Runaway Global warming

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe we should be thinking about whether runaway GW is 'possible'. The fact that it has never happened in the past, I feel, is not that valid an argument. The continents were never in this configuration before, the moon wasn't as far away before, the sun wasn't as hot before, the atmospheric mix was not as it is today and, most importantly to me, we weren't monkeying around with the biosphere/atmosphere before!

Edited September 18, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[parmenides3]

Hi jethro:

I don't think the Daly argument makes any such claim, merely suggesting that the levels of accuracy claimed are questionable given the instruments used. I don't know either way personally but having read how the system works, it seems at the very least, plausible. I think an awful lot of claims are made which claim a degree of certainty much greater than there actually is; I'd have more respect for a lot of it, if it honestly stated the degree of margin of error. I didn't search any sites for the info, it was linked from a yahoo group peopled by climate scientists who oppose or question the accepted validity of the theory. They're not all crackpots or pseudoscientists you know, there are questions in the theory.

The article cannot claim that scientist are incompetent/liars; they'd get their asses sued, but it's conclusions can imply that they are, which is what I contend is one of the main purposes of such sites; to make science harder to understand and more in doubt than it really is.

The levels of accuracy and the limitations of the instruments are well understood by the scientists who do this work; they report them in their publications, and refer to them in their conclusions, as well as taking them into account when making their calculations. The level of accuracy is improved by an averaging technique, not reduced, as the article claims; anyone who has done statistics should be able to understand how this works.

I don't disagree that the article looks 'plausible', but this is exactly the reason why it, and similar material, is so deceptive; by presenting material in a certain way, people who want to challenge AGW but don't have actual scientific evidence can present the impression that there is a 'problem' or 'error' in some system or another. This plausibility is enhanced by our understanding that science is imperfect, and that errors can sometimes be made. But time and time again, when material such as this comes out, it is shown that it is effectively a fabrication, based on spurious data, selective use of material, misrepresentation of procedures and methods, and similar.

So, the dismissal of the sites I mention is not based on a simple 'rejection' of what I don't want to hear, but a recognition that their contents consistently operate in this fashion, and their track record for inaccuracy is notorious.

You say you think a lot of claims are made which declare a degree of certainty which is unjustified. Personally, I think this is more a case of how such material is reported, rather than how it is conducted; the problem lies in the reporting, not the science.

I'd be interested to know which Yahoo group is visited by climate scientists; I know of one such Google group, which I visit myself as an amateur contributor, so other groups would be useful to know about. But I will admit to being suspicious, if this is the kind of material which is being peddled; no self-respecting climate scientist would take it seriously.

Still, as ever, respectfully,

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

Maybe we should be thinking about whether runaway GW is 'possible'. The fact that it has never happened in the past, I feel, is not that valid an argument. The continents were never in this configuration before, the moon wasn't as far away before, the sun wasn't as hot before, the atmospheric mix was not as it is today and, most importantly to me, we weren't monkeying around with the biosphere/atmosphere before!

Without wishing to sound confrontational (honest!), I feel that these arguments suggesting "the past isn't a valid basis for comparison" are unscientific. In reality the only thing we have to base our comparisons on is what happened in the past. Dismissing past events effectively gives us a clean slate to draw conclusions on without having to justify them.

Continental drift, lunar distance, solar output and atmospheric composition are all things which can be accounted for. Your list also leaves off such things as higher past levels of vulcanicity and the fact that the interior of the Earth has cooled over the past few billion years.

The fact is that despite our existence here the levels of atmospheric CO2 (and methane and so on) have been far higher in the past and yet not led to a runaway greenhouse effect.

CB

Edited September 18, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

Without wishing to sound confrontational (honest!), I feel that these arguments suggesting "the past isn't a valid basis for comparison" are unscientific. In reality the only thing we have to base our comparisons on is what happened in the past. Dismissing past events effectively gives us a clean slate to draw conclusions on without having to justify them.

