Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This argues that the models are over emphasizing green house gases contribution to warming and underestimating albedo feed back.
Just something to think about.
The matter of what feedbacks in the earth climate system actually lead to the large changes is THE most important question in climate theory.
The CO2 theory claims it is simply CO2. It's the basis of the theory. It's that theory that is the basis of fears and concerns over changing the ratio (which mankind is certainly doing)
The big problem with the theory as how could warming lead to a glacier building period of the current ice age. (in the fifties as well as other times it as one of the reasons the theory as rejected)
Since the data shows CO2 as highest right before it became cold, and CO2 was lowest when warming happened, the obvious objection is CO2 isn't the feedback, much less the control knob of global temperature changes.
That this is rarely if ever discussed is quite amazing at times
Then there is the other assumption of the theory, which says water vapor is only a feedback for warming. That is quite obviously dead wrong. The questions that are still on the table aren't answered by ignoring them, or coming up with "reasons". You can't decide a theory is correct and then add on crap as time goes by to define the theory.
It's a main reason why the current state of the science is both dismal and annoying.
An interesting aside to this conversation is the volcanic supper eruption that happened 70,000 years ago. When you run that eruption through our current models you get the environment cooling off then warming back up far sooner than actually happened, This argues that the models are over emphasizing green house gases contribution to warming and underestimating albedo feed back.
Just something to think about.
Geological activity mimics coal emissions with the particulate matter, sox, nox, and CO2. I wouldn't be surprised that some of the "pause" was due to all the coal plants that were built and started operating in China and Asia that don't have the pollution control measures.
The matter of what feedbacks in the earth climate system actually lead to the large changes is THE most important question in climate theory.
The CO2 theory claims it is simply CO2. It's the basis of the theory. It's that theory that is the basis of fears and concerns over changing the ratio (which mankind is certainly doing)
The big problem with the theory as how could warming lead to a glacier building period of the current ice age. (in the fifties as well as other times it as one of the reasons the theory as rejected)
Since the data shows CO2 as highest right before it became cold, and CO2 was lowest when warming happened, the obvious objection is CO2 isn't the feedback, much less the control knob of global temperature changes.
That this is rarely if ever discussed is quite amazing at times
Then there is the other assumption of the theory, which says water vapor is only a feedback for warming. That is quite obviously dead wrong. The questions that are still on the table aren't answered by ignoring them, or coming up with "reasons". You can't decide a theory is correct and then add on crap as time goes by to define the theory.
It's a main reason why the current state of the science is both dismal and annoying.
It's not entirely based on CO2, it just gets the most focus. I agree though, we don't enough about our climate. However, I certainly agree that lowering emissions is prudent.
The CO2 theory claims it is simply CO2. It's the basis of the theory. It's that theory that is the basis of fears and concerns over changing the ratio (which mankind is certainly doing)
There is no such thing as a "CO2 theory". There are many climate models, all of which take CO2 as a variable within the models. All models currently being studied include other variables and greenhouse gases, such as methane, water vapor, SO2 and sulfates, various nitrogen compounds, soot, effect of surface composition (forests, snow, ocean, etc.), and carbon cycles, etc.
Yes, the earth has been a lot warmer in the past. But there was no human civilization present in those times. Clearly the earth deals with warming and cooling, but that is not the issue with AGW - the issue is whether our civilization can withstand the massive changes that most climatologists think will ensue.
I was an academic physicist for many years and generally I think the AGW research is pretty solid. But I realize it is such a complex problem we could be wrong. So the debate comes down to which outcome do we want to bet on - warming, or no warming? I think the safe bet is to assume the models are all correct. Heck, we are going to run out of fossil fuels some day anyway, so all we are really doing is taking the exact measures we will have to some day anyway.
There is no such thing as a "CO2 theory". There are many climate models, all of which take CO2 as a variable within the models. All models currently being studied include other variables and greenhouse gases, such as methane, water vapor, SO2 and sulfates, various nitrogen compounds, soot, effect of surface composition (forests, snow, ocean, etc.), and carbon cycles, etc.
Yes, the earth has been a lot warmer in the past. But there was no human civilization present in those times. Clearly the earth deals with warming and cooling, but that is not the issue with AGW - the issue is whether our civilization can withstand the massive changes that most climatologists think will ensue.
I was an academic physicist for many years and generally I think the AGW research is pretty solid. But I realize it is such a complex problem we could be wrong. So the debate comes down to which outcome do we want to bet on - warming, or no warming? I think the safe bet is to assume the models are all correct. Heck, we are going to run out of fossil fuels some day anyway, so all we are really doing is taking the exact measures we will have to some day anyway.
Well geologists know full well that the earth will get much much warmer than it is today no matter what mankind does. As the earth has repeatedly done so over and over again throughout its history when man was not even present.
