The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?  (Read 59474 times)

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #50 on: 20/11/2009 18:43:51 »
pepper

My comment on Mecca was gratuitous, and I appologize for it.  However, Islam is not a race, it is religion. And I doubt you are a biggot even though that was unfortunately implied by your post. As for broken records. I confess. I don't take these CO2 concerns seriously for several reasons.

First, it does not matter; nothing meaningfull will be done to reduce CO2 emissions until both China and India become prosperous enough to consider alternatives. In addition, I do not believe in out-of-control global warming catastrophy for the simple reason life flourished during eras of 3,000 ppm.

Finally, [broken record again] the climate was warm during both Roman and Midieval times. The reasons are obscure, but there does seem solid evidence of a 1,500 year cycle, but we don't know why.  In any event civilization flourished during the warm eras. This seems to be related to excess food production available for non-agricultural work projects.

The most serious threat to life is the inevitable next Ice Age.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #51 on: 20/11/2009 19:24:17 »

What life flourished during eras of 3000ppm?
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #52 on: 20/11/2009 19:51:50 »
You wrote: "What life flourished during eras of 3000ppm?"

I stand corrected. The CO2 curve varies from about about 1,500 ppm during the Triasic, to about 2,500ppm in the Jurasic, to as little as 750 ppm in the Cretaceous; a span of about 250 million years. Give or take a T-Rex or two...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
« Last Edit: 20/11/2009 20:01:37 by litespeed »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #53 on: 23/11/2009 05:47:09 »
I dont have a lot of time right now, as I have class in about 15 minutes, but I can provide evidence...lots of it.  Ive spent the last few years collecting resources, so this will not be nearly comprehensive.  I can also do a little better than 70 years...I can go back more than 400,000 years, and establish a very long trend.  Ill start with the landmark paper by Gerard Bond.  This particular paper doesnt equate temperature specifically, but it does relate North Atlantic ice rafted debris (IRD) events to solar activity over the past 12,000 years.  IRD events are caused by glacial calving in Greenland, Iceland, and Northern Canada during times of marked glacial growth (cooling events).  As the icebergs calve and spread into the N Atlantic, they carry LOTS of sediment within them that are dropped into the ocean when they melt.  The latitude and concentrations of these glacial sediments in the oceanic cores can tell us a lot about sea temperatures and the extent of glaciation/sea ice.

The citation for the paper is:
Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M.N., Showers, W., Hoffmann, S.,
Lotti-Bond, R., Hajdas, I., Bonani, G., 2001. Persistent solar influence on North
Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294 (5549), 2130–2136.

I encourage you to look it up and read it if you can.  If you cant find it, let me know and I will email it to you.  Bond is a very well respected geologist/climatologist and is considered among the giants in the field.  This paper alone has been cited over 700 times, and this is not even including his works helping to lay the foundations of plate tectonics during the 60's and 70's.  Anyway...enough adoration :)

The black lines are abundances of different IRD sediments in oceanic cores (all originating from different areas of the N Atlantic). The blue lines are 14C concentrations taken from tree rings chronologies if I remember correctly, and the red lines are 10Be concentrations from Greenland ice cores (both proxies for solar activity)


I have much more to post on shorter and longer time scales if you would like to see it in the future. 

I thought I didn't care about disputing with you 'skeptics' anymore but.
Ah well, changed my mind :)

Quoting a conversation in realcimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/muddying-the-peer-reviewed-literature/

Go there and look in the 'readers comment section', and please, read the rest of the comments following the quotation and see for yourself.


---------Quote-----------------
With respect to your statement that “No one calculates the surface temperature (which is well observed) using the atmospheric heat content”. I do not know how you made this bizzare interpretation of the quotes from the reports I provided to you!

[Response: Your quote stated exactly that the equation for determining T of the planet involved an equation using the rate of change of the heat content, the forcing and lambda. I do not recognise that anyone determines T in such a fashion. -gavin]

In your original post, you wrote

“Please point me to one study anywhere in the literature which has used the surface temperature record to infer changes in the heat content of the atmosphere”.

I have done that in the NRC (2005) report and the CCSP report which is in the chapter that Ben Santer authored.

[Response: Sorry, but no. I have no objection to the CCSP quote in the slightest. But it is completely un-responsive to my question since it does not address atmospheric heat content at all. And despite the NRC quote (on which you were a co-author) I still don't see anyone actually calculating H using T. Show me one such calculation. - gavin]

Now that I have answered your challenge to the question in your original post, you have changed the question to “”No one calculates the surface temperature (which is well observed) using the atmospheric heat content”. Of course, we don’t and no one has claimed this! You have mis-represented what I wrote with this later claim.

