Re-issuing the challenge

[Deuce]

Climate skeptics often claim that the warming trend we've seen over the last 50 years is part of a natural cycle. I've asked this question many times and it's tough to get a straight answer backed up by good evidence, so here goes again:

What natural physical mechanism is responsible for this natural warming? What scientific evidence of this exits?

This thread is not for discussion as to why manmade CO2 can't be the cause. It's also not about what caused changes in temperature millions of years ago, or how fast or large those temperature changes might have been. It's for what physical process causes this supposedly natural warming. The warming we've seen over the last 50 years or so.

The reason I specify the last 50 years is because:
1) It's faster than we've previously observed
2) During this period, there has been no increase in solar output that might explain the warming
3) The first half of this century WAS caused largely by an increase in solar output.
4) The idea that temperature changed in the past without mankind proves that mankind cannot change temperature is a logical fallacy.

 

[washunut]

Climate skeptics often claim that the warming trend we've seen over the last 50 years is part of a natural cycle. I've asked this question many times and it's tough to get a straight answer backed up by good evidence, so here goes again:

What natural physical mechanism is responsible for this natural warming? What scientific evidence of this exits?

This thread is not for discussion as to why manmade CO2 can't be the cause. It's also not about what caused changes in temperature millions of years ago, or how fast or large those temperature changes might have been. It's for what physical process causes this supposedly natural warming. The warming we've seen over the last 50 years or so.

The reason I specify the last 50 years is because:
1) It's faster than we've previously observed
2) During this period, there has been no increase in solar output that might explain the warming
3) The first half of this century WAS caused largely by an increase in solar output.
4) The idea that temperature changed in the past without mankind proves that mankind cannot change temperature is a logical fallacy.

Not sure what I believe about this. We do know that the earth has gone through an ice age etc, so temperatures change.

That being said it is a reasonable conclusion that all the junk we are throwing into the air should be doing something. My sense is that some may start with that assumption and then try and come up with a what could happen scenario.

I am old enough to remember acid rain. That was something people could readily measure. We did a pretty good job of dealing with that one. This one seems inconclusive. Also we were the dominant manufacturing country at that time and could fix a problem like this. That is not the case, so unless you can get the BRIC countries involved this is not something the U.S. can fix by itself.

If we unilaterally put regulations in place to reduce CO2 then more companies will just move offshore.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Climate skeptics often claim that the warming trend we've seen over the last 50 years is part of a natural cycle. I've asked this question many times and it's tough to get a straight answer backed up by good evidence, so here goes again:

What natural physical mechanism is responsible for this natural warming? What scientific evidence of this exits?

The indisputable fact is that the Earth’s climate has been changing drastically as far back as science can determine. This graph from Scotese, show us the relationship of the average global temperature to geological time periods.

What causes these variations? According to many scientists, the Earth’s orbit is the biggest factor. This theory hinges on the fact that the Earth travels around the sun in a slightly elliptical orbit that varies over a period of time. According to the Milankovitch theory, the variations in the elliptical orbit change the intensity of the Sun’s rays on the Earth’s atmosphere. The Earth’s orbit cycles from a near perfect circular orbit to the maximum elliptical orbit over a period of about 100,000 years.

An additional factor may be the increased seismic and volcanic activity that is associated with the elliptical orbit. The theory here is that as the Earth’s orbit changes, forces on the Earth change as well. These changes in force actually change the shape of the Earth slightly stressing fault lines and creating movement that allows for earth quakes and eruptions.

The location of the eruptions determines how they affect the atmosphere. Eruptions that occur above water release sulfur gasses that combine with water vapor and reduce the amount of the suns radiation that enters the atmosphere. The sulfur dioxide dissipates rather quickly and is nearly completely removed from the atmosphere within three years.

