Climate Change Brigade Smear Professor Who Doesn't Agree

[Kurt Barlow]

You can't see CO2 - but you can see, smell and taste smog

A rapid phase out of coal would attenuate all of those issues.

[LiveinHope]

A rapid phase out of coal would attenuate all of those issues.

Of course, just to be precise, the general public push for action when they perceive a change they don't like. Now, if CO2 made the sky black..... or we were 'cold-blooded'

[Goat]

I would ask you to back that up with evidence....

Such as...

Allow me to instruct you in market economics sometime.

[fluffy666]

Such as...

It's not an ad-hom.

I'm merely pointing out your ignorance of the effect of supply and demand on prices via standard market effects, which you demonstrated with the previous post.

[Steppenpig]

Although I'm not a climatologist, I do have a scientific background, and I find climatology a fascinating subject. I've read up on the topic quite a bit, but I'd also like to see a few decent programmes on it.

It all starts with the following conundrum: There is copious evidence that Earth's climate has undergone considerable, semi-periodic changes in the past - ice ages, etc. How can that be, given that the amount of heat that the Earth receives from the sun only varies by small amounts?

Well, uninhibited by my lack of basic knowledge of climate models or relevant facts:

The ice cap for one seems like a really unstable feature. it creates positive feedback whether warming or cooling therefore it must have a strong tendency to grow or to shrink. It must be held in check by changes in sea currents etc, which can probably have very significant effects on local climates.

Then say in a period of ice age the earth establishes a new equilibrium, but plants will gradually start to adapt to the new climate and expand causing warming, causing ice sheet to shrink etc.

But it's probably more complicate than that. Most things seem to be more complicated than I think

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Then say in a period of ice age the earth establishes a new equilibrium, but plants will gradually start to adapt to the new climate and expand causing warming, causing ice sheet to shrink etc.

But it's probably more complicate than that. Most things seem to be more complicated than I think

My understanding is that, at least some, ice ages may have ended relatively rapidly. Maybe in the order of decades.

e.g.

AIP: Rapid Climate Change

Beetles get a mention, 'cos they're great

As abrupt changes became more credible, scientists noticed them in still more kinds of evidence. One example was the shells of beetles, which are abundant in peat bogs, and so remarkably durable that they can be identified even 50,000 years back. Beetles swiftly invade or abandon a region as conditions shift, so the species you find give a sensitive measure of the climate. Russell Coope, studying bog beetles in England, turned up rapid fluctuations from cold to warm and back again, a matter of perhaps 3°C, around 13,000 years ago. It all happened within a thousand years at most, he reported (if the change had been even faster his data could not have shown it).(36) This singular approach got a skeptical response from other scientists who pursued the well-established study of pollens, for they were accustomed to seeing more gradual transformations of forests and grasslands. They easily dismissed the fluctuations in Coope’s records as local peculiarities of English beetles.

[Steppenpig]

My understanding is that, at least some, ice ages may have ended relatively rapidly. Maybe in the order of decades.

AIP: Rapid Climate Change

Beetles get a mention, 'cos they're great

That was an extremely long article, albeit comparitively narrow.

As a "denier" it's the sort of thing that just reinforces my prejudices about what little we know about climate, and what utter madness it is to be wasting money trying to do anything about it.

[Danny Deflation]

Actually, the vast majority of scientists already agree that it is number 2.

They agree that the warming seen over the past century or so has almost certainly been caused primarily by human emissions, and that the climate will continue to change as a consequence of these emissions. Of course the climate has varied naturally in the past, but most of the current observed variation is generally accepted to be the result of human emissions. The link is to a recent statement by the Royal Society, but pretty much the same opinion is held by all the main scientific organisations.

Climate has changed for hundreds (thousands?) of years. Humans have only produced those dreadful CO2 emissions in any measurable quantity since around the 1950s. What was responsible for climate change prior to that decade? Flatulent horses? Any fool can produce a graph to show a correlation between the increase in CO2 and mean global temperatures in the last few years - but that doesn't actually prove a causal link. I dare say the strength of porn movies has increased, like global temperatures, since the fifties - that doesn't mean our summers are governed by the depravity of the latest Ron Jeremy flick.