[Response: I just read what you quoted. I agree it would be a bizarre thing to do (progress!). - gavin]

The authors of the [with the"odd" quote] NRC report, besides myself, were Daniel Jacob, Roni Avissar, Gerald Bond, Stuart Gaffin, Jeff Kiehl, Judith Lean, Ulricke Lohmann, Michael Mann, V. Ramanthan and Lynn Russell. For you then to state that the “quote from the NRC report is, frankly, a little odd” simply means you disagree with it. The peer reviewed NRC report assessed the climate communities perspective on the surface temperature anomaly and what this metric means in terms of radiative forcing and climate system heat changes. Your disagreement with the statement in that report is with a wider community than just the authors of the Klotzbach et al 2009 paper.

[Response: Had I peer reviewed it, I would have questioned it. I didn't, and so there it is. I'm perfectly happy to be in disagreement with a few lines of an NRC report (these are good, but not infallible). However, there is still not a single calculation that uses this formulation that I can see. If this was so widely supported by the community, there would be an actual paper that used this equation to calculate atmospheric heat content anomalies surely? Yet there is not. - gavin]

On your statement that “Half of your paper using an incorrect expectation (based on the McKitricks’ inadvertently mistaken calculation) and the other half doesn’t address the issue at all (since no real physical process in the PBL can cause a bias in the surface temperature records)”

indicates that you still do not accurately report on (or understand) our paper. First, Ross McKitrick’s calculations were not mistaken but used a set of data from your GISS model output.

[Response: Unfortunately, it appears to be you that just doesn't understand. The subset of model output that McKitrick used (which was provided for a completely different issue) is not capable of giving the metric you want. It doesn't matter what model it came from. I did do the calculation that you wanted and let you have the full raw data to check it. The answer is very different from what you got from McKitrick. Did you find my calculation in error perhaps? If so, let me know and we can see what the issue is. In the meantime you appear to be arguing with me over what the GISS model shows for amplification of the MSU-LT trends over land. There is no argument here - McKitrick's answer is not correct (though his error was inadvertent). Your refusal to take the correction on board appears to be quite deliberate. Why? - gavin]

Moreover, to state that “half” of our paper depends on that calculation is wrong. Our results are robust even without using an amplification.

[Response: This makes no sense. What is your result then? Comparing two trends without having a reason to think about how they should be related allows you to conclude nothing. - gavin]

Second, the bias in using the surface temperature trends is in its interpretation as a metric of temperature trends above the surface. We have clearly shown (in several of our papers) that a systematic warm bias exists when the surface temperature measurements are in a stably stratified boundary layer, and the lower troposphere warms. The Klotzbach et al 2009 paper examined this issue and concluded this is a robust result.

[Response: But (and now we are apparently back to square one), no one has ever made that interpretation! If they had, there might be some point to this, but they haven't. The only paper I know that used the energy content of the atmosphere in a calculation (Levitus et al, 2001) used the energy content metric directly from a reanalysis. Perhaps you know of another example? - gavin]

As we have written before, we look forward to a formal exchange with you on this issue in the peer-reviewed literature as part of a Comment/Reply.

[Response: I tried really hard to help you guys out with this one, under the naive assumption that you would want to get it right all on your own. I didn't have to check McKitrick's calculation, let alone do the proper calculation myself and embroil myself in yet another pointless debate. You chose (are choosing) instead to persist in error despite having the right answer given to you, and the tools at your disposal to check the calculation any which way you want. Dr. Klotzbach said that you were going to put in a corrigenda and I urge you to do so and to make it substantive. - gavin]

----------End of quote-----------------------

And don't tell me it's humbug. We both know that this is one of the guys making the paper you cite.
« Last Edit: 23/11/2009 06:08:09 by yor_on »
 

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #54 on: 23/11/2009 17:45:46 »
I thought I didn't care about disputing with you 'skeptics' anymore but.
Ah well, changed my mind :)

The label "skeptics" was always very amusing to me.  I wonder when exactly skepticism became unnecessary to science.

As for what you actually meant by the label, that I do not believe that humans have an effect on the climate system, you are very far off the mark.  The radiative effect of CO2 is at least qualitatively established (though not quantitatively), so I would be academically dishonest if I did not acknowledge that humans have altered the climate system to some extent.  I have said such in many previous posts, and would become a very poor climatologist if I didnt.  It is the degree of our contribution for which I am a "skeptic", and nothing more than that.