However, eruptions that occur below water, specifically deep in the ocean, serve to warm the ocean floor. The ocean floor is home to, among many other things, methane hydrate. Methane hydrate is the solid form of methane gas. When the floor of the ocean is warmed, methane hydrate “thaws” and becomes a gas. The methane gas quickly rises to the atmosphere where it helps to trap radiation at a rate that is ten to twenty one times more effective than carbon dioxide. It takes up to twelve years for methane to dissipate from the atmosphere.

When you place all of this information together, we see a correlating pattern that links the Earth’s orbit with the average global temperature.

This graph shows us the average global temperature over the last 400,000 years. Notice that today is a near maximum (but still below) along with 125,000, 235,000, 320,000 and 405,000 years ago. This is a pattern that coincides with the elliptical orbit of the Earth. In all likelihood, the modern day increase of the average global temperature is primarily caused by natural patterns.

 

[ksu_aviator]

The reason I specify the last 50 years is because:
1) It's faster than we've previously observed

This is true...but observed is a tricky thing. We've only "observed" a very short period of the climate. Scientists have tabulated the climate's rate of change for other periods and found it to change at a much higher rate than the current rate of change. In fact, if anything, the best postulation based on the observed climate change is that humans may have slowed the natural warming process.

2) During this period, there has been no increase in solar output that might explain the warming
3) The first half of this century WAS caused largely by an increase in solar output.
4) The idea that temperature changed in the past without mankind proves that mankind cannot change temperature is a logical fallacy.

If anyone is running around saying that the climate has changed in the past so we aren't changing it now doesn't understand the argument. I'm not going to deny that some people make that poor comparison. The reality is that the argument they are trying to make is that a rapidly warming climate today does not equate to proof of man-made global warming. As the graph in my previous post shows, we are warming at a much slower rate than the past and we are still near the coldest temperature the earth will generally reach. So, it is normal for us to see a rapid warming period.

In fact, we should worry if we are not warming. With population booms in nearly every country we are seeing increasing demands for food and water. A warmer atmosphere will increase the areas that can sustain crops and livestock. It also increase the amount of fresh water available for drinking.

 

[Deuce]

First off, thanks for making an honest attempt at rational, scientific discussion here. I can't tell you how many times people here respond with partisan nonsense, conspiracy theories, and attacks on Al Gore.

The indisputable fact is that the Earth’s climate has been changing drastically as far back as science can determine. This graph from Scotese, show us the relationship of the average global temperature to geological time periods.

What causes these variations? According to many scientists, the Earth’s orbit is the biggest factor. This theory hinges on the fact that the Earth travels around the sun in a slightly elliptical orbit that varies over a period of time. According to the Milankovitch theory, the variations in the elliptical orbit change the intensity of the Sun’s rays on the Earth’s atmosphere. The Earth’s orbit cycles from a near perfect circular orbit to the maximum elliptical orbit over a period of about 100,000 years.

An additional factor may be the increased seismic and volcanic activity that is associated with the elliptical orbit. The theory here is that as the Earth’s orbit changes, forces on the Earth change as well. These changes in force actually change the shape of the Earth slightly stressing fault lines and creating movement that allows for earth quakes and eruptions.

The location of the eruptions determines how they affect the atmosphere. Eruptions that occur above water release sulfur gasses that combine with water vapor and reduce the amount of the suns radiation that enters the atmosphere. The sulfur dioxide dissipates rather quickly and is nearly completely removed from the atmosphere within three years.

However, eruptions that occur below water, specifically deep in the ocean, serve to warm the ocean floor. The ocean floor is home to, among many other things, methane hydrate. Methane hydrate is the solid form of methane gas. When the floor of the ocean is warmed, methane hydrate “thaws” and becomes a gas. The methane gas quickly rises to the atmosphere where it helps to trap radiation at a rate that is ten to twenty one times more effective than carbon dioxide. It takes up to twelve years for methane to dissipate from the atmosphere.

When you place all of this information together, we see a correlating pattern that links the Earth’s orbit with the average global temperature.

