Global Warming?

[The Galatian]

Plus I was in the government schools in the 60's and early 70's when they were, by and large, still quite good at educating youngsters.

In fact, we're doing a better job now than in the 70s, although the early to mid 60s were as good or better than now, on the whole. But we've got to go beyond that to the point were people can actually evaluate such claims at least to know the general evidence.

You and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree about whether or not humans are causing global warming

In fact, the data are not yet conclusive on that. The evidence certainly points that way, but we need to do more work before it can be considered absolutely settled.

Not long ago, BTW, the Cato institute had people claiming that Global Warming didn't exist. Now, the same people have backed off, admitting that it's a fact, but are blaming it on volcanoes (try to find some data which support that!).

or whether this is a natural climate cycle that we will just have to weather.

Climate/weather cycles have a fractal structure, that looks the same at any scale. But the data so far show that human activity strongly correlates with the warming. And that's very strong evidence.

 

[KenH]

And that's very strong evidence.

Or merely a coincidence.

If I am watching a team that I root for and I sit in a certain position and something good happens to them, I doubt that the fact that I was sitting in a certain position had anything to do with their success. It was a mere coincidence.

 

[The Galatian]

Rather an entire series of coincidences every year, for about 300 years.

Seems a bit unlikely.

In fact, it's possible that the correlation is due to both of these being caused by the same thing, but I invite you to say what that might be.

 

[KenH]

Rather an entire series of coincidences every year, for about 300 years.

I would interested in reading your proof that the temperature has risen every year for about the past 300 years.

 

[The Galatian]

Well, let's take a look.... keep in mind, the data don't have to show an increase every year to show a continuous trend every year.

Here's a graph from the 1800s:

As you can see, the fractal nature of the system means that you get shorter-range fluctuations, but even then, the lows are always higher, and the highs higher each cycle. Even more interesting, is that the rate of increase is correlated strongly with the total emissions of CO2.

Here's a comparison of ancient CO2 levels, compared to those since the late 1700s...

As you can see, the temperature variations are closely correlated with CO2 emissions.

 

[Helen]

for what it's worth, the sun has been measured as warming for the past hundred years. This means the water at the equator is getting more warm. This is releasing carbon dioxide. This is also causing a greater difference between polar temperatures and equatorial temperatures, thus making winters worse in many areas and summers worse as well -- not to mention causing the increasing ferocity of storms.

Men have nothing whatsoever to do with that and all the Kyoto Accords in the world will not change what is happening. We can and should attempt to control the smog we produce, but that has almost nothing to do with the effect a warming sun is having.

 

[LeBuick]

Well, let's take a look.... keep in mind, the data don't have to show an increase every year to show a continuous trend every year.

Here's a graph from the 1800s:

As you can see, the fractal nature of the system means that you get shorter-range fluctuations, but even then, the lows are always higher, and the highs higher each cycle. Even more interesting, is that the rate of increase is correlated strongly with the total emissions of CO2.

Here's a comparison of ancient CO2 levels, compared to those since the late 1700s...

As you can see, the temperature variations are closely correlated with CO2 emissions.

When were beans discovered?

 

[Not_hard_to_find]

A Wikipedia graph has no interest for me. Did you find a similar graph in a scientific resource? That would lend credibility that Wikipedia lacks.

 

[The Galatian]

This means the water at the equator is getting more warm. This is releasing carbon dioxide. This is also causing a greater difference between polar temperatures and equatorial temperatures, thus making winters worse in many areas and summers worse as well -- not to mention causing the increasing ferocity of storms.

Not quite. It's a bit more complicated than that.

Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model.

Cox PM, Betts RA, Jones CD, Spall SA, Totterdell IJ.

Hadley Centre, The Met Office, Bracknell, Berkshire, UK. pmcox@meto.gov.uk

The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to lead to significant changes in climate. About half of the current emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and by land ecosystems, but this absorption is sensitive to climate as well as to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, creating a feedback loop. General circulation models have generally excluded the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from simple carbon-cycle models that do not include climate change. Here we present results from a fully coupled, three-dimensional carbon-climate model, indicating that carbon-cycle feedbacks could significantly accelerate climate change over the twenty-first century. We find that under a 'business as usual' scenario, the terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about 2050, but turns into a source thereafter. By 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr(-1) is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models, resulting in a global-mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon-cycle feedback.

I doin't care much for the Kyoto protocols myself, but we need to be open-eyed about the problem. So far, the geochemical balance has been toward accumulating more carbon, but as the study shows, this won't go on forever. A good part of the extra CO2 we are releasing is getting tied up, and it will be several decades before that system gives out. However, there is still an increasing excess of human-generated CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[KenH]

Thanks, Galatian.

I don't see how a small increase of .4° C over the past century and a half can be attributed to human activity versus a natural warming cycle.

 

[The Galatian]

Ah, because it's strongly correlated with human-produced CO2, and because it departs from the fractal pattern of climate change observed in the past. Keep in mind that even a degee of difference can make a substantial change in the weather. Note that the relatively slight warming so far has had a profound effect.

 

[KenH]

Human history only goes back a few thousand years(regardless of how long human beings may have lived on this earth), so human observations of climate don't go back far enough to draw conclusions and use them to take actions that would decimate the world economy and human progress.

 

[The Galatian]

Remember, the political and economic realities don't change the universe. There are indeed facts that we would rather do without.

I share your concern about Kyoto. But we need to be realistic. There's a problem. In all likelihood, we are causing it.

What we do about it, if anything, makes no difference as to the reality of the problem.

 

[KenH]

My concern, Galatian, is that we will mistakenly believe that human activity is causing global warming and then make bad decisions and end up finding out that regardless of how we change our activities that we have no impact on the climate.

 

[The Galatian]

Given the evidence, that seems rather unlikely.

 

[KenH]

I disagree with your conclusions, but time will tell, Galatian, time will tell.