Kyoto FLAMEWAR!

In canada in the last 100 years the summer season has been lenghthened by about 2 weeks and the tree line (the northern most areas where trees grow) has moved north about 150-200 kms. Something is going on and the relationship between co2 and warm periods and ice ages is solid science tho its a chicken and egg situation. Does c02 create warm ages or does warm ages add c02 to the atmosphere.

Im on the fence on this tho. Slight warming of the planet might be a good thing... Itd be wonderful to see large parts of the sahara getting regular rainfall at some point for ex. I also dont think its likely co2 emissions will drop for a while... whether kyoto is signed or not short of regular occurrences of weather related catastrophies no one will seriously respect any co2 treaty.

I havent seen any data on whether sun activity has increased energy output since monitoring of the sun has begun... tho Im sure some exists somewhere. I was impressed by the relationship between long ice age periods and long warm periods as to when the solar system enters then leaves sprial arms of the galaxy... might just be coincidental but it was interesting to note (ice ages began as we entered the last spiral arm about 60 million years ago and we are now on the edge leaving it).

I think we can sit this out a little while longer as reports say that stoppage of c02 production will see the c02 in the air quickly reduced to normal levels under 100 years... We can give this thing another 10-20 years and if things really do overheat itll move the market I think...

 

Sigh. Call it what you will. I told you what to google to look at the projected figures for the 21st century. The PDF clearly shows the temperature changes from 1000 - 2000, as well as the temperature changes from 12,000 years ago to the present day, along with the change over time of the temperatures. Looking at the numbers you provided, along with published projected numbers for climatological change over the 21st century from the google search phrase I provided earlier, it is most certainly a scientific deduction that temperature change from 1800 - 2100 is and will accelerate far faster than any other period in the last 120 centuries.

But if you don't feel like googling the data for yourself with the phrase I used to get my information, here's a sampling of links:

http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/press/99/pr9928.htm

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr125c.htm

http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/climate_change.shtml

Those are merely 3 of the first 4 links from the google search. I'm not going to list them all because frankly there are too many. Again, please read them for yourself. As I said before, there is no data manipulation present in the figures I provided.

Again, sigh. What is one of the potential impacts of climate change? A rise in sea levels!

/me slaps head.

I read it, and they didn't state anything definitive. I think a key quote from the article you provided is this:

While that link states that they must now begin to examine the data and see if there are issues with it, nothing to date has come out that scientifically, completely, and unequivocably repudiates the data from the IPCC.

If you provide a link to said data, I will most certainly change my tune. I realize that science is an ever evolving medium. But right now, the IPCC numbers are some of the best we've got.

If the IPCC used only one location for their temperature measurements then I would agree with your assessment that surface thermometers are not usable. However, the IPCC measured their numbers across the globe, from multiple sites. That completely negates the possibility of "bleed" from man-made creations such as cities, affecting the aggregate numbers.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean?

 

MrsSkywalker, we're not talking about a volcanic eruption, or smog caused by man-made devices. And there were no major fires in the vicinity in 2001 when those photos were taken.

There is clear cut evidence that those photos were taken and were affected by the dust flowing off of the Gobi in 2001. If you don't want to believe my "half evidence," then you can most certainly take a look at these satellite photos from April 2001 which detail the movement of the dust cloud from China to western USA.

http://www-ocean.lbl.gov/people/bishop/bishoppubs/paparobots.html

This is the direct image:



You can see quite clearly that the green "haze" dust clouds that show up in the satellite photos are indeed hovering over the south western portion of the states, and it seems even all the way to the "heartland" states such as missouri and texas. And here's another image that detailed the location of the dust clouds on various dates in april 2001:

http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~darmenov/RS_WebPage.htm

This is a direct image:



It moved quite quickly if you ask me.

If you google "gobi desert dust 2001 data" you can find more pages for your own perusal if you wish. That is the string I used to find those pages, among other articles.

 

Important things first!

You don't know what I mean? Did you visit the site I refered to?There's a picture of "Baghdad Bob" on that site, which I thought it would be funny to post here in this thread! I thought I was clear but I guess not....... :?

