Posted on 09/19/2006 5:38:34 PM PDT by DaveTesla
An illustration of your point.... lets ignore the reams of data showing that temperatures have cycled for eons with a periodic nature and just look at the recent increase that has naturally occurred. We claim it is due to human cause because humans have advanced during the same period.
It is like claiming that humans cause it to be warmer at 3pm than at 3am.
Or humans cause it to be warmer in August than February in North America.
The difference in these examples, is that changes which cycle over hours, or days are easily measureable... we are talking about changes that occur over a period of 120,000 years.
Bad mood inspired by someone posting something I've addressed thrice without attempting correction or amendment.
I just did this *yesterday* !! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1704815/posts?page=90#90
Anywhere you want details or "fill the gaps", just ask. I don't mind explaining (but today is very busy). Feel free to research any of the points raised in the above post yourself, too.
Note that in the above post where I wrote "atmospheric concentration of gases", I should have stated more clearly "atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases".
You are usually pretty thick skinned. You have to be to have your view on AGW here. It's not worth getting steamed up over one or two posters.
Cog,
Here is the problem. Everything you said does not address that the earth has CYCLED MULTIPLE TIMES through the glacial/interglacial cycles and the global temperatures are today, NO HIGHER than they were during the last interglacial cycle.
Yes, we do have higher concentrations of CO2 than ever before and they are clearly human caused, BUT, you have not proven beyond a wild theoretical assertion, that CO2 concentrations are going to lead us to a higher global temperature.
I think the evidence strongly suggests that without human intervention, we would move to another glacial period. The introduction of additional CO2 to the atmosphere could possibly lead to a stabilization of global temperatures rather than catastrophic overheating. You have no presented no data to refute that possibility.
Whether or not humans are causing Global warming is a hotly contested debate among climatologists. You act as if it has been proven to be caused by humans. There is absolutely nothing proving it either way. We really don't know. Why won't you admit that Mr. Scientist.
ping
I need to return to my previous modus operandi.
I thought that it did. Global temperatures now are very close to the peaks recorded in previous interglacials (based on the O-18 data, of course). Looking at the whole record, it seems like when the temperatures rise rapidly in an interglacial, there is almost an "overshoot" and a quick (geologically speaking, it's probably a few thousand years) adjustment.
The Holocene hasn't shown that "overshoot" pattern. So were at near-peak interglacial temperatures and adding CO2 to the peak natural CO2 concentration (about 280 ppm). The climate system will take time to respond to that -- and evidence is accumulating that the response is accelerating and increasing in magnitude.
BUT, you have not proven beyond a wild theoretical assertion, that CO2 concentrations are going to lead us to a higher global temperature.
But even the skeptics are admitting that a bare minimum 1 C rise in this century is likely (except for the real die-hards). Almost everything points in that direction; cloud feedbacks might counter the increasing temps, but they could still go either way -- they could also be another positive feedback.
I think the evidence strongly suggests that without human intervention, we would move to another glacial period. The introduction of additional CO2 to the atmosphere could possibly lead to a stabilization of global temperatures rather than catastrophic overheating.
You need to try and find this:
An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead?
A. Berger and M.F. Loutre
Science 23 August 2002:
Vol. 297. no. 5585, pp. 1287 - 1288
The article is referenced here:
I can't find a free copy of Berger and Loutre anywhere. But there is some interesting discussion here:
There is an actual distinction between climate scientists and climatologists. In the recent contretemps regarding Patrick Michaels (see below), it has come up -- why is there less acceptance of global warming among climatologists compared to climate scientists? It seems that the climatologists evaluating climate data over the past few decades don't yet perceive a significant trend. The climate scientists, on the other hand, interpret the trends that are observed as gaining in significance, and with a view toward the future see greater and faster changes coming.
Virginia Climatologist Stokes Warming Debate
You act as if it has been proven to be caused by humans. There is absolutely nothing proving it either way.
Scientists don't prove. They accumulate data ("evidence") supporting particular hypotheses and theories. The accumulating data is currently supportive of a significant human component in observed climate change. The level of support is increasing, and it appears that the human component of warming is also increasing. (Not a surprise; CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing.)
We really don't know. Why won't you admit that Mr. Scientist.