And don't tell me it's humbug. We both know that this is one of the guys making the paper you cite.

Im not sure if you meant to post a different link and accidentally included the wrong one.  Please clarify.  The person responding in the comments section is Dr. Gavin Schmidt, who runs the realclimate.org website, and is a colleague and co-author with at least one of my climatology professors.  He is not associated with Bond et al. 2001...nor with any other Bond publication that I have ever read.  The responses happen to *mention* Dr Bond once as an author of a National Research Council report, but Dr. Schmidts responses have absolutely nothing to do with the paper that I have posted.  They do discuss McKitrick and McIntyre some...was this supposed to be in response to the thread below and accidentally posted here?

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26877.msg284908#msg284908

Gerard Bond has written MANY papers and reports, and his opinions were highly sought after until his death in 2005.  This should serve to lend gravity to his body of work, which puts me at a bit of a loss as to your intention for posting this reply.





 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #55 on: 24/11/2009 13:00:57 »
I doubt you are a biggot even though that was unfortunately implied by your post.
How?

Quote
As for broken records. I confess. I don't take these CO2 concerns seriously for several reasons.
Not taking them seriously is one thing - that's dismissal or even apathy.
Repeatedly preaching the opposite is quite another!
Not being a bigot, I accept the possibility that I may be wrong to trust the body-scientific in their standpoint that:
1. The earth's eco-sphere is currently sustaining a warming trend.
2. That any rapid change is global temps is bad for life in general.
3. The vast majority of the change is caused of man's activities.

The one of these statements that lacks the 'knock-out blow' of truth is number 3.  The other two are, by scientific bodies the world over, beyond doubt.


Quote
nothing meaningful will be done to reduce CO2 emissions until both China and India become prosperous enough to consider alternatives.
Quite right.  We in the west have had our 'cake' for a long time.  Now we owe it to the rest of the world to pay them back for the damage.  India and China (& the rest) deserve the growth they are now on the verge of realising. We need to pay to ensure that they can do it cleanly; whilst cutting our growth back and concentrate on taking responsibly for our own poor & destitute. [obviously, what I've written is a massive oversimplification, but if it's a fair and sustainable world we want that's the general gist.]

Quote
...there does seem solid evidence of a 1,500 year cycle, but we don't know why.
Okay, I'll indulge you.  How many times has this 'cycle' been repeated? On provable evidence that is (after all, you would only accept the most rigorous evidence from the other side).

Quote
The most serious threat to life is the inevitable next Ice Age.
Undoubtedly another ice age will occur some indeterminate amount of time in the future.  Statistically, we are overdue for all sorts of planetary disasters - the Jellystone eruption, meteors the size of NYC, etc.  So what!  By your logic, we all should start building enormous towers now to get above the debris cloud that will be coming - Comparing this to your 'I'm going to drive around extra to combat the coming ice age'.

The difference is CC is happening now (the meteor is already in the sky -if you like) - let's at least attempt to try to slow it!
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #56 on: 24/11/2009 17:59:09 »
pepper - You wrote: "Original question: What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?" If the emails hacked from the Director of University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit are real, then GW for the last decade or more is directly attributable to specific individuals.

You may be better at math then I am. Perhaps you can figure out just how much of the reported GW is from these particular humans [emphasis added] they seem to have it all worked out:

-----------------------
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/
« Last Edit: 24/11/2009 18:04:27 by litespeed »
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #57 on: 24/11/2009 18:12:26 »
pepper -  "Quote ...there does seem solid evidence of a 1,500 year cycle, but we don't know why." Okay, I'll indulge you.  How many times has this 'cycle' been repeated?from the other side)."

"Scientists got the first unequivocal evidence of a continuing moderate natural climate cycle in the 1980s, when Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland first saw two mile-long ice cores from Greenland representing 250,000 years of Earth's frozen, layered climate history. From their initial examination, Dansgaard and Oeschger estimated the smaller temperature cycles at 2,550 years. Subsequent research shortened the estimated length of the cycles to 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years)."

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319

 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #58 on: 24/11/2009 19:11:16 »
pepper - You wrote: "... Now we owe it to the rest of the world to pay them back for the damage."

