Global Warming Question

[Oberon]

So are you accusing the IPCC and the NAS of lying?

Can you read? What does the IPCC and the NAS have to do with the fact that other models show higher warming than today thousands of years ago? They aren't the only ones doing paleoclimatology. Moreover, all you have produced is the NAS and the IPCC's views on the MWP, not the mid-Holocene:

"These reconstructions show the warming from the last glacial maximum, the occurrence of a mid-Holocene warm episode, a Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a Little Ice Age (LIA), and the rapid warming of the 20th century. The reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1–2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level."


[FONT=AdvTT2cba4af3.B][FONT=AdvTT2cba4af3.B]S. P. Huang,1 H. N. Pollack,1 and P.-Y. Shen. "A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record." GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35 (2008).
[/FONT][/FONT]
Furthermore, the IPCC has in the past misrepresented its own scientists.

Most important, however, is that all of paleoclimatology is a great deal of guess work. Some models show a warmer MWP. Others show a slighter cooler one. However, the the fact that the NAS, Mann, and others all at least show a comparable warming in the MWP, when combined with land-use and UHI in the 20th century, more than explains the warming trend without carbon emissions.

Considering that their opinion on the available research isn’t what you are claiming then you must be accusing them of lying or at least fudging the data. Come out and say it.

Do you know anything about science? Paleoclimatology isn't exact. It takes a lot of statistics, estimates, guess work, etc. The proxies are few and far between, the record far from complete, and many factors can influence things like tree rings. So, various researchers can come up with different results without having to accuse anyone of lying.

The NAS isn't lying, but that doesn't make them right or wrong. It just means that their study showed one thing, and others show different things. How is this a difficult concept?

This would be somewhat more believable Oberon if you didn’t later state “If the MWP was comparable to the modern trend (either slightly less, about the same, or hotter), than it says something about how much of the current warming trend is anthropogenic.”

Exactly. It says that the current warming trend is not as anomolous as it seemed with Mann's first graph. Which means we may very well not be altering the climate as much as the IPCC upper echelons and Al Gore want people to think. It doesn't mean we aren't contributing to the warming though.

You brought it up to claim that the MWP was warmer than current climate, something which the IPCC and the NAS believe is not reflected by the research.

And other groups of qualified scientists disagree, in peer-reviewed studies I presented.

it appears, is the rate of current increase

1. Again, not all models agree here.
2. At no time in history have we had more land use and urbanization.

you are flat out lying here when you claim that you didn’t cite it as an argument against current consensus on AGW.

Wrong. I am using it as an argument concerning the AMOUNT or level of effect humans have on the climate.

That only took, how many pages of to get you to admit????

You didn't ask.

Here is you again making the comparison with the MWP and current climate.

Because all studies, including the NAS, show a comparable warming trend. Some show a higher temperature during that period.

Never mind all the other data (CO2, methane since it has been previously mentioned)

Which brings us back to the problems with data. We don't have exact measurements for greenhouse gases hundreds of years ago. It is, of course, reasonable to surmise that the observed increased in the 20th century is due to the massive emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. However, we aren't exactly sure what effects these green house gasses have, because we don't understand the natural variability in climate systems enough, given that it is just about the most complex nonlinear dynamic system we know of.

that indicates they not as comparable as you would like people (such as the NAS and IPCC) to believe.

Take a look back at your NAS graph. It shows a warming period that wasn't quite as high as the modern trend. But it was still high. Now we are in the 20th century, with much more land-use and urbanization. So even if the MWP didn't reach 20th century temperatures, other factors can more than account for the difference rather than greenhouse emissions.

Do you have the same reservations regarding the NAS? Or the AAAS? Or any one of the other scientific bodies that have issued statements in line with the IPCC?

No. But at least the NAS is more willing to admit uncertainty.

Hence the need for consensus and the taking of what the majority research supports.

The majority of research supports a comparable warming trend, contra Mann's first hockey-stick graph. Even if it wasn't as warm, what this shows is that long before emissions, with much less land use and before massive cities being built everywhere, the earth went through a warm period. And that is without the mid-Holocene warming either.

I’m getting the obvious deception you are trying to sneak through here. To measure whether temperature is increasing you have to take into account the air temperature, the land temperature and the water temperature.

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? Satellites are the best way to measure global temperature. Moreover, they don't actually read the temperature. They use passive microwave radiometers. As the NAS said in 2001 (Climate Change Science): "The finding that the surface and tropospheric temperature trends have been as different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of the temperature in the atmosphere."

By dishonestly cherry picking and avoiding the land and water temperatures

You still don't get it. Satellites give us global readings, without needing to measure the actual temperature.