OK, so I'm being facetious. My point is that I am yet to be convinced that human carbon dioxide emissions are the predominant factor in climate change, and - whilst I do not deny that our climate is changing - I believe it is largely a natural process governed by forces (the sun, plate tectonics, etc) that are far more powerful than us humans.

[LiveinHope]

That was an extremely long article, albeit comparitively narrow.

As a "denier" it's the sort of thing that just reinforces my prejudices about what little we know about climate, and what utter madness it is to be wasting money trying to do anything about it.

I would recommend THIS

To add a bit of flesh to the first two equations in the article.

Equation 1 (left to right) represents the uptake and sequestration of inorganic carbon: The uptake of atmospheric CO2 by rock (such as calcium silicate) during weathering and the deposition of the weathering products (calcium and bicarbonate and silicic acid ) as calcium carbonate and silica by life in the sea, calcium carbonate predominantly by microscopic coccolithorphores and foraminifera and silica mainly in the bodies of diatoms and radiolaria. Right to left the equation describes the combustion of inorganic carbon: volcanism and cement manufacture, returning CO2 to the atmosphere.

Equation 2 (left 2 right) represents the uptake of inorganic carbon and its deposition as organic carbon. Right to left describes the combustion of organic carbon (e.g.volcanism and driving your car) returning CO2 to the atmosphere.

Consequently, it can be seen that changes in the rates of processes will affect atmospheric CO2 composition.

As you can see, biology (now including us) is involved in those rates. It is estimated that Equation 1 from left to right is sufficiently powerful to remove all present atmospheric CO2 in just 10,000 years (if there is no resupply to the atmosphere).

The above are termed the 'long-term' carbon cycle as it operates over millenia.

There is also a short-term organic carbon cycle driven by biology on land and in the sea, which operates over timescales up to 1000's of years. The deep ocean (below 100 m) plays a major role in the short-term cycle as, due to the biology at the sea surface, it is the biggest reactionary store of available carbon on the planet at about 37,000 Gt (about 50 x more carbon than in the atmosphere). Changes in fluxes of carbon between the deep ocean, the sea surface and the atmosphere therefore affect atmospheric CO2 levels over short-term time scales. If the deep ocean degases a little of it's CO2 it will have a big affect on the atmosphere. Likewise, if biology at the sea surface becomes more productive.

So, if we can accept that CO2 influences climate, changes in the rates of both the long-term and short-term carbon cycles influence atmospheric CO2 composition and so climate, and so ice ages. Geological processes and biology play a role in this.

With regard to equations 1 & 2, the article describes how by burning inorganic and organic carbon (cement manufacture and petrochemicals), we are driving the equations right to left, returning CO2 to the atmosphere ~ 100 x faster than would occur naturally at present.

That was fun, wasn't it

(It's a huge oversimplification)

[LiveinHope]

Climate has changed for hundreds (thousands?) of years. Humans have only produced those dreadful CO2 emissions in any measurable quantity since around the 1950s. What was responsible for climate change prior to that decade? Flatulent horses? Any fool can produce a graph to show a correlation between the increase in CO2 and mean global temperatures in the last few years - but that doesn't actually prove a causal link. I dare say the strength of porn movies has increased, like global temperatures, since the fifties - that doesn't mean our summers are governed by the depravity of the latest Ron Jeremy flick.

OK, so I'm being facetious. My point is that I am yet to be convinced that human carbon dioxide emissions are the predominant factor in climate change, and - whilst I do not deny that our climate is changing - I believe it is largely a natural process governed by forces (the sun, plate tectonics, etc) that are far more powerful than us humans.

My link

[MrPin]

My understanding is that, at least some, ice ages may have ended relatively rapidly. Maybe in the order of decades.

e.g.

AIP: Rapid Climate Change

Beetles get a mention, 'cos they're great

God's favourite creatures!

[snowflux]

Climate has changed for hundreds (thousands?) of years. Humans have only produced those dreadful CO2 emissions in any measurable quantity since around the 1950s. What was responsible for climate change prior to that decade? Flatulent horses? Any fool can produce a graph to show a correlation between the increase in CO2 and mean global temperatures in the last few years - but that doesn't actually prove a causal link. I dare say the strength of porn movies has increased, like global temperatures, since the fifties - that doesn't mean our summers are governed by the depravity of the latest Ron Jeremy flick.