What Damage? All industrial nations have cleaner environments now then at any time in the last many hundreds of years. [Can you imagine living in a metropolitan area where chamber pots are thrown out of upstairs windows?] Further, the climate is far more docile then it was even 200 years ago. If you get The History Channel I recommend 'The Little Ice Age: Big Chill (History Channel)' this comming Wednesday.

At any rate, my basic point is that CO2 legislation in the Industrial World is entirely pointless:

"...wind and solar ... are just one-sixth of 1 percent of American ...consumption. Nuclear? ... rich nations endorse reducing world carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. [however] if nuclear is to supply even 10 percent ... the world must build more than 50 large ... plants a year. Currently five a year are being built."  http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will112209.php3

Reducing CO2 from industrial societies is little more then self-flagelation and would have about the same effect as the midieval version during the Black Death. [Which, incidentally, was accomodated by above mentioned Little Ice Age.]

So. Planetary CO2 will continue to increase. Inevitable. PERIOD. The good news? It just might not matter all that much. And Get A Load Of This: we now have evidence the highest levels of climate research scientists have been [pardon the expression] cooking the books. In order to "...hide the cooling".

As 'The Church Lady' used to say. "Well. Never mind..."


 

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #59 on: 24/11/2009 22:38:57 »
pepper -  "Quote ...there does seem solid evidence of a 1,500 year cycle, but we don't know why." Okay, I'll indulge you.  How many times has this 'cycle' been repeated?from the other side)."

litespeed is correct.  At least the past two glaciations display Dansgaard/Oeschger (DO) events, and much of the reason we cant tell beyond that is because of resolution problems in glacial cores.  They show up in every major proxy...ocean sediment cores (around the world), glacial cores (both Antarctica and Greenland), as well as speleothem records (around the world, though the best examples are in China).  It is not yet known whether it is a true cycle, or an internal response from the climate system, but the period actually has a somewhat wide range in error at 1500 +/- 500 years.  These also agree well with ice rafted debris events reported in Bond 2001 above (Ill send you the paper if you like...just ask).  The Gleissberg (~87 yrs) and deVries/Suess (~220 yrs) solar cycles form harmonics with a periodicity that ranges at around 1500 +/- 500 years, which is also reported in the Bond paper, but a solid, compelling link between the two has not yet been established.  It is possible that centennial scale cooling events during the Holocene are expressions of the DO events from the glaciations.

As for the East Anglia emails...It would be better to judge them in the context of the conversation, which we do not know, unfortunately.  So far, the only definite wrongdoing that I can see is in circumventing FoI requests...which leads one to wonder exactly what they have to hide.  McKitrick and McIntyre have really been a thorn in their sides, but that is not a reason to circumvent the law.  (I actually think that McKitrick and McIntyre have done some pretty good work...the hockeystick fiasco...Goddard Space Institute having to change 1934 to being the warmest year on record instead of 1998)
« Last Edit: 24/11/2009 22:43:33 by frethack »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #60 on: 25/11/2009 14:14:08 »
emails hacked from the Director of University of East Anglia
Good grief! The 'denialist' camp must be be in dire-straits if we have sunk to a level where commenting on one alleged email that can't be substantiated is banded about  - on this site of all places.  In any case, one bad egg does not a conspiracy make!  This sort of thing is a distraction at best and should not be posted in the first place.

What Damage? All industrial nations have cleaner environments now then at any time in the last many hundreds of years.
I think you're confusing cleaner environments with better air quality.

Reducing CO2 from industrial societies is little more then self-flagelation
Do you want to explain that rhetoric, please?



It is not yet known whether it is a true cycle, or an internal response from the climate system, but the period actually has a somewhat wide range in error at 1500 +/- 500 years.
Thanks for the offer of sending the paper.  I'm sure it would be interesting, although being out of my field I will take it's rigour on trust at present.
That said, I have some a couple of queries that you might be able to illuminate on.
First, what do you mean by "internal response"?
Second, a fifty percent error margin - how can anything be analysed or predicted from that?  And even that assumes that the extrapolation for the core samples is valid.
Thirdly, let's just say, for arguments sake that this analysis is right on the money, what does it give us as a prediction of future climate trends? Does it indicate in any good-science way a climate maxima is happening?
« Last Edit: 25/11/2009 14:30:54 by peppercorn »
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #61 on: 25/11/2009 23:44:02 »
fret - You wrote: "First, what do you mean by "internal response"? I don't have a clue, but also have the epistomological advantage of not having written it.