 

[Oberon]

I’m surprised but it appears that I have to actually explain some fundamentals to you. You see this debate is about GLOBAL trends.

Antarctica is a pretty big place on the globe, right? Yet no observed warming trend. Hmmm...I thought global warming was supposed to be GLOBAL. Which means that although different places warm differently, and temperatures fluctuate, most, if not all, of the globe should show an increase in temperature. Yet here is an enormous land mass, and all of the longest temperature records for the various stations record no raise in temperature.

Which doesn't mean the earth isn't warming. But it is interesting that in a place where humans aren't building cities or farming or whatever, you don't see a warming trend.

You have cited UHI as being a potential significant factor to increasing global temperatures.

I did.

Kalney, E., and M. Cai. "Impact of urbanization and land use change on climate." Nature 377 (2003): 217-20.

and

During the long geological history of the earth, there was no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. Earth has been warming and cooling at highly irregular intervals and the amplitudes of temperature change were also irregular. The warming of about 0.3 _C in recent years has prompted suggestions about anthropogenic influence on the earth’s climate due to increasing human activity worldwide. However, a close examination of the earth’s temperature change suggests that the recent warming may be primarily due to urbanization and land-use change impact and not due to increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Besides land-use change, solar variability and the sun’s brightness appear to provide a more significant forcing on earth’s climate than previously believed. Recent studies suggest solar influence as a primary driver of the earth’s climate in geological times. Even on a shorter time scale, solar irradiance and its variability may have contributed to more than sixty percent of the total warming of the 20th century. The impact of solar activity like cosmic ray flux on the earth’s cloud cover has not been fully explored and may provide an additional forcing to the earth’s mean temperature change.” p. 1581

Khandekar, M. L., T. S. Murty, and P. Chittibabu. “The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science.” Pure and Applied Geophysics 162 (2005) 1557-1586

If UHI were a significant contributor then there should be a statistical significance between temperature increases and urbanised areas.

1. UHI is not the only thing that raises temperatures other than emissions (land use, desertification, natural variability in climate).
2. There is a statistical significance. For example, Houghten et al (Climate change 2001: The Scientific Basis) found that nearly 10% of warming of the 20th century can be attributed to the UHI. Which would bring us that much closer to temperatures during the MWP
3. We aren't sure how much the UHI affects the land temperature readings. So we guess. It is an estimated guess, but it is still a guess. So when certain studies find that the UHI doesn't account for most of the rise in temperature in a given city, it could be that their estimates of how much the UHI affects temperatures is off. For example, see

Mckendry, Ian G. "Applied Climatology." Progress in Physical Geography 27.4 (2003): 597-606.

"Recent studies suggest that attempts to remove the 'urban bias' from long-term climate records 9and hence identify the magnitude of the greenhouse effect) may be overly simplistic." p. 603.

And completely ignored my response explaining why they were not suitable comparisons. But you seem to do that a lot.

Show me where you responded to the studies I quoted in this post.

All you have done is provide different studies with different results. It doesn't make them right. It means we a have disagreement among scientists.

Guess all those scientific bodies are misrepresenting the state of current research then. Why not come flat out and say it since this is what you are clearly implying?

A number have. Many (including lead IPCC authors like Lindzen, John Christy, Vincent Gray, and Christopher Landsea) have also gone on the record saying that producing research or data which contradicts the politics of global warming equals funding pulled, data being manipulated, etc.

Just this one so far:
[FONT=&quot]Sorokhtin, O. G., et al. “Evolution of the Earth’s Global Climate.” Energy sources, Part A 29 (2007):1-19.[/FONT]
The website hosting it (Informaworld) isn’t one I’ve access to and doesn’t seem to share its articles with other sites that I do have access to.

Here you go: Link to Article

 

[Alceste]

For the benefit of anyone still reading this thread, Oberon is factually incorrect about "all surveys being anonymous." Other, more recent surveys have used superior methods, such as sending the survey by snail mail only to legitimate climate scientists listed in "Men and women of science". These surveys show that only 5 % of scientists in relevant fields do not believe human activity has an impact on greenhouse warming.

Oberon's SIX YEAR OLD effort posted a survey online and sent an open invitation to a number of email groups as a bulk email. One of these groups was a list of 200 climate change skeptics (almost certainly lobbyists and PR men, not scientists). When he says it was "password protected", what he means is there was one password and user name for everybody to share, and this was in the body of the bulk email, which could easily have been forwarded by the admen on the skeptics list to their network of professional liars.