Now the minor stuff

Notice how the studys you site allways have different projections.
First link - 3 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius)
Secound link - 1.4 and 5.8 degree C
Third link - 0.6 to 5.8 degree C

Which one do you believe?
It would appear that the 2nd & 3rd link are using simular data, which BTW, comes from the IPCC.

I don't believe your manipulating what is being reported (although it was not clear at first where you got the data in the previous instances ) But lets look a the information shall we. Based upon the link you provided, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr125c.htm the folowing is stated in the article:

What "new and stronger evidence" are they refering to? According to the article the IPCC's first report, in 1990 "confirmed that climate change is a threat". Then in 1995 their second report project a temp. rise of 1 to 3.5 degree C by 2100. The last report, put out at the time of this article, says that "Warming is now expected to go up between 1.4 and 5.8 degree C between 1990 and 2100.' So what changed between reports? Well - here's an article that answers that question-
http://www.globalwarming.org/sciup/sci4-2-03.htm
What’s Behind the IPCC’s Latest Projections?

Now, on to you slapping yourself

No, no, no. You got things backwards! The paper was written as a responce to the scenario of rising sea levels, not a paper to discuss the scientific evidence of climate changes and its impact. From the introduction of the article:

The article then talks about loss of land mass, erosion, wetlands, societal and economic Impacts, and Strategies to Address Potential Impacts of Sea-Level Rise....Again, its's not an article analyzing scientific data, it's a paper based upon the assumption that the sea level is going to rise. To them , it's a given!

/me slaps your head!

Well here's what others say.....
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth2.cfm

And this.....
http://www.globalwarming.org/sciup/sci7-24-02.htm

To me, the point of this discussion with you Natoma, is to show that their is much to be take with a grain of salt. If you believe outright that the worst is coming, and try to show "proof", I'm sure I can find "proof" that your proof is wrong. Such is the nature of the current debate. Personally I believe some of the information, some of the time, and not the worst case - best case scenarios.

 

Can you provide links to some pages, or a google phrase, regarding the potential "sun cycle" effect on our climate? Or on a grander scale, the "galactic cycle" effect on our climate? It sounds like interesting reading, and I'd like to learn more.

Thanks.

 

That's why I gave a range and explicitly stated "projected" instead of definitive.

Personally I don't know weather modelling through and through. Though I wish I did considering it seems to be a quite interesting subject. However, I must point out that while I believe the 5.8 degree change in the new modeled numbers is far out when taking into account other sources, the old numbers do indeed jive with current scientific understanding of a more realistic 1 - 4 degree Celcius shift in temperature in the 21st century.

Notice that at the end of the quote, which you bolded, it states A full 79 percent of the change at the high-end projection came from the changed assumptions about sulfate aerosols alone, about which we know very little.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that's basically saying that the difference from the original 1 - 4 degree shift to the newly calculated 1 - 5.8 degree shift was basically the change in assumptions regarding aerosol emissions. But in no way shape or form did that article repudiate the original numbers! Just the newly formed numbers. So even if you throw out the newly formed numbers, that still leaves, even conservatively (when taking into account the other sources available from the google search I provided), a 1 - 3 degree Celcius shift in temperature, which is what I stuck with in my table comparison on the last page.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. I'm reading what you wrote, as well as what the article wrote, and it seems to me quite clearly that the article is saying that one of the impacts of climate change is a rise in sea levels.

Then you write something which was really confusing, especially given the quote you provided:

So, how did I get things backwards when first you state that the paper was written to examine the potential impacts of climate change in the US, then you state that the paper was written not as an examination of the evidence of climate changes and their impact, but as a response to the scenario of rising sea levels?

I'm sitting here doing a :? trying to decipher that one.

They state that one of the most likely impacts of climate change is rising sea levels. And then they explain why sea levels would rise due to warming temperatures due to a build-up of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

I read the urls that you provided, as well as the quotes you provided, and as I said before, I'll say again. Until we have definitive long term proof that the IPCC numbers were incorrect, then they're the best ones we have.

However, the second quote block that you provide has many clues as to why Satellite data *and* ground based data are important to the discussion in tandem, and not opposition:

So now we have a discrepancy in the theory of greenhouse gas warming. However, that discrepancy in the theory does not negate the fact that the surface temperatures have increased far more than the trophospheric temperatures have increased. The article goes on to give a potential explanation for this difference:

Keep in mind that I noted the fact earlier in this discussion that the Oceans act as not only a natural carbon loading mechanism, but a giant heatsink.

