Thread: Global Warming Redux: The Villain The Sun!

Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution


Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there's little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle's peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, "Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene."

Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, "The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum. The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."

According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere. Periods of more intense activity brought 1.4 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past. And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.

Please provide a link to the study. It should be easy to link the NASA publication at least in abstract since they make just about everything available to the public down to many of their technical reports.

Why do you jump from some claim of a long term trend (100 year +) in solar irradiation to the well known 11/22 year cycle? The 1.4 watt difference is a small fraction of equivalent green house forcing.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Please provide a link to the study. It should be easy to link the NASA publication at least in abstract since they make just about everything available to the public down to many of their technical reports.

Why do you jump from some claim of a long term trend (100 year +) in solar irradiation to the well known 11/22 year cycle? The 1.4 watt difference is a small fraction of equivalent green house forcing.

Forgive me, Lynx, I indulged in a personal amusement by not citing a source. You see, Lynx, I think that we here should discuss ideas rather than the source of our ideas because most of us are not rote in our thoughts. But in doing so I did you a disservice. I left out the data expressed in the accompaning charts.

I correct this error hereforth....

NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming...
Daily Tech ^ | June 4th, 2009

And you still don't put up a link...(sigh). Not sure why you think others should dig around for link in thread you start and draw conclusions from....I'm not even sure what is yours and what is pulled from somewhere else.

In any case what in the study do you find surprising? No climatologist claim that changes in sun's radiation haven't had an effect in the past or will not have an effect in the future.

You are trying to engage in a false dichotomy. The issue is not whether the sun will have an effect--it CERTAINLY will. The issue is about that effect in combination with the forcing caused by changed in green house gases.

[quote="Lynx_Fox"]

You are trying to engage in a false dichotomy. The issue is not whether the sun will have an effect--it CERTAINLY will.

Watch your semamtics, Lynx. Your vigor seems to be directed toward a fixed idea. Cool it, as the climate gets colder and colder.

The "fixed" idea that a lot of things go into climate change...it's not a simple as some blogs you refer to suggest that it's either man OR the sun...or some other combination. Climatologist know the sun effects climate.

They also know a lot of other things effect climate as well--the very science is about figuring out the relationship between those effects on our environment and how they relate to each other. That's what made "NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past... " a big duh and "so what" to anyone who actually knows the subject or wants to engage in serious discussion about it.

I couldn't resist after reading Lynx Fox's responses and so I clicked the little word Here to take milum's posts off Ignore, just for a moment.

Incredible.

Since the primary energy input into the Earth, by several orders of magnitude, is the sun, I think all climatologists, without exception, know that the sun influences climate. Why even mention it?

Perhaps milum is challenging the view that observed variations in solar output can have any significant effect upon global climate. Why would such a view be disputed? Guess what - because those variations and their associated impact are very small and not significant. (Caveat - Maunder Minimum and all that sort of thing.) So milum, this study you are so pleased with confirms the arguments of those who speak of anthropogenic global warming and weakens your own position. If you keep this up we won't have to respond to your posts at all. Ah, heaven. 8)

Originally Posted by milum

Forgive me, Lynx, I indulged in a personal amusement by not citing a source. You see, Lynx, I think that we here should discuss ideas rather than the source of our ideas because most of us are not rote in our thoughts.

milum, surely you can see why people ask to see the source of the material you're quoting - if only to find out if your interpretation of what you're quoting matches its content ? is it then so much hardship to supply a link to your source when asked to do so ?

Blame pirates. There is strong negative corelation between number of pirates and global temperature.



Global warming solved.

Milum, can you provide a link that claims that the sun and its cycles do not affect global climate, please.

And, can anyone provide a link proving that global warming is not the result of a decline in piracy?

.....sorry, I'll stop now.

Seems you have it backwards mate - 'tis obvious the increased heat on the high seas has driven pirates out of business. Basic anaylsis, really, simply consider that warming precedes pirate decrease.

so is Somalia an area of local cooling in a global warming world then ?

Dude. When you know that atmospheric CO^2 causes warming, and you have been releasing CO^2 into the atmosphere that's been locked away from it since basically the Devonian onward, what do you think is gonna happen?

i don't know of any pirates in the devonian ...

Originally Posted by marnixR

i don't know of any pirates in the devonian ...

Didn't you know Eurypterids were paleozoic pirates!

i think Eurypterids could have done with a better press agent

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

When you know that atmospheric CO^2 causes warming

Is this know, or speculate? The whole pirates thing was to point out that there is as much evidence to support lack of piracy as a cause, as there is to support carbon dioxide as a cause. I can provide you a mechanism for how the decline of piracy increases temperature, if you like.

The last thing I would want to do, of course, would be to see a trend and assume causation within a series of dynamic equilibria...

uhhhh - because - the Carbon...acts like a blanket... for the longer wavelengths of infrared heat that would normally reflect back to space?

Like on Venus as a runaway example?

I thought you guys were scientists?

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

uhhhh - because - the Carbon...acts like a blanket... for the longer wavelengths of infrared heat that would normally reflect back to space?

Yes, this is a mechanism, but far from proven.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Like on Venus as a runaway example?

How about Mars, where the atmosphere is 90% carbon dioxide? How come it's still cold?

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

I thought you guys were scientists?

I'm not. I'm still in education.

Are you saying, that in order to be a scientist, you have to agree completely with every scientific theory?

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

uhhhh - because - the Carbon...acts like a blanket... for the longer wavelengths of infrared heat that would normally reflect back to space?

Yes, this is a mechanism, but far from proven.

It doesn't reflect back to space...the surface emissions are adsorbed by the atmosphere and a portion emitted back towards the surface.

This mechanism was well proved more than 100 years ago and reconfirmed many times since both in models and empirical data.

