Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

]Solar radiance is not a factor in Milankovitch considerations[/HILITE]. Solar insolation, or the amount of solar energy the Earth intercepts is a factor in all three of the orbital factors Milankovitch considered. If you do not understand these issues, please admit it and ask for help, many here are more than qualified and willing to help those who are confused.

Perhaps you should read this:
http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Forcing/milankovitchcycles.html

Figure 3 shows only the whole year-whole earth variation in total solar radiance due to Milankovitch cycles.

I think you are confusing solar variability with total solar radiance. There's a big difference.

You may also want to peruse this paper:http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/Interglacials-and-CO2-V2.pdf

I'm sure by this point you understand the significance of change in radiance due to the Milankovitch cycles, so how can you deny the significance of a change suggested in the original paper? Frankly I find it mind boggling the level of denial being expressed here.

 

[Furcifer]

Yep, you need to stick to better sources of information and avoid the conspiracy woodoo sites.

How is a well documented bias in temperature readings due to placement voodoo?


There's no way to refute this evidence so instead attack the source? That doesn't seem very scientific.

 

[Dancing David]

So you agree there is a correlation. Well at least that's a step in right direction. And I say it's a strong correlation given that for 900 years before the last 30 years, cosmic ray flux appears to have dropped when temperatures dropped and climbed when temperatures climbed.

What are the error bars on the consmic ray proxies, what global temperature matrix are you using?

The LIA is not a global event.

 

[Trakar]

http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/2274-ramesh-backed-paper-questions-another-ipcc-claim.html



Sounds like someone is listening.

Only the denialist echo-chamber, link the paper instead of inflamatory conspiracy rants and spins and I'll be happy to give substantive responses, if all you are going to share is one-sided mud-slinging, I'll wait for the reader's digerst version.

 

[Trakar]

How about this: http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html



Talk about global warming hysteria.

You are comparing modern times to ice age depths, it is only appropriate that you compare ice age depths to similar extremes of heat.

Moore's work is littered with scientifically false and inaccurate information as well as inappropriate comparisons, hopefully you are relying on more than this for you assessment of potentials.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/20/global-warming-denier-stephen-moore-diane-reh/

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/individuals/stephen-moore

The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism -http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~content=a793291693~fulltext=713240930~frm=section

 

[Trakar]

The Cost of Ending Global Warming

...Result: In this future, we need 7.7 kW per person, provided by $3/watt capitalized sources with 8% cost of capital and 35% surcharge for O&M. The cost of this infrastructure: $2,550/person/year or 5% of GDP.

Alternate assumptions:

•Chinese nuclear plant costs of $1.70/watt
•Higher efficiency in an electric future were most processes take about 1/2 as much energy from electricity as they used to take from combustion. 1.3 kW from old electricity demands (unchanged) + 3.2 kW from new electricity demands (half of 6.4 kW). And fuels (where still needed) are produced using nuclear heat-driven synthesis approaches.
Alternative result: $844/person/year or 2% of GDP.

Conclusion: Saving the environment using nuclear power could be cheap and worth doing

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/01/21/the-cost-of-ending-global-warming-a-calculation/

 

[Trakar]

If it is caused mostly by CO2 then it is simply going to go away. Global Warming, that is.

A lot of this stuff is contrary to what I was taught in school. Don't plants simply breathe CO2 snd convert it into oxygen?

Plants take in CO2 during the day and oxygen at night, they process these (with the addition of sunlight) to produce the sugars and other components they need for survival. As plant material dies it's stores of carbon are oxidized and released as CO2. The CO2 animals exhale comes from our body's oxidation of the plant sugars and stored fats (that other animals made from plant sugars) that we consume and the oxygen we inhale. In simplistic terms this makes up the carbon cycle of life on our planet. Atmospheric carbon participates in the active carbon cycle of our environment. For the most part this cycle is well balanced and if you look at the "waves" of CO2 in annual monitoring records, you can see the declines in atmospheric CO2 as in Spring and Summer the growing plants of the Northern Hemisphere (where the vast bulk of our planet's land surface area exists) absorb vast quantities of CO2 in their growth cycle, and the increasing peaks of atmospheric CO2 in the Fall and Winter as death and consumption return those plant's Carbon to the atmosphere. The problem which causes the steady rise in CO2 above the natural balance, is caused by us digging up the coal and oil which are plant based carbon materials that nature sealed off from the active carbon cycle tens of millions of years ago and adding it back into the environment at rates that the natural carbon cycle cannot accommodate, therefore it accumulates and builds up in the atmosphere.

