Jump to content
Science Forums

Global warming? I am more worried about global cooling.


Ganoderma

Recommended Posts

I think the attitude of the political right, which seems prejudiced to dismiss the hypothesis that human activity has any impact on climate, and the political left, which seems prejudiced to assume that any human impact on climate can only be adverse, are both based predominantly on unscientific evidence, and both unnecessarily pessimistic.

 

Paleoclimatological theory and evidence accepted by nearly every informed person indicates that climate has been subject to extremes that were threatening to human wellbeing, most notably the most recent true ice ages. The prospect of humans being able to significantly effect climate, perhaps sufficiently to override natural climate change patterns, fills me with the same optimism as our demonstrated ability to break other “natural laws”, such as the number of individuals that can be supported by a particular habitat, which was “broken” by agriculture, and the limitation that human beings cannot travel beyond the gravitational confines of the Earth, which was broken by manned rocketry.

 

Though the challenges of understanding climate sufficiently to control it are substantial, I believe that emerging applied science, supported primarily by increased computing resources, will prove equal to it. Although public and political pressures from many parties may hinder the efforts and careers of individual scientists (which can be tragic for these individuals), short of the unlikely event of the world-wide suppression of all science, I don’t think they can dramatically alter scientific and technological progress.

 

Scientists and science enthusiasts, would do better, I think, to refrain from engaging in zero-sum games attacking the validity of conclusions drawn from climate theory, and concentrate on improving it and its predictive tools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, that is exactly what I said. Every post I make on climate change is based on facts, and I keep harping on those who let passion for their cause cloud facts. I am of the opinion that those who focus on blaming humanity for being the cause of natural weather cycles (such as the orbit of the earth stretching away from the sun causing cooling) are a problem. That is a guilt merchant as much as a evangelical blaming Katrina on sin.

 

The current warming cycle is not in question. The cause is in question. It cannot be stated as fact that the global weather would be any different today if the industrial revolution had never happened. We infer an effect and because we can only control ourselves we hope that changing what we do might make a difference, but that is not a fact. Changes in human behavior might make a difference, but there is no certainty.

 

This thread hypothesized a global cooling from the earth moving away from the sun. I am stating that if that happened there would be people blaming human actions for the cooling of the earth. Those are guilt merchants who sell human achievement as the root of all suffering; regardless of facts and regardless of logic.

 

I agree with you 100%...until the "if"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, that is exactly what I said. Every post I make on climate change is based on facts, and I keep harping on those who let passion for their cause cloud facts.

 

Bill, your posts are based on hypothesis, theory and opinion just as everyone's are. The proponents of GW caused by the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere have shown more sound scientific reports than has been showed to falsify the evidence.

 

Only the extremists would argue that mankind is the ONLY reason for GW or that global climate change doesn't have a number of possible causes.

 

The issue as I see it is:

 

1) CO2 causes warming of the earth's atmosphere

2) Too much CO2 in the atmosphere will cause shifts in global climate

2a) These changes appear the be bad for humanities well being and economic well being. Some people will be affected greatly, others not as much.

3) More CO2 is being produced each year than the earth can process/absorb. Leading to an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

The orbital mechanical reason for glaciation is fascinating. I have enjoyed reading journal reports on it. However, this seems unrelated to the current warming trend. From the Science Journal reports I have read, we should be cooling sometime in the next several thousand years. So while this may be something to worry about in the distant future, the added CO2 seems to be something to worry about in the near future (decades vs millenia).

 

Or, in short, orbital mechanics causing ice ages is not a reason to assume CO2 induced gw can't happen. They are not mutually exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Global Warming did occur, would the Ice Age not seal up the Ozone Layer thus when the Orbital period returns the problem may exist up to the next point,in thousands of years and the whole cycle starts again.

 

I remember reading somewhere ( can't remember source ), that global temperatures do have these fluctuations, but Idon't think GW is that big a problem. The most respected scientist this side of Europe claims that human efforts are meaningless because CO2 levels are going to be reasonably high anyway.

 

He claimed that it was similar it the 1980's when they claimed that a mini-ice-age was going to occur 2000, but they were wrong and scientists cast the wrong spell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earth's 100,000 year Ice Age Cycle

 

This is the first site I found on this subject. I've also seen a documentary on this, so it might have some weighing. Is this significant to stop worrying about Global Warming, Cooling, Freezing, and Cooking?:hihi:

 

The author brings up some good points on the elliptical/circular orbits, but a lot of the information seems arbitrary. Why 100,000 years? The reason for this number is never explained.

 

Also:

Elsewhere, I gave an example that stated a massive planet orbiting a star with a highly elliptical orbit could destabilize the star. Actually, it would. However, does the earth have enough mass to destabilize the sun when its orbit becomes more elliptical? I really don't know. However, my guess is, even when the earth's orbit has been at its most elliptical stages, its orbit was not very elliptical from the sun's point of view. It is more likely that the planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune would have the most destabilizing affect on the sun's core -- especially Jupiter. Furthermore, with 9 planets, with varying orbital speeds, the averaging of the planet's masses would tend to even out the destabilizing affects on the sun. However, if they all became aligned, then watch out! Their combined gravitational fields would likely seriously destabilize the sun and cause massive solar eruptions that could exterminate life here on earth.