Mars might be 90% green house gas, but it's extremely thin atmosphere. As a result Mars has only a small amount of green house effect.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

This mechanism was well proved more than 100 years ago and reconfirmed many times since both in models and empirical data.

Not so. The mechanism is predicted to be possible, and data has shown a heating trend. I have never seen strong evidence for a link between thye two.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Mars might be 90% green house gas, but it's extremely thin atmosphere. As a result Mars has only a small amount of green house effect.

Proportional to the pressure in our own atmosphere, Mars has about twice as much carbon dioxide as our atmosphere. Either way, I agree that one example can not be considered proof. Same with venus, since carbon dioxide is far from the only greenhouse gas in its atmosphere.

The atmospheric pressure on Mars is far below Earth's.
You also have a planet 1/3 the size, roughly.
No surface water that has a very great capacity for heat absorption and transfer.
While I have no figures for them, it's no surprise the heating dynamics are totally different.

The definition of a scientist is that he upholds proven theories, or even hypotheses that look to be mightily true. If something you once upheld is proven wrong by new data or new breakthroughs that hold up to close scrutiny, then you must abandon the old view in favor of the new. Newtonian gravity was 'abandoned' in favor of GR gravity. GR gravity may one day need to be abandoned, and any scientist worth his salt will do so if a better theory comes out.
If for example, one day it is proven beyond doubt that TRex was actually a scavenger and not a hunter, then I will immediately abandon the hypothesis I uphold today, that it was much more of a hunter. Right now, there is a LOT more evidence he was a hunter and would rarely scavenge - no more than any other apex predator of today, like the lion.


Scientists know when theory is correct. Don't you know the difference between science theory and hypothesis? Greenhouse heating by Carbon is not a hypothesis. Given that so much study has been devoted to this subject since the mid 70's, we can be pretty sure that the conclusions are bang on.

If we were talking about the hypothesis of Dark Matter, then ya, its debateable.

You do know there's a big difference between the definition of "theory" by scientists and by the uneducated and brainless layman, (and also mitchologists), right?

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Scientists know when theory is correct. Don't you know the difference between science theory and hypothesis? Greenhouse heating by Carbon is not a hypothesis. Given that so much study has been devoted to this subject since the mid 70's, we can be pretty sure that the conclusions are bang on.

I hear so much about it, but my point is I am yet to see any satisfactory evidence to support the theory.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

I am yet to see any satisfactory evidence to support the theory.

Seek, and ye shall find.

I guess it's up to us to find the evidence.

Al Gore never actually quoted references in his movie, did he?

Perhaps his website has the figures...

I guess it's up to us to find the evidence.

Why bother? If he was genuinely interested he would already have done his homework.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

I guess it's up to us to find the evidence.

Why bother? If he was genuinely interested he would already have done his homework.

I have. As I've already said, I accept that global temperature is increasing, and I see how the mechanism works. But despite looking, I have never seen any reason to accept the mechanism: or, at least, that it is wholely or significantly responsible for the rise in temperature.

I am not burying my head in the sand. Simply, I am still happy to explore other possibilities.

Here's one set of data gathered in New Zealand:




www.stats.govt.nz


So.

It shows what I already knew from childhood in the 70's; and mirrors what Al Gore had to show us in his PP presentation: Carbon concentration in the atmosphere HAS gone up. It's no surprise: we liberate more and more Carbon locked away since the Paleozoic Era. Even as a kid, I was reading about the retreat of Glaciers worldwide and that it was due to GLOBAL WARMING.

It's been some years since I read any documents/reports on GW - I got disgusted when idiot world leaders left conferences because they didn't like how the report was worded.

I don't see how drowsy can disagree with GW without presenting strong evidence against it. Any arguments sound like the hollow dodges that have been offered up during the past decade that companies put forth to allow them to continue in their greed.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Here's one set of data gathered in New Zealand:




www.stats.govt.nz


So.

It shows what I already knew from childhood in the 70's; and mirrors what Al Gore had to show us in his PP presentation: Carbon concentration in the atmosphere HAS gone up. It's no surprise: we liberate more and more Carbon locked away since the Paleozoic Era. Even as a kid, I was reading about the retreat of Glaciers worldwide and that it was due to GLOBAL WARMING.

It's been some years since I read any documents/reports on GW - I got disgusted when idiot world leaders left conferences because they didn't like how the report was worded.

I don't see how drowsy can disagree with GW without presenting strong evidence against it. Any arguments sound like the hollow dodges that have been offered up during the past decade that companies put forth to allow them to continue in their greed.

I'm not disagreeing. I wouldn't put money either way.

Let's go back to the classic temperature/CO2 conentration curve.



What this graph shows us, is:

either

Increase in carbon dioxide leads to an increase in temperature.

or

Increase in temperature leads to an increase in carbon dioxide.

or

An increase in one or more common factors leads to increases in both temperature and carbon dioxide.



From the graph, we cannot be sure that global warming is the result of increase in carbon dioxide concnetrations in the atmosphere.

So while I agree that global temperature appears to be increasing, I do not believe there is conclusive evidence that carbon dioxide is the main cause/a significant contributer.

I have seen mechanisms that could explain the reverse, or that link the two via a common factor causing an increase in both. Please do not tell me that the greenhouse effect is the only explanation for the data, because it is not. It's just the media's favourite.

Why not describe some of these other mechanisms so that we can discuss them?

Climate is a complex system- I'm not convinced that C02 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

A couple interesting points:

C02 levels rise and fall after temperature. These implies something else causes global warming.


C02 only absorbs certain wavelengths of light. There are little left over photons of light for more C02 to soak up, so more C02 will have a slight effect, but it is minimal.