You also wrote: "Second, a fifty percent error margin - how can anything be analysed or predicted from that?"  1,500 years plus/minus 500 is not fifty percent, and it is not an error margin, it is, I THINK, an observed variation.  None-the-less, those who argue this point tell us they observe this particular cycle in historical times, and we are now due for a warming.  Which, IMHO, is WAY better then the alternative.

As for the embarrassing email?  There is not just one. There is an entire sequence. I don't know how serious it is.  But hell, the guy flat out says he is manipulating the data. 

Flagelation?  The industrial world can begger itself back to huddling in caves without fire at all while India and China, about half the world population(?), build thousands of coal plants without even modern SO2 scrubbers. Its entirely pointless. Farting into a hurricane.






« Last Edit: 25/11/2009 23:46:33 by litespeed »
 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #62 on: 26/11/2009 00:17:20 »
Flagelation?  The industrial world can begger itself back to huddling in caves without fire at all while India and China, about half the world population(?), build thousands of coal plants without even modern SO2 scrubbers. Its entirely pointless. Farting into a hurricane.

Depends on what you want to achieve. Do you want to stop or slow down the hurricane or do you want to get better at farting? I for one think that it would be wise to practice farting. We (in the USA) are lousy at it and it would be of great advantage to be so skilled that it will allow us to live entirely without hurricanes. Or at least smaller storms. We could even become one of the world's leaders in farting technology. Although it will be hard to catch up with the Europeans. Great farting going on there. I believe even the Chinese are practicing farting while they are building up the hurricane simultaneously. Now that we have created a hurricane ourselves, we just sit on our asses, expect to reap the benefits, and do nothing. Not knowing how to fart at a really big scale leads to "Developing County" status.
 

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #63 on: 30/11/2009 17:12:17 »
First, what do you mean by "internal response"?

Sorry, the term is a little vague.  What I meant by "internal response" is the climate system reacting to a number of forcing agents that just happen to culminate about every 1500 years rather than a direct response to a single (or a few) forcing agents.  Say that Greenlands continental glaciers begin advancing because their accumulation rates overcome ablation (melting...sort of).  Because of this advancement, large ice rafting events occur in the N Atlantic as the glaciers calve off icebergs, which causes a freshening of the normally dense, salty water in the N Atlantic, and pushes the overturning circulation slightly southward (the meridional overturning circulation "recycles" surface water into deep water currents, somewhat like a conveyor belt).  This in turn would also cool the northern latitudes because heat is no longer carried as far north by the surface currents, and allow sea ice to extend further south...perpetuating the "cycle".

This is a very brief (and likely poorly written) synopsis of one hypothesis for Heinrich events.  DO events and Heinrich events are related in that DO events are warming periods lasting on centennial time scales with intermittent cool periods.  Some of these cooling periods have very large ice rafting events called Heinrich events, which appear to have a loose periodicity.

Second, a fifty percent error margin - how can anything be analysed or predicted from that?  And even that assumes that the extrapolation for the core samples is valid.
Thirdly, let's just say, for arguments sake that this analysis is right on the money, what does it give us as a prediction of future climate trends? Does it indicate in any good-science way a climate maxima is happening?


You would be very surprised at the error margins involved in almost all areas of climate research.  This particular one is not 50%, but about 33%.  As for the extrapolation from the core samples...DO and Heinrich events are repeated over many different types of proxy records from all over the world.  The timing and degree of climate system response varies somewhat from region to region, which is to be expected, but it is pretty certain that they have occurred. 

*If* solar activity is the main forcing agent for these events, as well as the cooling and warming events during the Holocene, it would be expected that the very high solar activity of the past 150 years or so would produce a climate optimum.  Even if this is proven the case (which could take many more years of research) that still does not mean that *all* of the warming being experienced is from natural sources.

Sorry it took me so long to reply...I love the holidays :)

 

« Last Edit: 30/11/2009 17:43:05 by frethack »
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #64 on: 01/12/2009 17:37:58 »
Hi Kartsten,

I understand Indians [from India] do a lot of loud farting, and may actually be a sort of status symbol for being well fed.  Cows and other ungulant animals are WAY good at this. Thus the term 'Holy Cow'. I believe some people support various types of vegetarianism in order to cut down on cow methane.

On the otherhand, trash dumps have become so technically efficient that methane is sometimes harvested from rotting trash. Further, human farts are also ignitable. As a college freshman we tried to convince one of our room mates of this.  He was skeptical but agreed to lay back on the lower bunk, put his feet on the underside of the upper bunk, while we held a butane lighter in the proper location.