OK, so I'm being facetious. My point is that I am yet to be convinced that human carbon dioxide emissions are the predominant factor in climate change, and - whilst I do not deny that our climate is changing - I believe it is largely a natural process governed by forces (the sun, plate tectonics, etc) that are far more powerful than us humans.

Ah, I see the reason for your doubt! It is indeed true that scientists only have direct measurements of temperature going back a couple of hundred years or so, and reliable CO2 measurements for less than that. However, ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic have come to the rescue. These columns of ice, made up of snow deposited and squashed over many thousands of years, contain tiny bubbles of air from those past times. By analysing the air in these bubbles, scientists are able to determine both the CO2 concentration and temperature when the snow fell.

The Vostok ice core record from Antarctica extends back about 400,000 years. Here's what it tells us:

The close correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration is clear, and this points to a link between them. The obvious conclusion is that CO2, with its warming effect, acts as a positive feedback and amplifies minor temperature changes caused by the sun.

Note that the CO2 concentration has shot up to 400 ppm over the past 100 years or so, taking it well off the scale of these graphs!

[Nuggets Mahoney]

That was an extremely long article, albeit comparitively narrow.

It's quite thorough. I pointed to that longish one because I'm not entirely up to date with these things. I'm not sure if suggestion of relatively rapid climate change pre-people will attract the ire of folk who are more up to date than I am.

[Steppenpig]

It's quite thorough. I pointed to that longish one because I'm not entirely up to date with these things. I'm not sure if suggestion of relatively rapid climate change pre-people will attract the ire of folk who are more up to date than I am.

I appreciate your efforts to inform. You seem to have the knack of knowing where to find the good stuff. But it was so long....

Why would it attract ire? Do you mean you'll be accused by the deniers of being alarmist? Personally, I think it would be quite exciting if it happened in the next decade-

[Steppenpig]

. By analysing the air in these bubbles, scientists are able to determine both the CO2 concentration and temperature when the snow fell..

The close correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration is clear, and this points to a link between them. The obvious conclusion is that CO2, with its warming effect, acts as a positive feedback and amplifies minor temperature changes caused by the sun.

I realise I'm not the first person to ask, but how are they so sure of the direction of the causality? I notice also that the dust levels seem to correlate inversely with temperature, which I would immediately think was a more likely candidate, but presumably there is an explanation for that?

edit: actually, if it was the dust that was responsible, then the dust peaks would probably have to occur at (or at least nearer) the turning points on the temp graph, not at the minimums, but i'd still be interested to hear the reason for the correlation between dust and temp or CO2.

[Steppenpig]

And how do they determine the temperatures? Does it affect the crystalline structure? Whatever it is, it must be some sort of theoretical calculation, and as the figures they come with are outside the range of the actual data (of last 200 years) it must be impossible to experimenally confirm them, so how can we be so sure they are reliable?

[ccc]

There is one thing no scientist on either side of this debate would argue. This is - if all humans were to be beamed up from the earth today - along with our factories and power stations etc - then it is still almost certain our climate in a very short geological period of perhaps 20,000 years - will be very different from today.

NO scientist who wanted to maintain any form of credibility would argue that.

Which begs the ongoing question - that I have yet to hear a convincing reply to - apart from trying to be cleaner and less wasteful as a whole - just what is the point in trying to ' fix climate change' ?

Quite simply - there isn't one. Try and be more efficient and respectful to our planet - the obsession with the climate is just a red herring and a total waste of time.

[MrPin]

There is one thing no scientist on either side of this debate would argue. This is - if all humans were to be beamed up from the earth today - along with our factories and power stations etc - then it is still almost certain our climate in a very short geological period of perhaps 20,000 years - will be very different from today.

NO scientist who wanted to maintain any form of credibility would argue that.

Which begs the ongoing question - that I have yet to hear a convincing reply to - apart from trying to be cleaner and less wasteful as a whole - just what is the point in trying to ' fix climate change' ?

Quite simply - there isn't one. Try and be more efficient and respectful to our planet - the obsession with the climate is just a red herring and a total waste of time.

