How about a little common sense on climate change?

[Grim17]

One thing I'm sure we can all agree on, is that we are still in the infancy of understanding the complexity of the earths climate. What tells us that man is still a long way from understanding exactly how our climate truly works, is the fact that both our short and long term predictions over the last dozen years have been anything but accurate.

We do however understand many of the components that effect our climate, but to what degree each of those components effects the earth's climate is still very unclear and the source of great controversy.

I've done a lot of research over the years and listened to both sides of the climate debate. After reviewing the data concerning the history of earth's climate over the last 400 to 2000 years, and there are 3 factors that really stand out. They correlate so closely with the global temperature fluctuations, that they simply can't be dismissed as coincidence. Those factors are Co2 levels, sun activity and volcanic activity.

Here is what we know about each of them:

Volcanic activity - Large scale volcanic activity and/or eruptions can effectively lower global temperatures for up to 10 years depending on the scale of the eruptions.

Co2 levels - Global temperature and Co2 levels over the centuries have followed each closely and their correlation isn't disputed. Those that endorse the man-made global warming theory, contend that a rise in Co2 levels precedes a rise in global temperatures, thus being the cause of that warming. Therefore, the increased amount of Co2 produced by human activity over the last 60 -100 years is resulting in an increased greenhouse effect and warmer global temperatures. Those that don't endorse the MMGW theory, contend that an increase in global temperatures precedes the rise in Co2 levels (warmer temps do cause the oceans to emit more Co2 and believe that that warming causes the increase in Co2 levels. Therefore, they believe that Co2 is a byproduct of an increased global temperature and produces a minimal greenhouse effect.

Solar activity - Over the long term history of earths climate, the strength of solar cycles and sun spot activity have directly corresponded to global temperature fluctuations. It's also known that during low solar activity, there's an increased level of cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere, and visa versa. It is believed that an increase in those cosmic rays results in the creation of more clouds on the planet, which in turn has a lowering effect on overall global temperatures.

***

As many of you may know, I am a man made global warming septic. I acknowledge that our climate has been in a significant warming trend over the last century, but based on the failed short term predictions, along with the inaccuracies from both sides of the scientific community, I have come to the conclusion that we simply can not judge what is or isn't happening to the climate based on short term trends.

I understand that man has created a significant amount of Co2 over the last century and that our climate has warmed as it has increased. But the way I see it, that could very well be a coincidence. It would be naive to think that 80 or 100 years of climate data is nearly enough to jump to the conclusion that man is causing it, and then taking action based on that conclusion that will have devastating economic effects on millions and millions of poor and poverty stricken people all over the globe.

When you look at the big picture over last 500, 1000, 10,000, or even 100,000 years, you can see that our climate has gone through natural, long term trends, and what's taking place now does not in any way look unusual, or seem to conflict with historic patterns.

Here's where my common sense takes over... Based on our climate history, the inaccurate predictions, the insufficient amount of time being use to form a conclusion, and importantly, those factors I mentioned that have corresponded with temperature change for centuries, I simply asked myself this...

What makes more sense?

a) Increased Co2 levels throughout history, caused solar activity and global temperatures to increase.
b) Increased solar activity throughout history, caused Co2 levels and global temperatures to increase.​

Until researchers make some kind of monumental scientific break through that gives them a complete and total understanding of our global climate system, I'll have to base my answer on history and common sense... Which makes "b" the only possible choice.

 

[Deuce]

Common sense? More like straw man. Nobody ever argued that CO2 changes caused the solar activity to change. That's... well, nonsense!

Maybe I can help you, and others, out because you seem to be taking too narrow a view on the subject. (you also left out the biggest cause of those cycles you mentioned) And please, don't take this as me being condescending. I'm a teacher by trade (well, flight instructor, but close enough) so I tend to go into teacher mode sometimes. I can't take credit for this analogy, it comes from a youtube channel from a guy who does videos on climate science.

Picture a house in the winter. It's freezing! The house has two furnaces. Turn both off, you're still freezing. Turn both on full blast, you fry. But, if you do something in the middle like turn both on medium or one on high and one on low, you're comfy.

There are two main things that will determine the temperature of the planet:
1) Furnace 1, how much energy comes in. (solar irradiance, pretty simple.)
2) Furnace 2, how much of that energy is being absorbed and trapped vs. how much is reflected. (this furnace is fairly complicated, all sorts of dials on it!)

