Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth (straight talk)

Washington Post ^ | 07/05/2006 | Robert Samuelson

[cogitator]

Freely excerpting:

"The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious." ... "Having postulated a crash energy diet, the IEA [International Energy Agency] simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today. The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent." ... "No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're "doing something." The result is grandstanding." ... "The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless."

[cogitator]

The premise for the climate change crowd is that without humans, climate change would not happen.

Anybody in that crowd is an idiot.

[Old Professer]

What we're up against is the notion that the present trend can lead nowhere but to ever-increasing levels; if you're not daunted by math, read this: http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/2_global_warming.htm

[cogitator]

The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change

I stand by my statement. Ask Solanki for more information.

[cogitator]

How do we temperature variation from ice core samples?

Oxygen-18 isotope ratios with O-16. The fractionation in the atmosphere into water vapor is directly related to the temperature of the atmosphere. In fact, in some of the presentations of the ice core data, CO2 concentration in the bubbles is plotted against "del"O18, which is the actual measured parameter that acts as a paleo-thermometer.

[Monti Cello]

You mean like Solanki 2004 in Nature who concluded:

The current level of high solar activity has now already lasted close to 65 years and is marked by the arrow on the figure. This implies that not only is the current state of solar activity unusually high, but also this high level of activity has lasted unusually long.

Solanki reconstructed the group sunspot number in the late 20th century to be at the highest levels in the past 1000 years.

What is your point? And again, why has the temperature trend stalled over the last decade?

[Chaguito]

Is it unequivocally shown that the correlation of CO₂ and temperature is a cause (CO₂) - effect(temp) relationship?

[Chaguito]

I'm not a climate scientist, but I can't help seeing in the structure of the ice core graph the tendency for minima in temperature to occur before minima in CO₂, that is, a new temperature rise begins before CO₂ levels begin to rise. I recognize that the data may not be precise, but there is a lot of it.

I haven't refreshed for a while, so you may have already responded, but I'll ask again, is it shown unequivocally that the correlation implicates carbon dioxide as a cause of temperature rise? or vice versa?

[DungeonMaster]

And the scientist" said the facts were "completely undeniable."

That's the real problem. Global warming is just a war of words. It's exactly like religion because it is a subset of the religion of liberalism. So it is no surprise to hear reporter after reporter and "scientist" after scientist evangelize their religion.

[3niner]

"Given the general sense of your argument how do we account for the age of the moon?"

It is not an "argument", I was simply relating a well established fact. Your question makes no sense, the Earth and moon were formed at the same time, roughly 4.5 billion years ago (depending on how you define the time of formation).

By the way, what kind of "Professor" are you? If you want to learn something about these subjects, I suggest you consult with your peers in the Geology, Physics, and Astronomy departments.

[palmer]

is it shown unequivocally that the correlation implicates carbon dioxide as a cause of temperature rise? or vice versa?

There are some unequivocal facts. CO2 absorbs heat (IR) reradiated from earth. CO2 is evenly distributed around the atmosphere so its effect is more predictable. With all other things being equal, CO2 causes warming through the greenhouse effect by trapping outgoing IR radiation. There is some debate over how much temperature rise that would cause considering CO2 alone or CO2 in combination with water vapor.

On the other side of the equation there are a few unequivocal facts. Heated water holds less CO2 so in theory heating the ocean (or even just the ocean surface) would cause atmospheric CO2 to increase. My chart in a previous post shows this effect. Again there is considerable debate about the extent of this effect.

[palmer]

To clarify, if solar activity is unusually high as Solanki says, there are fewer cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere because of the increase in the sun's magentic field. This is thought to be a warming effect because cosmic rays help form low level clouds that cool the earth.

[cogitator]

What is your point? And again, why has the temperature trend stalled over the last decade?

Same Solanki. If you'd go to the link, you'd read:

"The figure shows that sunspot numbers rose in the first half of the 20th century, along with temperatures. The rise in solar activity in the early part of the century is though to be connected with an 80 year cycle of solar activity known as the Gleissman cycle. The temperature increase in the second half of the twentieth century does not seem to linked with sunspot numbers."

"Although the correspondance with sunspot numbers is good, the relationship between sunspot numbers and solar irradiance is not straightforward. Several methods exist to calculate solar irradiance from sunspot numbers. One of the most recent is that of Solanki & Fligge (1999). When estimated irradiance is used instead of straight sunspot numbers, the* correspondance with global temperatures, but it still cannot explain the increase in temperatures over the past 30 years."

* I think this should say "there is"; anyway, here's Figure 3:

Your question "Why has the temperature trend stalled over the last decade?" -- because 1998 was an abnormally warm year with a massive El Nino. 2005 was nearly as warm (Goddard Institute of Space Studies found it warmer) WITHOUT an El Nino occurring. Odds are the next El Nino year will set a new global temperature record; then there won't be a "stall" to worry about.

[Old Professer]

Try reading my profile; I didn't know this was settled: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/moon/moon_evolution_overview.html

[ChessExpert]

Nice graph. In this span of time, sunspots, temperature and CO2 appear to be correlated. Obviously, sunspots are not an effect of anything taking place on earth. Sunspots seem a plausible cause of changing temperatures. Would changing temperatures have an impact on CO2?

[palmer]

Would changing temperatures have an impact on CO2?

Yes, see my post 130, but the effect is a matter of debate. Also note that my graph is created by bandpass filtering the data, a legitimate time series technique (just like the PCA that creates the hockey stick).

[3niner]

Try reading my profile

Well, that took a while. I hadn't noticed that you had misspelled professor in your screen name. Obviously I wouldn't have thought that you were really a professor, if I had noticed that sooner.

I didn't know this was settled:

I followed your "earth/moon" link. It reminded me of the books on cosmology, written for kids, that I read in the '60s. I was exposed to a much more complete picture when I went to CalTech, in the '70s.

Suffice it to say that the "capture" theory is just silly.

The third case is generally accepted as fact. The first case could simply be a way of looking at the third case, depending on how the terms are defined.

There is geological/selenological evidence that the Earth and moon (Luna) are linked. They formed from essentially the same material, at essentially the same time.

There is also a geological record of the change in the Earth's rotation rate. Legend has it that Isaac Newton explained the linkage of the Earth's tides, the widening orbit of the moon, and the slowing of Earth's rotation, when he was 12 years old.

I don't know if the legend is true, but I learned about it as part of a cautionary tale about asking stupid questions of Richard Feynman. I was 18 at the time, and promptly figured it out for myself. Any CalTech freshman could have done the same.

[Exton1]

The article is all lies. Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year.
To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C . Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 Gt C .

[palmer]

Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 Gt C

Those rates aren't going to change very rapidly, in some cases CO2 will increase along with temperature (e.g. warmer ocean uptakes less CO2 in general) The biomass won't respond very quickly and will be highly variable on other factors (temp, precip, etc). The bottom line is the 5T of human carbon shows up first, mostly, in the atmosphere.

[Old Professer]

I clicked back to see exactly where you felt comfortable insulting me and now find myself wishing I could meet your 18 year-old version to see if what was so obvious then to him can be quantified better now by your smugger self; how many hours longer is the earth day today and how much farther is the moon now versus then?

[cogitator]

The article is all lies. Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year.

Yes, that's accurate. Putting your numbers into perspective with a figure:

So why is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continuing to increase?

Hint: 110 + 70+ 35 = 215

50 + 60 + 80 + 22 = 212