He really let one go resulting in a perfect six or seven inch blue flame. This scared the living hell out of him and he ran from the room like, well, his butt was on fire, and quenched it all in the shower nearby.  One of the better stories of my long accademic life.....
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #65 on: 01/12/2009 18:12:00 »
fret - Your observations on margin of error are well taken. Its one reason I am a skeptic in general. During the 1970's oil embargo we were assured natural gas supplies would be exhausted in ten years. For Sure! 

I noticed unused tennis courts and office buildings brightly lit late at night and actually considered starting a small buisiness to provide specialized lighting management for such things.  We would contract with businesses and government to ensure lighting was turned off late in the evening after every one was gone. The Lighting Police! Now natural gas supplies are estimated at two hundred years. Decorative outdoor lighting in metropolitan areas is routine. Jeeze......

Also during the 1970's we were assured the signs of a New Ice Age were 'everywhere'. Over time I began to understand the social dynamics of hysteria. These hysterias range from poisoned Jack in the Box Taccos, to 'give up colesterol eggs' to the various statins to reduce cholesterol.

For decades I have challenged my physicians to provide studies showing statins routinely increased life expectancy in healthy people. HA! Talk about tortured science. They never even argued with me very much. Sort of shuffled their feet and mumbled about this or that advantage. In fact, EYE was the one who informed them of studies showing Simvistatin apparently has a huge impact on reducing dimentia in Veterans Administration studies. It seems to be the only LARGE advantage, and is limited to this particular statin.  But mums the word..... 

So. I get suspicious when people support GW by showing photographs of forlorn Polar Bears, or seem entirely ignorant of actual cyclical ups and downs within historic times. And of course they do themselves no service in trumpeting this hurricane, or that hot summer, or a cluster of toronadoes as support for their views. Its just rediculous. More specifically, the Little Ice Age endend in the mid to late 1800's.  And it got warmer. What in the living hell did they expect?

Now its getting cooler. For now. I just hope it does not get COLD, like the Little Ice Age.....

 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #66 on: 01/12/2009 18:40:51 »
fret - In addition to the very large margins of error in the variables we know, it seems clear we do not have anything near a complete list of variables.  For instance, I believe most vocanic activity takes place in the oceans. I have never even seen this listed as a variable, much less a quantification of the effects, or if these effects change over time.

It reminds me of The Drake Equation used to estimate the number of advanced civilizations in the Galaxy.  I think Drake plugged in some Wild Ass Quesses, and came up with less then twenty. Over the years, on a routine basis, some SETI reasearcher or another expresses absolute confidence we will discover such a civilization within x number of years. This usually happens after plans are made for ever more sophisticated detection methods.

Then actual data started coming in. Two things happened. First, the number of variables in the Drake equation started increasing. For instance, he never considered the importance of our specific, and very weird, moon. The equation for that variable adds orders of magnitude AGAINST the advanced life.  Seems you need just the exact size of an impact planet impacting the earth at just the exact angle and speed.  Without this you do not get a stable climate on the planet. Think a four bumper bank shot on a pool table to sink the eight ball.

Further, the original equation did not include consideration of Gas Giants.  It turns out you really really need at least one Gas Giant in the outer solar system to police up potential catastrophies such as Shumaker Levy Comet. But it gets worse.  We have now detected perhaps three hundred extra solar planets, and quess what. All but one of these systems have Gas Giants in their Inner Solar systems. Scratch 299 Goldie Locks orbits.

And the one rocky planet detected is too close to its sun.  I know something about statistical sampling, and all this is really really bad for the Drake Equation.
« Last Edit: 01/12/2009 18:43:42 by litespeed »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #67 on: 02/12/2009 09:26:13 »
What I meant by "internal response" is the climate system reacting to a number of forcing agents that just happen to culminate about every 1500 years rather than a direct response to a single (or a few) forcing agents.
Thanks for the explanation, frethack.
So, if my understanding is correct, this very general climate trend could either be related to some sort of long-term variation in energy input (most likely solar) OR a purely climatic feedback loop of one kind or another (I.E. influenced by many factors perhaps including northern sea salinity cycles).

I'm sure you would agree that the single outstanding conclusion that we can draw from this sea ('scuse the pun!) of observation and analysis is that our world's climate approaches one of the most complex and hard-to-predict systems Man has to deal with.