I don't think the numbers are in any way incongruous, unless you choose to believe that both are immutable unto themselves and cannot corrolate with any other data source.

From the article you provided, it seems that scientists are using *both* forms of data capture in order to glean the true picture of what's going on. Land based data *and* satellite based data, with a smattering of balloon data as well.

As you stated earlier, I don't particularly believe that in 100 years we're all going to be underwater. However, I do believe that we are changing the planet for the worse by our actions. The worse, only because we are not in equilibrium with the planet. We remove far more resources, and pollute the earth far more, than the earth can replenish and remove naturally. We need to curtail our activities to bring them back in line to what the earth can support.

The numbers provided by the scientific community merely illustrate how we are changing our environment and how, if we don't curtail our activities, things can get very bad for us.

Think about it this way. Go back 100 years when heavy metal pollution of our streams and rivers was common place. You think that if the US government didn't institute guidelines on environmental safety that our streams and rivers would be teeming with life today? That if environmental solutions to vehicle pollution weren't legislated that we'd still have wonderful air quality today?

The reason why our planet isn't in worse shape is because people in the past realized that hey, we need to change our ways. And this was *before* all of the satellites and computers and whatnot that help shape our world today. Now we're able to analyze the data from thousands of years ago to the present day, and project based on our current usage patterns, where the earth most likely will be in another century or two. It is not a death knell of inevitability. Merely a warning that this *may* occur.

To ignore this as some in this discussion, nay many around the world, have is foolhardy at best, and suicidal for future caretakers of this world at worst. If the people of the past said "I don't care what happens tomorrow. I won't be around," we'd have even worse toxic waste pollution, air quality, etc etc etc than we have today. It's our duty to make sure we try and keep the planet as livable as possible for the human race, because quite frankly we're the only species in the history of this planet that has the intelligence to do so on a global scale.

It's our responsibility. If you believe in god, then you know that god made man to be the caretakers of the earth. Not its destroyers. Even if you don't believe in god (myself in that group), science tells you that we've got no place else to go. So if we muck up this planet, we're screwed royally.

But that's maybe a discussion for another thread.

 

Natoma, listen up.

The Earth has been around for app. 4.55 billion years. Homo sapiens have only been around for about 130,000 years (both are debatable ages, but all seem to agree that: 1)the earth was here 4.55 billion years ago 2) there were homo sapiens 130,000 years ago). Do the math and you will see that homo sapiens haven't even been on this planet for 0.01% of it's existence. And during the brief time we have been on earth, we have only been recording weather (accurately...with thermometers, barometers, etc) for at most a few hundred years...and that's being very generous, b/c the only way to accurately measure weather is through sattelites, and those have only been in operation since the 1960's.

We as humans have not been around long enough to understand the earth's natural cycle...at all. No one can. So, every piece of data you link is extrodinarily subjective and instantly suspect, b/c there is no hard data to compare it with. A few hundred years of collected data, only about 50 years of reliable and accurate measurements, out of a 4.55 BILLION year history... Think of it this way. Would you say that data collected after watching a child for 2 seconds was enough to base a behavioral assessment on? What if in that 2 seconds cried? Would you try to claim that the child has emotional disorders? Or just sat there? Would you then assert that he is paralyzed? Because that is exactly what you and the other environmentalists are trying to do. You are basing your fears and claims of destruction on a few seconds in the earth's life cycle. It's ridiculous.

All we know about past weather patterns is found in the rocks. We know through fossils that at one time, Mt. Washington (a large and famous Mt. in NH for those who may not have heard of it before) was halfway under water and is now about 100 miles from the ocean. We know through fossils that at at least one time almost all of North America was a tropical climate. We also know that at at least one time, most of North America was frozen in ice. And, we know for a fact that humans were not around then.

I think it is conceited to be surprised that the earth doesn't consult humans before changing.

 

First you complain that I don't respond to your posts. Then when I do respond, and actually apologize for ignoring your posts, you completely toss them out the window?

