IS GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY HUMANS?

High seas, as a past developer of hydraulic models for viscous fluid flow (oil in reservoirs) , Im not a fan of predictive models that take and transform one space to another and then behave in autocorrelation mode. Solving equations that are so fraught with assumptions of isotropy and "limitless and boundless functions" make me wonder whether the same variables that confound hydraulics in Lagrangian or eularian space will do the same for atmospheric fluid flow.

We have hundreds of thousands of years of records that say'this happened before and worse" as compared to models.

I say that to basically say, I sort of agree with yer point maded in the other thread. However, I wonder whether the "race " tp provide non greenhouse fules wont actually cost us more energy than its worthg.
EG it takes 0.85 barrels of oil to produce one barrel of ethanol. Factor in the additional costs for transportation , tax, etc, we wont be saving a damn thing.
AND, Im dead set against any mention of "Clean Nuclear" , thats just bullshit, such a concept does not exist and Ill argue that one with anyone.

More and more people in fields I'm interested in, architecture and landscape architecture, site and regional planning, land use, yadda yadda, are zoning in to designing in a sustainability mode - which is good, but may be a drop in the bucket.

Pollution scares me, not so much re global warming as for more immediate effects.

I understand my post is a tangent to the fine teeth of science pros and cons, so think of it as a bookmark.

I have just posted an artical that refers to consensus among 2500 scientists, 6ooo reports and 750 reviews. Thats science. You make the assertion that "our technology is too young" etc but dont provide any scientific basis for your conclusion.

Just because co2 is invisible doesnt mean it isnt real.

Dont you think that climatoligists must be aware of this? and have factored it in somehow?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87#comment-690
response to comment #4
CO2 levels are currently higher than for any time when we have direct measurements (directly, from 1950; before that, from air trapped in ice cores), which amounts to the last 780,000 years (see, e.g., a picture here for the last 400 kyr). Various considerations suggest that in the far past CO2 levels were considerably higher. From memory, the last time CO2 levels exceeded present was about 40 million years ago -

so yes co2 levels have exceeded present levels and the earth recovered, BUT it recovered without the added pressuer of 30 billion(?) people burning fossil fuels. It recovered by, over millions of years, (re?)absorbing co2 from the atmosphere and stabilising it as fossil fuels.

Quite right. The only "real" answer I can give is to reduce consumption.

Huge savings could be made by simply turning lights off in city offices at night when no-one is using them.

I had the talk with my son last night he wals into his room turns on the light puts the cd player on etc etc. then leaves his room. The light is left on the cd player still going. for goodness sake its so simple to walk over turn off the cd player and as you leave the room flick the light switch off. if you need to go back in 30 sec turn the damn thing back on again.
sheesh.

BTW I am not immune to using fuel where it really isnt necessary. I drive the 1 km to my shopping center to buy the milk and I really should walk. I'm just like everyone else. Basically lazy.

Some of the assertions made in opposition to the global warming theory include:

IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models.[13][14]
Correlation does not imply causation, so just because temperatures have risen overall since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution doesn't necessarily mean that Industrialisation has caused the change in temperature.[15]
The period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has produced "urban heat islands" (see below) that could be skewing temperature measurements that indicate the recent warming.[16]
Some global warming studies have been shown to have errors, used shoddy methods and manipulated data sets and have not been reproduced. [17] [18]
Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion. Some have proposed that, because the issue has become so politicized, climatologists who disagree with the consensus may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding.
Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity, [19] changes in sea temperature [20] and changes to cosmic ray levels that make the low level clouds that cool the earth. [21]
Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emissions at less than 1%. [22]
Climate science cannot make definitive predictions yet, since the computer models used to make these predictions are still evolving and do not yet take into account recently discovered feedback mechanisms.[citation needed]
Global temperatures are directly related to such factors as sunspot activity (an 11-year cycle).[23][24]
Global warming is largely a result of reduced low-altitude cloud cover from reduced Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). It is similar in concept to the Wilson cloud chamber, however, on a global scale, where earth's atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber. [citation needed]
The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. The concern about global warming is equally alarmist.
Many opponents also point to the Medieval warm period, which lasted from the 10th to the 14th century, and which indicated an above-average temperature for at least Western Europe, and possibly the whole Earth. This period was followed by the Little Ice Age, which lasted until the 19th century, when the Earth began to heat up again.[citation needed]
Satellite temperature records show less warming than surface land and sea records.
The relationship between historic temperatures and CO2 levels, based on ice-core samples, shows that carbon dioxide increases have always followed a rise in temperature rather than the other way around. [25]
Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all of the major questions about global climate. Opponents often characterize supporters' arguments as alarmist and premature, emphasizing what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global-warming scenarios.