I think peoples' worry and fascination is that it is unfixable, no matter how many beer bottles I recycle personally! No matter what N.Somerset Council does.

[LiveinHope]

I realise I'm not the first person to ask, but how are they so sure of the direction of the causality? I notice also that the dust levels seem to correlate inversely with temperature, which I would immediately think was a more likely candidate, but presumably there is an explanation for that?

edit: actually, if it was the dust that was responsible, then the dust peaks would probably have to occur at (or at least nearer) the turning points on the temp graph, not at the minimums, but i'd still be interested to hear the reason for the correlation between dust and temp or CO2.

Dust is a good fertliser - the amount of dust is influenced by wind and sea level and its distribution is influenced by wind, which are all influenced by temperature - the amount of fertiliser influences biology, which influences atmospheric carbon dioxide, which influences temperature, which influences wind and sea level which ... - and around and around we go. It's all linked. I've kept this short to save time. I think I gave too much detail before.

[ccc]

I think peoples' worry and fascination is that it is unfixable, no matter how many beer bottles I recycle personally! No matter what N.Somerset Council does.

I actually have a wee smirk when I hear the phrase ' fix climate change'

Its such a ridiculous comment I still find it shocking when I hear people say it - especially those that should really know better.

[LiveinHope]

There is one thing no scientist on either side of this debate would argue. This is - if all humans were to be beamed up from the earth today - along with our factories and power stations etc - then it is still almost certain our climate in a very short geological period of perhaps 20,000 years - will be very different from today.

NO scientist who wanted to maintain any form of credibility would argue that.

Which begs the ongoing question - that I have yet to hear a convincing reply to - apart from trying to be cleaner and less wasteful as a whole - just what is the point in trying to ' fix climate change' ?

Quite simply - there isn't one. Try and be more efficient and respectful to our planet - the obsession with the climate is just a red herring and a total waste of time.

Over the last 800,000 years, CO2 has cycled between ~180 and 290 ppm. It is now 399.47. this is a level outside the threshold that biology and geology have cycled CO2 between for 800,000 years (that's what we have records for). So the baseline for the system is now different, which is affecting life on earth, which we are not separate from.

[fluffy666]

I realise I'm not the first person to ask, but how are they so sure of the direction of the causality? I notice also that the dust levels seem to correlate inversely with temperature, which I would immediately think was a more likely candidate, but presumably there is an explanation for that?

edit: actually, if it was the dust that was responsible, then the dust peaks would probably have to occur at (or at least nearer) the turning points on the temp graph, not at the minimums, but i'd still be interested to hear the reason for the correlation between dust and temp or CO2.

There are probably several hundred papers out there investigating this single question.. there's an outline here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#STL

Just from memory, dust generally indicates deserts, or lower general rainfall. A colder planet has less rain+snow overall, so there will be more dust around.

[fluffy666]

I actually have a wee smirk when I hear the phrase ' fix climate change'

Its such a ridiculous comment I still find it shocking when I hear people say it - especially those that should really know better.

Why is it 'ridiculous'? Answers with physics, please.

I mean, I know that you are clearly more knowledgeable and better informed than the guys at Harvard and the Royal Society who have actually considered the question of geoengineering..

http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/89.Keith.EngineeringThePlanet.e.pdf

http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294974022

[SpewLabour]

Why is it 'ridiculous'? Answers with physics, please.

I mean, I know that you are clearly more knowledgeable and better informed than the guys at Harvard and the Royal Society who have actually considered the question of geoengineering..

http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/89.Keith.EngineeringThePlanet.e.pdf

http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294974022

I think it's because you can't "fix" climate change. The climate changes - that's a given. What you're trying to fix is Man-Made Global Warming.

Climate Change is just a lazy term that's been used incorrectly to describe something else.

[fluffy666]

I think it's because you can't "fix" climate change. The climate changes - that's a given. What you're trying to fix is Man-Made Global Warming.

Climate Change is just a lazy term that's been used incorrectly to describe something else.

Why can't you fix climate change, natural or man made?

(Given that our infrastructure is predicated on a fairly constant climate and especially sea level, this would IMO be desirable)