First it's humans cannot affect the earth in any way. When I show that to not be true, you say that the data is "half evidence." Then when I show it to be quite full, you revert to the "homo sapiens cannot affect the earth" spiel. We've been on this merry-go-round before, and I'm not going to go for a spin with you again. The answers to what you're telling me are in the posts I've made, if you choose to read them.

A snapshot of my stance on this subject was in my prior post. Here's the read (though by all means, read all of my posts please, including the satellite data which you made no mention of, even though you basically said I was pulling the whole dust cloud stuff out of my ass):

p.s.: In the 4.55 Billion year history of this planet, no species has had the ability to irradiate the globe. Does that mean that we shouldn't care about nuclear war, because the time we've had nuclear bombs has only been a blip in the history of the planet? I mean, we can't do too much damage to the planet with an all out nuclear war right? It'd only last a couple of hours or days.

But could it completely wipe out all life on earth? Most certainly.

Listen to me carefully, and understand. Technology has changed the equation of what can be done to this planet. No species has had the techological abilities of the human race. Unless it's possible that other highly intelligent species evolved on this planet during the previous 4.55 Billion years and just happened to leave Earth and go into outer space. I mean, it is possible. We most certainly don't know. But from what we do know, we're the first species that completely can alter the makeup of this planet in a completely unnatural way, i.e. through the use of technology.

Atomic Weaponry. Toxic Waste. Vehicle Pollution. Heavy Metal Runoff. Oil Spills. Terraforming. Etc etc etc.

It is our *intelligence* which is the difference between the current iteration of the Earth, and past iterations with prior species. *That* is what differentiates our stay on this planet. We can make or break the survival of practically every animal on the planet. That is a tremendous responsibility, and quite frankly it's disturbing to have people like you who simply don't give a hoot about it. Times have changed. Open your eyes.

 

Natoma,

There needs to be a distinction made between "damage" and "change." That is really the root of this side-discussion. You appear to always site change as "wrong."

A global nuclear war would certainly change this earth. Just as would several large volcanic eruptions or collission with comets / asteroids.

There would be "short term damage" so to speak. Immeditate deaths. Extinctions, etc. However, the earth would "recover" (as it has from all other drastic impacts) and reach some new "equilibrium". New life...new species, etc.

And I use the term "equilibrium" in the loosest sense, because the earth is constantly evolving, both on micro and macro scales, with or without technological or other catastrophic interference.

Is that new "equilibrium" better or worse than our current one? Who knows. You and I certainly don't. All we know is it will be different.

Most certainly not. I am being literal here, and for a reason. I do NOT believe that we could completely wipe out every living entity on this planet. We could wipe out a large percentage of life (especially higher life forms), but not all life.

The earth would recover. (Save, pehaps, for the time when we build our first death-star...)

That is true, and technology works both ways. It can change the equation for better or worse.

What you have not been clear on, is why you feel some urgent need to reduce greenhouse gasses now. You stated earlier that now we have relatively "clean air" and "clean water" vs. a couple generations ago. Sort of prooves the "healing power" of the earth, doesn't it? That all of that pollution doesn't seem to have some irreversible or permanent effect of "damage." We saw what it (pollution) was doing, we changed, and the earth recovered.

To be clear, this is not to say that things are now the same as they would have been if there was zero pollution. But this is also not to say that we aren't actually better off now than we would have been had we not polluted.

The difference with global greenhouse gasses is....we don't know what it's doing. We really have no idea about it's impacts, for better or worse, on the global climate. For all we know, the cause-effect is the other way around...the changing climate is causing changes in greenhouse gas levels.

We can try and curtail man-made greenhouse gas levels all we want, but we quite frankly don't know what impact that will have. What I am supremely confident of though, is if at some point it is understood that less greenhouse gas emmissions are better, that at that time we can take meausres to curtail it, and the earth will recover.

Just like our water and air.

 

I love armchair critics and pamphlet scholars

 

One notion I reject is the implicit FAITH that the Earth will naturally overcome any obstacle the Human species throw at it.

Actually from heavy numerical work, one can find various models which display the so called venus run away reactions. In fact, there is heavy evidence that the planet Venus lost its atmosphere through a greenhouse reaction.