The 800 year lag of CO2 after a glacial-interglacial transition is well understood and has little or no relevance to present day warming. You didn't provide any context so I'm assuming this is what you are referring to. Look here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-ice-cores/

and here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-temp-and-co2/

The absorption bands of CO2 and their overlap with other gases, especially water, is also well understood and accounted for in models. You are trotting out the old saturation argument that was superseded by empirical science in the 1940's. It's the upper atmosphere that really matters, and we can thank the US military and WW2 for getting the research done. Look here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...assy-argument/

The greenhouse effect has been shown to be, by far, the best explanation of what is going on. The same way that 'gravity' and 'magic' are two explanations for the moon's orbit.

I mean, really, dude - you return megatons of Carbon to the atmosphere after 250+ million years of it being locked out and you think nothing is going to happen from that????

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

The greenhouse effect has been shown to be, by far, the best explanation of what is going on.

I agree, it is the best explanation right now. All I'm saying is, I'm open to other possibilities.

My point is, those other possibilities are really not supported - yes they were good alternate explanations that needed to be scientifically investigated, but the results are that they are nothing compared to dumping Carbon into the atmosphere.

This is aside from the point that they were continued to be touted and skewed by greedy capitalists who wanted to be able to continue with their Carbon dumping.

I should talk, though - I still drive a car.

Originally Posted by brushman

Climate is a complex system- I'm not convinced that C02 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

A couple interesting points:

C02 levels rise and fall after temperature. These implies something else causes global warming.


C02 only absorbs certain wavelengths of light. There are little left over photons of light for more C02 to soak up, so more C02 will have a slight effect, but it is minimal.

CO2 levels rise and fall after temperature merely because heat causes CO2 levels to rise. This is not saying that human CO2 was not the initial cause of the current warming trend. See here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm

I'm gonna agree with the OP, insofar as sunlight causes warming. We should not get so lost in the Earth's retention of heat that we forget that.

If I'm not mistaken, Earth's albedo governs warming far more than greenhouse gasses.

Originally Posted by milum

questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

Exactly!

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

uhhhh - because - the Carbon...acts like a blanket... for the longer wavelengths of infrared heat that would normally reflect back to space?

Like on Venus as a runaway example?

I thought you guys were scientists?

It does not have a linear effect. The following is extrapolated using the appropriate mathematics, and the assumed information in wiki:





Data used:

CO2 is between 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect is 33 C.

I believe I input 387 ppm for the calculation, but I could be wrong.

Ah, 'tis a gala night, Williampinn, the return to this board of specious reasoning with obvious proof of specious lying about scientific data. Enjoy this moment, Williampinn. Remember: you are Williampinn; and they are camp followers. [smile]

I'm guessing the original poster may have been refering to an article published in the journal Science by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen.
This is well known and outdated ammunition used by people in a state of AGW denial.

The errors found in this original paper have been published by Peter Laut:
Here and in a slightly less technical form here

Yes, obviously solar cycles affect our climate and there has been a strong correlation in the past,
but since about 1980 there has been a large deviation between solar activity and global average temperatures. This can only be due to the greenhouse effect.
See this video here if you find yourself struggling with the science.

Maybe we could create a permanent header for all global warming threads, with the information that

1) It doesn't matter whether CO2 increased before or after the initial warming trend got started in the past. We know where the extra CO2 is coming from now, and we have good reason to predict it will be causing some warming in the future.

2) The solar variations don't match the temperature trend, and do not account for the observed temperature trend in either size or direction. There are no "lags" to consider, in physical reality. And yes, the pros in the field have been looking very closely at that very factor, for years now.

3) Whether or not water vapor is the major greenhouse gas is secondary - because it condenses and reacts chemically, water vapor concentration is contingent on warmth from elsewhere, and is driven by CO2 warming on Earth. It feeds back and amplifies, it does not cause.

4) The small percentage of the air CO2 takes up does not make it insignificant as a heat trapper.

5) The large absorption of the bandwidth the current CO2 concentration manages does not mean more CO2 will make little difference - CO2 reradiates most of the infrared it absorbs, and so having more to pick off the large fraction headed for space significantly increases the total heat trapped.

6) Yes there is a possibility the CO2 is not causing any warming, or will not cause any more, due to as yet unspecified factors. That is not the way to bet, though.

7) Humans put out far more CO2 than any other source, such as volcanoes. Volcanoes have put out a lot in the distant past, but not recently.

8) Warming of the air will cause some glaciers and ice sheets to grow, but most will melt - and are melting.

9) Nothing in the predictions of warming from CO2 demands that the warming be monotonic, that cold years cease to happen, etc.

10) The warming pattern in time and location, not just the overall trend, fits a greenhouse gas explanation.

And so forth.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Maybe we could create a permanent header for all global warming threads, with the information that

1) It doesn't matter whether CO2 increased before or after the initial warming trend got started in the past. We know where the extra CO2 is coming from now, and we have good reason to predict it will be causing some warming in the future.

Only some unmeasurable warming.

Originally Posted by iceaura

2) The solar variations don't match the temperature trend, and do not account for the observed temperature trend in either size or direction. There are no "lags" to consider, in physical reality. And yes, the pros in the field have been looking very closely at that very factor, for years now.

Yes there is lag. How much, I'm not sure. It very well could be 30 years or more.

Originally Posted by iceaura

3) Whether or not water vapor is the major greenhouse gas is secondary - because it condenses and reacts chemically, water vapor concentration is contingent on warmth from elsewhere, and is driven by CO2 warming on Earth. It feeds back and amplifies, it does not cause.

Water vapor is driven by ocean surface heat. CO2 has nothing to do with it. Water has a stronger greenhouse effect than all other gasses combined.

Feedback? Explain please. What feedback on the feedback are you suggesting?

I suggest you look at HITRAM or similar calculators sometime based on known measurements of gasses.

Originally Posted by iceaura

4) The small percentage of the air CO2 takes up does not make it insignificant as a heat trapper.

It is insignificant. It only covers about 20% at most of the IR spectrum the earth radiates, and is almost completely opaque to these frequencies already.

