microwaves

While I entirely agree that there are a lot of ingnoramuses, charlatans and vested interests on the global warming charabanc, that is merely a sign that there is money involved. But it seems to me that you are implying that there is no genuine issue regarding global warming.
Much as I would wish to agree with you, I can't. In the absence of ameliorative actions, the evidence** is that rates of warming are likely to be so high that it seems most improbable that humanity (or indeed any of the larger mammalian species) could adapt to the changes. (Some may say "good riddance" of course).

Fyz

**I've gone through as much of this as I've had time+skills, and it seems to hold up

It doesn't seem to me that MarkTheHandyman is implying that there is no genuine issue regarding global warming.

I believe he only gave a humourous incite into ways and manners of convincing politicians in government to fund technological inventions which do not, at the material time, look relevant to the current national or global challenges. It is indeed an addendum to your previous post.

Cheers,

ethobil

You are probably right - but to my mind the way phrases such as "nonsense about the planet", "counter-proof" and "scare-mongers" were used more than left that interpretation open.

So I feel clarification would be helpful, especially as there are many CR4 contributors who will take this as refuting the view that global warming is a serious problem - unless/until he makes an express statement to the contrary.

Well, i agree with you. As long as the post has elicited a contrary view, clarification would help.

Cheers,

ethobil

Hi, Physicist? !

Of course global warming is a reality. And of course, temps are climbing, etc. although this particular climb rate has been beaten once or twice in past global warming epochs.

And quite probably --in order to pacify those enviro folks who believe it to be so, and I'm quite fond of not a few who bide their time in here-- humanity does have an affect on the process.

However, that affect is regarded by the clima, geo and paleo folks who specialize in warming/cooling epoch studies as 'noise', and doesn't apparently have enough clout to be included in serious calculations...most of which are beyond my ability to competently evaluate due to their esoteric complexity anyway; and they are --completely without political agenda-- fairly unanimous on this point, so I accept their expertise.

The issue of global warming is genuine. The issues around global warming come from completely competent studies that --apparently-- don't affect the basic warming issue quite as much as the 'tie the warming to the enviro' issue-whackers would want to believe.

This is absolutely not meant to downplay the importance of cleaning up all the earthly environments, treating them with care and knowledge, and keeping them as pristine and intact as possible. That set of circumstances surrounds the vital areas of habitat and species survival and maintenance, culminating in the survival of our own naive and foolish species.

Mark

Hmm... That seems to be quite a high level of scepticism.

Now, in geological terms you could choose to regard the events that led to the exinction of the dinosaurs as "within the noise". Even if you do, that doesn't make them any less significant.

And, true, in the absence of reasonable theory, the warming we have seen over the last thirty-plus years could indeed be regarded as an extreme variation due to "noise in the system". But the low level of associated correlating factors (sunspots, orbital positions...) means that, after taking into account these usual suspects, the level of the discrepancy is outside the 6-sigma limit that is usually taken as meaning that there must be a specific cause. The conclusion is two-pronged: our theories are incomplete, but.. between a half and one-and-a-half of the warming we have seen is almost certainly due to human activity. There is slightly more uncertainty in projecting this into the future - but the 90% probability in the "official" (yuk) position that "CO2-induced-increases in warming will cause unprecedented problems" does not appear (to me) to be overstating the case

Hi, Physicist? !

I'm working on a reply to you, but I'll be out all day today so it won't happen before at least this evening. Meanwhile:

"in the absence of reasonable theory, the warming we have seen over the last thirty-plus years could indeed be regarded as an extreme variation due to "noise in the system"."

The relevance of global warming due to any man-made participation is an interesting question in the light of the epochs of cooling remaining fixed by orbital coincidence*, and the geological climatological evidence of the same or greater CO₂ production and temperature rises in the past.

