Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

[sean]

Via Canada Free Press

 

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

 

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

 

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong? Read more

[Smile]

I've read from a few sources that most of the damage to weather is done by nuclear testing.

[voice]

It is my understanding that the author of that piece, Tim Ball, was disenfrachised by the climatology community when he STILL believed in global warming. He didn't become a member of the inside circle, and so he got angry and became a critic.

 

His criticisms, though, are ridiculous. Physics experiments have easily shown that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, a gas that absorbs long wave energy emitted by the Earth and then re-emits it to Earth's surface. Water is the most important greenhouse gas, and you have all experienced its warming effect with cloudy nights being less cool than cloudless nights.

 

A simple low-tech science experiment like the following shows that carbon dioxide does lead to warming

science experiment

 

His contention that the warming and cooling are all natural cycles is shown to be false in this short video.

 

Chris

 

(disclaimer: I do research and teach about climate change, though my research is funded by no one)

[Yoda]

Cool thread! I think that human induced global warming is real and there's pretty much a consensus on this w/in the scientific community, and getting anything of a consensus is hard to do. It took forever for them to agree that exercise is good or smoking is bad, etc.

 

Here's something they don't tell you though: the earth is currently in the middle of an ice age. There used to be forests and dinosaurs all over Antarctica, for instance. Sure, it'll be a pain if both ice caps actually melt, but we all can manage somehow. Huge temperature variations is business as usual for Mother Earth and she seems to prefer her planet to be a toastier place than it is today.

[Pietro]

Cool thread! I think that human induced global warming is real and there's pretty much a consensus on this w/in the scientific community, and getting anything of a consensus is hard to do. It took forever for them to agree that exercise is good or smoking is bad, etc.

 

Here's something they don't tell you though: the earth is currently in the middle of an ice age. There used to be forests and dinosaurs all over Antarctica, for instance. Sure, it'll be a pain if both ice caps actually melt, but we all can manage somehow. Huge temperature variations is business as usual for Mother Earth and she seems to prefer her planet to be a toastier place than it is today.

 

define huge.

 

I saw the movie from al gore, an inconvenient truth. And the data about the amount of co2 in the atmosphere, and the temperature were evidence, observations, not suppositions. And you could see how those data wente back in time through measurement in the ice carrots taken from the ice caps. Co2 and temerature fitted each other quite well. Now I am not sure how goes the casuality, here. If it is temperature that releases CO2 or CO2 that raises temperature. But they fitted. And we know that greenhouse effect is real. SO CO2 in some ways raises temperature. Well, CO2 right now is way beyond what it has ever reached. If the variation was around 10% of the absolute value, now it is like double the original value. Something like a variation of a 100%. That's not business as usual state.

 

The movie is worth just for that one graph, and is available on p2p. Not that I am suggesting you to downlaod it. I just noticed it

[thelerner]

I'd have more respect for the article if it was in a scientific journal or even a politically neutral (if that exists) paper. The article was in a very Right leaning Canadian newspaper. That doesn't make it wrong, but it an example of what the article claims to be against, politicizing science.

 

 

Michael

[TwoTrees]

I'd have more respect for the article if it was in a scientific journal or even a politically neutral (if that exists) paper. The article was in a very Right leaning Canadian newspaper. That doesn't make it wrong, but it an example of what the article claims to be against, politicizing science.

Michael

I could say the same in regards to respecting the article in the sense of structure:

I feel that the first sentence should induce either a strong suggestive intrigue, or a very powerful statement that draws the reader to continue on. This one didn't do it for me. That paired with weak support to the subtopics that followed didn't draw my current mindset away even just a little. I do look at articles from a less subjective stance and give them a chance to 'make sense', or be more in alignment with the results of my own form of critical thinking, for lack of a better description.

Potentially constructive thread though. The thinking and communication it inspires is definetly full of substance.

[sean]

Via A Few Things Ill Considered

 

How to Talk to a Global Warming Sceptic

 

I have spent about 18 months now rather obsessed with the controversy over Global Warming. Firstly, as a matter of disclosure, IANACS (I Am Not A Climate Scientist) but rather an intelligent layman who is concerned about an issue with ramifications for all of us. That said, I have read and discussed and enquired about a great deal of the scientific material that is out there and quite easily accessible. The scientific case is actually not that difficult to follow even if you lack the specific and highly technical knowledge required to create it.