Keeling Curve Lessons (CO2 patterns - planet "breathing")
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/program_history/keeling_curve_lessons.html

The Carbon Cycle
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/co2_cycle.html&edu=high

What Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change?
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/04.html

How Do We Know that the Atmospheric Build-up of Greenhouse Gases Is Due to Human Activity?
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html

EPA FAQs Emissions
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/emissions.html

 

[BeAChooser]

The data isn't biased.

So you see nothing wrong with measuring surface temperatures, in a state like California, by only taking measurements near the coast and in urban areas?

It shows warming because there's been warming.

It's not a question of whether there's been warming but how accurate those measurements have really been. The articles you admit you won't even read demonstrate clearly that they can't be very accurate … not if they are biasing the results by only taking measurements in coastal/urban areas and acting like they apply to high altitude and mountainous areas.

Even if the temperature data were biased

Why even make this statement? You just claimed they aren't biased. Having doubts?

We care about food prices

You don't care about food prices. You're supporting a political faction and policies that will make food prices go through the roof.

Quote:
Half the world looking outside today might disagree.

Some stupid people do disagree.

Oh yeah … that's right. We're all stupid.

Maybe we should be blown up like those kids in that video?

The real measure of how cold the weather is is how long the snow lies.

And the real measure of global warming (now called climate change) is how much of a problem it really causes. A case can be made that some elevation in average temperatures might actually be good for humanity.

Quote:
NONSENSE. Who says that there has to be an immediate correlation between GCR and temperature? You allow (or is it ignore) the lag between CO2 levels and temperature. And I'm not arguing that temperature is SOLELY affected by GCR, but there does seem to be a very strong correlation between GCR flux and temperature increases/decreases the last 1000 years.

In support of which you show a picture which ends in about 1980. No wonder it includes a "30-year lag". Is that the best you could find?

Actually, if you look at that picture, you'll see the correlation with GSR extends to almost 1990 before it seems to lose correlation. Now I wonder … were we to look at every 20 year segment of that 1000 year history which shows a clear correlation with GCR, whether we'd find 20 year segments that are seemingly anti-correlated. I bet we would.

Your faith in the reconstructions is encouraging

So is your faith in clearly biased temperature data. I'd like for you to present a peer reviewed article proving that those reconstructions of temperatures and GCR flux aren't accurate. Have one?

There's also a correlation betwen vulcanism and global temperatures, equally as strong (or weak). So maybe GCR proxies are affected by atmospheric conditions?

Well the mechanism that might cause temperatures to be affected by vulcanism is very clear. What's your mechanism by which GCR proxies are affected? Perhaps a peer reviewed article on that?

Quote:
If a study by a reputable scientist (I posted above) suggests that 40% of the warming effect is due to GCR effects, that is definitely something which should be accounted for in the decision of what to do.

One scientist who has failed to persuade any others of the validity of his study.

Well he prompted the IPCC to say they will look closely at GCRs for the first time. I guess they aren't as quick to dismiss him as you are.

It also requires no new and mysterious physics, unlike the GCR-effect.

LOL! Wonder whether you feel the same way about dark matter, dark energy, and the hundred other new and mysterious explanations for what telescopes see?

Quote:
It certainly suggests we should wait a bit before doing anything too drastic ... something that will severely damage our economy.

You'll find out how good an idea that turns out to be.

Well one way or another, both of us will. Perhaps the unemployment and unrest you're seeing now is just a taste of what your *solution* will mean.

Quote:
But surely not earth temperatures ... because how in the world could earth temperatures influence cosmic ray flux?

You have to follow cause-and-effect, and remember that in the historical record we only have proxies for temperatures and GCR's.

