Anyone still a climate change skeptic?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

11/21/2007 11:24:50 AM · #226

More on why it's NOT the sun...

"Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth�s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."

//www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

BY MIKE LOCKWOOD, (1,2) AND CLAUS FROHLICH (3)
1. Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK
2. Space Environment Physics Group, School of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Southampton, UK
3. Physikalisch�Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Switzerland

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/21/2007 11:31:03 AM · #227

thanks for the reply. I figured I was wrong on the second one, must have been a different pollutant?

However, let me restate my first question:
compared to volcanic eruptions, forest fires, decay of dead plant and animal matter, evaporation from the oceans and simple human respiration, what % of CO2 emissions is man made items such as fossil fuel burning, power generation, industry... What % do we actually create compared to what occurs naturally and is out of our control?

11/21/2007 11:48:00 AM · #228

Originally posted by LoudDog:

I'll try to answer this one and give chip a break. I'll see if the IPCC has any claims on this number. The wiki article for carbon dioxide seems to be self-contradictory and says this:

"Up to 40% of the gas emitted by a volcano during a subaerial volcanic eruption is carbon dioxide.[15] However, human activities currently release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes. According to the best estimates, volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Emissions of CO2 by human activities amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons).[16] Thus, the human civilization is still not a global factor in the carbon cycle currently producing per year about 1/75 = 1.3 % of atmospheric carbon dioxide, while only near 0.025 % of the amount in the ocean. Probably, the human civilization in its whole history emitted carbon dioxide in amount equal to the current quantity in the atmosphere and near 2% of "free" carbon dioxide, being ion equilibrium between the oceans and the atmosphere."

11/21/2007 11:55:50 AM · #229

Originally posted by LoudDog:

The "natural sources" area a much larger part of CO2 emissions but they also do ALL of the absorption, which until man started emitting copious amounts of CO2, was in balance. To be honest, these numbers surprised me a bit, but if you think about it, if man was contributing a lot more, we'd really be in a pickle ;)

//www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

Figure 2. Global Carbon Cycle (Billion Metric Tons Carbon)

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

11/21/2007 11:58:34 AM · #230

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll try to answer this one and give chip a break. I'll see if the IPCC has any claims on this number.

DAMN! I wish I had seen this before I researched and posted ;)

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/21/2007 12:00:34 PM · #231

Originally posted by LoudDog:

To a certain extent this question is, or may be, irrelevant. If you assume (and it's a big assumption that I can't back up, but for the sake of argument) that prior to, say, 1750 or so the planet was in balance in terms of CO2, then any amount man is adding to the atmosphere and the oceans is disrupting the balance. It's like if you have a super-saturated sugar solution, and this has 5 pounds of sugar in it, and you add a teaspoon of sugar and sugar precipitates out, then the fact that the extra teaspoon is an insignificant percentage of the original 5 pounds is irrelevant; it's still the straw that broke the camel's back.

Add to this the effects human-caused environmental changes have on the natural output of CO2 (deforestation, for example, results in more CO2 since plants trees breathe CO2 and emit oxygen), and the percentage of CO2 output that is "human" in origin becomes even less relevant.

R.

ETA: I see others have sourced this same point.

Message edited by author 2007-11-21 12:02:17.

krafty1

Nikon D80

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/21/2007 12:11:03 PM · #232

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists
Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now
Skeptics

Patents4u

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

11/21/2007 12:14:48 PM · #233

Originally posted by chip_k:

To be honest, these numbers surprised me a bit, but if you think about it, if man was contributing a lot more, we'd really be in a pickle ;)

Well, that is what people are trying to sort out! I have a certain belief, and am interested in this debate only for the selfish reason of my individual knowledge. I'm not trying to advocate my belief or convince others. IMO, this thread has improved through the efforts of a couple people bringing forth more focused questions, issues and information. I've learned a bit. Thanks for that.

And I am capable of reading things written as being absolute fact as being that person's belief as to the "fact", so I've tried not to harp on factual overstatements...it is true that even the most ardent scientific believers do not use terms nearly as definite and concrete as some in this thread...I believe the fear is that including qualifiers (likely, probably, etc) makes any statement seem wishy-washy and too easy to dismiss so definitive factual statements are made, but I would think we could get beyond that (OK, upon further thought, maybe not). :-)

The wiki-article also says:

Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution.