 

[Oberon]

For the benefit of anyone still reading this thread, Oberon is factually incorrect about "all surveys being anonymous."

As for the survey, almost all surveys are anonymous.

Way to misquote. Another move of intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Other, more recent surveys have used superior methods, such as sending the survey by snail mail only to legitimate climate scientists listed in "Men and women of science".

1. That was the way they conducted their first survey.
2. Using the internet (as they show by citing several studies) is a very common method to conduct surveys.

These surveys show that only 5 % of scientists in relevant fields do not believe human activity has an impact on greenhouse warming.

From your survey:

Scientists still debate the dangers
A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)​

A need to know more
Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.
Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.​

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[themadhair]

I give up. This is taking up too much of my time and, to be frank, if it hasn’t sunk in by now it never will.

Roll on IPCC this December.

 

[Alceste]

Tell me, cherry-picker: What does the recent survey have to say on the subject of your specific factual claim, that "a substantial minority (perhaps even half) do not believe we are the driving force"? Oh I know, it says that you are wrong! Very wrong! Extremely wrong! Off by 34 %! Shamelessly wrong! But, instead of saying "Oh, guess I was wrong", what did you do?

 

[yossarian22]

I am also extremely interested in your response to ocean acidification, a process we understand very well. We also know that even small fluctuatons in pH have dramatic effects of the viability of certain ecosystem.

 

[Oberon]

Tell me, cherry-picker:

I'M the cherry-picker? You picked ONE line that you thought supported you, and neglected the rest of your suvery.

What does the recent survey have to say on the subject of your specific factual claim, that "a substantial minority (perhaps even half) do not believe we are the driving force"? Oh I know, it says that you are wrong! Very wrong! Extremely wrong! Off by 34 %! Shamelessly wrong! But, instead of saying "Oh, guess I was wrong", what did you do?

WRONG! It says nothing of the sort. What it does say is: "Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence."

Which says NOTHING to contradict the other survey I posted, where only a slight majority believed humans are MOSTLY responsible for current warming.

Rather, all it says is that 74% believe that the scientific evidence points to some unspecified degree of anthropogenic warming. It says nothing about how much of the current warming is anthropogenic, only that a significant majority believe we are contributing.

In fact, this survey comes to almost exactly the same conclusion that the survey I cited does, as "A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.” In other words, although a substantial majority of those surveyed believe we are contributing to the warming cycle, FAR less believe that this warming cycle is particularly unnatural (i.e. anthropogenic) because it is within the range of natural temperature fluctation.

At least as important is the fact a VAST majority of scientists see climate science as an immature science, with a full 40% who believe it is only emerging. In other words, despite the vote of confidence of 74% who believe that the evidence backs at least some anthropogenic warming, most experts believe we have a ways to go before we understand the evidence, which somewhat contradicts this "majority" of AGW supporters.

 

[Alceste]

Whatever, oberon. Enjoy your delusions.

 

[Oberon]

Whatever, oberon. Enjoy your delusions.

Luckily, thanks in part to your survey, everyone can see that they aren't "my delusions." Your updated survey merely reinforces not only the survey I cited previously, but my own view. And now, everyone can see that.

 

[Vile Atheist]

So global warming has been solved now?

 

[yossarian22]

I am also extremely interested in your response to ocean acidification, a process we understand very well. We also know that even small fluctuatons in pH have dramatic effects of the viability of certain ecosystem.

eh hem

 

[Oberon]

So global warming has been solved now?

No. We don't know enough about the climate and how it works to know, at least not with the certainty the upper echelon of the IPCC has, to know what the effects of our actions on the climate are. Far less certain is what steps should be taken.

 

[Oberon]

eh hem

Then start a different thread.

 

[Vile Atheist]

No. We don't know enough about the climate and how it works to know, at least not with the certainty the upper echelon of the IPCC has, to know what the effects of our actions on the climate are. Far less certain is what steps should be taken.

Regardless if our impact on global climate is significant or not, wouldn't you agree that weening ourselves off non-renewable fuel resources is an intelligent course of action? If not for environmental reasons, but for political and industrial reasons?

Wouldn't you agree that any attempt to reduce pollution from factories results in healthier local flora and fauna? And so long as the cost of doing so is reasonable, don't you think that is money worth investing?

Don't you think it makes economic sense to build vehicles that are extremely fuel efficient? We use less fuel and therefore it costs less to transport goods. Everything from the cost of food to mailing letters goes down.

I think that even if you do not support these actions on an environmental basis, they make sense politically and economically.

 

[Alceste]

Luckily, thanks in part to your survey, everyone can see that they aren't "my delusions." Your updated survey merely reinforces not only the survey I cited previously, but my own view. And now, everyone can see that.