This graph shows us the average global temperature over the last 400,000 years. Notice that today is a near maximum (but still below) along with 125,000, 235,000, 320,000 and 405,000 years ago. This is a pattern that coincides with the elliptical orbit of the Earth. In all likelihood, the modern day increase of the average global temperature is primarily caused by natural patterns.

Yes, I'm well aware of Milankovitch cycles, and you do a good job explaining them. However, you're still missing something: How those cycles are currently affecting climate. What has happened over the last century in these cycles? Which "direction" are they currently pushing us, and how fast? Who has done the math on the total forcing from orbital factors over this time frame? These are 100,000 year cycles... but we've seen significant temperature change over 100.

Orbital forcings DO explain the glaciation cycle rather nicely. The question is, does this latest period match that cycle or has some other influence been primary in the last century?

The peak of this last cycle appears to have occurred about 8,000 years ago. If this is a natural orbital cycle, it's way faster than the last several!
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle

This is true...but observed is a tricky thing. We've only "observed" a very short period of the climate. Scientists have tabulated the climate's rate of change for other periods and found it to change at a much higher rate than the current rate of change. In fact, if anything, the best postulation based on the observed climate change is that humans may have slowed the natural warming process.

Provide evidence of this please.

If anyone is running around saying that the climate has changed in the past so we aren't changing it now doesn't understand the argument. I'm not going to deny that some people make that poor comparison. The reality is that the argument they are trying to make is that a rapidly warming climate today does not equate to proof of man-made global warming. As the graph in my previous post shows, we are warming at a much slower rate than the past and we are still near the coldest temperature the earth will generally reach. So, it is normal for us to see a rapid warming period.

Almost weekly there's someone who makes a crack about prehistoric SUVs killing the dinosaurs.

In fact, we should worry if we are not warming. With population booms in nearly every country we are seeing increasing demands for food and water. A warmer atmosphere will increase the areas that can sustain crops and livestock. It also increase the amount of fresh water available for drinking.

USDA says warming temperatures will decrease crop yields, not increase them. The reason for this is that while plants generally like warm temperatures and more CO2, there are numerous other factors like increased frequency of heatwaves and major precipitation events that lead to crop failures. Also, weeds seem to respond far more positively to increased CO2 than food crops do. Rice, a staple crop for a very large portion of the world, is the "first" food crop to suffer with increasing temperatures. It's easy to come to the conclusion that this whole deal is actually good for plants if you're only looking at simple variables like temperature or CO2 levels in a controlled study.

 

[ksu_aviator]

First off, thanks for making an honest attempt at rational, scientific discussion here. I can't tell you how many times people here respond with partisan nonsense, conspiracy theories, and attacks on Al Gore.

Al Gore's house is....lol

Yes, I'm well aware of Milankovitch cycles, and you do a good job explaining them. However, you're still missing something: How those cycles are currently affecting climate. What has happened over the last century in these cycles? Which "direction" are they currently pushing us, and how fast? Who has done the math on the total forcing from orbital factors over this time frame? These are 100,000 year cycles... but we've seen significant temperature change over 100.

Ok, I don't think we know enough to make a very accurate estimate of what should have happened. That is why both sides can believe what they want. However, since I didn't expressly state what should be happening in general terms, here it is: The average global temperature should be increasing at a rapid rate. What rate it should be is anyone's guess. After all, we have never observed the up side of the cycle. Some can guesstimate, but guesstimations are often proven wrong.

Orbital forcings DO explain the glaciation cycle rather nicely. The question is, does this latest period match that cycle or has some other influence been primary in the last century?

Considering the graph above depicting the average global temperature, because we are just higher than the low point, it does seem that the whole cycle is relatively on track.

The peak of this last cycle appears to have occurred about 8,000 years ago. If this is a natural orbital cycle, it's way faster than the last several!
Global Warming Natural Cycle — OSS Foundation

Ok, well...no. The last peak was not 8,000 years ago. Maybe, it was the warmest since the ice age that bottomed at 20,000 years ago, but the reality is, in the history of man, the Earth has not reached the top end of the climate yoyo.