Well geologists know full well that the earth will get much much warmer than it is today no matter what mankind does. As the earth has repeatedly done so over and over again throughout its history when man was not even present.
Yes, that is true. However, if the earth warmed as it has in the past it would not be a problem, or at least it would not be such an urgent problem. The problem we have is that the earth is warming at a rate that far exceeds the rates seen in the geologic record. You are right that it is highly questionable if we should fight natural warming. But the anthropogenic contribution to the natural rate is causing the rapid rise in warming, and it is that rapidity that is problematic for civilization to deal with, and I believe it is incumbent upon humanity to fix what we broke.
Well geologists know full well that the earth will get much much warmer than it is today no matter what mankind does. As the earth has repeatedly done so over and over again throughout its history when man was not even present.
Brilliant.... It was warm in the past and will get much warmer in the future therefore man has no influence on the climate. Absolutely brilliant....
Yes, that is true. However, if the earth warmed as it has in the past it would not be a problem, or at least it would not be such an urgent problem. The problem we have is that the earth is warming at a rate that far exceeds the rates seen in the geologic record. You are right that it is highly questionable if we should fight natural warming. But the anthropogenic contribution to the natural rate is causing the rapid rise in warming, and it is that rapidity that is problematic for civilization to deal with, and I believe it is incumbent upon humanity to fix what we broke.
You have prove of the bolded statement above?
You have an accurate - but most important, 100% complete - record for the entire 4.5 billion year history of the earth for which to make such comparison?
If not, then this statement cannot be validated.
Do we have knowledge of every single factor - and I mean every single one - that affects climate? IOW, do we know what we don't know? As paradoxical is this may seem, it's nevertheless on point. Most scientists with even an ounce of humility will admit that the whole picture is never known. These will constantly be newly discovered aspects of the topic as we study it. But it's hubris to claim that we know that man is the sole cause, that man plays the majority role, that man has caused an unprecedented rate of change, etc. when the picture is not as clear as others want to make it.
Does man have a role in this? Yes, I believe we do. Every organism that ever existed has affected its environment to some degree. Basic ecology.
Should man clean up his act? Should pollution be a priority? Should man work towards more renewable energy systems that are affordable to the masses? Absolutely.
Is man's role has large as stated by the press, the doomsdayers, the politicians, the radical environmentalists? This scientists says not likely.
Geological activity mimics coal emissions with the particulate matter, sox, nox, and CO2. I wouldn't be surprised that some of the "pause" was due to all the coal plants that were built and started operating in China and Asia that don't have the pollution control measures.
When you run that eruption from 70,000 years ago through our models you don't get a 1,000 year cold snap. It warms back up far sooner.
What we had then was cold for a thousand years. What our models predict would happen was warming back out of it. Our models don't predict what was seen to happen. The implication is our models are wrong.
My gut level take on man caused global warming is this. We started burning coal in England in a big way 1650-ish. That is when coal was turned into coke to make iron. The soot release painted the snow black causing it to melt. The current warming trend started in something like 1730-ish. CO2 not a player back then way inside of the background noise of the planet. The soot release on the other hand was much bigger.
(The cooling trend had been started by 3 volcanic eruptions 25 years apart.)
Painting the snow black started the warming trend the receding snowpack and ice extent is the main driver as a feed back loop and CO2 is an also ran.
Brilliant.... It was warm in the past and will get much warmer in the future therefore man has no influence on the climate. Absolutely brilliant....
Not brilliant, scientific fact. Earth repeatedly heats and cools throughout its entire history, it is cyclic, and geologist know this without any doubt whatsoever. What is common sense, is that this process has been taking place for billions of years.
No matter what man does, whether he ever existed or not, the earth is just leaving an ice age, one of the coldest in earth's history, and is naturally returning to its normal average temperature. And just as it has been doing for billions of year, without the presence of man, it will then proceed to get much much warmer as it approaches its normal high temperature, before the cycle repeats itself.
What is not brilliant, are those who cannot look at the entirety of earth's history and understand that there are natural forces at work which make the cooling heating cycle repeat itself for billions of years. And that there is NOTHING that we can do to stop this process, even if we did not exits, it would proceed as it always has before.
Man does have an influence, about as much as a series of large volcanic eruptions that take place throughout history. When we return to crawling around in the grass and end industrial society, we might be able to eliminate volcanoes too. But I suspect there are even more natural forces at work that will continue the heating cooling cycle that has and will continue for billions of years.
Now if you are simply worried about man not being able to inhabit the coming, unstoppable warming of the earth that always occurs, that is valid. But one must realize that we are helpless to stop the natural and inevitable. Then it would make more sense to find ways to bail this rock and inhabit other worlds in space that are more suitable to life when the earth is no longer so hospitable as it has been in this little blink of an eye of human existence...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