So go ahead and offer your peer reviewed sources that challenge the veracity of those proxies … which I suspect do have peer reviewed articles and known physics to support their use.

Quote:
What it might mean, however, is that there is a stellar related reason for the temperature changes ... which is what a great many scientists have been suggesting.

Nobody disputes that there's probably a solar influence on climate - who would? - but reaching for the stars? That's a real stretch.

How do you know? Is dark energy a "real stretch"? Dark matter?

That lag is due to CO2 acting as a feedback, not a forcing

Gosh, and all this time Al Gore and his carbon taxing friends have been telling people "it's the CO2 stupid" to prompt immediate and drastic (i.e. read socialist) action. Don't tell me he/they were lying?

 

[BeAChooser]

as to GCR ......it's worn out it's day in the sun as well....
what's the science say?

Quote:
How important are cosmic rays for climate?

... snip ... The authors concluded that this was “far too small to make noticeable changes in cloud properties based on either the decadal (solar cycle) or climatic time-scale changes in cosmic rays.”

And yet there's still that curious correlation I noted in those figures between GCR flux and temperature over 980 of the last 1000 years. Hmmmmmm.

 

[BeAChooser]

You are comparing modern times to ice age depths, it is only appropriate that you compare ice age depths to similar extremes of heat.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA334.html "Carbon Dioxide is Good for the Environment"

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?MenuItemID=103&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 "CO2 is Green... and Green is Good!"

http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/greening_benefits/ "Welcome to the Greening Issue: The Good Side of Carbon Dioxide"

http://www.aip.org/dbis/stories/2007/17067.html "Can CO2 Be A Good Thing? Physicist Explains Benefits of Carbon Dioxide"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071017-greenland-warming.html "Global Warming Good for Greenland?"

http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/0...rms-despite-gratuitous-political-correctness/ "European History: Cooling Bad, Warming Good, Study Confirms, Despite Gratuitous Political Correctness"

 

[Dancing David]

If this were even remotely correct I'd assume there would be a source confirming it. I can't find one.

I'll get back to you. I don't remember what sources Olga Soffer-Babyshev gave, it has been twenty years.

 

[Trakar]

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3

Global Biodiversity Outlook is the flagship publication of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Drawing on a range of information sources, including National Reports, biodiversity indicators information, scientific literature, and a study assessing biodiversity scenarios for the future [4MB], the third edition of Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-3) summarizes the latest data on status and trends of biodiversity and draws conclusions for the future strategy of the Convention.
.

Climate change is already having an impact on biodiversity, and is projected to become a progressively more significant threat in the coming decades. Loss of Arctic sea ice threatens biodiversity across an entire biome and beyond. The related pressure of ocean acidification, resulting from higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is also already being observed.

Ecosystems are already showing negative impacts under current levels of climate change … which is modest compared to future projected changes…. In addition to warming temperatures, more frequent extreme weather events and changing patterns of rainfall and drought can be expected to have significant impacts on biodiversity.

— Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, p.56

http://gbo3.cbd.int/

 

[Trakar]

How is a well documented bias in temperature readings due to placement voodoo?


There's no way to refute this evidence so instead attack the source? That doesn't seem very scientific.

There is nothing legitimate or scientifically relevent in the links and information you posted.

 

[Trakar]

...The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism -http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~content=a793291693~fulltext=713240930~frm=section

For some reason this last link didn't come through but I have an alternative link that should work

The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism - http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/888061__793291693.pdf

 

[Trakar]

Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change
by
James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato

ABSTRACT
Milankovic climate oscillations help define climate sensitivity and assess potential human-made climate effects. We conclude that Earth in the warmest interglacial periods was less than 1 °C warmer than in the Holocene and that goals of limiting human-made warming to 2 °C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster. Polar warmth in prior interglacials and the Pliocene does not imply that a significant cushion remains between today's climate and dangerous warming, rather that Earth today is poised to experience strong amplifying polar feedbacks in response to moderate additional warming...

...BAU scenarios (Business As Usual) result in global warming of the order of 3-6°C. It is this scenario for which we assert that multi-meter sea level rise on the century time scale are not only possible, but almost dead certain. Such a huge rapidly increasing climate forcing dwarfs anything in the peleoclimate record. Antarctic ice shelves would disappear and the lower reaches of the Antarctic ice sheets would experience summer melt comparable to that on Greenland today...