And further:

"There is about 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans in the form of CO2 and CO2 hydration products as exists in the atmosphere [1]. Due to this, even small change of ocean concentration can greatly influence ocean-atmosphere redistribution. It is undoubtedly the main factor, influencing the carbon dioxide concentration in atmosphere. For instance, atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide can increase detectably if the ocean will be warmer, as it is possibly happening now due to the ending of a "small" ice age."

So the answer is, obviously, to throw ice cubes into the ocean to cool it down. Now where do I get my Nobel Prize? :-)

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/21/2007 12:26:32 PM · #234

That's what I was looking for! Thanks Chip. However, is forest fires and volcanos included in that graphic? Or are they considered insignificant compared to the other sources? I'd also be curious of the margin of error of those numbers if you know it off the top of your head, but you don't need to dig that up for me (if I were curious enough I'd dig it up myself).

And one last question (maybe?) for the experts, but this one should be easy (no research needed). What specific changes would you suggest we make to combat global warming?

11/21/2007 12:36:10 PM · #235

Well dang, Chip is too damn fast. Here's another graphic from Chapter 7 of the IPCC report. It's more detailed than chip's picture which could be good or bad...

[thumb]615370[/thumb]

I'll do some pasting here as well to try to get a feel for the chapter, but if you want I'd recommend skimming it yourself. You can find the PDF of Chapter 7 here.

Under a heading with the question "Are the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases during the industrial era caused by human activity?"

Yes, the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases during the industrial era are caused by human activities. In fact, the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations does not reveal the full extent of human emissions in that it accounts for only 55% of the CO2 released by human activity since 1959. The rest has been taken up by plants on land and by the oceans. In all cases, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and their increases, are determined by the balance between sources (emissions of the gas from human activities and natural systems) and sinks (the removal of the gas from the atmosphere by conversion to a different chemical compound). Fossil fuel combustion (plus a smaller contribution from cement manufacture) is responsible for more than 75% of human-caused CO2 emissions. Land use change (primarily deforestation) is responsible for the remainder. For methane, another important greenhouse gas, emissions generated by human activities exceeded natural emissions over the last 25 years. For nitrous oxide, emissions generated by human activities are equal to natural emissions to the atmosphere. Most of the long-lived halogen-containing gases (such as chlorofluorcarbons) are manufactured by humans, and were not present in the atmosphere before the industrial era. On average, present-day tropospheric ozone has increased 38% since pre-industrial times, and the increase results from atmospheric reactions of short-lived pollutants emitted by human activity. The concentration of CO2 is now 379 parts per million (ppm) and methane is greater than 1,774 parts per billion (ppb), both very likely much higher than any time in at least 650 kyr (during which CO2 remained between 180 and 300 ppm and methane between 320 and 790 ppb). The recent rate of change is dramatic and unprecedented; increases in CO2 never exceeded 30 ppm in 1 kyr � yet now CO2 has risen by 30 ppm in just the last 17 years.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

11/21/2007 12:57:46 PM · #236

Originally posted by LoudDog:

And one last question (maybe?) for the experts, but this one should be easy (no research needed). What specific changes would you suggest we make to combat global warming?

Whoa, big question. I'd say on an individual level the answer is conservation. Our biggest sources of greenhouse gases come from our cars, heating/utility use, and consumerism (ie. packaging, transportation of materials, disposable items, etc).

1) Drive a fuel efficient car.
2) Use efficient appliances and insulate your home.
3) Try to take into account transportation costs when buying food. (That's tough as there is no clear way yet for the consumer to know how far an item has travelled.)
4) Reduce, reuse, recycle.

On a society/global scale we obviously need to cut our CO2 emissions. An interesting article in Science by R Socolow talked about stabilization wedges. His contention is that we can split the problem up into 15 wedges which we have the current technology to tackle. I couldn't quickly find the # of wedges needed to stabilize the problem (I believe I recall from a news article that it is 7), but it is not all 15. While the technology exists, no wedge is "easy" and the biggest effort will be the political will to make the change.

You probably don't have access to the full article without some academic login, so I'll reproduce the table below for educational purposes.

[thumb]615384[/thumb]

Message edited by author 2007-11-21 12:58:32.

