Alternative theories to anthropogenic global warming

[Essan]

I do think that the 'AGW' crew have a rude awakening to face as they have spent too much time focusing on one small part of the equation, don't get me wrong you 'Naturals' for your view will be accepted, just on top of the AGW 'calculations'......

Spot on

The 'one theory fits all' approach very rarely works out in the end. A thunderstorm isn't just caused by warm temperatures, and climate change isn't just caused by CO2 ....

[Devonian]

Spot on

The 'one theory fits all' approach very rarely works out in the end. A thunderstorm isn't just caused by warm temperatures, and climate change isn't just caused by CO2 ....

And no one is saying it is .

[Devonian]

Its not that it doesn't ring true, more and more underwater volcanic eruptuions are being found with evidence of far more acrtivity than previously thought or imagined. I think that one is 'open' shall we say.

In the same way that a match might boil a kettle. The maths really is irrefutable, it's orders of magnitude away from possible surely?

I am not an AGW believer buit I certainly believe in GW and Global cooling and I think that still will occur in cycles.

There are many players in the global climate game. We have pumped vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere but the percentage of CO2 as a whole is still minute, about 2%. A change of 1% irradiance from the sun is the equivalent effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere from todays levels so the sun for me is a much bigger player.

CO2 conc has incread by about a third, if it isn't doubled by our activities then a massive change in the way humanity lives will have happened. If it doubles the warming due to CO2 alone would be more than 1C - I can't see how there wouldn't be feedback warming as well. Otoh, there is no evidence, not as solid as AGW anyway but clingable to I suppose, the sun has or will change by 1%.

I have always posed the question yet never got an answer as regards to CO2 levels have been as high if not higher in the past. Every time the planet then plunged into an ice age...it clearly didn't keep warming. Why? What is different with our CO2. CO2 is CO2.

CO2 is a ghg - end of story. But, it can be a feedback ghg (it usually is) or something remarkable like us can come along and realese a load. But, how it gets into the atmosphere doesn't effect what it does.

If CO2 is THE driver as pushed by the full on AGW bodies what suddenly overrode that and why should we now just continue to warm? CO2 is a GHG but are we overcooking its importance/influence.

Evidence for those claims please. I've challenged others to find any IPCC document that denies other forcings.

We approach Gleissberg minima with initial bottoming out in 2032, this minima is anticipated to equal/be on the scale of the Maunder and Dalton/Wolf minima which brought mini ice ages.

I think there might be a big Gleissberg minima, but I think the predictions carry less weight than climate models. We're on Earth, we observe it and if the predition we make about it, rather than the Sun 90 million miles away, aren't more accurate it would throw logic on it's head. All climate models predict warming, how many models of future solar output are there, and do they all agree on what will happen?

.

This is not to say that an iceage is coming but on that basis alone large scale global cooling could occur. We don't have too long to wait to see if that theory occurs/holds up or can be binned.

Also the earth does NOT orbit the sun in a perfect circle followed each year on and sometimes our orbit can have a serious climatic affect.

The oceans have warmed by the same amount and the same rate as the atmosphere. I cannot see how the atmosphere can warm the oceans at the same rate.

BFTP

The oceans have warmed at the same rate and by the same amount as the atmosphere? Says who?

[Admiral_Bobski]

EDIT - sorry! Posted something utterly irrelevant! oops

Edited March 2, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

The oceans have warmed by the same amount and the same rate as the atmosphere. I cannot see how the atmosphere can warm the oceans at the same rate.

BFTP

70% of the planets surface (never mind depths here) is ocean. The oceans warm and their influence give us the 'warming'. of course land surfaces heat far more (in the right regions) but they also cool as quickly (as a desert does)

Land surface input is less than 1/2 that of the oceans and far more easily 'influenced' by temp. fluctuations in the 'seasonal ' short term but not over a year.

EDIT - sorry! Posted something utterly irrelevant! oops

Then it'll be like one of my posts???

[Admiral_Bobski]

Then it'll be like one of my posts???

LOL ! I'd never call your posts irrelevant - occasionally ever-so-slightly off-topic, but not irrelevant!