:biglaugh:

You must have a very low opinion of the reading comprehension skills of the members of this forum.

 

[Tiapan]

I put this in another thread but I think it is relevant here:

I see these threads and wonder why? Is it natural or man made? Does it make a difference? The point I would have thought is do we as humans want to do something about it? It would appear there's a lot of talk and committees and next to no action.

There would seem to be several influential factors acting simultaneously, that were not present in previous "Natural" cycles. Billions of tonnes of Fossil fuels once locked safely away deep in the earth, have now been burnt and exist now as CO2 in the atmosphere. Methane and other less known glasshouse gasses have also been promoted by human activity, forest vegetation a major CO2 absorber are being clearfeld across the world. The ice caps are shrinking, the planets albedo is decreasing. The science shows a consistent temperature rise over the past 200 years.

The sea levels will rise and relatively quickly.

What this combination of events leads to is not necessarily a additive effect but more likely and exponential change. It is already influencing the El nino pacific heat engine. The gulf stream may be affected by the less dense fresh water released from the arctic melt.

When I cave dive on the Nullabor I see solution tube caves at different depths. These are formed when the sealevel stabilizes and the most corrosive zone, the fresh/salt water halocline boundary layer, eats the surrounding limestone. Using Tommy Grahams Cave as an example, we see horizontal solution tubes at several different depths. these vary from 5-10 meters apart vertically. This would indicate to me that when these changes occur, they are rapid ie no solution tube formed, secondly they are not just a gentle 1 or 2 meters rise or fall but substantially more, Once new level is established it stays there for thousand of years (solution tubes form).

If this accelerated sea level and temperature rise is as I have observed in Tommy Grahams, then there will be significant disruption to human agriculture and low lying seaboard cities. (Son of Noah returns lol)

I see the argument of whether it is man made or natural as a complete furfie. Who cares, what are we going to do to minimize the impact. Change light bulbs and use more efficient cars? Who are we trying to kid? Against the worlds increasing population and economic explosion of India and China. 10 years ago they used bicycles now they have cars. Clean coal a scientific oxymoron? Solar and wind power are great so long as less coal is burnt making them than they produce in their life time.? nuclear - good for base load but expensive to do properly?

Yet little consideration has been given to actually pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere and reducing it back to blocks of carbon, as a method of reducing the largest greenhouse gas CO2.

The Eyre basin of South Australia is about 1,000,000 square kilometers. It is close at its southern end to the sea. When it rains in central Australia all the inland rivers run into it forming Lake Eyre which actually fills 2 or 3 times each century. The rest of the time it is a huge dry salt pan of minimal economic value.

Now what if e made this pretty useless bit of desert into a shallow lake growing various suitable algae as thousands of farms. Salt water piped into the basin from the sea. earhworks dyking existing facilities and mining operations and dykes to seperate fresh and saltwater storage zones. Harvest the algae, dry using solar (Plenty of Solar out there). Then using a solar furnace in an anerobic atmosphere (eg N2) charcoalise the algae to carbon, pressed into blocks and stored. Now thats what I call a carbon credit.

Practically we would end up with a set of man made lungs for good old terra firma. With several of them around the world we may be able to control the planets climate like the airconditioning switch on the wall. But I think a project such as this is beyond the mind set of the decision makers and of cause would never happen. The rich will simply move to where the climate is better and aviod the problem while the rest swelter or drown in misery.

Re Lake Eyre Proposal
Here are some facts and figures. under natural conditions. If one could pipe CO2 from industry the overall yield would increase 100 fold.

Apart from carbon capture, several special algae produce a high quality "biodeisel" that could substitute for petro-deisel. The building of this inland sea would lend it self to a number of aqua culture businesses an support industries

Yield of Various Plant Oils
Crop Oil in Liters per sq km

Soy 44600
Safflower 77900
Sunflower 95200
Castor 141300
Coconut 268900
Palm 595000
Algae 10000000

Algaes
1. The diatoms (Bacillariophyceae) with approximately 100,000 species, are the dominate phytoplankton of the oceans, they are also found in fresh and brackish water.
Diatoms contain silica (Si) and store carbon in the form of natural oils or as a polymer of carbohydrates known as chyrsolaminarin.
2.The green algae (Chlorophyceae) Abundant, especially in freshwater, occur as single cells or as colonies predominantly photosynthesis and store starch, but sometimes also oils.
3.The blue-green algae (Cyanophyceae), approximately 2,000 known species, similar to bacteria in structure and organization, play an important role in fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere.
4.The golden algae (Chrysophyceae) Approximately 1,000 species are known to exist, similar to the diatoms but having more complex pigment systems, and can appear in a variety of colors. Found in freshwater systems the algae produces natural oils and carbohydrates