MistyMucky

Nikon D700

11/21/2007 01:13:57 PM · #237

The amount of CO2 emitted by humans is indeed small compared to natural sources. What is more relevant is the rate at which this amount increased over the last century. As Bear_music stated, it's all a matter of equilibrium. The current hope is that if we manage to stop the increase and keep the output more or less constant, nature will be able to absorb the excess CO2 into its carbon cycle.

Message edited by author 2007-11-21 13:14:48.

eamurdock

Pentax KP

Pentax FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited AF

11/21/2007 01:20:40 PM · #238

Originally posted by LoudDog:

And one last question (maybe?) for the experts, but this one should be easy (no research needed). What specific changes would you suggest we make to combat global warming?

I wish this one were easy...

First off, while I encourage everyone to change their lightbulbs and ride their bikes, the truth is that the solution is only going to come from systematic institutional change. (The rest of this post will be US centric, but that's because the US is in the driver's seat on this one)

For instance, China is currently building coal power plants at the rate of one per week. Many of these are based on old technology. India is developing at a slower, but still impressive rate. The US needs to (a) show global leadership on this issue and (b) provide incentives for developing nations to invest in more sustainable technologies. These plants represent decades-long capitol investments that will be with us 30-50 years.

We need to halt the export sale of outdated powerplants from the US (there is a huge resale market for powerplants that can no longer be licensed in the US)

We need to increase investment in renewables and in transportation infrastructure. We need to map out a sustainable transportation future.

In other words, we need federal leadership.

I recently saw Bill McKibben speak... when asked "what three things can I do?" he answered (paraphrased) "Call your congressman, call your congressman, and call your congressman. Then change your lightbulbs."

Change will come when we demand global leadership. With all the rhetoric about how the US leads the world, it's about time we act like do.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

11/21/2007 02:09:20 PM · #239

Thanks eamurdock. I think the biggest fears of skeptics such as myself are the fears of laws, taxes and regulations to fight something we are not certain of. Personally I fear industry regulations or taxes on emissions that could cripple American manufacturing costing thousands of jobs, and/or automotive and housing standards that would raise the costs significantly. It�s refreshing to see those are not on the top of your list of suggestions.

11/21/2007 04:26:04 PM · #240

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Thanks eamurdock. I think the biggest fears of skeptics such as myself are the fears of laws, taxes and regulations to fight something we are not certain of.

I think this is a pretty common sentiment. My suspicion is that global warming skeptics tend toward libertarian thinking. They do not like to be told what to think, do not like excessive taxation, and do not like big government. With some of the ideas being thrown around, I can't blame the nervousness when it goes against such fundamental feelings.

In my view, unfortunately, there is only one carrot and one stick the American public responds to. They are one in the same...money. Taxes are the stick and incentives/profit is the carrot. My skepticism comes from thinking we can change public sentiment through methods that don't involve one or both. That's just my opinion though.

Prof_Fate

11/21/2007 05:00:22 PM · #241

Just been reading the current issue of National Geographic. Global warming is bunk.
What?
Yeah, I got proof too.
Back in the days of the dinosaurs the earth was warmer, wetter and the ocean level higher. No humans were involved, no cars, no factories, etc.

I say it's normal.

Pentax FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited AF

11/22/2007 01:28:33 AM · #242

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Wow! Quite a convincing argument! Probably ought to contact National Geographic about your theory and all the research you've done! The logic is FLAWLESS. It'll be a cover story, I'm sure.

;)

eamurdock

Pentax KP

11/22/2007 09:50:16 AM · #243

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

70 degrees is normal. Not in January.

The fact that there are historical temperature patterns in no way impacts the truth of the statement that humans are responsible now.

Again, the evidence for global warming is NOT the temperature trends. It comes from an understanding of the way that climate works. So what, exactly, do you think is normal? We know we're adding C to the atmosphere. We know with very high precision what proportion of atmospheric C comes from fossil fuels (through radioisotopes). We know something about the feedbacks within the climate system, and can make predictions about trends. and we see the very beginnings of climatic patterns in real life that look like the ones we expect to see.

Again - trees have fallen down throughout history. Does that mean I can cut one down so it falls on your house?