Originally Posted by iceaura

5) The large absorption of the bandwidth the current CO2 concentration manages does not mean more CO2 will make little difference - CO2 reradiates most of the infrared it absorbs, and so having more to pick off the large fraction headed for space significantly increases the total heat trapped.

The heat can only be counted once. When it re-radiates, the molecules cool back down.

There is no such thing as perpetual motion, or other things that violate the conservation of mass and energy.

At least not yet.

Originally Posted by iceaura

6) Yes there is a possibility the CO2 is not causing any warming, or will not cause any more, due to as yet unspecified factors. That is not the way to bet, though.

I'm not a betting man. CO2 can still cause some minor warming.

Are you now not certain?

Originally Posted by iceaura

7) Humans put out far more CO2 than any other source, such as volcanoes. Volcanoes have put out a lot in the distant past, but not recently.

Not true.

We might be causing a 8 GtC increase annually in the carbon cycle now. Sure, volcanoes, well under 1 GtC. However, if you mean into the atmosphere, the ocean and surface nature already sources over 200 GtC annually.

Originally Posted by iceaura

8) Warming of the air will cause some glaciers and ice sheets to grow, but most will melt - and are melting.

Under 1C warming causes very little melting. It takes one calorie of energy to raise 1 gm of water 1 degree Celsius. However, it take far more energy to melt 1 gm of ice from 0 C ice to 0 C water. 334 calories if I remember right.

Originally Posted by iceaura

9) Nothing in the predictions of warming from CO2 demands that the warming be monotonic, that cold years cease to happen, etc.

same goes with correlating CO2 to warming.

The one thing that CO2 levels fit almost exactly linear with is sea water temperature. The warmer the ocean temperature, the more CO2. Almost a perfect strait line.

Originally Posted by iceaura

10) The warming pattern in time and location, not just the overall trend, fits a greenhouse gas explanation.

No it doesn't.

Why do you forget simple facts like we have seen three or four times in the lat 11,000 years that have been warmer than today, but CO2 levels were never higher than 280 ppm?

Except, if it were the sun, we should be cooling right now since solar output is so low... and yet... temps continue to climb and set records. So... there's always that.


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...larminimum.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithab...global_war.php

Originally Posted by inow

Except, if it were the sun, we should be cooling right now since solar output is so low... and yet... temps continue to climb and set records. So... there's always that.

And we are setting record lows too. The solar output is lower, and temperatures have not been globally increasing since 2004.

Why do you focus on one thing at a time without considering the other factors like lag time and soot on ice? Then there are temperature islands and corrupted temperature data sites. Asphalt next to them, new buildings next to them with an air conditioner nearby.

It was maybe two years ago that NASA released a statement that the temperature data was all wrong. 1930somthing is still the hottest date on record after correcting Hansen's incorrect formulas.

For the 40+ years I recall seeing climate change, we are cooling again. Don't believe it if you wish not to, but can you stop bringing up points I already addressed, unless you are going to dispute my conclusions though dialog in your own words.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by inow

Except, if it were the sun, we should be cooling right now since solar output is so low... and yet... temps continue to climb and set records. So... there's always that.

And we are setting record lows too.

Bullshit. I'm referring to average global annual temperature. Those are setting record highs, not lows. What you're doing by looking at only 2004 forward for a trend is like seeing an unusually hot day in mid-April and then concluding that transitioning from spring to summer shows a cooling trend since there are cooler days being experienced in May than we had on that one day in April. It's just stupid. When looking at trend data in climate you need at least decade long frames, and preferably at least 30 years. You know what happens when you don't arbitrarily set your start and end point of the graph to suggest a trend which doesn't exist? You get this:




But, if you want to keep lying to people and call that a cooling trend, be my guest.

Inow, you said "right now... temps continue to climb and set records".

Wild Cobra said "temperatures have not been globally increasing since 2004".



You've both pushed distorted assessments.

Uh huh.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Well that's better, but I fail to see the "right now" in that. My point is anyway most recent years lend no more weight than others.



You invited Wild Cobra's opinion of "right now" then next post said he's stupid to look at only 2004 forward. That's forum trolling. I don't entirely agree with Wild Cobra's focus, but at least he's responsible in discussion. That makes good science... in spite of us all.

Originally Posted by Pong

You invited Wild Cobra's opinion of "right now" then next post said he's stupid to look at only 2004 forward. That's forum trolling. I don't entirely agree with Wild Cobra's focus, but at least he's responsible in discussion. That makes good science... in spite of us all.

Let's just say that your view is substantially different than mine as pertains to WC. I'm not sure if you've been paying attention, but in nearly every thread where he discusses this topic he has been presented with scientific evidence demonstrating unequivocally the fallacious nature of his claims. He has had information shared which shows his approach to understanding the system to be oversimplified and based on flawed assumptions. He has been provided enough counter evidence to realize that what he supports is mistaken, and yet carries forward like a creationist in an discussion regarding evolution.

His response... REPEATEDLY... is to dismiss all of that scientific evidence... from all of it's sources... as "propaganda." He is so tied to his narrative that he cannot see that ALL of the data available to us disagrees with him, that his conclusions are false, and that his approach is mistaken.

And you have the nerve to suggest that I am the one trolling? I apologize, Pong, but you are deeply and sadly mistaken on this point. Wild Cobra is anything but responsible, and he is lying to people in these threads on climate change... either intentionally or because he is too blinded and ignorant to discuss this topic truthfully.

You can suggest that I chose my words poorly, or present me with some sort of clever semantic argument. However, the point remains... Wild Cobra is presenting nonsense, and his refusal to accept valid evidence and continuous rejection of science as "propaganda" makes him the troll.

Enjoy your night.

Hey global gang, while Al Gore and his gangsters are freezing their ample butts off in up Copenhagen let us stop and think upon a point....

