Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[aleCcowaN]

Could Global Warming be a Good Thing?

I'm sorry I couldn't read it all in detail, but I have some questions to ask and comments to offer.

Radical climate change has happened before and we have our own existence to thank for it. At one time in the Earth's history, the atmosphere was unbreathable because there was not enough oxygen in the air. The abundance of early plant life changed that.

Then at one time the Earth was heavily oxygenated. And it was this high concentration of oxygen that fueled the more active dinosaurs metabolisms.

But I would like to call your attention to occurrence that have led to mass extinctions and could pose an even greater threat to mankind than global warming -- it is something that we should be grateful towards global warming for bringing to an end. I am talking about Ice Ages. It would be a good thing, for us humans, if there were no more Ice Ages. It would be a good thing if man made global warming brought an end to the occurrence of Ice Ages.

If have never heard of it before, I suggest you do some reading of one particular Ice Age that was so severe it wiped out all but the smallest and toughest microbial life on Earth. It was called "Snowball Earth" and it was when the glaciers advanced to the point where the glaciers from the south pole met the glaciers from the north at the earth's equator. If it was not for a fluke of volcanic activity, our planet would be like that today.

Preventing that from happening again would be a good thing.

1) Why what happened here 650 millions years ago is more important that what happened in Mars 650 millions years ago and both things are relevant to anthropogenic global warming nowadays?

2) We know that you think that some warming is good and somewhat you feel good about it but, can you provide logical reasons and figures about why it would be good for everyone?

3) You said "...it was when the glaciers advanced to the point where the glaciers from the south pole met the glaciers from the north at the earth's equator. If it was not for a fluke of volcanic activity, our planet would be like that today."

Supposing you gave the reasons asked in 1), where did you get such certainties about what happened or what didn't?

4) What do have ice ages that one should be against them?

5) How many mass extinctions do you think are associated to ice ages? May you be more specific about each one? What's the evidence about that being that way?

6)If you think that global warming -anthropogenic, co2 induced, whatever- could be a solution, don't you think that we should be sure first that we are going towards a disruptive ice age and then discuss what mankind should do, if something, to avoid it? Do not such certainties about ice ages and advantages of warming come conveniently after a lot of anthropogenic warming is already done?

This is all for now. What you said sounds so promising and simple that I want to hear more. But I still need reasons and details.

 

[Trakar]

An excellent 50 'skeptics' vs Stephen Schneider Q&A session.

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/302#watchonline

While the information given out was good, the media presentation, in my impression, fosters many of the misperceptions that are so rampant among a vocal segment of the population. I'm not sure what the best and most appropriate method of media presentation is, but I do know that I haven't seen an example of it yet.

 

[mhaze]

Could Global Warming be a Good Thing?

Radical climate change has happened before and we have our own existence to thank for it. At one time in the Earth's history, the atmosphere was unbreathable because there was not enough oxygen in the air. The abundance of early plant life changed that.

Then at one time the Earth was heavily oxygenated. And it was this high concentration of oxygen that fueled the more active dinosaurs metabolisms.

But I would like to call your attention to occurrence that have led to mass extinctions and could pose an even greater threat to mankind than global warming -- it is something that we should be grateful towards global warming for bringing to an end. I am talking about Ice Ages. It would be a good thing, for us humans, if there were no more Ice Ages. It would be a good thing if man made global warming brought an end to the occurrence of Ice Ages.

If have never heard of it before, I suggest you do some reading of one particular Ice Age that was so severe it wiped out all but the smallest and toughest microbial life on Earth. It was called "Snowball Earth" and it was when the glaciers advanced to the point where the glaciers from the south pole met the glaciers from the north at the earth's equator. If it was not for a fluke of volcanic activity, our planet would be like that today.

Preventing that from happening again would be a good thing.

What is more is this. If all the glaciers melted on Earth it would be bad for a lot of people. It would be bad for the people who rely on glances for fresh water. It would be bad for about 100 million people who live in coastal areas. But this would be temporary problems. Human beings would just have to adapt.

There is a good side. First of all, not all the melting ice would raise sea levels. Ice floating in water does not raise water level as it melts. Just do an experiment. Put ice in a glass of water and watch.