11/22/2007 01:10:20 PM · #244

Originally posted by LoudDog:

And one last question (maybe?) for the experts, but this one should be easy (no research needed). What specific changes would you suggest we make to combat global warming?

Incentives, incentives, incentives.

I realize that there's a lot more to it than the transportation sector, but it's certainly the one I've thought about most. Mainly, every time I fill up or see how much smog there is here in the gorgeous (on clear days) Front Range of Colorado. And, these strategies can be applied to other sectors as well.

Tax deductions and credits for vehicles that emit less carbon-dioxide. This allows the CONSUMER to make the choice of technology and vehicle, so the best solutions will win out. One of the biggest issues right now with buying a hybrid, for example, is that they're more expensive than regular vehicles. Propane, hydrogen and other vehicles would get even bigger benefits and deductions accordingly.

PRIZES for advances in technology that meet a certain goal. Isn't amazing how many small companies crawl out of the woodwork when there's a serious prize purse for a high-tech project? How about $5 mil for the first company that can produce a solar panel that's 3 times as efficient as today's? Or builds a tank that can hold hydrogen efficiently enough and safely enough that it makes sense for vehicles? Or improves hydrogen generation efficiency?

So how do we fund this? I think the HEAVIEST users should be penailized to a certain extent. Back in the 80s we put a Gas Guzzler tax in place for car manufacturers that make fuel hogs, mostly expensive sports car and luxury vehicles at the time. Problem is, there are loopholes regarding weight (6000 lbs) whether a vehicle is a "light truck" or not. Large SUVs are NOT covered so manufacturers pay no GG tax.

I realize that SOME of this will be passed on to the consumer, but if someone wants to drive a brand new 60,000 Escalade that gets a combined 15 miles to the gallon, then they should pay a little extra so that low-carbon-emission cars are more affordable.

Best of all, when the car-makers realize they're actually going to lose sales over this, they're going to bust their butts to reduce weight, improve aerodynamics and enhance engine efficiency.

So, that won't cover everything but it's a good start :)

Message edited by author 2007-11-22 13:14:13.

Prof_Fate

11/22/2007 03:14:50 PM · #245

What is normal?
60 to 100 million years ago it was hotter and wetter than today, with higher ocean levels and ice free polar regions, and much of the land surface was arid.

10,000 years ago we were in the midst of an ice age with 97% of canada under a sheet of ice. that cold spell lasted over 100,000 years.

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
source

How come the OTHER planets in our solar system are warming up too?
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

source

Message edited by author 2007-11-22 15:20:59.

11/22/2007 03:45:56 PM · #246

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

Just to point out the complete twisting of words and facts, here's the IPCC's own words...

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.12 This is an advance since the TAR�s conclusion that �most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations�. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns (see
Figure SPM.4 and Table SPM.2). {9.4, 9.5}

So as to understand what they consider "very likely", here is their table with definitions...
Likelihood Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome
Virtually certain > 99% probability
Extremely likely > 95% probability
Very likely > 90% probability
Likely > 66% probability
More likely than not > 50% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely < 33% probability
Very unlikely < 10% probability
Extremely unlikely < 5% probability
Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability

Someone is going to have to explain how in the world you can reconcile the quote above with the quote from the IPCC paper. This is why I highly discourage people from just reading blogs and the like ABOUT the IPCC paper instead of reading the paper itself. The second "likely" in the quote is from their last paper and this time around they felt the confidence had been raised to 90%.

For a visual demonstration of the above, I point to the IPCC summary graph I posted before. The black bars that extend to the left and right of each bar represent the uncertainty inherent in each value. We can say we have 95% confidence that the true value falls within the range of the black bars for each contributor. For the above quote to be true (the IPCC admits we could possibly be cooling the earth), the black bars need to extend across the 0 value from red to blue. You will see that it doesn't for "Total net effect of human activity". This means that we have a 95% confidence that we are heating the earth and not cooling it.

[thumb]614896[/thumb]

You also forgot to include the last line in your National Geographic source about the Russian scientist...
"Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists. "

I'll point again to the actual data for solar irradiation...
[thumb]614915[/thumb]

Message edited by author 2007-11-22 16:00:45.

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

11/22/2007 05:22:02 PM · #247

I think this says it all.

//climateandcapitalism.blogspot.com/