Question: HOW MUCH HAS SEA LEVEL RISEN IN THE 21ST CENTURY?
(plus or minus 1/16 of an inch which you may recalculate to metrics if you please.)

Then multiply by ten. [smile]

you still use inches in albania ? oh sorry, i see that's alabama

The creation of oceanic crust and the associated heat and displacement are more than enough to cause the measured rise in sea-levels.

Originally Posted by Geo

The creation of oceanic crust

Huh. Hadn't thought of that. OTOH crust is being subducted. But this subduction builds the continents little by little, unless they sink.

Additionally, and more immediately, many coastal areas are in interglacial rebound, up to 10mm per year. So this displaces water, which must cause rise where coasts are not rebounding, or measured as depth to seafloor. A 1984 study found that rebound contributes 30-50% of sea level rise.

That means the land area bearing snow is expanding (albedo) while the tropical water surface is also expanding (evaporation).

That also means strong positive feedback due to increased tropic sea surface warming. Indonesia!

Originally Posted by milum

Hey global gang, while Al Gore and his gangsters are freezing their ample butts off in up Copenhagen let us stop and think upon a point....

Question: HOW MUCH HAS SEA LEVEL RISEN IN THE 21ST CENTURY?
(plus or minus 1/16 of an inch which you may recalculate to metrics if you please.)

Then multiply by ten. [smile]

You're only going to get a guess from me.

9 mm.

Originally Posted by inow

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention, but in nearly every thread where he discusses this topic he has been presented with scientific evidence demonstrating unequivocally the fallacious nature of his claims.

You don't give evidence. you give links of other peoples educated opinions. They don't give their data or methodology, and their explanations exclude other probabilities. You cannot even put in your own words an argument to explain how I am wrong.

Originally Posted by inow

He has had information shared which shows his approach to understanding the system to be oversimplified and based on flawed assumptions.

Then show me my flaws. I keep it simple so that people can understand it.

I have made a few mistakes that have gone unnoticed. Care to show me you see what they are?

I occasionally don't correct a mistake after I realize I made it. Shows me people don't understand the facts. I think only one was shown so far where I misplaced a zero by mistake. There are two more I can think of right now.

Originally Posted by inow

He has been provided enough counter evidence to realize that what he supports is mistaken, and yet carries forward like a creationist in an discussion regarding evolution.

But I am not mistaken in my belief. I'm sorry you don't understand simple things like Henry's Law, or that lag in systems exist.

Originally Posted by inow

His response... REPEATEDLY... is to dismiss all of that scientific evidence... from all of it's sources... as "propaganda."

It is propaganda when relevant points on their side is completely dismissed.

Originally Posted by inow

He is so tied to his narrative that he cannot see that ALL of the data available to us disagrees with him, that his conclusions are false, and that his approach is mistaken.

Data...

That temperature data from NASA/GISS I think is the first time you provided data.

Originally Posted by inow

And you have the nerve to suggest that I am the one trolling?

You are a troll when all you can do is say I'm wrong in a Bumblebee style.

Since you cannot discuss the science of Global Warming in your own words, I don't see any motive for your threads except to attack.

Originally Posted by inow

I apologize, Pong, but you are deeply and sadly mistaken on this point. Wild Cobra is anything but responsible, and he is lying to people in these threads on climate change... either intentionally or because he is too blinded and ignorant to discuss this topic truthfully.

Then prove to me in your own words correlating data or explaining why my explanations are wrong.

Stop quoting material that has falsely been taught for years. Explain your reasons why you believe something works like you do, and I will tell you what if wrong if there is something I see wrong. You will not convince my I am wrong by posting links that are scientifically mistaken.

You know, it was once thought the sun revolved around the earth. That's what observation told us centuries past. Observation about CO2 and temperature is also wrong.

Originally Posted by inow

You can suggest that I chose my words poorly, or present me with some sort of clever semantic argument.

It's not that you choose your words poorly, I haven't seen any indication that you understand the sciences involved.

Originally Posted by inow

However, the point remains... Wild Cobra is presenting nonsense, and his refusal to accept valid evidence and continuous rejection of science as "propaganda" makes him the troll.

You have shown me no valid evidence that is contrary to my understanding of our climate.

So... As best I can tell... In your mind you've managed to disprove all of science because you've not been responded to in the manner you'd like on an internet forum?

Yeah... Uhhmm... Okay.

Originally Posted by marnixR

you still use inches in albania ? oh sorry, i see that's alabama

Oh, that's funny, marnix. Yeah...Alabama and Albania; backward countries that measure with the King's members. Ha ha, ha ha. Did you have anything else to add?

Originally Posted by wild cobra

You're only going to get a guess from me.

9 mm.

wild cobra, you bring a ladies' pistol to a witch hunt. Ten millimeters a decade ain't gonna scare no one. Look, cobra, that's only five inches a Century. Shoot, everybody's got five inches - I mean - everyone with balls. How we gonna flood New York with a measley five inches? Do you want to be dunked twenty-one times in a three meter lake by the AGW true believers? To hell with reality, cobra, get in step. 8)

Originally Posted by milum

wild cobra, you bring a ladies' pistol to a witch hunt. Ten millimeters a decade ain't gonna scare no one. Look, cobra, that's only five inches a Century. Shoot, everybody's got five inches - I mean - everyone with balls.

The last century was about 20 cm, equivalent to about 18 mm for nine years. I know someone has quantified it, and my guess should have been 18. I meant to maintain the current trend, but had a brain cramp. However, I don't expect it to maintain that rate for the 21st century. Thermal expansion of the ocean is driven by the sun. How much of the 20 cm rise is thermal expansion and how much is glacier melting is in debate.

Originally Posted by milum

How we gonna flood New York with a measley five inches?

I relly don't see it happening.

For that much ice to melt by heat, I think man kind will already be migrating to higher elevations to get out of the extreme heat.