* http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/tzipermanetal2006.pdf

I am aware of deforestation, deplanktonization, air pollution, and the diminishment of the ozone layer due to human intervention, all being contributory causes to an increase in planetary CO₂ and the reflective warming effect that leads to global warming. The question seems to be how, or to what percentage, human intervention contributes to the current rise. There is a lot of 'band-wagonning' going on that masquerades as definitive answers, while there are perfectly logical and empirical refutations for each of those.

My thought is that the epoch of global warming we are experiencing is, unless evidence is provided to the contrary that negates the negators, (Woo hoo! triple negative!) just another natural occurrence, caused by the same natural forces as in the past (earth's orbital position, incidences of volcanic activity, etc. etc.) and only slightly enhanced by human stupidity. Unpopular opinion.

Mark

The size of the temperature rise (to date) is geologically unremarkable. The rate of this rise, on the other hand, is (so far as I know) unprecedented. Even before 2007, the same considerations would apply to ice volumes as described in your referenced paper. This is surely true as regards the theoretical rates shown in the paper; it would also be correct with regard to any data we can extract from ice records - except unfortunately that I am not certain that we have the data from sufficient sites to be certain that short-term effects of this magnitude have never before occurred. That is why I tend to prefer to consider data that combines records from different phenomena.

Hi, Physicist? !

"I am not certain that we have the data from sufficient sites to be certain that short-term effects of this magnitude have never before occurred."

As to the magnitude, that's open to the interpretation from the data that climatologists and other geographers of varying stripes are able to glean from the parts of the planet's history that are set in stone (ice, and other observable records), so to speak.

I tend to agree with you that more data is required, because the era of global warming is inevitable and not preparing for it would be inexcusable. Planned mass migrations should be enabled and got underway beginning now.

I personally prefer to come down on the side of global warming that attributes the phenomenon to completely naturally occurring changes, where other empirically arrived-at information points to causes largely unaffected by the noise component that has so much popularity with what I (I think defendably) consider to be the political ("band-wagon") arm of earth science. Band-wagon in the sense of beginning with the observable rise in human-originated participation in order to arrive rather too quickly at the comprehensive conclusion that we have caused the effects of global warming and can even make some important changes through amelioration using various approaches; instead of staying with the original observations in temperature rise and working through all the data before arriving at a conclusion that is unfortunately more due to popular acceptance than its depth of empiricality. ("empiricality"! Whoo-eee! 10 extra points for that one! Yes, Webster, you may publish. )

I think no one argues to the contrary about whether CO2 makes an effective greenhouse gas nor that the human race is doing its damnedest to jump up the quantities of that gas to assist the process (as it has always done in almost all its agro-techno-industrial adventures and endeavours), merely that human participation as a force of consequence in increasing the atmospheric mass of CO₂ is not only a historically common occurrence, but quite probably minor in terms of producing epochal global warming phenomena such as those we are currently observing.

And I particularly like the "planetary position" group of research conclusions to this very real phenomenon, because not only does it provide a cogent and verifiable source for global cooling, it also has been researched by the other side of the coin to produce viable and non-politically-influenced sources for global warming. It predates the bandwagon bunch in assembling its data by decades. And it makes great sense to me that when the entire planet goes somewhere, the entire planet is subject to changes from the move.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N51/C3.php amongst dozens of other resources in this area.

What are the consequences inherent in these questions about global warming?

The entire idea of global warming as a warning phenomenon for the commencement of important population movements brings up questions regarding pressures on the earth's crust due to the apogee/perigee or whatever of the planet's orbital position being consequential to putting it into a global temperature change. Whether certain kinds of volcanic activity can be exacerbated by resulting tectonic shifts and el niñio and super volcanoes activated; sea level changes and coastal inundations be a result; or drought, severe storming, etc., might take place should be a consideration of population movement negotiations --even across borders-- or whether we should continue to just wait until we get slammed by them is something that should be discussed and decided on global levels by our political leaders forthwith.

What should prudent people do about global warming?