Your information (IPCC report on climate change 2001) appears to be old CI.


From the age artical I linked to earlier.
(My emphasis in bold)

Do try to keep up, theres a good old chap.

And as usual you do not link to articals you quote so that the veracity or otherwise can be checked.
Its pretty easy to cut and paste portions of a report that seem to support one argument or another.

My mistake; it's from Wikipedia.

Perhaps Weart can assit you.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

SPENCER R. WEART is Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park, Maryland, USA. Originally trained as a physicist, he is now a noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics.

As a fair minded man I have been looking for articals that demonstrate opposition to the conclusion that Humans are contributing to global warming. The only relevant material I can find is authored by those with a vested interest. Ie mining, manufacturing and engineering sources.

dadpad
Thats been my point. The actual O16/O18 levels in air show a several period occurence during interglacial periods that mimic what weve seen in our times. The differences as to what was higher are within the "noise". Ive seen the data on Greenland ice cores from R. Alleys data at Penn State. Im not so sure that he gives an unequivocal "bold assertion" That this is the highest of the recent interstadial times. The inter Riss and Mundel(Inter Illinoian and Wisconsan glacial advances) series show a pollen spectra that has subtropical plants as high as Labrador(peat bof palynology data and southern animal;s living in caves in areas as far north as New York and The Maritime Annapolis Valley. (Civet cats arent extinct, they just dont live North of north Carolina today).

Im not saying we stop our attempts at reducing pollution. That in itself is a correct thing. However, Im not convinced by Wikipedia and other links that much paleoclimate data isnt as fraught with "WAG" factors as is any other field discovery based science.

Are you implying that those who work for industry are liars? Dadpad. Im willing to listen, but, as a geologist, Ive always been trained to take the long view of events. Climate trends of 50 years or less, (without conclusive data and some data actually shown to be in error) has a great deal of fluff in it. Im not an appreciator of models PERIOD.I find that models are "outcome based" . They give you exactly the data you wish to conclude because youve discretized your inputs based upon " desired outcome friendly" requirements. Ask anybody that does ground water modelling, you can get . from calibration alone, almost anything you want to see. Models are never a god forensic tool because they dont actually PROVE anything, they run with your biases and give you data that you wish to develop.

PS. If you wish to see a profession that is eating its own tail re: this entire subject, you have only to look at the geologic and geophysics areas. When I go to the SAGEEP conventions or GSA , its always gratifying to see many sides of the argument presented.

PS dadpad In my post 2496824, I introduced the concept of ice cores stretching back almost 800000 years. SO you werent telling me anything I didnt already know. Im saying that theygen isotope ratios belie your conclusion. The air bubbles in the ice show the rates of O18 enhancement occurng in hundreds and maybe 10's of years for a turnaround due to strictly terrestrial events. ( We were still Homo heidelbergensis and habilis).

Nobody seems to want to mention the pollen data fdrom peat bogs in the far north. In those areas we saw a temperate and tropical advance that makes today look like a deep freeze.

FM. Answers for you may lie here.

Firstly this report may be the type of thing you are refering to
In ancient fossils,seeds of a new debate on warming.

I cant get access to this artical so I havn't read it, however this reply was posted.

Broadly Misleading
Just when we were beginning to think the media had finally learned to tell a hawk from a handsaw when covering global warming (at least when the wind blows southerly), along comes this article 'In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming' by the New York Times' William Broad. This article is far from the standard of excellence in reporting we have come to expect from the Times. We sincerely hope it's an aberration, and not indicative of the best Mr. Broad has to offer.