 

One thing I have noticed over these months is that there are a very limited number of objections or attacks on what is really very sound and well resolved science but they come up over and over again on sci.environment, alt.global-warming and the blogs I visit either regularily or occasionally. I think this is an important debate and I want to help fight the good fight.

 

Now there are already a few very good FAQ's out there about the science, so I don't feel the need to create yet another. Rather what I would like to do is provide a layman's guide to defending against the assorted specious attacks that are out there, both by pointing out the basic logical fallacies they are based on and providing some appropriate reference material to avoid the typical "is too, is not" exchanges these things frequently devolve into. Nothing like a nice link to an authoritative resource to refute the factually incorrect pontifications. Nothing like a calmly presented and solidly logical rebuttal to put the scaliwags in their place!

 

I invite suggestions for other Guide topics and any and all scientific corrections or clarifications. Any advice I do take up, I reserve the right to delete from the comments just to keep a coherent page.

 

So without further ado here are links to the best responses I can think of for the following climate sceptic arguments, please feel free to refer to, paraphrase or quote as desired: Read More

[Lozen]

Here's some videos someone just sent me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFXM0claHq4

 

 

I can see both sides.

[sean]

[Pietro]

Here's some videos someone just sent me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFXM0claHq4

I can see both sides.

I can't.

 

 

 

There is the myth that when there are two sides the truth is always in the middle. This is false. There are times where the truth is not in the middle, but one side is right, and one side is wrong. This is particularly clear in science, as things can be demonstarted, while in social topics is much harder to demonstrate things. It's still true, it's just harder to demonstarte.

 

2+2=4 everything else follows.

Even if some people say that it is eqaul to 5 it STILL is equal to 4. It doesn't become 4.5. 4. epsilon. Is still 4.00000...

 

I could go through that Video and pick up one after the other the thing they say and explain why they are wrong. From the: and satellite who STILL give a raise in temperature.(WTF, you pick an example... and you pick the wrong one?) To the assumption that if the sun becomes warmer the earth becomes warmer (wtf, ever heard of the work by Lovelock). In a planet inhabited, the living organism can be able to stabilise the temperature against external variation (within limits, of course). But if we fuck up the forest, we are fucking up the very same process that would be balancing the system. And so on.

 

But my palm of most dishonest article goes to this article here. I am seriously thinking of writing a blog entry or something exposing the scientific fallacies in the reasoning. I just need to fing the way to make the most noise... (suggestions welcome... if I wasn't so full with the PhD right now).

 

From this article:

Most meteorologists know they can't give us an accurate forecast beyond next week. Yet Al Gore and his cadre of "scientists" can tell us what's going to happen fifty years from now? Please.

 

yes, FUCKING YES!!! Lorenz didn't tought you nothing. You can't predict the bubbles in a boiling pot, but you can predict the state that it will reach once it has cooled down. You can't predict the weather tomorrow, but you can predict the average weather. You cannot predict the place in the strange attractor, but YOU CAN speak about what attractor you are in. It's called being globally stable and locally unpredictable. And if the fluctuatione becomes too big, guess what can happen. It goes to another attractor. Still globally stable. But globally stable somwhere else. It's 30 years that we have chaos theory. It's a whole fucking generation. This is what you get when you get a political journalist speaking about science.

[Yoda]

define huge.

 

Well, I couldn't find a graph for beginning of earth to present, but here's 500 million years:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

 

They say that the last 500 million years is considered the modern era, but 500 million years is still pretty recent news.

[voice]

Pietro said "And the data about the amount of co2 in the atmosphere, and the temperature were evidence, observations, not suppositions. And you could see how those data wente back in time through measurement in the ice carrots taken from the ice caps. Co2 and temerature fitted each other quite well. Now I am not sure how goes the casuality, here. If it is temperature that releases CO2 or CO2 that raises temperature. But they fitted."

 

You are talking about the covariations in CO2 and temperature from over the last 2 million years. In this case, the oceans are acting as a positive feedback mechanism. Cold oceans hold much CO2, while warm oceans release CO2. Everyone is familiar with this principle -- it is why we keep beer and soda cold, to keep it nice and fizzy.