Provide evidence of this please.

That wasn't a scientific statement, but a comparitive to illustrate that the warming trend hasn't been as abrupt as years past.

Almost weekly there's someone who makes a crack about prehistoric SUVs killing the dinosaurs.

Well, they are trying to illustrate that the climate has changed in the past and the idea that something as insignificant as a vehicle doesn't have as much power to change the atmosphere as some would have you believe.

USDA says warming temperatures will decrease crop yields, not increase them

.

That would make the USDA wrong. During periods of warmth, humanity has thrived...as well as vegitation. That may have a lot to do with the dependence on local crops prior to the advent of the combustion engine. However, it does talk about quicker growing trees in the Alps during the time of Hannibal. Warmer climate = more growing zones = more food = more prosperity. New Study Confirms That Warm Periods

The reason for this is that while plants generally like warm temperatures and more CO2, there are numerous other factors like increased frequency of heatwaves and major precipitation events that lead to crop failures. Also, weeds seem to respond far more positively to increased CO2 than food crops do. Rice, a staple crop for a very large portion of the world, is the "first" food crop to suffer with increasing temperatures. It's easy to come to the conclusion that this whole deal is actually good for plants if you're only looking at simple variables like temperature or CO2 levels in a controlled study.

I guess I should have left your quote together. But, history just doesn't play this out.

Good convo though.

 

[Deuce]

In any case, I'm trying to keep this thread as closely centered on the mechanism for change as possible. The other stuff has been rehashed over and over.

What you still haven't done is shown me that Milankovitch cycles explain the current temperature trend. Which way is our axial precession moving and what forcing would that create? How about axial tilt? Eccentricity? I mean, if the current trend of those orbital factors is towards cooling instead of warming, clearly they would not explain the temperature change over the last century.

 

[ksu_aviator]

In any case, I'm trying to keep this thread as closely centered on the mechanism for change as possible. The other stuff has been rehashed over and over.

What you still haven't done is shown me that Milankovitch cycles explain the current temperature trend. Which way is our axial precession moving and what forcing would that create? How about axial tilt? Eccentricity? I mean, if the current trend of those orbital factors is towards cooling instead of warming, clearly they would not explain the temperature change over the last century.

I don't have time to run down that kind of information, right now, but it is easy to surmise from the current temperature that we are on the cold side and should be increasing. Especially since we are just out of an ice age. Also, a century of rapid cooling or heating during an up or down trend is natural.

 

[Deuce]

From the NOAA:

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Orbital Variations and Milankovitch Theory

Orbital changes occur over thousands of years, and the climate system may also take thousands of years to respond to orbital forcing. Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. Past ice ages correlate well to 65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982). Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 - 100,000 years (

So gradual warming over the next 25,000 years. Which leads up to the key issue, really. Milankovitch cycles are slow. Very, very slow. Temperature changes much faster during these transitional periods, essentially proving that feedbacks in the system do exist. The current warming trend is just too fast for orbital changes alone to be the dominant factor. A 40% increase in CO2 concentrations over a ~150 year period is well in excess of the usual rate, and this time CO2 levels rise with temperature instead of lagging 600-800 years behind. Interesting, no?

 

[ksu_aviator]

From the NOAA:

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Orbital Variations and Milankovitch Theory



So gradual warming over the next 25,000 years. Which leads up to the key issue, really. Milankovitch cycles are slow. Very, very slow. Temperature changes much faster during these transitional periods, essentially proving that feedbacks in the system do exist. The current warming trend is just too fast for orbital changes alone to be the dominant factor. A 40% increase in CO2 concentrations over a ~150 year period is well in excess of the usual rate, and this time CO2 levels rise with temperature instead of lagging 600-800 years behind. Interesting, no?