 

Hogwash! I remember doing equations in astronomy that showed that this is not the case. Planets align more frequently than you would think (can't remember the exact frequency). If there was a doomsday every time some planets aligned, we'd have been gone long ago.

 

SPACE.com -- Doomsday Planetary Alignments In Your Future!, 000517

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most respected scientist this side of Europe claims that human efforts are meaningless because CO2 levels are going to be reasonably high anyway.

 

So is the 'most respected scientist this side of Europe' claiming that mankind is not contributing co2 into the atmosphere? I would be interested in who this was. I don't know of any scientist or even skeptic that claims co2 is not going up each year. I have heard a couple make the mistake that mankind is not adding to the problem. However, I have yet to here where this added co2 is coming from.

 

He claimed that it was similar it the 1980's when they claimed that a mini-ice-age was going to occur 2000, but they were wrong and scientists cast the wrong spell.

 

While there was a paper indicating a cooling trend between 1940 and 1970, this report did not predict a mini ice age in 2000. I call bluff on this one:naughty:

 

Now, if this was heard from Rush Limbaugh, I would suggest getting scientific information from another source and sticking to Rush for entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know of any scientist or even skeptic that claims co2 is not going up each year. I have heard a couple make the mistake that mankind is not adding to the problem. However, I have yet to here where this added co2 is coming from. While there was a paper indicating a cooling trend between 1940 and 1970, this report did not predict a mini ice age in 2000.

 

I acknowledge that it may seem unrealistic but what I wrote is actually true from the scientist that was on the television about this issue. C02 levels are going up, I never disputed that, the scientist claimed that the efforts to reduce it globally will be miniscule compared to anything, in other words, the real threat is out of our control. ( Sorry I don't have a source yet, but will search rigourously for it ).

 

That same scientist on the same day said about the mini ice age that didn't occur, I'll also try to get sources for that too. But I'm not telling bluffs/lies here, I will find sources. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I acknowledge that it may seem unrealistic but what I wrote is actually true from the scientist that was on the television about this issue. C02 levels are going up, I never disputed that, the scientist claimed that the efforts to reduce it globally will be miniscule compared to anything, in other words, the real threat is out of our control. ( Sorry I don't have a source yet, but will search rigourously for it ).

 

The amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere is pretty well documented, and is a substantial amount. I don't see how someone could argue that us cutting our emisions in half would have a miniscule affect on the co2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

 

That same scientist on the same day said about the mini ice age that didn't occur, I'll also try to get sources for that too. But I'm not telling bluffs/lies here, I will find sources. ;)

 

My apologies, I was not claiming you were bluffing or being dishonest, but that the person you heard that from was being misleading or was misunderstood.

 

If you can find a name or anything that would be appreciated. I like learning as much as I can and am always interested in reading up on various viewpoints.:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, your posts are based on hypothesis, theory and opinion just as everyone's are. The proponents of GW caused by the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere have shown more sound scientific reports than has been showed to falsify the evidence.

 

Only the extremists would argue that mankind is the ONLY reason for GW or that global climate change doesn't have a number of possible causes.

My criticism is directed at extremists. It is disappointing when those who claim to be objective on the matter lean heavily to one side, blurring the line between the objective and the extreme. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change most recently stated that it was 90% likely that human produced Co2 and other human causes had played a measurable role in the current warming trend. I don't believe that is a "right slanted" publication. What I said was there is no *certainty* involved in the cause and effect, and that is supported by that publication.

 

Mankind is *likely* to *very likely* to have had an influence on the current warming trend (according to the IPCC). How much was due to mankind? The individual contributions are unknown. The science is still learning. I don't mind people saying that they want to err on the side of caution, but that is different than using heavy handed guilt tactics to state with certainty that what I am doing today is dooming my children and grandchildren to suffering.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You raise good points Bill. The extremists, on both sides, of any issue, do a dis-service to their own cause.

 

As long as the general public understands that in any good science there is NEVER complete certainty I would be arguing right along with you.

 

However, IF humanity can lessen the impact of GW through burning less co2, then I would argue that we are causing damage to generations to come. Since we only know that is most likely the case, it would only be prudent to lessen our contribution to the co2 levels. Especially since doing so can be done so simply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is the 'most respected scientist this side of Europe' claiming that mankind is not contributing co2 into the atmosphere? I would be interested in who this was. I don't know of any scientist or even skeptic that claims co2 is not going up each year. I have heard a couple make the mistake that mankind is not adding to the problem. However, I have yet to here where this added co2 is coming from.

 

I'm not sure who this 'scientist' is either but I suspect it has to do with what is often referred to as "what's in the pipeline" effect or more accurately the hysteresis or momentum in the system. There is about a degree of warming "in the system" even if we were to cut emissions in half (about what the Earth system absorbs of our emissions from the atmosphere in a given year.) This of course is anything but an argument to do nothing.