Continental drift, lunar distance, solar output and atmospheric composition are all things which can be accounted for. Your list also leaves off such things as higher past levels of vulcanisity and the fact that the interior of the Earth has cooled over the past few billion years.

The fact is that despite our existence here the levels of atmospheric CO2 (and methane and so on) have been far higher in the past and yet not led to a runaway greenhouse effect.

CB

But maybe that has more to do with what was 'on the ground' at that point in the planets evolution? I know you don't scrap without feeling strongly that you must and I have probably been clumbsy in my inference (for what else can we compare with if not our past?) but , what I'm trying to say is, this is a unique set of circumstances....especially our part in it all so we cannot really know what comes next.

[Admiral_Bobski]

But maybe that has more to do with what was 'on the ground' at that point in the planets evolution? I know you don't scrap without feeling strongly that you must and I have probably been clumbsy in my inference (for what else can we compare with if not our past?) but , what I'm trying to say is, this is a unique set of circumstances....especially our part in it all so we cannot really know what comes next.

Hi GW!

Thank you for your acknowledgment there - I hope I don't come across to others as merely arguing for the sake of it!

I've highlighted that last bit because I can accept this statement to some extent. You are absolutely right that there are distinct differences between Now and Then, but that doesn't make the events of the past invalid - we can still use past events to determine factors such as possible "tipping points", and to infer how certain factors affect other certain factors.

My honest interpretation of historic data is that there are certain safeguards to prevent runaway global warming (I don't intend to suggest that there is some overarching Design to the world, or a Higher Being - I simply mean that the very nature of our climate makes it particularly resistant to cataclysmic shifts of this sort).

There have been dramatic climate shifts in the past - maybe not caused by the same things as Now, but dramatic nonetheless - and yet runaway warming has never happened before. In fact, the most comfortable temperature for our planet appears to be somewhere around the 22C mark, as shown in the schematic I posted a while ago on the Sceptic Links thread. It's interesting that the Earth's temperature varies quite impressively, but rarely, if ever, exceeds 22C or drops below 12C (at least, I think it's 12C, if I recall correctly...must check the schematic again...!).

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

I do accept where your coming from C-Bob and I'm a firm believer that our 'little world' does her best to ameliorate or cushion itself from change but we are looking at a type of driver that hasn't (has it?) happened before in our planets history. Event the mass extinction at the KT boundary seems to have been a short lived event with the 'nuclear winter' only lasting a couple of growing seasons before the fern spike signified it's end (though the greenhouse period after lasted a tad longer!). Most volcanic events deposited their gasses over a (relatively ) short period of time and the planet dealt with them , and they slowly dissapated. Here we have a year on year increase in some gasses introduced into the atmosphere and no time for the planet to adjust before the goalposts are altered once again. If we are not mid 'Lovelockian shift' then surely we are due one?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Here we have a year on year increase in some gasses introduced into the atmosphere and no time for the planet to adjust before the goalposts are altered once again.

I appreciate the distinction, GW, between past shifts and what is thought to be causing the present one. However, our planet exists in a permanent state of "Dynamic Equilibrium", which means that the planet finds balance all the time despite[/] constantly shifting goalposts. With something like the KT Extinction Event, it was obviously so huge, so disruptive and so sudden that the Earth was knocked out of kilter for quite some time. The current changes on our world are as nothing compared to the devastation caused by that asteroid. I think we're looking at a change which is well within our planet's ability to compensate for.

That's the way I see it, anyway... :lol:

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi C-Bob! I for one feel that we shall have a near definative answer to this in what is left of our lifetimes (to put us out of our misery....even if it means putting us out of our misery.....).

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi C-Bob! I for one feel that we shall have a near definative answer to this in what is left of our lifetimes (to put us out of our misery....even if it means putting us out of our misery.....).

Quite true - for all our debates and discussions, I guess we'll just have to suck it and see (if you get my meaning...!).