Furnace 1 is easy. More solar output, warmer planet. Less solar output, cooler planet. In the short term, the sun cycles up and down every 11 years or so. In the slightly less short term, the sun can have a slow trend in either direction. From the end of that mini ice age until about 1950, the sun did slowly creep its way up, which was actually the cause of most of the warming in that period. However, after about 1950 the sun flatlined. It still did the up/down cycle every 11 years, but the cycles stayed steady enough to the point where there has been no net increase in solar output for the last 50 years. (in fact, a slight decrease as this latest solar minimum was particularly low) In the really long term, the sun's trend is slowly upwards, as all stars of this type do, but we're talking multimillion-year geological timescales so it's not really relevant to this topic.

Furnace 2 has all sorts of variables.
1) Greenhouse effect (CO2, methane, H2O, CFCs, etc)
2) Volcanoes (particulates reflect sunlight, cooling things)
3) Albedo changes (ice caps reflect more sunlight than dirt, keeping things colder. albedo is a complicated subject on its own!)
4) Continental configuration (really just another type of albedo change, but clearly this doesn't change on a 100-year timescale)
And probably some more that I'm forgetting.

The main one is the greenhouse effect. CO2, methane, and water vapor being the main ones. Methane is the most powerful by weight, but its abundance is low. Water vapor actually accounts for the majority of the greenhouse effect, but water vapor is really a result of temperature rather than a cause of it. You can't really add a bunch of water vapor to the atmosphere to start a warming trend, it will just fall back down in the form of rain. For this reason, water vapor is described as a feedback rather than a forcing. Warm the planet, more water vapor goes in the air, increasing greenhouse effect, warming things a bit more, etc. Same goes for cooling, less water vapor, less greenhouse effect, cools more, etc. Amplifies a trend in either direction. CO2 has a similar feedback effect. Warm the planet, ocean and ice caps give off more CO2, warms a bit more. Cool the planet, ocean and ice caps recapture CO2, cools a bit more.

The key point to take away here is that while it is true that CO2 has historically lagged temperature changes, the planet doesn't actually care what the source of the warming or cooling influence is. Any change in temperature in either direction will be amplified by CO2 and H2O. This time, things are different. Instead of a natural influence kickstarting a warming/cooling trend, there has been an artificial addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, causing a little warming, which is then amplified by the process I described.

So, back to those natural influences, the one I said you missed.

In that first minute or so he does the baldspot analogy for glaciation cycles. It's pretty funny. The congressman he talks to, unfortunately, doesn't seem to understand that man having an influence on climate isn't saying that man is the only influence on climate. It's both. Both natural and manmade influences can affect climate and are affecting climate.
The short version of this:
Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regular changes in the earth's orbit that have an influence on how sunlight is received by the northern ice caps. More sun, caps melt, less reflection (albedo) so the planet starts warming. Those feedbacks amplify the change, yay warmness. Eventually, the orbit tilts the other way, less sunlight, things cool, feedbacks amplify the cooling, oh god it's an ice age. Thing is, this takes thousands of years. The orbital tilt is on a 41,000 year cycle, and the other orbital influences are on even longer cycles. (and are less powerful influences on climate, if I remember right) Milankovitch cycles alone simply can't account for the warming trend we've seen over the last century, what we've seen is just too fast.

CLIFFNOTES VERSION:
Grim, your "common sense" approach starts off on a fundamentally flawed idea. You yourself said that climate science is very complicated. It's true. Trying to have a "common sense" approach to climate science is probably even crazier than trying to have a "common sense" approach to Einstein's theory of relativity. It's complicated! You need a scientific approach, not a "trust my gut" approach.

This file is a good, brief rundown of the evidence that favors CO2 as a primary driver of the current warming trend:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf
It's a good read, check it out! If nothing else, think of it as opposition research. You can't really debate people like me if you don't know what we're arguing, right?

edit:
P.S.
The current temperatures we're seeing fall within the IPCC's A2 scenario projection range.

 

[Grim17]

Common sense? More like straw man. Nobody ever argued that CO2 changes caused the solar activity to change. That's... well, nonsense!

Exactly... It was nonsense... That was my point.

Looking at the long term climate history, it shows that solar activity and Co2 correspond with the fluctuations in temperature. Common sense should tell you that the factor that's likely controlling the other two, is the sun, because certainly Co2 on earth can't possibly effect solar activity.

There is only one thing we can rely on at this point in time, and that's our climate history. We have 1000's of years or more, worth of reliable climate data we can look at to determine if what's happing now is out of the ordinary. Using 10, 50 or 100 years worth of data is not nearly enough to determine anything, since history shows that our planet goes in small cycles lasting centuries, larger cycles lasting thousands of years, to cycles lasting hundreds of thousands of years.