Secondly, all the ice melting from Antarctica and Greenland and the northern regions of Canada and Asia would free up vast areas of land. This land gain would more than make up for the land lost to flooding. This land could be used for farming and living. In a sense, it would ease over-population and make the world a better place.

I am wondering if this is just another change that will happen to the Earth for our long term benefit. Life has shaped and changed the planet. Once, the atmosphere was toxic. That is how it was "naturally" before plant life changed it and set the groundwork for animal life. Maybe we are changing things for the better. Changing the planet so that there will never again be an Ice Age is to our benefit. Freeing up more land for the production of food and perhaps ending world hunger is also to our benefit.

You've raised some good points, however these will be ignored by the idiologically driven radical leftists. The reason is that they evoke the "precautionary principle", which warns not is there some good that may come from warming, but "what if...", "what if some bad...", "what if some really bad...", etc, happens from the action set.

I am simplifying of course, and you are covering a longer time scale than Alarmist "environmentalists" like to cover. They cover a time scale just out of the immediate range (so their conclusions can't be proven false by the passage of a couple of years) and much under the millenial time scale (which no one would care about, they think).

Yes, the timescale of Alarmist environmentalists quite curiously exactly parallels that of apocryptal religious sects - one to three decades.

 

[CapelDodger]

We know, for example, that the Maunder Minimum was a period of almost no sunspots but also a period of very cold temperatures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

And a period of high vulcanism, incuding Tambora in 1815. Which would not only lead to cooling but would also make for poor viewing conditions for the (very few) observers of sun-spots at the time.

quote]What I am asking is what is the mechanism by which the Maunder Minimum and absence of sun spots resulted in a mini ice age - it would not appear to be due to solar irradiance which looks tightly constrained.[/quote]

It seems much more likely that vulcanism caused the bulk of the cooling (after all, we know that happens). So it probably looks like what it appears to be - not caused by a change in solar irradiance. That may have contributed, of course, but by how much is not at all well constrained.

So several orders of magnitude less energy from solar wind would still be very significant if these variation went from a minimum of zero to a peak - because solar radiation is so constant.

That really doesn't follow. If the peak is insignificant (several orders of magnitude less than the real action we know about) it doesn't matter how quickly it comes and goes.

Could it be, therefore, some kind of energy transfer by solar wind that insulates the outer layers of the atmosphere and so reduces the rate of heat loss?

No.

Or what else might be the mechanism?

Occam's razor says there is no such mechanism, since the effect itself is purely imaginary.

 

[aleCcowaN]

David, I have no doubt I have used all kinds of wrong terminology - I ask these questions seeking information only.

...

Could it be, therefore, some kind of energy transfer by solar wind that insulates the outer layers of the atmosphere and so reduces the rate of heat loss?

Or what else might be the mechanism?

I understand what you're saying as the sun being somewhat the direct cause of global warming -not just the source of energy- because climate sensitivity is very high and a 0.1% increase in solar output has determined all or almost all the change in global temperatures. You're also saying that you don't know the exact mechanism behind this but you expect to find something along these lines of thought.

The question that arises immediately is why is the climate so sensitive to sun activity and is not sensitive at all to a lot of other things like building huge amounts of greenhouse gases. "Solar winds insulating outer layers of the atmosphere so reducing the loss of heat" would be the working hypothesis of the second and a chase in the wild frontiers of Physics must start to provide that idea with a content. But "greenhouse gases -anthropogenic or not- accumulating in almost all layers of the atmosphere" don't provide such "insulating" effect although you don't bother in challenging the physics behind it but simply look elsewhere.

 

[Dancing David]

David, I have no doubt I have used all kinds of wrong terminology - I ask these questions seeking information only.

We know, for example, that the Maunder Minimum was a period of almost no sunspots but also a period of very cold temperatures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

We also know that there is not a very large variation in solar irradiance between sunspot cycles.
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png[/qimg]
Around 0.1% difference between peak and the base of the cycle. We also know that solar flares and solar wind peak at the peak of the sun spot cycle. What I am asking is what is the mechanism by which the Maunder Minimum and absence of sun spots resulted in a mini ice age - it would not appear to be due to solar irradiance which looks tightly constrained. So several orders of magnitude less energy from solar wind would still be very significant if these variation went from a minimum of zero to a peak - because solar radiation is so constant.