This is the reality which we are faced with.

 

[Trakar]

History may hold the key to future climate change consequences
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/...ey-to-future-climate-change-consequences.html

...Working with data compiled from a range of past studies, it was assumed that, should the world's major and emerging economies continue to burn fossil fuels at the rate they are, by the end of the present century, atmospheric levels of CO2 will stand at between 900 and 1,000 parts per million, compared to pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million. Then, again working on past studies that have shown how analysis of the molecular structures of fossilised organic matter can be used to determine historic CO2 levels, it was ascertained that this level was previously reached some 350 million years ago...

...Writing up his findings in the journal Science, the NACR scientist argues that the computer models currently being used to predict future changes to the global climate may be significantly underestimating the extent of the potential problem, thereby making immediate action to cut back on carbon emissions more pressing than ever...

 

[Trakar]

Global warming prompts extinctions in tropics
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/17/3114349.htm

He says many tropical species can only survive in a very narrow range of temperatures.

"One of the things that surprises a lot of people is that it's the tropics in fact where we think a lot of our extinguishes could potentially occur," he said.

"Most people are used to thinking about polar bears and walruses and things that live in the cold parts of the world, in fact it's the tropics, this is one of the places that we could potentially lose the most biodiversity."

The loss of biodiversity is global in the climate change event we are precipitating.

 

[Trakar]

Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
http://www.skepticalscience.com/follow-up-case-study-in-skepticism.html

Recently, in A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity, we examined the reactions to a report by Universal Ecological Fund (Fundaciíon Ecológical Universal [FEU-US]) and an article written by Dr. Richard Lindzen. In both cases, the authors had performed calculations which neglected the thermal inertia of the oceans and impacts of aerosols and other cooling factors. Despite making the same errors, the two papers arrived at dramatically different conclusions - the FEU-US wrongly concluded that the planet will warm 1.5°C over the next decade, and Lindzen wrongly concluded that the global climate is insensitive to atmospheric greenhouse gas changes (in a future article we will look at Lindzen's errors in depth and quantify them).

The reactions from the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) camp and the self-proclaimed "skeptics" were also diametrically opposed. Climate scientists, journalists, and bloggers consistently wrote articles acknowledging and correcting the FEU-US mistakes. On the other hand, the "skeptic" media re-published Lindzen's article with little commentary or analysis, allowing his errors to propagate to a wider audience, which generally also received Lindzen's piece with an uncritical eye. The Skeptical Science article concluded that in this case study, it was the AGW camp which had behaved like the true skeptics...

As if anyone should be surprised by this!?

 

[CapelDodger]

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA334.html "Carbon Dioxide is Good for the Environment"

"The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems."

(My emphasis).

And if you can't find a free-market solution then it can't be a problem. Better yet, it's a good thing.

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?MenuItemID=103&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 "CO2 is Green... and Green is Good!"

"Our mission is to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2 and help prevent the inadvertent negative impact to human, plant and animal life if we reduce CO2."

They're on a mission. I find this doesn't add to credibility, especially when they're tilting at windmills (so to speak). What they're arguing for is an unbounded increase in CO2[/sub[2], against the argument that CO2[/sub[2] increase should be limited.

http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/greening_benefits/ "Welcome to the Greening Issue: The Good Side of Carbon Dioxide"

That one refers to the Clinton administration in the present tense, I notice. It seems to reveal that increased CO2[/sub[2] created the Green Revolution, not fertilisers, pesticides, and improved crop strains as everybody else had assumed (and charged for). The argument has clearly not proven persuasive.

http://www.aip.org/dbis/stories/2007/17067.html "Can CO2 Be A Good Thing? Physicist Explains Benefits of Carbon Dioxide"

"Too much carbon dioxide can be a bad thing, but sometimes it can have a positive effect on plants and trees. The more carbon emissions we dump into the air, the faster forests and plants grow."

The Amazon Forest suggests that this is a little simplistic.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071017-greenland-warming.html "Global Warming Good for Greenland?"