There is, at the same time, some very fundamental aspects that affect our atmosphere.  They include very well understood chemical interactions, including the spectral absorption of atmospheric gases.  It just seems foolish in the extreme to add Our own random impacts to a system we are still in the infancy of understanding.

*If* solar activity is the main forcing agent for these events, as well as the cooling and warming events during the Holocene, it would be expected that the very high solar activity of the past 150 years or so would produce a climate optimum.  Even if this is proven the case (which could take many more years of research) that still does not mean that *all* of the warming being experienced is from natural sources.
Even the most direct sampling from ice cores, etc seem to give a far from decisive image about what the Earth's climate looked like in any one period.  It would seem folly to claim as anything more than conjecture that this ambiguous evidence points to more than a bit-part for solar variation in the overall climate history.
Under the current circumstances of our known impact, I hope it will take a great deal more proof than this for any scientist working in the field.
 

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #68 on: 02/12/2009 14:02:09 »
So, if my understanding is correct, this very general climate trend could either be related to some sort of long-term variation in energy input (most likely solar) OR a purely climatic feedback loop of one kind or another (I.E. influenced by many factors perhaps including northern sea salinity cycles).

It would very much surprise me if it were an either/or situation.  The solar effect is very obviously there.  The radio nucleotides produced by variations in solar activity are very well correlated with major IRD events, but there are a few excursions that appear to be solely within the system.  There are more than a few papers on this subject, and if you would like, after finals are over I can compile a list.

I'm sure you would agree that the single outstanding conclusion that we can draw from this sea ('scuse the pun!) of observation and analysis is that our world's climate approaches one of the most complex and hard-to-predict systems Man has to deal with.

Yes, absolutely.  Without question.

There is, at the same time, some very fundamental aspects that affect our atmosphere.  They include very well understood chemical interactions, including the spectral absorption of atmospheric gases.  It just seems foolish in the extreme to add Our own random impacts to a system we are still in the infancy of understanding.

You are mostly very correct.  However, I am still waiting to see a paper that can quantitatively measure the radiative properties of the various greenhouse gasses.  We know that it happens, but its the "how much" that I want to know.  There are other gray areas as well, such as cloud nucleation, which we understand next to nothing about.  The importance of understanding this process cannot be overstated, as clouds are a major factor in the earths albedo.

Even the most direct sampling from ice cores, etc seem to give a far from decisive image about what the Earth's climate looked like in any one period.

One core cannot do much on its own, but a multiproxy approach that establishes a very large body of evidence can begin to reveal the big picture.  We know a lot more than we did 20 years ago and can make some educated assertions, but much more work is necessary. 

It would seem folly to claim as anything more than conjecture that this ambiguous evidence points to more than a bit-part for solar variation in the overall climate history.

If this were the only major evidence for solar influence, I would agree with you.  As I said, there is MUCH more to post, which I can return to after finals are over.  In perspective, the sun effectively provides the earths climate system with 100% of its energy.  There are other sources of energy input (cosmic radiation, volcanism (general tectonics), magnetism, etc.), but they comprise only a very small fraction of a percent of the total energy compared to that received from the sun.  In my opinion, the folly is in thinking that variations in the single source of energy to the climate system would have little effect here on earth.

Under the current circumstances of our known impact, I hope it will take a great deal more proof than this for any scientist working in the field.

As I stated above, this is not a single, lone paper that researchers are basing their findings on.  It was merely a paper by a scientist (who is very well respected on both sides of the debate) that can serve as a starting point to post more evidence.  It is worth stating that there are a good many reputable scientists researching solar influences on climate.  After finals are over I can begin posting the larger body of evidence (which by no means will be exhaustive...there is more out there than I can feasibly post).
« Last Edit: 02/12/2009 14:08:40 by frethack »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #69 on: 02/12/2009 14:56:06 »
After finals are over I can begin posting the larger body of evidence.
Well, until then, good luck with those finals!
I will take on the generally valid points you've made -  It is good to ensure that no unfounded assumptions have slipped through the net for either argument.

When you are talking about radiative properties of GH gases, I take it you mean their emission spectrum. I would be surprised if those data are not easily found... I will start by Googling it...
 

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #70 on: 02/12/2009 19:01:34 »
When you are talking about radiative properties of GH gases, I take it you mean their emission spectrum. I would be surprised if those data are not easily found... I will start by Googling it...