Perhaps I should be more clear. Irregardless of humans, the earth might hit a point in phase space that destroys any path back to equilibrium. It is not inconceivable that human based emmissions could contribute to this situation.

 

Hmm the reason Mt Washinton was tropical at one might be because our area (Im in New Brunswick) on the eastern seaboard was once close to Morocco. The geology shows this being I think about 100 million years ago. So we've been sliding slowly to the northwest ever since... I suppose even at this alttitude tho that at that time things were warm enough for us to tropical or sub tropical...

 

True, but there is debate about the time period of the fossils. Some appear to be much newer than they had thought.

BTW, New Brunswick is pretty nice...didn't realize you lived so close

 

natoma-
Just a quick note -

Yes, you did say projected -

You also said -

....but if you read the post I linked you would have seen...

It should be clear that a.) large temp. fluxuations have occured and b.) much of the warming that occured this past century had happened before "the large majority of the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere occurred ". Question - Why?

Also what is important about your reference to "the span of 300 years"? Even you only project 100 years!

Regarding the confusing post_
Sorry if I was not clear. Upon re-reading it I can see why your...uh...slapping yourself.
One last try. The paper was written as to the impact of rising sea levels. It was NOT a paper written as to why the sea levels might rise. Thats why I said "Sorry, don't buy it." when you try to present it as a factual, scientific paper regarding the rise in the sea level. Sure, it said "the Sea levels are rising!", and "This study says so!" but it might as well be a newspaper article just stating information with no data, no backup. So, sorry, but I don't buy it. Clear?

More later....

 

yeah nice and cold... spring is late dagnabit...

 

And that is my stance on the whole matter. What I've stated all along. We should do everything we can to keep the environment in line with what can support us.

That is the equilibrium that we should be worried about. If we know the earth can safely process 7 Billion tons of Carbon yearly, then we should limit our output to that. Since we are currently removing 1.2 years worth of resources for every year of natural regeneration, then we need to find ways to curtail our consumption to fall back in line with what the earth can support.

I'm not resigned to letting the earth become a wasteland and letting our species die off, but knowing that the earth may or may not survive and replenish itself once we're gone.

Scientific study has thus far concluded that Mars once supported life from the fact that it was once covered with water. Now it's a barren rock with a thin atmosphere, all its water frozen at the poles.

Who's to say that something similar couldn't happen to our planet? Or look at what happened to Venus? The current theory is that Venus is the prime example of a runaway greenhouse effect.

Who's to say that one day we won't tip the scales in that direction permanently, no matter what we do?

Again, see my reasoning above when I discussed Mars and Venus. I don't think it's completely certain that the earth would recover. Certain frog species can recover if you chop off a couple of legs. They can simply regenerate and go on their way. Cut them in half however, and it's all over. Their regenerative powers aren't that strong.

Who's to say we won't hit that point some day with the earth, where it just will not recover? We're no experts in planetary climatology yet, so why take that chance?

We don't have another opportunity waiting for us out there if we do happen to muck this planet up. This is all we've got.

We have cleaner air and cleaner water because legislation has been passed that has increased the scrutiny on polluting technologies. You can no longer dump toxic waste into rivers and streams. You can no longer have cars that come without a catalytic converter, which cleans the emissions spewed by those vehicles.

Government has forced outdated power plants, mostly coal fired and oil driven, to clean up their smokestacks in order to release relatively harmless emissions into the atmosphere, rather than the black belching smoke that was a normal site in the latter 19th and first half 20th centuries.

It certainly does prove the healing power of the earth, once we stop polluting it beyond what it can recover from. That is why I stated earlier that we need to establish an equilibrium with the planet.

For example, when I was growing up, I remember that you could not swim in the Hudson River, or go fishing, because it was so polluted. Now, while it's still not relatively safe to swim, you can go fishing at certain times of the year. Further reclamation projects that are in line in NYC have the Hudson returning to an earlier state of health as well.

This has been my mantra all along. Yes we need to do certain things in order to survive and thrive as a culture, as a species. However, we can do all these things within the confines of what this planet can support.

1) I haven't seen any data to support the theory that the changing climate is what is raising the greenhouse gas levels. It also doesn't jive with the current empirical evidence sitting on our roads and highways, along with our industrial complexes.