 

While there was a paper indicating a cooling trend between 1940 and 1970, this report did not predict a mini ice age in 2000. I call bluff on this one:naughty:

 

Now, if this was heard from Rush Limbaugh, I would suggest getting scientific information from another source and sticking to Rush for entertainment.

 

I think this is a restatement of what some refer to as a 'zombie' arguemnt. An argument that no matter how many times it is refuted is restated. For more on the "scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s" myth see real climate post - RealClimate » The global cooling myth Le mythe du refroidissement global

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author brings up some good points on the elliptical/circular orbits, but a lot of the information seems arbitrary. Why 100,000 years? The reason for this number is never explained.

 

I didn't read this link. But the 100,000 year cycle in glaciations is the standard interpretation. That is the period of eccentricity in the Milankovitch cycles. That said, eccentricity is not the cycle with the greatest insolation impact of the Milankovitch cycles (That would be obliquity) so the reason that recent glaciations have followed a 100,000 year pattern has not been adequately established (read: lots of controversy and scientist yelling at each other at meetings.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

… so the reason that recent glaciations have followed a 100,000 year pattern has not been adequately established (read: lots of controversy and scientist yelling at each other at meetings.)
In addition to statistical and data uncertainties and discrepancies kmcolo cites, it’s important to note that the role of “chaos” in Earth’s cycles of glaciation is also uncertain.

 

Mathematical chaos theory strongly suggests that the precise beginnings and ice ages, though made likely by fairly well-determined factors such as perturbations in Earth’s orbit and axial tilt, is actually triggered by small, practically unpredictable factors, such as earthquakes and sedimentation effecting ocean currents, or fires and volcanoes slightly effecting its albedo – the “butterfly effect (though the phrase was originally and is usually applied to weather, not climate).

 

Though a difference of a few thousand years in the appearance of a continent-spanning glacier may be insignificant from a geological perspective, it is not on the time scales important to human beings. Chaos theory suggests that such uncertainty in long-range prediction is unavoidable. However, short-range predictions, and changes to man-made factors to effect climate, are not ruled out by Chaos theory, or any scientific climate theory of which I’m aware. This applies not only to long-term phenomena, such as ice ages, but to shorter-term ones, such as sea level increases, north-Atlantic ocean surface temperature decreases, and other “global warming” concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though a difference of a few thousand years in the appearance of a continent-spanning glacier may be insignificant from a geological perspective, it is not on the time scales important to human beings. Chaos theory suggests that such uncertainty in long-range prediction is unavoidable. However, short-range predictions, and changes to man-made factors to effect climate, are not ruled out by Chaos theory, or any scientific climate theory of which I’m aware. This applies not only to long-term phenomena, such as ice ages, but to shorter-term ones, such as sea level increases, north-Atlantic ocean surface temperature decreases, and other “global warming” concerns.

 

This leaves one wondering what the long term memory of the Earth system is. Oh, maybe about 100,000 years give or take 20K???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

There is a BBC documentary titled 'Global Dimming' you can get it on Torrent Spy which may be interesting to watch for everyone. It is a bit extreme in the predictive realm concerning future events definitely taking worst case scenario. TV does go a bit extreme to get your attention.

 

The premise is at the same time we have been producing CO2 which increases the amount of energy the earth can absorb from the sun industrialized nations have been producing pollutants that have been dimming the planet reducing the amount of sunlight that gets through. So anthropogenic CO2 warming effects have been reduced by the other concurrent anthropogenic cooling phenomena. However we have been steadily been reducing our dimming effects (with exception of developing nations India and China being the largest contibuters) because of the health concerns related to these pollutants.

 

IPCC estimates are pretty conservative because they rely on consensus between a large variety of scientists. Thus their predictions concerning melting at the ice caps were 1/3 of recent melting measured.

 

Regarding the ocean current issue it is difficult to predict scenarios if that happens, just as it is difficult to predict what happens if large deposits of methane hydrates are released at the bottom of the ocean(the latter I feel is a highly unlikely but frightening scenario). The thing about it is that global temperatures may have increased .7 degrees C but temperature increase distribution is different (higher at the poles and lower at the equator). So while Europe and North America may on the net cool, the gulf stream from my understanding doesn't extend to the Northern Pole and may not have an impact on temperatures there. Melting is still likely to occur and hence global water levels will still rise. People in the industrialized north may use more energy to heat their homes or you may see migration. Agricultural output is likely to be severely affected with those regions producing a significant portion of world output. I am however concerned about weather patterns and the distribution of fresh water because these water currents from my understanding are responsible for considerable cloud formation and hence rainfall. Billions of people are reliant upon suitable rainfall (particularly those in areas that have low rainfall or highly seasonal (monsoon) rainfall patterns.

 

Its difficult to predict the weather but they are getting better at it. You got different varieties of fear mongering on both sides. But those at the right have a lot to lose and have a consistent record of lying (cigarettes, lead exposure ect). Scientists don't seem to have as much interest in decieving people, the pay really isn't too high and the work is tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...