Broad's article deals with the implications of research on climate change over the broad sweep of the Phanerozoic -- the past half billion years of Earth history during which fossil animals and plants are found. The past two million years (the Pleistocene and Holocene) are a subdivision of the Phanerozoic, but the focus of the article is on the earlier part of the era. Evidently, what prompts this article is the amount of attention being given to paleoclimate data in the forthcoming AR4 report of the IPCC. The article manages to give the impression that the implications of deep-time paleoclimate haven't previously been taken into account in thinking about the mechanisms of climate change, whereas in fact this has been a central preoccupation of the field for decades. It's not even true that this is the first time the IPCC report has made use of paleoclimate data; references to past climates can be found many places in the Third Assessment Report. What is new is that paleoclimate finally gets a chapter of its own (but one that, understandably, concentrates more on the well-documented Pleistocene than on deep time). The worst fault of the article, though, is that it leaves the reader with the impression that there is something in the deep time Phanerozoic climate record that fundamentally challenges the physics linking planetary temperature to CO2. This is utterly false, and deeply misleading. The Phanerozoic does pose puzzles, and there's something going on there we plainly don't understand. However, the shortcomings of understanding are not of a nature as to seriously challenge the CO2.-climate connection as it plays out at present and in the next few centuries.

Broadly misleading

Would continental drift figure in your thinking? sea levels? evolution?
Perhaps there was a branch of civet cat better adapted to cold climate, along comes a more efficiant predator, better adapted to cold climate and whammo no more cold climate civet cat.
My position would be in accord with the last parra above (bolded)

dapad
Contiental drift in the Pleistocene in the Atlantic basin was about 12 to 20 miles ,(hardly enough to matter). When the ice stages were at max, those distances were negated because of sea level drop. Evolution?-The civet cat from the fossil record is essentially the ame as today (spotted skunk) Climate, although it plays an important role in evolution can also trigger "refuge" migration, wherein species who cant stand the cold (or who are cold tolerant, will move toward of away from the cold or warm areas. Civet cats lived in the spines and valleys of the Appalachian piedmont. We find their fossils in the floors of ancient caves and sinkholes where they were trapped. The most importnt identifier of the paleoclimate boundaries is pollen from temperate and tropical plants, since they were regionally ubiquitous.

My reason for starting this thread was to present, in an adult fashion, the fact that there are a number of credible scientists who dont buy into the anthropogenic primary cause of global warming. Im not a bandwagon type and right now, Im more convinced by the paleo data than the climate models.

I know this position of mine is unheard of on A2k, but I appreciate your views, they are reasoned and well written. I am still serching for something that makes sense. Also I am highly critical of uncalibrated models.

It is interesting to me that people who might, in other sphere, never accept the idea of a conspiracy, seem to accept that there is one with global warming and that, further, it has infiltrated NASA, NOAA, and a host of other scientific groups and the governments of many countries who seem genuinely worried about Global Warming (and the ozone hole).

Isn't it an active conspiracy if these groups also knew everything that you & Helen know and are still willing to actively trick the population of the world into being worried?

No longer is it a confederacy of dunces... now it is a conspiracy of dunces and who gets to play the genius?


You wrote this...

I'm surprised no one else pointed out that...
The palms & semi-tropicals living in pockets in the north were brought there by humans often a great expense and carefully cultivated... antropogenic palms, if you will. I see a big difference between those & a "migration of tropical plants" -- doesn't anyone else?

I am willing to listen (& try to understand) with an open mind, but I see everyone skirting around the real issue which is how badly we humans are mis-managing the earth. The global warming/CO2 issue reminds me of the destruction of Marbled Murrelet and Spotted Owl habitat -- a focus point since we can't seem to get to the real truth... cutting down massive forests (here, in Canada, in Brazil, in Indonesia & the Phillipines), the sickening disregard for the spewing of our waste and the ill-advised, willy-nilly using up of finite resources is damned stupid.