CB

[Guest Viking141]

There is no evidence that a cooldown will follow. :)P

Sorry P3 I have to take issue with that sweeping statement! Does the palaeoclimactic record not show that every warming phase in the past has been followed by a cooling phase and not continued warming?

[parmenides3]

Hi Vikes; had to go back a bit to see what I said, there. Of course there were (and continue to be) cycles of warming and cooling in the past. But these are over substantial timescales, in general, and relate (we are told) to forcings which were in play at the time.

I know of no evidence that similar forcings currently exist or are expected to come into play in the next hundred years or more, such that they will overwhelm the forcing effect of of the carbon cycle. There will still be variations in solar output and volcanicity, and we still map the pathway of the Milankovitch cycles, but on the timescales I was referring to, and on the scale we are discussing, with the exception of a possible volcanic eruption, these have insufficient power to stimulate a global cooling.

I hope this is clearer.

:)P

[jethro]

Perhaps there are safety devices or trip switches in the climate system; this seems to go against what the experts expected:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71102152636.htm

[Stratos Ferric]

Perhaps there are safety devices or trip switches in the climate system; this seems to go against what the experts expected:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71102152636.htm

That's a new one, I have to say. It's fair to say that one of the areas of debate re warming is the feedback mechanism around cloud formation. The simple argument is that a warmer atmosphere will be more humid, and so more cloudy, which would eventually lead to either more heat being trapped, or more inbound radiation being reflected away. And so the climate might oscillate.

I've only scanned the article, but the focus seems to be the tropics.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd gauged it to be around the tropics and it begged the question if mid latitudes bear the brunt of the 'extra humidity' evaporated at the equator yet the equator stays clear surely that lets in 'more' of the most densly packed (vertical) solar output which,once circulating,is then trapped at the mid latitudes (and soaked up by 'warm rain' in the top surfaces of the ocean) where it drifts poleward.

[astonish]

between 1300 & ~1450 AD there were farms on greenland what caused the warming? Robinhoods camp fires? Also I think we aught to kill all the worlds cattle as they produce a lot of methane and its much worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas

I think we will defiantely have runaway warming as a resulkt of this current warming. Alot of things are happenigm sooner than predicted asell, also methane levels have been underestiamted aswell apparently.

Greenland Ice going so fast it's causing earthquakes:

http://environment.independent.co.uk/clima...icle2941866.ece

Methane levels increasing fast which will increase the warming further:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/110266.html

[Devonian]

between 1300 & ~1450 AD there were farms on greenland what caused the warming? Robinhoods camp fires? Also I think we aught to kill all the worlds cattle as they produce a lot of methane and its much worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas

They managed to survive in a few favoured, sheltered fjords. But, as I understand it, it was never an easy existance.

Besides, there are farms in Greenland now.

As to cattle, true to an extent but of course if they eat grass that has grown and taken in CO2 as it does? And if the farming system used uses few/er fossil fuels?

[Gray-Wolf]

There is some talk that the final Viking occupiers had to accept defeat and went 'native' .Some of the Blue eyed Inuits may have the genetic makeup to prove this. The 'settlers' brought with them unsustainable farming practices and paid the price once the land was exhausted, maybe they ended up with their own 'thanksgiving day' as the Inuits saved their skins by sharing more 'sustainable' methods of arctic survival and then again perhaps they just all starved or went home to Iceland.

It's not really the picture that some would paint of a lush Greenland (though some Icelandic propoganda would have us believe this) and more to do with a criminal fraternity saving their own skins by fleeing prosecution (and then sending home for the comforts of women and animals), never a good deal from the get go.

[Devonian]

There is some talk that the final Viking occupiers had to accept defeat and went 'native' .Some of the Blue eyed Inuits may have the genetic makeup to prove this. The 'settlers' brought with them unsustainable farming practices and paid the price once the land was exhausted, maybe they ended up with their own 'thanksgiving day' as the Inuits saved their skins by sharing more 'sustainable' methods of arctic survival and then again perhaps they just all starved or went home to Iceland.