I cannot admit that we have no indicative knowledge because that isn't true. There are a lot of trends in the data that are both indicative and diagnostic -- meaning that they show change and they are allowing evaluation of what is causing the change.
I think more skeptics would say 1 C period. The CO2 doesn't produce more warming because it won't absorb and reemit heat more than that beyond the hypothesized doubled concentration. The "cloud feedback" is an unfortunate phrase which oversimplifies the issue which is water vapor distribution. Some water vapor finds its way into the upper troposphere where it causes lots of warming, no clouds. The clouds at varying altitudes exhibit varying feedback, but weather must be modeled accurately to determine which. The biggest issue is the variations in water vapor which is not the same as clouds although clouds are part of the process of distribution (mostly precipitating water out of the atmosphere). The dynamics of water vapor distribution is what is sorely lacking in most climate models because they don't model weather in adequate detail.
Here's the beginnings of a discussion on the water vapor / cloud problem http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=818 (comment #1 has a good link, #28 sums up the uncertainty) and the corresponding older thread at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/climate-feedbacks/ (#11 is typical of the their tendency to oversimplify), and of course, their classic: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor where the argument by the physicists is lost in #23. Why indeed don't the models do low level water vapor correctly? Ans: inadequate resolution and modeling of variations (corresponding to chaos in the real world).
The problem with your "extremely long interglacial period is human-caused" is that it clearly was extending BEFORE human activity which barely scratched the surface until about 50 years ago.
Duh!
I still think that taking 50 or even 1000 years worth of data and trying to draw conclusions about the impact on a global scale is ludicrous. You can find any point in the historical record to show the earth is about to burn up or freeze, depending on what you WANT to show.
Reminds me of marketing types who see a market growing and project it to be 5X the existing market based on their straight line projections, only to find out that some unknown factor led to a huge market drop when it had only reached 1.8X.
Ludicrous.
What the long term data shows is that it goes up, then down and it is NOT perfectly consistent. Some interglacials are higher than others, some longer...WHY??? Hmmm...lets speculate and come up with a reason to penalize industrialized countries and redistribute their wealth to advancing countries...yea, thats the ticket!
My arguments against all the qualitative crap is that the models will show quantitative results for all significant feedbacks including weather within a decade or two. This is inevitable with increased understanding and computer power. The alarmists answer is usually that I am just stalling for time. My other argument with no real response is that the models will show exactly the most cost-effective way to cool the earth if that becomes necessary. The alarmists mostly admit that is true, most believe that man has also masked warming with aerosols for example. But they want us to trust their models (really just their angst) about catastrophic no-return warming in 10 years without letting us trust their models for a solution. Their response usually boils down to CO2 is an evil pollutant spoiling the global commons which of course is nonsense even in the short run but especially in the long run.
Jeez. I guess you need funding.
My arguments against all the qualitative crap is that the models will show quantitative results for all significant feedbacks including weather within a decade or two. This is inevitable with increased understanding and computer power...My other argument with no real response is that the models will show exactly the most cost-effective way to cool the earth if that becomes necessary.
Yes. Technology advances exponentially. The invention and discovery of technology is rational -- in other words, science doesn't lie. It just is. When and where need be, man will control climate to his benefit.
Modern man created three social infrastructures. Business, government and religion. Each uses technology to advance its respective infrastructure. Science is the vertical driving force of advancing technologies. Technology is the driving force of business that drives technologies outward, horizontally into markets and the mass market. The combination of rational business integrated with technology out-competes irrationality. That's a good thing.
The expectation/prediction that this interglacial will be an exceptionally long one is not based on any human activity; it's based on the current "state" of Milankovitch forcing. You said that you expected "without human intervention we would move to another glacial period". Berger and Loutre, on the basis of Milankovitch forcing, predict that won't happen for 50,000 years. Therefore I think that the more immediate climate forcing factors are worth paying attention to.
That's fine; I think a clearly important aspect of this is that there are no longer any scientifically-literate skeptics claiming that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations will have a negligible or unmeasurable effect on climate. That (frustratingly) is still where a lot of FReepers are, particularly those that keep pointing out that CO2 constitutes 0.028% of the atmospheric gases and that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. As you and I know, the concentration of CO2 is important because it's a radiative forcing factor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.