It just makes no sense to me, that anyone at this point could possibly come to the conclusion that the warming trend is caused by man, conclude that it will have a dire and devastating effects on the planet in just a few short years, and in turn take measures based on those conclusions, that will have a devastating effect of millions of poor and impoverished people world wide.

 

[justabubba]

there is no common sense on display in that OP

to me, even if the majority of scientists who have identified a global warming crisis are wrong, and that the climate change is totally independent of mankind, our efforts cannot modify the outcome
on the other hand, if the scientists are right, and man is screwing up our planet, not trying to change that dire direction is absolute stupidity because we will have allowed an unnecessary diminishment of our very existence only because of our inaction

 

[Deuce]

Exactly... It was nonsense... That was my point.

Looking at the long term climate history, it shows that solar activity and Co2 correspond with the fluctuations in temperature. Common sense should tell you that the factor that's likely controlling the other two, is the sun, because certainly Co2 on earth can't possibly effect solar activity.

Common sense would tell you that it's also possible both are variables that affect temperature. The amount of air in my tires and the weight of my car both correlate to my car's MPG, but common sense would not tell you that one must necessarily effect the other two. Weight doesn't change the amount of air in my tires, and the air in my tires does not change the car's weight, but both affect gas mileage.

There is only one thing we can rely on at this point in time, and that's our climate history. We have 1000's of years or more, worth of reliable climate data we can look at to determine if what's happing now is out of the ordinary. Using 10, 50 or 100 years worth of data is not nearly enough to determine anything, since history shows that our planet goes in small cycles lasting centuries, larger cycles lasting thousands of years, to cycles lasting hundreds of thousands of years.

Actually, no, climate history is not the only thing we can rely on. Greenhouse theory didn't come up because somebody looked at climate history, it came up because somebody looked at the physical properties of carbon dioxide. Climate history provides supporting data, data that tells us what influence these various factors might have on global temperatures. Climate history reenforces the idea that CO2 is a feedback mechanism.

It just makes no sense to me, that anyone at this point could possibly come to the conclusion that the warming trend is caused by man, conclude that it will have a dire and devastating effects on the planet in just a few short years, and in turn take measures based on those conclusions, that will have a devastating effect of millions of poor and impoverished people world wide.

It makes no sense to me that anyone could just handwave decades of work and one fundamental physics principle based on a gut feeling or "common sense."

I mean, the principle of the greenhouse effect is unassailable. Certain wavelengths of radiation are absorbed by certain materials at certain densities. When the material absorbs this radiation, it heats up. High school physics, right? Well, certain atmospheric gases happen to absorb the wavelength of radiation that the earth radiates. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, CFCs. Greenhouse gases, we call those, because they trap and absorb radiation that otherwise would have passed through to space. Acts like a blanket.

If you can't agree on this principle you should probably stop reading, because there's no helping you.

Ok, so there is a greenhouse effect, but I think it's minimal, negligible!

Really? Based on what? You agree that the principle of the greenhouse effect is sound. It does happen. But on what basis do you make the assertion that the effects are small? Your gut? I don't know about you, but my gut is not qualified to calculate the effects of a particular wavelength and number of photons on molecules of carbon dioxide.

How do people do it? How do people come to this conclusion that their common sense is good enough to just make that assumption?

 

[Renae]

Exactly... It was nonsense... That was my point.

Looking at the long term climate history, it shows that solar activity and Co2 correspond with the fluctuations in temperature. Common sense should tell you that the factor that's likely controlling the other two, is the sun, because certainly Co2 on earth can't possibly effect solar activity.

There is only one thing we can rely on at this point in time, and that's our climate history. We have 1000's of years or more, worth of reliable climate data we can look at to determine if what's happing now is out of the ordinary. Using 10, 50 or 100 years worth of data is not nearly enough to determine anything, since history shows that our planet goes in small cycles lasting centuries, larger cycles lasting thousands of years, to cycles lasting hundreds of thousands of years.

It just makes no sense to me, that anyone at this point could possibly come to the conclusion that the warming trend is caused by man, conclude that it will have a dire and devastating effects on the planet in just a few short years, and in turn take measures based on those conclusions, that will have a devastating effect of millions of poor and impoverished people world wide.

That's because the AGW movement, has nothing to do with Climate and everything to do with politics... and money.

 

[ptif219]

there is no common sense on display in that OP

to me, even if the majority of scientists who have identified a global warming crisis are wrong, and that the climate change is totally independent of mankind, our efforts cannot modify the outcome
on the other hand, if the scientists are right, and man is screwing up our planet, not trying to change that dire direction is absolute stupidity because we will have allowed an unnecessary diminishment of our very existence only because of our inaction

Even if we stop all pollution how much will the temp decrease?