 

So, when astronomical factors (three factors: change in the tilt (which is what causes the astrological cycle to change), change in ellipticity of orbit around Sun, and change in date Earth is closest to Sun (right now in January, thus moderating our northern hemisphere winter)) cause a bit of cooling, the colder ocean absorbs more CO2 and causes it to get colder still. Conversely, when atronomical factors cause some warming, the ocean releases CO2 and causes more warming. The concern now is that our oceans will warm up so much that the frozen methane crystals deep in the ocean will melt and methane will bubble up and cause even more warming.

 

Chris

[Lozen]

I can't.

There is the myth that when there are two sides the truth is always in the middle. This is false. There are times where the truth is not in the middle, but one side is right, and one side is wrong. This is particularly clear in science, as things can be demonstarted, while in social topics is much harder to demonstrate things. It's still true, it's just harder to demonstarte.

 

I didn't say there wasn't one true side, I just said I don't know which one it is.

[sean]

Via Tao of Defiance

 

Your sign is oppressing my aura.

 

A holiday sign sighting in Byron Bay:

 

Well, you were only going to smoke it anyway.

 

Unable to stand the shame any longer I promptly joined the queue nearby to have my car recycled into wind chimes. I now drive a fridge. Read more

[Pietro]

You are talking about the covariations in CO2 and temperature from over the last 2 million years. In this case, the oceans are acting as a positive feedback mechanism. Cold oceans hold much CO2, while warm oceans release CO2. Everyone is familiar with this principle -- it is why we keep beer and soda cold, to keep it nice and fizzy.

 

So, when astronomical factors (three factors: change in the tilt (which is what causes the astrological cycle to change), change in ellipticity of orbit around Sun, and change in date Earth is closest to Sun (right now in January, thus moderating our northern hemisphere winter)) cause a bit of cooling, the colder ocean absorbs more CO2 and causes it to get colder still. Conversely, when astronomical factors cause some warming, the ocean releases CO2 and causes more warming. The concern now is that our oceans will warm up so much that the frozen methane crystals deep in the ocean will melt and methane will bubble up and cause even more warming.

 

Chris

 

Thanks for the needed clarification.

Pietro

[Yoda]

As an aside, many scientists believe that earth was frozen solid pole to pole or nearly so about 800 million years ago. In any case, it was pretty durn cold around then.

[voice]

As an aside, many scientists believe that earth was frozen solid pole to pole or nearly so about 800 million years ago. In any case, it was pretty durn cold around then.

 

"Snowball Earth" was, in the simplest explanation, due to carbon dioxide. At that time there were many small continents aligned along the Equator. Along the edges of these continents were healthy coral reefs. Coral reefs grow by builing a skeleton of calcium carbonate. So, these reefs sucked the carbon out of the atmosphere and took it out of circulation. Rapid weathering of granite rocks in those tropical climates also resulted in carbon being pulled out of the atmosphere. This cooling resulted in large ice sheets forming at the poles, which caused more cooling until the oceans became completely covered in ice (evidence for that are ocean rocks deposited then that contain no oxygen).

 

We got out of that one because, with the complete ice cover, coral reefs were not growing and granite was not being weathered, so carbon was no longer being pulled out of the atmosphere. But, carbon was being added to the atmosphere by volcanoes.

[Pietro]

"Snowball Earth" was, in the simplest explanation, due to carbon dioxide. At that time there were many small continents aligned along the Equator. Along the edges of these continents were healthy coral reefs. Coral reefs grow by builing a skeleton of calcium carbonate. So, these reefs sucked the carbon out of the atmosphere and took it out of circulation. Rapid weathering of granite rocks in those tropical climates also resulted in carbon being pulled out of the atmosphere. This cooling resulted in large ice sheets forming at the poles, which caused more cooling until the oceans became completely covered in ice (evidence for that are ocean rocks deposited then that contain no oxygen).