No, see, you are looking for an excuse and ignoring the facts. No climate change is a gradual and steady trend. Yes, my graph depicts it as such (for simplicity)...but look at the graphs from your own articles. They have numerous and very rapid increases and decreases spanning at least a century. We are on the upswing right now and we are on the rapid increase of a short term upswing. Next century, there will be a rapid decrease that will bottom out slightly higher than the last bottom, followed by another century that will rapidly increase to a point slightly higher than this century. Average them out and you get a gentle increase that takes thousands of years.

IMO, you are jumping to a conclusion. The fact is that the earth should and is warming. The postulation is that it might be warming faster than it should. When you have a fact vs a postulation, you stick with the fact until the postulation is proven correct.

 

[Deuce]

No, see, you are looking for an excuse and ignoring the facts. No climate change is a gradual and steady trend. Yes, my graph depicts it as such (for simplicity)...but look at the graphs from your own articles. They have numerous and very rapid increases and decreases spanning at least a century. We are on the upswing right now and we are on the rapid increase of a short term upswing. Next century, there will be a rapid decrease that will bottom out slightly higher than the last bottom, followed by another century that will rapidly increase to a point slightly higher than this century. Average them out and you get a gentle increase that takes thousands of years.

IMO, you are jumping to a conclusion. The fact is that the earth should and is warming. The postulation is that it might be warming faster than it should. When you have a fact vs a postulation, you stick with the fact until the postulation is proven correct.

The rapid warming in the historical record requires that some sort of feedback be present. Eccentricity and axial tilt don't change in short bursts, they change slowly. A slow, steady change in insolation can't cause a short burst of temperature change unless some other factors are also playing an effect.

 

[ksu_aviator]

The rapid warming in the historical record requires that some sort of feedback be present. Eccentricity and axial tilt don't change in short bursts, they change slowly. A slow, steady change in insolation can't cause a short burst of temperature change unless some other factors are also playing an effect.

Ok, but they aren't the only factors. What happens when the Earth warms rapidly? The polar ice caps melt. The occeans cool. The air over the cooler water cools and ultimately, the atmosphere cools allowing the ice caps to rebuild . When they do, they melt again and the cycle repeats. Each time, the bottom and top temp. increase or decrease based on the Earth's position in the cycle. In addition, there are changes to vegetation, possibly volcanic ash and a whole plethera of reactions to a warming climate that create a yo-yo effect. It isn't as simple as the Earth tilts slightly and slightly warms. That accounts for the overall trend. The short term trends are affected by other factors. That is why it is so hard to prove or disprove theories on climate change.

 

[Geo Patric]

I am old enough to remember acid rain.

really how old does one have to be to remember what is happening right now?

Today, acid deposition is present in the northeastern United States, southeastern Canada, and much of Europe including portions of Sweden, Norway, and Germany. In addition, parts of South Asia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Southern India are all in danger of being impacted by acid deposition in the future.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

Thomas Jefferson: My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson: The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not

according to the official archives of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, these "quotations" are spurious. they appear nowhere in any of his writings. if you truly respect Thomas Jefferson, you will not attribute the thinking of others to him.

geo.

 

[ksu_aviator]

according to the official archives of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, these "quotations" are spurious. they appear nowhere in any of his writings. if you truly respect Thomas Jefferson, you will not attribute the thinking of others to him.

geo.

Actually, it is attributable to Thomas Jefferson. It is a quote in a speech by Senator John Sharp Williams as he quoted Thomas Jefferson. Whether or not Senator Williams accurately quoted Jefferson might be debatable, but the fact is, Jefferson is quoted as having made the statement.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2T...result&resnum=3&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Geo Patric]

Jefferson is quoted as having made the statement.

no, he is not. a "quote" is something that someone actually said. that someone ELSE attributed a spurious sentiment to the great man does not make that spurious statement a "quote".

it is not. it is an attempt to use m. Jefferson's name to give credit to a sentiment m. Jefferson never expressed.

geo.