2) Here's a thought. 40 years ago, people that didn't have scientific data said "You know, smoking can't be all that good for you. It doesn't smell that good, and you're always coughing and sneezing and you smell bad." People would respond "Hey, I feel fine, and there's no science out there that says smoking is bad. So I'll puff away."

Fast-forward to present day, and those same people today are dying of lung cancer and throat cancer, it's been found that nicotine is highly addictive, and has terrible effects on the cardio-vascular system. Some people are able to recover, while others most certainly aren't.

Do you really want to take a chance that by the time we completely and fully understand what we're doing to the environment, that it might be too late to actually fix things?

I certainly don't. We have enough knowledge and understanding today to know that we are affecting our climate in ways that will change the way the earth looks and responds. We don't have all the answers, but the fact is we know something is up. Since we know that there are potentially devastating consequences to our actions, I believe it would be prudent to try and nip it in the bud before it becomes a huge green-eyed monster that we can't curtail.

I think that's the most prudent course of action, because we still have a lot of time to change and still keep our relatively pristine world.

 

I haven't debated the fact that large temperature fluctuations have occurred in the past. What I've debated is that the temperature fluctuations we've seen, courtesy of the PDFs you provided, have occurred over the course of 500 - 2000 years. We're talking fluctuations of 1-4 degrees.

The reason why people are becoming alarmed now is because the shift in the 19th century was 0.6 degrees celcius, and a 0.7 degree celcius shift int he 20th century. Considering scientists are predicting a 1-3 degree celcius shift for the 21st century, that would make a 2.3 - 4.3 degree celcius shift in global temperatures, accelerating this century. So that's why I said that these sustained temperature increases would happen over 3 centuries. I included the currently recorded data with the scientifically projected data, for a warming trend that is by far the greatest in the past 12,000 years.

The only difference is the industrial revolution and all of the polluting technologies that were created in its wake.

I can only speculate as to the temperature building in the 20th century occurring mostly before the large buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm assuming that the CO2 released to the atmosphere does not immediately get absorbed by the forests and the oceans. So the climate was indeed heating up, but eventually the atmosphere would be cleansed as the oceans and forests did their thing. But after a while, the oceans and forests could no longer completely purge the atmosphere of the CO2, so it began to linger.

But the temperature increases still would have occurred during that time because the transition in the carbon cycle was not instantaneous.

I still don't understand, but oh wells.

 

Natoma wrote:

Questions.
Why in 1300 to 1400 did the temp. drop by 0.6 degree C? Why in 1800 to 1900 did the temp. rise by 0.6 degree C? I assume that there was plenty of forests and trees as well as the oceans to absorb the carbon durning the 1800's , so whats going on (I mean, durning the 1900's we had a LOT more pollution and technologies in this world that in the 1800's yet the temp. rise isn't that much different)

 

I'm not sure why global temperatures dropped 0.6 degrees celcius in 1300-1400. There's nothing to show that it was anything but a natural occurrence. The technology at that point was not great enough to affect global temperatures in the way that we can today.

However it should be noted, as I stated earlier, that the cooling trend was not sustained. It was a one century drop, then the temperatures stabilized for the next 400 years. The PDFs you provided us earlier showed that the earth has experienced warming and cooling trends that usually burned themselves out in a century, or were sustained over the course of 5 - 20 centuries. It's only since 1800 have temperatures risen consistently, with a projected temperature explosion in this century. That gradient has never occurred naturally in the past 12,000 years, which is why we can attribute it to human causes.

As to why the temperature rise was roughly the same in the 19th century as it was in the 20th century, I think it goes back to my original theory regarding the loads that the earth is able to absorb. I believe we've been affecting our climate since the beginning of the industrial revolution on a global scale. While people historically have its peak in the late 19th, early 20th century, the industrial revolution really began with the advent of such technologies as the steam engine in the early 19th century.

Up until the past few decades, we've been within the limits the earth could naturally replenish itself and remove pollutants in the biosphere. However we've recently gone over the threshold of pollution and resource removal. That would explain why the temperature increase is expected to explode in the 21st century.

 

Something such as major volcanic eruptions could have caused an overall drop in temperature, I expect. I've no idea if this is the case or not in this case.