Originally Posted by milum

Do you want to be dunked twenty-one times in a three meter lake by the AGW true believers? To hell with reality, cobra, get in step. 8)

I have stepped in. Nobody has been able to counter my arguments. I'd love to debate Al Gore, but he won't debate anyone.

Originally Posted by milum

Originally Posted by marnixR

you still use inches in albania ? oh sorry, i see that's alabama

Oh, that's funny, marnix. Yeah...Alabama and Albania; backward countries that measure with the King's members. Ha ha, ha ha. Did you have anything else to add?

no - i tend to keep my jokes short and sweet

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I meant to maintain the current trend, but had a brain cramp. However, I don't expect it to maintain that rate for the 21st century. Thermal expansion of the ocean is driven by the sun. How much of the 20 cm rise is thermal expansion and how much is glacier melting is in debate.

Originally Posted by milum

How we gonna flood New York with a measley five inches?

I relly don't see it happening.

For that much ice to melt by heat, I think man kind will already be migrating to higher elevations to get out of the extreme heat.

The ice is not melting by heat alone. To be fair to you, I also used to think the same thing... That there was simply too much ice for us to worry much yet since temperatures were not going up that quickly.

However, I was wrong, and I now know why.

When looking at ice melt, you must look beyond just temperature and heat. Due to the increasing frequency and interplay of calving, melt water runoff, subsurface pressures, the lubrication effect of the melt waters which erode the structure and flow below the ice sheet (also presenting additional issues of pressure making the faults more severe), and the fact that cooler waters flowing into the ocean create a vacuum pulling the warmer waters from deeper even further under the ice sheet, hence resulting in further melt and faults... the simple fact is that the situation you are classifying as something you "just don't see happening" is happening already, is happening quickly, and is the result of much more than simple temperature increases as evidenced in the forensic studies I have provided.

The issues are warmer ocean water being pulled beneath the ice sheet due to the pressure differential after cooler fresh water flows from the top of the ice sheet into the ocean. There is also the issue of lubrication, causing the ice sheet to move much more quickly than previously thought possible. Additionally, the calving and splitting creates further calving and splitting due to erosion and pressure of the water within the ice sheet itself.

Despite our intuitive notions that the ice sheet is simply too big and too vast to be impacted by minimal warming, the data shows our intuitions to be misguided and simply wrong. The ice sheet is going away my friend, and it's happening quickly.


http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/index.php
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/



But hey, why look at parts of reality which prove your position untenable, right?

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Thermal expansion of the ocean is driven by the sun.

Yes, and increased ocean surface is positive feedback, especially in the tropics. I'm hoping somebody confirms/refutes what I said about Indonesia.



@milum. I agree New York city can easily keep ahead of sea level rise. However there's a lot of valuable agricultural land for some crazy reason situated on flood plains just above sea level. This land no longer gains river sediment - and height exceeding sea level - because we diked the rivers long ago. What happens when the saline water table creeps up to crop roots? We are talking inches here. Farmers can't afford to raise these fields on a global scale even if we source enough comparable topsoil - which doesn't exist.

inow: "Despite our intuitive notions that the ice sheet is simply too big and too vast to be impacted by minimal warming, the data shows our intuitions to be misguided and simply wrong. The ice sheet is going away my friend, and it's happening quickly."
__________________________________________________ ________

Ah inow, if only paradise were enow. But inow, this, our world, shifts and changes; get used to it, or fix it so it will remain the same. Ice comes, ice goes. Life on Earth is more vibrant when it goes. What? You think polar bears like ice? No, they like seals. But don't worry your good but worrying head, the long desired Northen Passage will, for your lifetime, still be but a dream. Wanna bet?

What?

That was dreamy. :|

The Northwest Passage opens every year already. My wife and I plan to take a cruise ship through there after we retire. She wants to see the Aurora; I want to call myself Canadian.

Pong: "@milum. I agree New York city can easily keep ahead of sea level rise. However there's a lot of valuable agricultural land for some crazy reason situated on flood plains just above sea level. This land no longer gains river sediment - and height exceeding sea level - because we diked the rivers long ago. What happens when the saline water table creeps up to crop roots? We are talking inches here. Farmers can't afford to raise these fields on a global scale even if we source enough comparable topsoil - which doesn't exist."
__________________________________________________ ________

Dear Pong, offsets. If our world warms -what? three degrees? - the world's food supply will increase by maybe twenty percent. And, hopefully, if atmospheric carbon dioxide jumps as well, then for the first time in human history our food production will be able to meet the needs of our population.

You do like people, don't you?

Originally Posted by milum

Dear Pong, offsets. If our world warms -what? three degrees? - the world's food supply will increase by maybe twenty percent. And, hopefully, if atmospheric carbon dioxide jumps as well, then for the first time in human history our food production will be able to meet the needs of our population.

Wrong.


http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9..._1_014002.html

For wheat, maize and barley, negative yield impacts for the 1980s and 1990–2002 indicate that recent climate trends have, unless addressed through adaptation measures, suppressed global yield progress for these three crops. Effects are less pronounced for other crops and decades, though with significant yield suppression for soybean and sorghum since 1990, and wheat in the 1970s. All instances of significant yield effects were attributable mainly to warming temperature trends, as precipitation trends had only minor effects on yields (not shown).

While small when expressed as a percentage of current yields, the absolute losses in global production due to warming trends since 1981 were substantial. Wheat, maize and barley production in 2002, for example, would have been roughly 2–3% higher without climate trends since 1981.