C-Bob

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Devonian

you still haven't answered why in the past when CO2 was as high or higher we cooled....and we did empirical evidence...plenty of it shows that. Why will we this time keep warming...it doesn't stand up to me.

BFTP

[parmenides3]

Blast: which period are you referring to? CO2 hasn't been as high or higher than it is now for 650,000 years (from the 'empirical' evidence).

Cooling happened in the past because of Solar forcings (probably with other factors incorporated). You seem to be imagining that the variability in CO2 is the deciding factor in past climate changes; this isn't quite correct.

The reason why this time we will keep warming is that the amount of CO2 is still increasing, and is still 'forcing' the climate, whilst the negative forcings are not sufficiently powerful to counteract this effect, and the solar forcings/ variables aren't as strong as the CO2 forcing.

:)P

[Bobby]

Stumbled upon this interesting statistic:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea"

Really puts into perspective the immense amounts of CO2 we are emitting doesn't it? How can we not be the cause of the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere? And more CO2 means more warming. Seems straight forward to moi.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Magpie

[noggin]

Howzabout our friend, the Sun? It has to be the thing with the most "effect".

Good looking programme coming on Thursday evening TV regarding this very thing...... I believe it's called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" or something like that. Shall be glued to my telly....so nice to hear some hopefully credible arguments against AGW.

[parmenides3]

Hi, Noggin. The programme's being mentioned frequently on the 'naysayer's guide' thread, too.

From the info available, it looks like it'll focus on the 'cosmic ray' theory, which is championed by Svensmark, Marsh, Shaviv, Veizer & Friis-Christensen, mostly based at the Danish Space thingy.

There's been a fair amount on the blogosphere about Veizer's 2006 paper, and Svensmark & Marsh's more recent one, which deals with an experiment where they 'made' Cloud Condensation Nuclei in an atmosphere chamber.

This very subject is being currently blogged about on Climate Science, Rabett Run, Stoat and Nexus 6. Apparently, a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters (one of the top science journals) deals with problems with the dataset the team used to show their correlation, which has been shown to be flawed. An explanation here: http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/its-cur...osmic-rays.html

In addition, Eli Rabett has a fairly detailed post highlighting some of the principle problems with the experiment that was conducted. http://rabett.blogspot.com/

The 'cosmic ray' team's idea is that variations in these rays cause increased cloudiness, which in turn, makes the temperature rise. A study done at Reading on this subject concluded that, if there was any correlation at all between Galactic Cosmic Rays and cloudiness, at most, the variations could account for one-two extra cloudy days per year; not enough to change the global average temperature.

It is an interesting area of research, but as things stand, the theory's advocates have been unable to show a trend in the proposed forcing agent (the rays) which matches the recent trends in temperature change, so it isn't generally considered to account for GW. In fact, in the original paper, the team does not attempt to make this claim.

There are other problems with the theory, but hopefully the above helps explain why it isn't, as things stand, a viable alternative to CO2.

:)P

[jethro]

Dev... It's not designed to poke you or anyone else in the eye; the title is purely designed to grab attention. Will it be balanced? I doubt it. Have any of the pro AGW programmes been balanced? Both sides portray their opinion, their evidence, their facts. Hands up all those who will be shouting at the telly - from both camps.

[Michael Winston]

Both sides portray their opinion, their evidence, their facts. Hands up all those who will be shouting at the telly - from both camps.

A very good point. As an 'undecided', even I will be shouting at the telly at some stage, I'm sure.

Regards,

Mike.

[jethro]

A very good point. As an 'undecided', even I will be shouting at the telly at some stage, I'm sure.

Regards,

Mike.

Cheers Winston and happy shouting. I expect some quarters of this forum to be rather busy afterwards.

[Mondy]

The Guardian takes a rather dim view of the forthcoming program:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...2026091,00.html

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Blast: which period are you referring to? CO2 hasn't been as high or higher than it is now for 650,000 years (from the 'empirical' evidence).

Cooling happened in the past because of Solar forcings (probably with other factors incorporated). You seem to be imagining that the variability in CO2 is the deciding factor in past climate changes; this isn't quite correct.