Experience has taught us that the vested self-interests of our political leadership will --of a certainty-- result in inaction on this level. They have a million reasons for avoiding any sensible global cooperation.

Rather than this current, unproductive, and short-of-information kick at human initiated global warming remaining a red herring to more important research and action being taken because our dependency upon the more loudly screeching members of our primate species allows us to guide ourselves away from the real issues; or whether we take affirmative action, depends upon a species that believes a spongy piece of rubber on the back of a toothbrush is 360^o away from the bristles on the other side and will do a better job than the bristles in brushing our tongues, five blades on a razor will shave us better, kil'-o-meters should be pronounced kil-aaaaahhhh'-mutrs, and the cost of food production should prevent us from sharing our over-supplies with folks who have nothing to eat, preferring to let them sit unused and letting charities struggle with feeding the starving rather than using existing resources to get food, water, electricity, and seed where they are needed. The prognosis is not good.

So I encourage those of you who wish to save their own sorry asses and those of your descendants from whatever naturally occurring disasters might be anticipated on the horizon to check out the areas of impending danger and act accordingly.

Mark

How about adding empiricalitous. That's just a taster for what I apologise is not a well constructed follow-up.

"human participation as a force of consequence in increasing the atmospheric mass of CO₂ is not only a historically common occurrence"
Yes, it's been going on for at least as long as civilisation. But in the last thirty years mankind has oxidised more of the carbon that was stored in the ground than in his entire previous history. And the increase in amospheric CO2 over that period is quite close to what would be calculated from the usage (I believe it's slightly lower, in spite of deforestation (presumably because of ocean uptake) - but it has been catching up more recently (presumably because of oceanic warming - in which case this year should show a short-term slowing of the re-emission).

As for "minor in terms of producing epochal global warming", that would make it somewhat surprising that both simple calculations of the 1960s and the more recent complex calculations point to the sort of levels we are currently seeing.

"It predates the bandwagon bunch in assembling its data.." And flogiston preates Oxygen. But my understanding is that most people in that part of the climatology field are currently of the view that current changes in either global insolation or other solar activity are actally rather small compared with what caused previous short-term swings.

It worries me that you consistently refer to "political motivation" for the anti-CO2ers, as I can identify no political motivation (other than genuine concern) that correlates with the groups invloved - quite the reverse, if anything. If you can provide an appropriate motivation for this group, I would be happy to listen [and short term impact and business interests are significant political motivations for the contrary position]

The other reason for taking CO2 seriously even if you think it is only (say) 25% probable that it is responsible is ... the size of the possible effect. If the theory is correct, holding fossil CO2 emissions at their current level would result in climate change becoming irreversible within a century - with the expectation of consequent changes going way beyond any mass migrations or extinctions in human history. (That is why I've been a supporter of power-fusion research since the early 1960s - in spite of it having always been a very long-term play, and not being quite as "clean" as some of its proponents would have people believe)

I entirely agree your final paragraph - whether it be morality or self-interestwe have to do what we can both in sharing our goodies and in resticting our impact.

Hi, Physicist? !

"holding fossil CO2 emissions at their current level would result in climate change becoming irreversible within a century"

However, if the climate changes due to global warming are being initiated (as I have read) by other than human causes, it's already irreversible and we're chasing our tails by trying to reduce our impact to stem global warming.

We are not, most emphatically, 'chasing our tails' to reduce our impact on the various biomes and general ecology of the earth with regard to saving our own species (and the thousands of other species in the food chain upon which ours survives) by reducing our ravaging in all kinds of ways, including pollution, which we absolutely must do. It's amazing to think how much we stupidly depend upon the resiliency of ecosystems that are in truth extremely fragile, and tipping towards disaster.

Talk about dire consequences within the century!

"whether it be morality or self-interest we have to do what we can both in sharing our goodies and in restricting our impact"

And getting the hell out of the way. Amen.

Mark

i think brass orr i give u proper answer in few days

Yes.