...( you know me ..lol)

What I see over the last five years of digging into this phenomena, is a fantastic cycle of rest and rebirth, both in species and geography. As the planets ice builds up to a certain degree, and ocean levels drop to release greater amounts of gases, combined with solar cycles, it begins its return to an interglacial warming period that literally explodes with life and greater diversions of life forms.

This warming period can last roughly 20+ thousand years before the cooling cycle begins again with its combination of solar sequence and abundant precipitation that eventually reaches the next ice age. All in all its a fantastic living thing that adjusts itself. Granted we have a footprint in this as well, and so does nature in its own sequences of geological events that can hasten or hinder these cycles, but the true wonder is the planets ability to deal with it. And we are privileged to witness this.