The reason why this time we will keep warming is that the amount of CO2 is still increasing, and is still 'forcing' the climate, whilst the negative forcings are not sufficiently powerful to counteract this effect, and the solar forcings/ variables aren't as strong as the CO2 forcing.

:)P

No I am stating that CO2 is NOT the driver scenario that is being rammed down our throats. Cretaceous period for one when CO2 levels were about 18 times higher for example.

This thread could go on and on but in reality we do not have all that long to wait before the answer comes. If the Gleissberg minima approaching is of Maunder scale and CO2 is not the driver then a big cooling is on the cards. If we don't cool then many counter arguments will be buried IMO. And yes we can wait that long because impending collapse of the Antarctic and Greenland Glaciers doesn't look like happening. There was big talk of the speed of Greenland glacier shedding...well they have now slowed to normal pace, the interior ice has been thickening and thickening and overall Greenland has cooled over the last few decades...and Antarctica has been cooling too for 40 years barring the peninsula and its sea ice which accounts for about 10% of the continent at most.

BFTP

[memories of 63]

No I am stating that CO2 is NOT the driver scenario that is being rammed down our throats. Cretaceous period for one when CO2 levels were about 18 times higher for example.

This thread could go on and on but in reality we do not have all that long to wait before the answer comes. If the Gleissberg minima approaching is of Maunder scale and CO2 is not the driver then a big cooling is on the cards. If we don't cool then many counter arguments will be buried IMO. And yes we can wait that long because impending collapse of the Antarctic and Greenland Glaciers doesn't look like happening. There was big talk of the speed of Greenland glacier shedding...well they have now slowed to normal pace, the interior ice has been thickening and thickening and overall Greenland has cooled over the last few decades...and Antarctica has been cooling too for 40 years barring the peninsula and its sea ice which accounts for about 10% of the continent at most.

BFTP

Well said Blast. I've been thinking more and more on this topic and, when I started out, I was convinced as to the veracity of the GW concept, now, however, I'm becoming a little sceptical.

I don't want to dismiss GW as we have seen a slight increase in average temperatures over the last hundred or so years, however we have no idea as to increases/decreases in average temperature on a decade level for the preceding thousands/100 thousands of years. I'm not a Gaeaist (is that a word?) but I do feel there is much more to the homeostatic mechanisms present in this planet than are currently accepted.

To go back to your point, if the CO2 levels were so high in the cretaceous why didn't the Earth burn up like Venus and where and why did the levels go down so much? All interesting questions.

[memories of 63]

Sorry would have edited the above post but my edit button disappeared :blink:

There is one area where I do beleive we may have made a difference and that is with man made (artificial) molecules like CFC's. These do not exist in nature and there is no reliable mechanism for their breakdown. They've been shown to CATALYSE the breakdown of ozone and also to be potent greenhouse gasses.

Don't know if the amount is enough to destabilise the planet however.

[Devonian]

Well said Blast. I've been thinking more and more on this topic and, when I started out, I was convinced as to the veracity of the GW concept, now, however, I'm becoming a little sceptical.

I don't want to dismiss GW as we have seen a slight increase in average temperatures over the last hundred or so years, however we have no idea as to increases/decreases in average temperature on a decade level for the preceding thousands/100 thousands of years. I'm not a Gaeaist (is that a word?) but I do feel there is much more to the homeostatic mechanisms present in this planet than are currently accepted.

To go back to your point, if the CO2 levels were so high in the cretaceous why didn't the Earth burn up like Venus and where and why did the levels go down so much? All interesting questions.

Becuase they were not high enough? 2-4 times the present levels?

People have to be careful about going back too far in time and comparing then with now. In the Cretaceous the configuration of continents and ocean currents was probably very different -so it's apples V oranges to some extent.

This is worth a read.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Devonian

[memories of 63]

Becuase they were not high enough? 2-4 times the present levels?

People have to be careful about going back too far in time and comparing then with now. In the Cretaceous the configuration of continents and ocean currents was probably very different -so it's apples V oranges to some extent.

This is worth a read.

Good link

[parmenides3]

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

Does the climate depend, at least in part, on the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Has either of the two above been 'proven'?

These are the most basic questions of physics relating to the atmosphere. Where is the confusion?

:)P