<...>

The results suggest that recent climate trends, attributable to human activity [22], have had a discernible negative impact on global production of several major crops. The impact of warming was likely offset to some extent by fertilization effects of increased CO2 levels

<...>

If each additional ppm of CO2 results in ~ 0.1% yield increase for C3 crops (a yield increase of 17% for a concentration increase from the current 380 ppm to the frequently studied 550 ppm) [23, 24], then the ~ 35 ppm increase since 1981 corresponds to a roughly 3.5% yield increase, about the same as the 3% decrease in wheat yield due to climate trends over this period. Thus, the effects of CO2 and climate trends have likely largely cancelled each other over the past two decades, with a small net effect on yields. This conclusion challenges model assessments that suggest global CO2 benefits will exceed temperature related losses up to ~ 2° warming (1).

If each additional ppm of CO2 results in ~ 0.1% yield increase for C3 crops...

Unless they're just making up the numbers I'm amazed. I didn't think CO2 would do that.

Looked into it. Apparently the "c4" crops benefit little from increased CO2. Notably sugarcane, maize, pasture. As well this may be a mixed blessing for regions like Canadian prairies, where rapid growth sucks the soil dry, so plants starve for water. We also have the seasons - harvesting a few weeks early is not going to allow additional crops that year. And many plants will simply leaf out more (suck water) without yielding more apples, bigger broccoli, or whatever. Still, the plants do like the boost of CO2 more than I thought.

Originally Posted by Pong

That was dreamy. :|

The Northwest Passage opens every year already. My wife and I plan to take a cruise ship through there after we retire. She wants to see the Aurora; I want to call myself Canadian.

Yes Pong, you do that. Pet a polar bear and plant a palm tree for me, and what the hell, I'll call you Canadian if you like. But hurry, Pong, the excesses of the white man might have despoiled the Aurora with pollutants by the time you visit.

And about CO2 and warm spells...during Pennsylvanian times (using American nomenclature) the world became a virtual Garden of Eden. Trees could not help being born and creatures could not help climbing from the sea. We sapient ones -who are descendents of the slimy creatures - recall those times as the "good old days" and thank the Almighty for CO2.

Originally Posted by Pong

If each additional ppm of CO2 results in ~ 0.1% yield increase for C3 crops...

Unless they're just making up the numbers I'm amazed. I didn't think CO2 would do that.

Looked into it. Apparently the "c4" crops benefit little from increased CO2. Notably sugarcane, maize, pasture. As well this may be a mixed blessing for regions like Canadian prairies, where rapid growth sucks the soil dry, so plants starve for water. We also have the seasons - harvesting a few weeks early is not going to allow additional crops that year. And many plants will simply leaf out more (suck water) without yielding more apples, bigger broccoli, or whatever. Still, the plants do like the boost of CO2 more than I thought.

Right, but as the study I shared points out, while plants like CO2, they don't like the increase in temps. The negative effect on plants from increased temperatures negates (and often surpasses) the slight positive effect of CO2. Since CO2 is causing warming, the conclusion that crop yields will increase is deeply myopic and flawed.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Pong

If each additional ppm of CO2 results in ~ 0.1% yield increase for C3 crops...

Unless they're just making up the numbers I'm amazed. I didn't think CO2 would do that.

Looked into it. Apparently the "c4" crops benefit little from increased CO2. Notably sugarcane, maize, pasture. As well this may be a mixed blessing for regions like Canadian prairies, where rapid growth sucks the soil dry, so plants starve for water. We also have the seasons - harvesting a few weeks early is not going to allow additional crops that year. And many plants will simply leaf out more (suck water) without yielding more apples, bigger broccoli, or whatever. Still, the plants do like the boost of CO2 more than I thought.

Right, but as the study I shared points out, while plants like CO2, they don't like the increase in temps. The negative effect on plants from increased temperatures negates (and often surpasses) the slight positive effect of CO2. Since CO2 is causing warming, the conclusion that crop yields will increase is deeply myopic and flawed.

Your study fails to address the reality that as local climates change, the crops that are grown there change too. when this factor is included what conclusion can we draw other than that your proclamation is faulty?

Wrong, inow. Ok, let's play Google ping pong ( not you, pong) see below...

ScienceDaily (Dec. 4, 2009) The rising level of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be fueling more than climate change. It could also be making some trees grow like crazy.

STUDY: ASPEN GROWTH INCREASES 50% THROUGH HIGHER LEVELS OF CO2

That is the finding of a new study of natural stands of quaking aspen, one of North America's most important and widespread deciduous trees. The study, by scientists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Minnesota at Morris (UMM) and published December 4 in the journal Global Change Biology, shows that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past 50 years have boosted aspen growth rates by an astonishing 50 percent.

"Trees are already responding to a relatively nominal increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 50 years," says Rick Lindroth, a UW-Madison professor of ecology and an expert on plant responses to climate change. Lindroth, UW-Madison colleague Don Waller, and professors Christopher Cole and Jon Anderson of UMM conducted the new study.

The study's findings are important as the world's forests, which cover about 30 percent of the Earth's land surface, play an important role in regulating climate and sequestering greenhouses gases. The forests of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular, act as sinks for carbon dioxide, helping to offset the increase in levels of the greenhouse gas, widely viewed as a threat to global climate stability.

Since when are trees in Aspen considered to be a food supply for humans?

Originally Posted by inow

Despite our intuitive notions that the ice sheet is simply too big and too vast to be impacted by minimal warming, the data shows our intuitions to be misguided and simply wrong. The ice sheet is going away my friend, and it's happening quickly.

Really?

Have you checked the math? Just how many years are we talking about?

There is a slight loss in the energy budget of the earth, at least by the last model I saw for 2004. Slightly more is solar energy is absorbed than is radiated back out to space. Now remember, to melt 1 kg of 0 C ice to 0 C water, takes 333550 Calories. This equates to 92.653 watt-hours. The combined ice on Greenland and Antarctica is 2.35E19 kg. This is enough ice to rise the sea level by 71 meters should it melt.