Pifka wrote: I am willing to listen (& try to understand) with an open mind, but I see everyone skirting around the real issue which is how badly we humans are mis-managing the earth.

That's really the knub of the problem; humans will not change our habits to change the consumption of fossil fuels. If you ever find the answer, please share it with us.

China's consumption increases diametrically with their economic growth. Try stopping them!

piffka. Im trying to avoid a tone of snotty smugness. I you cant be repectful then why not go play in the traffic. The palms that have left their imprsints n the Pleistocene epoch in the high lATITUDES, WERENT "CARRIED " BY HUMANS . tHERE WERE NONE. IN THE US DURING THE PLEISTOCENE UNTIL MAYBE 14000 YEARS AGO. , And of course, these werent itinerant landscape architects who wanted to make palm clusters in the Boston and Portland (Me) communities. No, with the increases in temperature, such plants and warm loving animals migrate in relatively short times, a few thousand years at most. The coastal stratigraphy of Labrodor demonstrates cyclic warm and cold periods that go back hundreds of thousands of years

You demand a strange level of respect when after 3 pages nobody has questioned you (perhaps we're all afraid to do so?) with your introduction about earlier northward migrations of palms & semi-tropicals and then jumped to a reference to "today we have palms & semi-tropicals growing in Ireland, etc." as though that were a new migration. I didn't question the fossil record. I questioned what the gardening habits of Brits had to do with it. We have seen that the climate is changing. Anecdotal or not, 50 years of watching the weather makes many people feel that they've got some expertise and certainly a stake in the outcome. It is not the static system we might like it to be. For some, that means growing interesting plants in the garden... for others, that means the water table is dropping and there's not enough fresh water for the urban poor.

I thought the belief that there is true global warming was understood and the question is: Are we causing it? If there's a chance we are causing it, are we willing to do something about it.

Nobody seems to want to question you, either, Farmerman, on your provocative statement that the ozone hole isn't really a problem. Well. I question it, because if I buy into what you're saying, then that makes me suspect a big conspiracy led by NOAA & several others. If the ozone hole weren't really a problem, then why is it that all of the leading scientific communities, universities and institutions maintain that there are serious concerns with the ozone layer and that the Montreal agreement helped to dissipate the aerosol gases? Aren't you suggesting they are leading us astray?

To look at it another way, if the conservatives are not correct and there is anthropogenic global warming but it hurts the economy so we don't want to do something about it, then isn't that another conspiracy?

Since most Americans, me included, have a limited grasp of the higher level science which you so freely speak about, I conclude you are toying with the idea that we are being duped by a conspiracy of dunces... for the ozone hole and for anthropogenic global warming.

Do we cause it? Does it matter? Because I think there is something really important to note, I'll repeat it: to stupid, dunder-headed, smug, snotty, bitchy me, the CO2 awareness seems to be very similar to the environmental movement (which I love) hanging onto the Spotted Owl & Marbled Murrelet, rather than more squarely face the real issue of severe degradation of the environment. When the S.owl was found to be nesting under the eave of a Safeway store roof and not in the old growth where it ought to be, the Marbled Murrelet was found. Why not just say, quit cutting down the old growth? To me, it has plenty of direct and indirect benefits that outweigh the demands of logging interests.

We know that we're as a species are screwing with clean air and water, paving over agricultural land and degrading habitat all over the globe. But that's too broad a concept, too much to think about and economically loaded, so someone has picked on the fears of warming caused by a single air pollution emission, to try and slow us down.

CI -- People will change when there is no fuel left. They'll also change when fuel costs rise to something like their real costs. My newspaper this morning mentioned that people drove less last year and fuel demand was lower.



China is having to change its ways, at least a little, because otherwise the Olympic games won't be held there. They have a lot of social pressure from the rest of the world as well as the pressures of wanting to look like the good guys as they try and leapfrog over our wasteful technology.

Any country or company that comes up with a "greener" plan for transportation and most anything else related to energy, will be making some serious financial gains. Public perception is driving this. Haven't you changed your habits at least a little to try and conserve?

Pifka, "When there is no fuel left" doesn't solve any of the problems of today and tomorrow.