Table 2
Carbon Yield vs Water Carbon Dioxide level
In seawater under normal conditions algae can assimilate up to 1 g/sq m/day
Upwellings carry nutrients from deeper zones
Sea Average %CO2 Sea High %CO2 Near Coasts with upwelling
36.5 91.25 365 Tonnes of Carbon per sq.km per year

Maximum possible from the Eyre Basin (1,200000 square kilometers) under normal conditions
43,800,000 109,500,000 438,000,000 Tonnes Carbon per year
(seawater at 20 degrees C STP has about 2mmole of CO2 per litre)


Table 3 Chemical Composition of Algae Expressed on A Dry Matter Basis (%)
ref: Chapter 6 - Oil production

Strain Protein Carbohydrates Lipids Nucleic acid
Scenedesmus obliquus 50-56 10-17 12-14 3-6
Scenedesmus quadricauda 47 - 1.9 -
Scenedesmus dimorphus 8 - 18 21-52 16-40 -
Chlamydomonas rheinhardii 48 17 21 -
Chlorella vulgaris 51-58 12 - 17 14-22 4-5
Chlorella pyrenoidosa 57 26 2 -
Spirogyra sp. 6-20 33-64 11-21 -
Dunaliella bioculata 49 4 8 -
Dunaliella salina 57 32 6 -
Euglena gracilis 39-61 14-18 14-20 -
Prymnesium parvum 28-45 25-33 22-38 1-2
Tetraselmis maculata 52 15 3 -
Porphyridium cruentum 28-39 40-57 9-14 -
Spirulina platensis 46-63 8-14 4--9 2-5
Spirulina maxima 60-71 13-16 6-7 3-4.5
Synechoccus sp. 63 15 11 5
Anabaena cylindrica 43-56 25-30 6-7 -
Source: Becker, (1994).
Anabaenopsis (Anabaena cylindrical) is native to Lake Eyre.

Table 4 Effect of Nitrogen Concentration (as KNO3) on Microalgal Lipid Content
ref: Chapter 6 - Oil production

KNO3 cone. (mM) Cell growth (g/L) Internal lipid content (g/L)
0.9 0.39 42.4
9.9 2.5 32.9
9.9 + feeding 2.6 33.6

If our target was to remove 1,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 from atmosphere annually
Used Area of Lake Eyre (Sq Km)

Table 5 Necessary break evenpoint
How much CO2 must be absorbed per sq.km. for a given set area
Area (Sq Km) breakeven point
1200000 833 tonnes CO2 per sq km per annum
600000 1667 tonnes CO2 per sq km per annum
300000 3333 tonnes CO2 per sq km per annum
100000 10000 tonnes CO2 per sq km per annum

PS Methane can be produced as a fuel by passing H2 over the carbon during the anerobic charcoalisation pyrolysis process


Cheers

 

[Oberon]

:biglaugh:

You must have a very low opinion of the reading comprehension skills of the members of this forum.

Not really. It is fairly straight forward. Nearly half of those surveyed do not think the current warming is outside the natural temperature fluctuations. 95% do not think climate science is a mature science, and a full 40% think it is merely an "emerging" science.

 

[Oberon]

Billions of tonnes of Fossil fuels once locked safely away deep in the earth, have now been burnt and exist now as CO2 in the atmosphere.

Only there is far from a 1 to 1 correspondence of CO2 emitted vs. CO2 in the atmosphere.

forest vegetation a major CO2 absorber are being clearfeld across the world.

On the other hand, crops, also a major CO2 absorber, are being planted across the world.

The ice caps are shrinking

Antarctica has been melting for thousands of years. Moreover, it appears that it is actually thickening in some places now. See, e.g. -
Liu, J., J. A. Curry, and D. G. Martinson. "Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea ice variability." Geophysical Research Letterss 31 (2004).

and

Vyas, N. K., et al. "On the secular trends in sea ice extent over the antarctic region based on OCEANSAT-1 MSMR observations." International Journal of Remote Sensing 24 (2003).

The science shows a consistent temperature rise over the past 200 years.

Again, not true. The trend is far from consistent. In fact, it went down for about a 30 year period from the 1940s to the 1970s. Moreover, as I have previously shown, virtually all reconstructions of the medieval warm period show temperatures either close to or even surpassing modern temperatures.

The sea levels will rise and relatively quickly.

No, they won't.