Not necessarily their emission spectrum.  What I am looking for is a reproducible experiment that can show that X ppm of CO2 produces Y W/m2 of radiative forcing with Z W/m2 of incoming solar radiation.
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #71 on: 03/12/2009 00:11:09 »
IN GENERAL

Climatologist and the climate models are entirely incapable of modeling the last decade of plantetary cooling. The guys in Bolder Colorado seem entirely perplexed by all the snow shoveling that has come their way. The actual words they use are something like 'inexplicable'. Perhaps they used the word 'travesty' or some such to describe climate modeling failures.

It does not matter much. The CO2 guys are looking more and more like Pope Urban whats his number and Galaleo. My quess is these maniacs are PRAYING for more signs of warming. Unhappily I hope for the same.  The alternative is cooling, famine, pestulance, and all that comes with cold climates.

Who woulda thought....


 

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #72 on: 03/12/2009 03:45:55 »
IN GENERAL

Climatologist and the climate models are entirely incapable of modeling the last decade of plantetary cooling.

You can shorten that even further. How about:

Climatologists and the climate models are entirely incapable of modeling the climate.

If you dont understand or cant even account for all of the input parameters there is little hope of getting anything meaningful from the other end.  That being said, models will hopefully be far more useful once processor capacity and our knowledge of climate progresses.
 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #73 on: 04/12/2009 01:20:28 »
Hi Kartsten,

I understand Indians [from India] do a lot of loud farting, and may actually be a sort of status symbol for being well fed.  Cows and other ungulant animals are WAY good at this. Thus the term 'Holy Cow'. I believe some people support various types of vegetarianism in order to cut down on cow methane.

On the otherhand, trash dumps have become so technically efficient that methane is sometimes harvested from rotting trash. Further, human farts are also ignitable. As a college freshman we tried to convince one of our room mates of this.  He was skeptical but agreed to lay back on the lower bunk, put his feet on the underside of the upper bunk, while we held a butane lighter in the proper location.

He really let one go resulting in a perfect six or seven inch blue flame. This scared the living hell out of him and he ran from the room like, well, his butt was on fire, and quenched it all in the shower nearby.  One of the better stories of my long accademic life.....

Litespeed- my comments about farting where supposed to be understood as a metaphor. If we don't do the little things now ("farting into a hurricane", as you put it), we will fall behind developing technology that will help beginning today but later for sure. Especially since China is trying real hard to become the global leader in clean-energy technology while we in the USA still bicker whether it is really necessary and look for novel ways to get entertained.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #74 on: 07/12/2009 03:46:42 »
litespeed, the email you quoted about "hiding the decline" was referring to the temperature data based on tree rings, after 1960 there began to be discrepancies between tree ring data and thermometer data. (The tree ring data declined, whereas other data did not) "Mikes trick" refers to Dr Michael Mann, one of the worlds leading paleoclimate experts, famous for his reconstruction of global temps based on different sources such as corals, ice cores, historical data and of course tree rings, and overlaying all the data onto the same graph.

So the decline he was hiding was from temp data based on tree rings from 1960 onwards. We have instrumental data from this period anyway so unless you believe that tree ring temperature data is more accurate than every other source we have from 1960 onwards, there really is no argument against global warming from this cherrypicked sentence from a stolen email. It is only tree ring temp data that shows a decline, all other indicators follow each other to correlate with instrumental records.

Don't you see how weak it is though that this non-evidence has been bandied about by deniers who don't even understand what it means, as if it's the holy grail of evidence against global warming?

IN GENERAL

Climatologist and the climate models are entirely incapable of modeling the last decade of plantetary cooling. The guys in Bolder Colorado seem entirely perplexed by all the snow shoveling that has come their way. The actual words they use are something like 'inexplicable'. Perhaps they used the word 'travesty' or some such to describe climate modeling failures.

It does not matter much. The CO2 guys are looking more and more like Pope Urban whats his number and Galaleo. My quess is these maniacs are PRAYING for more signs of warming. Unhappily I hope for the same.  The alternative is cooling, famine, pestulance, and all that comes with cold climates.

Who woulda thought....

Regardless of the accuracy of climate models, how does it change the fact that actual instrumental data shows a steady warming trend? This isn't an argument against global warming.

And again you parrot your notion that "warm is good, cold is bad". I'm all for things being conveiniently simple but it's absurd to suggest this of global climate. But I and others have already tried to get this through to you, why do you keep parroting arguments that have long been refuted? It leads to circular discussion.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #74 on: 07/12/2009 03:46:42 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length