It's not really the picture that some would paint of a lush Greenland (though some Icelandic propoganda would have us believe this) and more to do with a criminal fraternity saving their own skins by fleeing prosecution (and then sending home for the comforts of women and animals), never a good deal from the get go.

Yup, and most of that as well - not sure about the native bit though, says who?

[Gray-Wolf]

Yup, and most of that as well - not sure about the native bit though, says who?

Says the blue eyed Inuits from the NE coastal strip of Greenland! There was some talk of studies and swabs being taken but I don't know what came of it.

Maybe the odd Viking girl took a fancy to the locals or maybe the last remnants of the population were left no choice (after the last ships left and the final crops failed).

[Devonian]

Says the blue eyed Inuits from the NE coastal strip of Greenland! There was some talk of studies and swabs being taken but I don't know what came of it.

But the Viking settlement were in the S and W of Greenland :lol:

I don't see why there might not have been Icelandic Inuit 'encounters' :lol:

[debs]

On Saturday evening we had the remains of hurricane Noel hit us. Winds upto 140 kph. Anyway, the electricity went out and we lit candles. My 10 year old daughter said "this is so boring". I think she mean't that no lights, tv, PC anything that uses electricity did not work.

My point is that although I try to teach green issues, the generations of today are used to "creature comforts". I remember the strikes of the 70's. Power went out quite frequently and we survived. Again my point is, until the whole world can GO BACK IN TIME and start living a life without MOD CONS as an essential tool, then we'll never decrease the amount of poison we are putting into the air.

Now I am being hypocritical because I use a washer, and sometimes the dryer and I am even using my PC now, the heat is cranked up as its cold and although I can picture and idyllic life of basic living, the reality is that we as humans are so much weaker than our counterparts say 200 years ago.

Humans need to change their way of thinking what the WANT as opposed to what the NEED. So we put in energy efficient lightbulbs, big deal. How many people have those in place then leave the TV on standby at night.....what about wind turbines, a useful source of energy, what about solar energy, again another green source of energy, why don't people use this? Because its too expensive to purchase outright. Easy car credit gives more and more people the opportunity to own more than one car. I live in a street where every family member had a car....its was a bit like the programme Butterflies (older generation will remember). These are just a few examples and I am sure there are millions more.

I guess after all my ramblings (sorry)all I am trying to say is WE need to change, GW maybe happening, but we can help. Governments will never stopping thinking of money first, but if the world gets any worse all the money in the world won't matter.

Debs

[laserguy]

debs I couldn't agree more. Somewhat OT but leaving AGW aside a return to simpler,more fulfilling living would be the best thing that could happen instead of the relentless pursuit of faster,better,bigger,easier. It'd silence all those who clamour for action on AGW and bring a return of sanity to this world. A little collective hardship would do us all good and hopefully bring us together instead of making material things our prized goal. Still,we're living in the world we find around us and have to go along with the flow to some extent at least,short of dropping out completely and being 'left behind'. Sad.

[Gray-Wolf]

But the Viking settlement were in the S and W of Greenland

I don't see why there might not have been Icelandic Inuit 'encounters'

There are reports in the 'Saga's' of both encounters with natives in 'Vineland' and in Greenland so the Inuits, on their yearly travels,had encountered their new neighbours. I don't think for a minuet that the Vikings bothered their butts to travel and meet and greet but find it 'in keeping' with the Inuit way of being for them to have encountered folk on their yearly 'travels'.

Like the 16,000yr old European DNA in West Canadian native folk shows, have boat ,will travel! (especially one that survives the conditions and doubles as a house when you pull up onto the ice).

Still,we're living in the world we find around us and have to go along with the flow to some extent at least,short of dropping out completely and being 'left behind'. Sad.

Left behind of what?

Edited November 8, 2007 by Gray-Wolf