Lets just look at the heat required to melt enough of that ice to raise the level by 1 cm. We would have to melt 3.61E15 kg of ice. That would require 1.20E21 calories, or 3.34E14 kilo-watt-hours of energy. The earth receives an annual power of 1.05E19 kwh. That means if all the solar energy was converted solely to melting the ice, it could be done in 11.6 days. However, the earth energy budget would never allow that. We don't have the technology to manipulate nature like that.

Lets assume the budget was off by 1%, all with that energy melting the ice and not warming anything else. It would now take 1160 days, or 3.19 years to raise the sea level by 1 cm. A complete melt... multiply that by 7100, or about 22,600 years.

Remember, you cannot break the laws concerning conservation of mass and energy, and this also is assuming the ice is already at 0C, and not -10, -20, etc. No matter how much the earths temperature rises, it takes 334.55 calories to melt 1 gm of ice. This energy doesn't magically reappear somewhere else to melt again.

Right now, the bulk of the energy imbalance is warming the oceans. Some of it has warmed the air and surface, however, I believe that has reversed itself for surface warming since 2004 or 2005. Anyway, my point is, it is a joke to expect warming to contribute to very much of an ice melt. Direct heating from black carbon on ice is far more efficient.

Please show me the math that allows for a large amount of ice to melt if you think I'm wrong.

Did I make a calculation mistake? If so, please show me.

Math is great, but if your premises are flawed then so too will be your conclusions (unless, you happen to reach a correct conclusion by coincidence).

Originally Posted by inow

Math is great, but if your premises are flawed then so too will be your conclusions (unless, you happen to reach a correct conclusion by coincidence).

Typical of you.

Cannot understand the math involved, so you make a petty blanket statement.

Do you understand the scope and scale of what you are talking about when we melt that much ice?

Please...

Show me where all that energy will come from.

Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that we must consider more than mere temperature and energy when discussing the sea ice melt?

Originally Posted by inow

Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that we must consider more than mere temperature and energy when discussing the sea ice melt?

Why don't you believe in the conservation of mass and energy?

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by inow

Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that we must consider more than mere temperature and energy when discussing the sea ice melt?

Why don't you believe in the conservation of mass and energy?

At no where and at no time have I claimed or implied that I do not.
Your suggestion is little more than a strawman of my position, and worse, a red herring attempting to divert readers away from the context of our exchange.

I ask again, are you intentionally ignoring the fact that we must consider more than mere temperature and energy when discussing the sea ice melt?

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by inow

Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that we must consider more than mere temperature and energy when discussing the sea ice melt?

Why don't you believe in the conservation of mass and energy?

At no where and at no time have I claimed or implied that I do not.
Your suggestion is little more than a strawman of my position, and worse, a red herring attempting to divert readers away from the context of our exchange.

I pointed out the energy involved in melting enough ice to raise the sea level by 1 cm.

Put up or shut up if you dispute my claim.

I asked where is that energy going to come from.

Please show us your math.

Originally Posted by inow

I ask again, are you intentionally ignoring the fact that we must consider more than mere temperature and energy when discussing the sea ice melt?

Temperature is energy. Energy is in the specific heat of a substance. It can be measured in calories, joules, watt-hours, etc.

Please explain to me how you can melt more ice than we currently do. It takes energy to melt the ice. If it gets warmer, the fact that this extra heat melts ice then cools the air. The conservation of energy must be maintained. If it goes into melting the ice, it is lost by the mass that melted the ice.

Red Herring my ass.

You just have no valid argument.

I am believing more and more you haven't a clue about science.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I pointed out the energy involved in melting enough ice to raise the sea level by 1 cm.

And, when you did so, you assumed that ice melt was a function of energy alone. My previous posts demonstrated this assumption to be fallacious.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It takes energy to melt the ice. If it gets warmer, the fact that this extra heat melts ice then cools the air. The conservation of energy must be maintained. If it goes into melting the ice, it is lost by the mass that melted the ice.

Red Herring my ass.

You just have no valid argument.

I'll share again why a focus on temperature and energy alone is misguided and short-sighted. You are leaving out significant other factors which impact both the speed and amount of ice melt.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I relly don't see it happening.

For that much ice to melt by heat, I think man kind will already be migrating to higher elevations to get out of the extreme heat.

The ice is not melting by heat alone. To be fair to you, I also used to think the same thing... That there was simply too much ice for us to worry much yet since temperatures were not going up that quickly.

However, I was wrong, and I now know why.

When looking at ice melt, you must look beyond just temperature and heat. Due to the increasing frequency and interplay of calving, melt water runoff, subsurface pressures, the lubrication effect of the melt waters which erode the structure and flow below the ice sheet (also presenting additional issues of pressure making the faults more severe), and the fact that cooler waters flowing into the ocean create a vacuum pulling the warmer waters from deeper even further under the ice sheet, hence resulting in further melt and faults... the simple fact is that the situation you are classifying as something you "just don't see happening" is happening already, is happening quickly, and is the result of much more than simple temperature increases as evidenced in the forensic studies I have provided.

The issues are warmer ocean water being pulled beneath the ice sheet due to the pressure differential after cooler fresh water flows from the top of the ice sheet into the ocean. There is also the issue of lubrication, causing the ice sheet to move much more quickly than previously thought possible. Additionally, the calving and splitting creates further calving and splitting due to erosion and pressure of the water within the ice sheet itself.

Despite our intuitive notions that the ice sheet is simply too big and too vast to be impacted by minimal warming, the data shows our intuitions to be misguided and simply wrong. The ice sheet is going away my friend, and it's happening quickly.


http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/index.php
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/

However, this was all shared already before, and you ignored it then, too, so I'm not optimistic that your response will adjust this time to more appropriately align with reality. You are too personally tied to your preferred narrative despite it's lack of accuracy or representation of the situation under discussion.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I am believing more and more you haven't a clue about science.

Uh huh.

i'm going to call time on this thread before Godwin's law kicks in