 

[ksu_aviator]

no, he is not. a "quote" is something that someone actually said. that someone ELSE attributed a spurious sentiment to the great man does not make that spurious statement a "quote".

it is not. it is an attempt to use m. Jefferson's name to give credit to a sentiment m. Jefferson never expressed.

geo.

According to Senator Williams, you are wrong. He's the expert, your just some guy on the interent. Good luck with that. Now, get back on topic.

 

[Geo Patric]

According to Senator Williams, you are wrong. He's the expert, your just some guy on the interent. Good luck with that. Now, get back on topic.

no, he is not an expert on Jefferson or he would not be "quoting" things m. Jefferson never said. The university Of Virginia is THE expert in Jefferson, holding every scrap of written material he ever produced. if it is not in there, it is not by Thomas Jefferson. you pal sen, Williams is spreading ideological propaganda and you are helping him to do so.

geo.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Actually, it is attributable to Thomas Jefferson. It is a quote in a speech by Senator John Sharp Williams as he quoted Thomas Jefferson. Whether or not Senator Williams accurately quoted Jefferson might be debatable, but the fact is, Jefferson is quoted as having made the statement.

Respectfully quoted: a dictionary of ... - Google Books

Actually, they are not quotes from Jefferson. I called you out on this and posted the actual quotes a few months ago.

 

[mbig]

Bad government results from too much government (Quotation) - Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia

Quotation: "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
[.........]
Earliest known appearance in print: 1913[1][2]

Earliest known appearance in print, attributed to Jefferson: 1950[3]

Other attributions: John Sharp Williams

Status: This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It bears some slight resemblance to a statement he made in a letter to John Norvell of 14 June 1807, "History, in general, only informs us what bad government is."[4] However, the quotation as it appears above can definitely be attributed to John Sharp Williams in a speech about Jefferson,[5] which has most likely been mistaken at some point for a direct quotation of Jefferson.

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_democracy_will_cease_to_exist

Quotation: "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not
[...........]
Earliest known appearance in print: 1986[1][2]

Earliest known appearance in print, attributed to Jefferson: See above.

Other attributions: None known.

Status: This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It bears a very vague resemblance to Jefferson's comment in a prospectus for his translation of Destutt de Tracy's Treatise on Political Economy: "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'"

 

[ksu_aviator]

no, he is not an expert on Jefferson or he would not be "quoting" things m. Jefferson never said. The university Of Virginia is THE expert in Jefferson, holding every scrap of written material he ever produced. if it is not in there, it is not by Thomas Jefferson. you pal sen, Williams is spreading ideological propaganda and you are helping him to do so.

geo.

So Jefferson was a mute and never uttered a word that wasn't written on paper?

Get back on topic or leave. You are just flaming.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Sorry Deuce, we can't have a good conversation about GW. Some people couldn't keep up and had to resort to off topic attacks. Hopefully mods will just shut this down.

 

[Deuce]

Sorry Deuce, we can't have a good conversation about GW. Some people couldn't keep up and had to resort to off topic attacks. Hopefully mods will just shut this down.

For every person willing to discuss it rationally, there are a dozen who will just rant about conspiracies, declare that the whole thing is debunked because some blogger read some emails, etc.

:|

 

[mbig]

So Jefferson was a mute and never uttered a word that wasn't written on paper?

And how would Senator Williams know what Jefferson said but was never put to paper?

It's denial/persistent denial/Utterly irrational argumentation like this that is the Enemy of science and the truth.
We see it in many political hacks in this very section.

See my post on the bottom of the last page debunking your Fraudulent signature.
And also perhaps explaining the evolution of the 'quotes' in it -- at least in lore.

PS: There is no section for sigs. They come up when they come up.

 

[RedAkston]

Moderator's Warning:

This thread is not about Jefferson or quotes either from him or credited to him incorrectly. Take this crap somewhere else and stick to the topic here.