 

[Grim17]

For most of my life, I held I high level of respect and believed in the integrity of the people in the scientific community, including those involved in the study of earths climate. I viewed them as noble and honorable people who were dedicated to learning the truth about all things for the benefit of man kind. I admired them because what they did had meaning for all of us.

In recent years that opinion has changed when it comes to the scientists and climate experts that support MMGW. There is more than ample reason to question their integrity, based on what I've learned and what they themselves have demonstrated in recent years. I didn't discover until a 3 or 4 years ago, just how politicized and corrupted by money the global climate issue had been for 20 years. I always assumed that climate study grants and funding was a blanket thing, where everyone worked together to study what determined our climate, what effect we had on it, and how better to predict the climate in the future . It truly shocked me to learn that the funding wasn't based on results, but on achieving certain, pre-determined results. It's become increasingly apparent that results supporting man made global warming keep the money coming in and were highly profitable, while results that don't support it are deprived of funding both publicly and privately. If you didn't play by their rules, they wouldn't let you play at all.

Although that was enough to raise suspicion about the integrity of the results being reported by the IPCC, I still held out hope that their integrity was still in tact in spite of the financial gains available.... until that is, the very actions of some of the key scientists at the center of the MMGW issue, displayed that there was in fact dishonest representations being made and a deliberate effort discredit and silence anyone who came to a different conclusion. When I saw how Mr. Mann had blatantly fabricated the temperature data in his hockey stick graph in an effort dramatically exaggerate the rise in temperature during the 20th century, I knew right then and there that the integrity of the climate science was being compromised. Especially when Mr. Mann fought so hard against sharing his data with anyone else, especially those who doubted his findings.

Knowing Mann's findings had obviously been bought, and seeing the political money and manipulation involved, there was still more. There was also the IPCC. The IPCC's agenda became clear when they were presented data from scientists and climate experts from all over the world, and of all the temperature models submitted, there was one chart that was clearly more alarming, and clearly was more contradictory than any others they had seen.... Mann's... and yet they chose to include that chart in their yearly report, knowing it would send out shock waves and strike fear in the public. It proved pretty conclusively that their goal was to convince the world that man was responsible for warming the planet and that if steps weren't taken immediately, the planet, along with us, were doomed.

The final straw in the camels back, was the Climate Gate emails. That made it clear, that global climate study was no longer about scientific truth, it was about proving that man made global warming was real at all costs. Those emails showed that they were more than willing to manipulating data, alter computer climate models, attack and discredit anyone who expressed dissent, and to exclude any contradictory findings by questioning the level of peer review they received.

 

[Deuce]

Grim, does this common sense thing you're on say you should:
A) Read accusations about Mann and the Climategate situation, assume they're correct, and stop there, or
B) See what the other side says in response to the accusations

Re: Hockeystick
During the accusations about the hockeystick, Mann's data was publicly available on his ftp site. Did you know that? I've even posted a link to that data on these boards. Recently. Seems to fly in the face of the idea that he was reluctant to share it. Another group of scientists ran the data themselves to check and see if the software Mann used was biased towards a hockey stick. Turns out it wasn't. Plus, it's not a hockey stick. It's a hockey league. There are numerous temperature reconstructions, and they all line up with eachother pretty well. Are all of them fraudulent? So, independent assessment of the actual data says Mann wasn't manipulating anything. Were you even aware of this? Probably not. Because you never bothered to check and see what the other side says about the situation.

Re: Climategate.
Did you read the emails alone, or did you read them on some website that tells you what they mean? What do you really know about the situation? Six different investigations completed a thorough review and found that the accusations were not supported by the so-called evidence. When you actually look at the context of what was being said, you see that what they were talking about wasn't really scandalous at all. The best part is how skeptics gradually inflate things, never realizing that they're changing the story entirely. One often-pointed-at email was written about one journal that published a bad paper. The guys writing it didn't say anything about suppressing peer review, or discrediting that journal. They just expressed frustration that a bad paper was published, and suggested they not submit papers to that journal. Somehow that got inflated to attacking and discrediting all who dare oppose them. Tell me, Grim, if this was what they were doing, how come no discussion comes up of the more prominent skeptics?

Check the emails yourself. You'll not find references to Shaviv or Friis-Christiansen or Svensmark, some prominent skeptics.