Could it be, therefore, some kind of energy transfer by solar wind that insulates the outer layers of the atmosphere and so reduces the rate of heat loss?

Or what else might be the mechanism?

The Little Ice Age was not wide spread and may or may not have been associated with Maunder Minimum, it also is not related to the solar wind, there are many mechanisms that may have been involved and the solar wind is a stretch.

'Solar wind insulates the outer layers of atmosphere' you mean those layers that are above the place where IR is radiated from the atmosphere and are essentially a vacuum?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Could it be, therefore, some kind of energy transfer by solar wind that insulates the outer layers of the atmosphere and so reduces the rate of heat loss?

Or what else might be the mechanism?

I forgot to tell that there is another condition this solar wind attached mechanism should meet: It should account for a warming that comes from day time temperature raising, and night time temperatures raising even more, so whatever insulates the target layer, it must act with a delay of many hours. If you imagined the Earth as a car being tested in a solar wind tunnel, you'd find some effects in the "edges", that is, some twilight zones. But again, though the temperatures use to fall slower by sunset in these GW times, the fall is not stopped at dawn until the daybreak radiation halt it. I would like to now about peer reviewed articles from climatologist that deal with any abnormal profile of temperatures detected at dawn not attributable to GHG -including water vapor-.

 

[CapelDodger]

A condition for a "solar wind attached mechanism" to be interesting is that it explain some observed phaenomenon, which it fails on in strictly climate terms. In terms of the "Global Warming Discussion" the whole issue of solar wind is an observed phaenomenon in itself. How can its emergence during the down-phase of the last solar cycle be explained?

That question contains its own answer, of course. On the up-phase of a solar cycle increased solar activity is all the rage to explain global warming; during the down-cycle decreased solar activity has its time in the sun. There's inertia in the system but I doubt we'll be hearing much more about solar or galactic winds over the next five or six years. That would be counter-cyclical.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Following the article posted in the thread Climate News from the science press. This post and this.

The base for that article can be read here:
M. J. Puma, B. I. Cook. Effects of irrigation on global climate during the 20th century. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2010; 115 (D16): D16120 DOI:

Very interesting, as shown on Science Daily.


Is it possible that the increase in irrigation could be responsible for a sort of "reset" or "regression" in the temperature trend, as shown here? The rate of temperature increase seems about the same, but there is that step-wise decrease in temperature in the decade of the 50's.

I know, my idea is too simplistic. But, all that water being sprinkled on billions of hectares must have some transient effect.

I don't think this effect can explain any alteration of trends as they found a global cooling effect of about 0.1°C for the complete century. The whole total irrigated area was only 277 million hectares by 2003 (the joined area of Algeria and Tunisia), including many millions of hectares of flood plains.

I guess we will find out soon enough, but this is still speculative IMO. With all the talk about urban heat islands, it would be ironic if the real problem in the US weather station data were rural cool islands created by irrigation.

In any case it would explain why the US isn’t warming as rapidly as other places in the world. They don’t mention the central planes but tapping the Ogallala Aquifer in the 50’s resulted in a massive increase in irrigated farmland from Texas to North Dakota. In places it’s already running dry and won’t be able to support this amount of irrigation for much longer (20ish years)

The USA have a bit less of 8% of emerging lands excluding Antarctica and about 8% of all irrigated lands by 2003 (22 of 277 Mha). This area is just a fraction of that one being "ruled out" as urban heat islands by night lights analysis. In fact Pakistan (with an area like Texas and Louisiana together) has more than 18 million hectares under irrigation (more than 2 millions flooded by now). US wasn't warming rapidly, but many heavily irrigated areas were.

I mean, this angle is interesting but it seems just one of many palliatives at hand in an effort to mitigate the effects of GW. What it seems indeed is that long term climate modeling can't ignore the changes in irrigated areas and irrigation patterns.

 

[macdoc]

The rate of temperature increase seems about the same, but there is that step-wise decrease in temperature in the decade of the 50's.

Coincides with global dimming measured in some areas as high as 23% lower solar hitting the surface due to high levels of SO2...

Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.[1]
It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. The switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend in 1990 happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline.

The end of the "lull" coincides with increasingly stringent Clean Air legislation and lawsuits and big trend up in GW the 90s ....