 

We got out of that one because, with the complete ice cover, coral reefs were not growing and granite was not being weathered, so carbon was no longer being pulled out of the atmosphere. But, carbon was being added to the atmosphere by volcanoes.

so that is how. Because I know that snowball earth is an attractor in so many models. Just out of the fact that ice reflects sunlight so brings in a positive feedback that makes the system even cooler.

 

But historically did the system had to go all the way to full ice covered, or has did it binge back before?

[voice]

I think that the cooling effects only "snowballed" once. That is the problem with history -- it only shows a limited number of options, especially with slow moving systems like plate tectonics.

[Yoda]

Voice,

 

Thanks for the clarification. How certain are they of the snowball thing? The vibe I got was 80%ish.

 

-Yoda

[voice]

Voice,

 

Thanks for the clarification. How certain are they of the snowball thing? The vibe I got was 80%ish.

 

-Yoda

 

 

The land may not have been snow-covered in all places, and there were most likely some areas where the ocean ice-cover was open, but the ocean must have been essentially completely ice-covered for a long time.

 

Evidence for glaciers during that time period are found from all of our 7 continents (even though all of them, but Africa, were aligned over the Equator),

 

During that time period, the form of iron deposited in the ocean was as banded iron formations. These formations contain iron in the Fe2+ state (ferrous iron). That form of iron is soluble in the ocean. The other form of iron (Fe3+, ferric iron) is not soluble in the ocean. The Fe3+ iron is more oxidized that Fe2+. So, these banded iron deposits formed in the ocean indicate an ocean with little oxygen, and that can only happen if the ocean is sealed off from the atmosphere.

 

Banded iron formations have only occurred twice in the Earth's history: during this Snowball Earth time, and prior to 1.9 billion years ago, when the atmosphere still contained little oxygen (because photosynthetic organisms hadn't added much to the atmosphere yet).

 

The history of the earth is pretty amazing -- resonating with the past, deep in the bones.

 

Chris

[Yi Tao]

What a crazy ride the whole climate debate has become.

 

No matter what the scientists say, there are always 4 main points to be made

1) We're sure this time

2) It's man's fault

3) We're all going to die if we don't do something

4) The solution needs to come from government

 

I believe in global climate change. I think the sun has a lot more to do with it than man. I'm not sure if CO2 levels lead or follow. I do know that the oceans are CO2 sinks. When it's cold, the oceans absorb CO2, and when it's warm, the oceans release CO2. I also know that CO2 is plant food.

 

I'm open to all sides, but I can agree with the problem without agreeing to the solution. If man is causing global warming, that doesn't mean man needs to stop global warming. Maybe we just need more air conditioners and better fresh water production.

 

Seriously. Kyoto and many other proposed solutions would harm the economy which would harm our ability to adapt. When the climated changed in the past, we put on clothes. To live is to adapt.

 

What's even crazier is that if the sun really is causing global warming, we're in for an cosmic joke because the sun is about to cycle again and we're heading for global cooling. That's right folks, here comes global cooling again. And I can gaurantee the 4 main points will be the same: 1) we're sure this time, 2) it's man's fault, 3) we're all going to die, and 4) government can fix it.

 

What fun it is!

[voice]

I believe in global climate change. I think the sun has a lot more to do with it than man.

 

You are right that variations in solar activity do play a role in the present global warming. But, during this century increases in solar acitivity have added 0.4 W/m^2 of radiation, while human additions of greenhouse gasses have caused 3.5 W/m^2 of warming.

 

If we look over the longer term, there are many solar cycles, making it hard to predict whether the Sun will cause more or less cooling over the next 100 years (I don't think that the thousand year scale is of much concern to us now). Two of the solar cycles, though, won't peak until 2030 to 2038 AD.

 

This page at Wikipedia gives lots of information on solar cycles and links to climate change.

 

Also, I totally agree with your point that just because humans are altering climate change doesn't mean that we have to do anything about it. We need to separate science and policy so that people's reactions aren't influenced by what it might require of them. I think that many people don't "believe" in global warming because they don't want to change (Republicans), don't like authority (Libertarians?) or believe that spirit supercedes matter (New Agers).

 

Chris

[Yoda]

the sun is about to cycle again and we're heading for global cooling.

 

I am hoping for warmer temperatures.

 

V-

 

Thanks for the snowball info. Trippy stuff.