Good video on the subject. Common sense would dictate you at least listen to the other side, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo

 

[justabubba]

Even if we stop all pollution how much will the temp decrease?

why is a measure even important
the issue is that earth may no longer be sustainable if we fail to mitigate mans' activities effecting the climate change

 

[ptif219]

why is a measure even important
the issue is that earth may no longer be sustainable if we fail to mitigate mans' activities effecting the climate change

If ending pollution does not change temp then GW is a lie and a scam. If you can not answer that then climate change must be natural.

Should we try to stop polutting? Yes but I do not believe GW and do not believe man can stop climate change

 

[VanceMack]

Even if we stop all pollution how much will the temp decrease?

Who cares?

Look...I believe mankind has as much to do with THIS round of climate change as we have with every other episode of climate change. That is neither here nor there. But the quality of air? Water? Seriously...we should be doing EVERYTHING WE CAN to affect change there. If it has the happy by-product of somehow changing the temp variables...well...happy day. But me...I get tired of flying into a city and not being able to actually SEE the city.

 

[Deuce]

Who cares?

Look...I believe mankind has as much to do with THIS round of climate change as we have with every other episode of climate change. That is neither here nor there. But the quality of air? Water? Seriously...we should be doing EVERYTHING WE CAN to affect change there. If it has the happy by-product of somehow changing the temp variables...well...happy day. But me...I get tired of flying into a city and not being able to actually SEE the city.

The question is, why do you believe that? On what basis do you say that mankind is not capable of affecting climate?

Air and water quality are things we pay a lot of attention to. That was us too, you know. The environmentalists.

 

[justabubba]

If ending pollution does not change temp then GW is a lie and a scam. If you can not answer that then climate change must be natural.

Should we try to stop polutting? Yes but I do not believe GW and do not believe man can stop climate change

when the majority of scientists are aligned in the belief that global warming is a looming crisis and that it is likely exacerbated by mans' behaviors, what causes you to insist that mankind plays no role in the matter

 

[Deuce]

If ending pollution does not change temp then GW is a lie and a scam. If you can not answer that then climate change must be natural.

Should we try to stop polutting? Yes but I do not believe GW and do not believe man can stop climate change

I've shown you that before. If I post it again, do you promise to stop asking this question?

 

[Jetboogieman]

when the majority of scientists are aligned in the belief that global warming is a looming crisis and that it is likely exacerbated by mans' behaviors, what causes you to insist that mankind plays no role in the matter

Come on Justabubba, we all know that this so called "Majority of Scientists" are just a bunch of Communists who went to communist universities where they were taught that they had to make up this global warming thing in order to raise taxes on the rich and push the gay agenda down everyones throats, or something.

Pretty much what I get out of the Climate Change denial camp.

 

[Deuce]

Come on Justabubba, we all know that this so called "Majority of Scientists" are just a bunch of Communists who went to communist universities where they were taught that they had to make up this global warming thing in order to raise taxes on the rich and push the gay agenda down everyones throats, or something.

Pretty much what I get out of the Climate Change denial camp.

Also, scientists want to tax people breathing.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Also, scientists want to tax people breathing.

What about farting?

 

[Deuce]

What about farting?

That comes next on the slippery slope to communism.

It's in the manifesto, you need to study more!

 

[ptif219]

Who cares?

Look...I believe mankind has as much to do with THIS round of climate change as we have with every other episode of climate change. That is neither here nor there. But the quality of air? Water? Seriously...we should be doing EVERYTHING WE CAN to affect change there. If it has the happy by-product of somehow changing the temp variables...well...happy day. But me...I get tired of flying into a city and not being able to actually SEE the city.

So it does not matter if GW is a scam and we are needlessly being put under financial strain because of it.

I agree try to cut pollution but do not use doom and gloom scare tactics and do it in a way that will not put us in an even worse economic sitiuation.

 

[ptif219]

when the majority of scientists are aligned in the belief that global warming is a looming crisis and that it is likely exacerbated by mans' behaviors, what causes you to insist that mankind plays no role in the matter

Yoy mean when they are paid and bribed to get that conclusion

 

[ptif219]

I've shown you that before. If I post it again, do you promise to stop asking this question?

No you say it is 100% man that means without man there would be no climate change or we would be back to 1977 looking at an iceage. You have shown no proof for that just your opinions. but go ahead show more lies from the IPCC and GISS because they have proven themselves to be liars and not credibile

 

[ptif219]

Also, scientists want to tax people breathing.

You mean this

Top US Scientists Want Carbon Tax on Coal, Oil Use | CNSnews.com

 

[Jetboogieman]

That comes next on the slippery slope to communism.

It's in the manifesto, you need to study more!

More importantly, when we succeed on taxing people for breathing, does owning an oxygen tank, and using it to breathe a tax deductible?