 

[BenBurch]

BTW, a corn field is actually a source of heat. Corn generates heat as it grows.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Arguing that advancing glaciations are as bad or worse than epochs of extinction level warming into the discussion of the realities of global warming presents what is otherwise known as the fallacy of false dilemma. We were not in a situation of imminent threat from a cooling climate, but rather an extended mild, moderate climate that fostered the development of modern civilization and to the best of our understandings would have continued in that relatively mild and moderate state for some tens of thousands of years without our unintentional interventions. No one is advocating climate control or even the alteration of natural climate conditions, what is being advocated is the ceasation and reversal of our own unintentional climate interventions.

OK but that is supposition. Do you have the stats to back it up? You suppose that global warming would lead to extinction. On the other hand, it is factual and historic that Ice ages lead to mass extinction.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I'm sorry I couldn't read it all in detail, but I have some questions to ask and comments to offer.



1) Why what happened here 650 millions years ago is more important that what happened in Mars 650 millions years ago and both things are relevant to anthropogenic global warming nowadays?

That is simple. It is because there is not a special end date for when the solar system was created. It is still being created to this day. It is an ongoing process that has never ended. It is not like baking a cake and you take it out of the oven when it is done. It is a constant, ever-changing process.

2) We know that you think that some warming is good and somewhat you feel good about it but, can you provide logical reasons and figures about why it would be good for everyone?

When I have the time I will crunch some numbers. For starters, how much land will be lost due to flooding and how much land will be gained. I have been told that the Earth has a load capacity for how many human beings can live on it because of all the resources that can be renewed. If we have more land, we can have more resources. Thus, having more land extends the years that human beings can live on Earth before our own over-population kills us all.

And, by the way, to answer the obvious question that might be a follow-up: No, population will not slow down gradually when we reach the load capacity of the Earth. Tests with overpopulation models have shown that we will actually kill ourselves the moment when we reach the population tipping point.

3) You said "...it was when the glaciers advanced to the point where the glaciers from the south pole met the glaciers from the north at the earth's equator. If it was not for a fluke of volcanic activity, our planet would be like that today."

Supposing you gave the reasons asked in 1), where did you get such certainties about what happened or what didn't?

Because the evidence of the glacers have been found on the equator

4) What do have ice ages that one should be against them?

Can repeat you or rephrase question ask I question mark.

5) How many mass extinctions do you think are associated to ice ages? May you be more specific about each one? What's the evidence about that being that way?

One. Snowball Earth. Goggle it.
There is lots written about it and even a science program made.

6)If you think that global warming -anthropogenic, co2 induced, whatever- could be a solution, don't you think that we should be sure first that we are going towards a disruptive ice age and then discuss what mankind should do, if something, to avoid it? Do not such certainties about ice ages and advantages of warming come conveniently after a lot of anthropogenic warming is already done?

As I said before, we are living in a reality where vast climate change has occurred. It does not matter that it happened millions of years ago because there is no such thing as "creation". We are constantly being created. All the planets in the solar system are in a constant state of change. In the future there will be no rings on Saturn. In the future, the surface of Venus will be entirely made of magma. And so on and so on.

The point is, life on earth changed our environment. And if it had not, we would not be here. Life created Oxygen that we all use to exist. Putting the earth in a state where an Ice Age will never happen again, might be a very good thing.

I am careful to use terms such as "might" and I try to present my posts in the form of a question. So I find it amusing that they are countered with suppositon and imagination without any data or facts to back up the detractor's responses.

 

[Bill Thompson]

You've raised some good points, however these will be ignored by the idiologically driven radical leftists. The reason is that they evoke the "precautionary principle", which warns not is there some good that may come from warming, but "what if...", "what if some bad...", "what if some really bad...", etc, happens from the action set.

I am simplifying of course, and you are covering a longer time scale than Alarmist "environmentalists" like to cover. They cover a time scale just out of the immediate range (so their conclusions can't be proven false by the passage of a couple of years) and much under the millenial time scale (which no one would care about, they think).

Yes, the timescale of Alarmist environmentalists quite curiously exactly parallels that of apocryptal religious sects - one to three decades.

I see what you are saying. Some of the responses to my post have left me bewildered. Someone posted "there is no evidence that an ice age is coming again". Several Ice Ages occurred over Earth's existence. The idea that magically it is something not to worry about strikes me as very strange.