I wish Greenland nothing but good, to the extent I think about it at all. I've been saying for a while that Greenland real estate is a buy. It'll be the next Hamptons before you know it.

:D

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Trakar]

...snip...

Again, perhaps you should try reading outside the narrow box of mainstream science denialism.

Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals - http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

...But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil...

Effects of elevated CO2 on grain yield and quality of wheat: results from a 3-year free-air CO2 enrichment experiment - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00230.x/pdf
(full paper at link)

ABSTRACT
Spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. TRISO) was grown for three consecutive
seasons in a free-air carbon dioxide (CO2) enrichment (FACE) field
experiment in order to examine the effects on crop yield and grain quality.
CO2 enrichment promoted aboveground biomass (+11.8%) and grain yield
(+10.4%). However, adverse effects were predominantly observed on wholegrain
quality characteristics. Although the thousand-grain weight remained
unchanged, size distribution was significantly shifted towards smaller grains,
which may directly relate to lower market value. Total grain protein concentration
decreased significantly by 7.4% under elevated CO2, and protein and
amino acid composition were altered. Corresponding to the decline in grain
protein concentration, CO2 enrichment resulted in an overall decrease in
amino acid concentrations, with greater reductions in non-essential than
essential amino acids. Minerals such as potassium, molybdenum and lead
increased, while manganese, iron, cadmium and silicon decreased, suggesting
that adjustments of agricultural practices may be required to retain current
grain quality standards. The concentration of fructose and fructan, as
well as amounts per area of total and individual non-structural carbohydrates,
except for starch, significantly increased in the grain. The same holds
true for the amount of lipids. With regard to mixing and rheological properties
of the flour, a significant increase in gluten resistance under elevated
CO2 was observed. CO2 enrichment obviously affected grain quality characteristics
that are important for consumer nutrition and health, and
for industrial processing and marketing, which have to date received little
attention.

Leaf nitrogen concentration of wheat subjected to elevated [CO2] and either water or N deficits - http://etmd.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/34488/1/IND22433559.pdf
(full paper at link)

Abstract
Leaf N concentration is important because it is associated with the CO2 assimilatory capacity of crops, and in grasslands,
it is an important determinant of forage nutritive value. Consequently, the productivity of both domestic and native animals in
future global environments may be closely linked to possible changes in leaf N concentration of grasses. Since grasslands are
frequently subjected to water-deficit or N-deficit conditions, it is important to investigate the interactive responses between
elevated [CO2] and these stress conditions. Therefore, this 4-year research program was undertaken with wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.) as amodel system for forage grasses, to document the potential changes in leaf N concentration in response to global
environment changes. Wheat crops grown under field conditions near Phoenix, AZ, USA, were subjected to elevated [CO2]
and either water-deficit or N-deficit treatments using large Free Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment (FACE) arrays. Surprisingly,
the elevated [CO2] treatment under optimum conditions resulted in little change in leaf N concentration. Therefore, no change
in the nutritive value of forage from highly managed pastures would be expected. Further, water-deficit treatment had little
influence on leaf N concentration. To some extent, the lack of response to the water-deficit treatment resulted because severe
deficits did not develop until late in the growing seasons. Only on one date late in the season was the water-deficit treatment
found to result in decreased leaf N concentration. The low N treatment in combination with elevated [CO2], however, had a
large influence on leaf N concentration. Low levels of applied N resulted in decreased leaf N concentration under both [CO2]
treatments, but the lowest levels of leaf N concentration were obtained under elevated [CO2] through much of the growing
season. These results point to a potential problem with grasslands in that the nutritive value of the forage consumed by animals
will be decreased under future global environment changes.

According to the International Rice Research Institute:
"Coping with Climate Change" - http://beta.irri.org/news/images/stories/ricetoday/6-3/feature_coping with climate change.pdf

...Despite this, the most damaging effects of climate change on rice quality will occur from higher temperatures, which will affect several quality traits, including chalk, amylose content, and gelatinization temperature. The positive effects of elevated CO2 do not compensate for the overall decrease in rice quality from the effects of global warming...