That is, until I read your opinion and analysis.

 

[mailman]

No one is advocating climate control or even the alteration of natural climate conditions, what is being advocated is the ceasation and reversal of our own unintentional climate interventions.

I was under the mistaken assumption that Copenhagen was all about wealth redistribution to the third world?

Be honest with yourself. These so called advocates are doing nothing short of advocating the destruction of the Wests ability to generate wealth.

And what do they base this upon? Science so precious that the crew at CRU et al not only WOULDNT release their data their studies were based upon (cause all you want to do is pull it apart) but have purposely undermined the very principles that have underpinned Science in the West for centuries.

Crickey, if you are going to spend billions or trillions then the least you can do is be bloody sure your science is rock solid. As it is when ever someone looks at the science behind the alarmism it falls apart (hockey stick anyone). The reality though is that this isnt about the science anymore, if it was these so called climate scientists would be doing everything possible to engage with those who are critical of their work...no this is about the ego's of the scientists who have locked themselves in to believing Mann is the sole cause of global warming!

It wasn't that long ago that a denier was someone who denied the existence of the medieval warm period!

Mailman

 

[BenBurch]

Bill, IIUC, The Permian mass extinction was a CO2-driven warming event...

 

[BenBurch]

On Denialism;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100914102114.htm

<SNIP>
ScienceDaily (Sep. 14, 2010) — Suppose a close friend who is trying to figure out the facts about climate change asks whether you think a scientist who has written a book on the topic is a knowledgeable and trustworthy expert. You see from the dust jacket that the author received a Ph.D. in a pertinent field from a major university, is on the faculty at another one, and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Would you advise your friend that the scientist seems like an "expert"?

If you are like most people, the answer is likely to be, "it depends." What it depends on, a recent study found, is not whether the position that scientist takes is consistent with the one endorsed by a National Academy. Instead, it is likely to depend on whether the position the scientist takes is consistent with the one believed by most people who share your cultural values.
<SNIP>

 

[CoolSceptic]

Bill, IIUC, The Permian mass extinction was a CO2-driven warming event...

As far as I can tell, there are half a dozen theories behind the Permian mass extinction, and there is scant evidence to convincingly separate the many theories.

Of course, as you have shown, people are likely to preferentially select a particular theory, if it is consistent with the one believed by most people who share your cultural values.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm sorry I couldn't read it all in detail, but I have some questions to ask and comments to offer.



1) "Why what happened here 650 millions years ago is more important that what happened in Mars 650 millions years ago and both things are relevant to anthropogenic global warming nowadays?

That is simple. It is because there is not a special end date for when the solar system was created. It is still being created to this day. It is an ongoing process that has never ended. It is not like baking a cake and you take it out of the oven when it is done. It is a constant, ever-changing process.

From your answer it follows that you think that the Earth 650 millions years ago and the Earth present day are relevant to the evolution of our Solar System, and nobody suggested the opposite. What still remains unexplained are these two fragments: "why what happened here 650 millions years ago is more important than what happened in Mars 650 millions years ago?", and "why both (Earth and Mars 650 mya) are relevant to anthropogenic global warming nowadays?"

I know that what can change will change and the flow of the eons will continue, but that doesn't seem to be the point of this thread. Your answers suggest that you regard climate variation in our time as part of a change being "a constant process" and that warming "could be good". No clear about what is causing it and if it must be allowed to cause it and why.

What I gather is that warming is produced by the addition of individual behaviours and it is producing damage to our common environment what requires common actions to solve or prevent it. Within that context, the role played by the "eternal course of time and deal of change associated to it" is just unlinking that individual behaviours and their consequences from any collective responsability. Sort of "my behaviour produces consequences, but those consequences are somewhat inevitable because similar things have happened and will happen ... besides, it could be good ... so I continue to behave the same way and I'll reject vehemently any policy tending to restrain or tax my behaviour".

 

[aleCcowaN]

As far as I can tell, there are half a dozen theories behind the Permian mass extinction, and there is scant evidence to convincingly separate the many theories.

Of course, as you have shown, people are likely to preferentially select a particular theory, if it is consistent with the one believed by most people who share your cultural values.

The same to say about the Precambrian extinction because some snowball with a couple of volcanic lagoons ... ditto ... ditto.