Global Cooling

[0000]

Exactly, if 20 million tons of SO2 released by a volcano (e.g. Mt. Pinatubo) can cool the planet by then how can releasing 27 billion tons of CO2 every year not have any effect?

*sigh* I'm not saying we don't affect it,my question is to what extent.....minimal in my opinion is all

[laserguy]

Yes you can Or, at least, we can have falling temperatures and still have AGW.

What,you mean we can go faster but it means slower? Or get richer but actually poorer? Or we can lose weight but weigh more? The above may or may not be blips in a bigger trend,as may the current and ongoing cooling. That's the state of play right now,despite those zintillion tonnes of CO2 we've added and continue to do so at ever increasing rates. Ah well,off to work now,hopefully the credit crunch hasn't finished it off. Still,it'll bring those CO2 emissions down so there's some good news.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Yes you can Or, at least, we can have falling temperatures and still have AGW.

So Essan, is that Global temps can fall with AGW? So more CO2 can lead to cooling?

BFTP

[Roo]

If the ants make the elephant itch and it decides to take a bath then everything is still fine from the point of view of the elephant. The ants might have a different view.

Now that is the best analogy I have seen in a long time!

[osmposm]

If the ants make the elephant itch and it decides to take a bath then everything is still fine from the point of view of the elephant. The ants might have a different view.

Now that is the best analogy I have seen in a long time!

I quite agree, Roo.

Eddie, absolutely brilliant. I've been trying to write a long & detailed temp analysis, full of charts and links, for here for the last hour, and inadvertently wiped it just before completion. But I suspect your metaphor says more and quicker and clearer than any of my post would have done.

[0000]

If the ants make the elephant itch and it decides to take a bath then everything is still fine from the point of view of the elephant. The ants might have a different view.

Does the elephant even care that the ants are there though,let alone cause it an itch?There have been umpteen dramatic climate changes in Earths history as well as mass extinctions,the last great one being the reason we are all here.............or were humans responsible for all of that?Nope,so why do people believe that we are now?

Humans are part of nature,as such might it not be argued that we are doing what comes naturaly and it's all just part of the grand scheme of things...........cattle produce methane as part of their natural process and yet they carry no guilt,humans produce carbon emissions as part of daily existance and to maintain a standard of life.

In theory if enough CO2 gets into the atmosphere then yes warming will occur but in practice the Earth's own checks and balances counter act our tiny contribution surely?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Humans are part of nature,as such might it not be argued that we are doing what comes naturaly and it's all just part of the grand scheme of things...........cattle produce methane as part of their natural process and yet they carry no guilt,humans produce carbon emissions as part of daily existance and to maintain a standard of life.

This isn't an illogical argument, but the problem is the issue that as humans, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot if we keep up the current rate of emissions. The world will almost certainly cope with a sudden change caused by anthropogenic forcing- but can we? Also, we are burning up a finite resource (fossil fuels) very quickly, and not doing enough to reduce dependency on it. In addition, even if CO2 isn't as big a factor as it's made out to be, there are all kinds of anthropogenic aerosols and methane being pumped out regularly, plus mass deforestation taking place.

It is unavoidable that for as long as humans exist there will be CO2 emissions, and indeed emissions of other gases. What isn't unavoidable is the current extent of these emissions.

The argument about the Earth's natural cycles countering our "tiny" contribution- well, as Eddie mentions above, one huge volcanic eruption can initiate significant climate change, yet is a smaller input than the total anthropogenic contribution from CO2 alone.

Yes, we can have falling temperatures and have AGW. If we have an anthropogenic contribution to temperature of 0.2C/decade, but in a given decade, we get natural forcing (e.g. volcanic, solar cycles) that contributes 0.3C of cooling, the decade will show a 0.1C cooling trend. This is why it's important to understand the effects of both anthropogenic and natural forcing, to get some idea of how important the two are when it comes to climate forcing.

[eddie]

Does the elephant even care that the ants are there though,let alone cause it an itch?There have been umpteen dramatic climate changes in Earths history as well as mass extinctions,the last great one being the reason we are all here.............or were humans responsible for all of that?Nope,so why do people believe that we are now?

Just because all past climate variation had a natural cause does not mean all climate variation has to have a natural cause. This is a logical fallacy.

I believe that humans are changing the climate now because many scientists from many disciplines have looked at all the things we know can naturally change the climate and none of them can satisfactorily explain the size and speed of the warming we are presently experiencing. As the science stands now, increasing CO2 emissions are the only thing that can explain the warming.

Humans are part of nature,as such might it not be argued that we are doing what comes naturaly and it's all just part of the grand scheme of things...........cattle produce methane as part of their natural process and yet they carry no guilt,humans produce carbon emissions as part of daily existance and to maintain a standard of life.

Humans are part of nature and we are doing what comes naturally. However, we are in the unique and privileged position that we can see and predict the consequences of our own actions. I think it's crazy to carry on doing something that we believe could wipe out large chunks of our population.

I also agree that burning fossil fuels maintains our current standard of life. Unfortunately they are causing the planet to warm and they are also running out. Given those two facts it seems daft not to start the difficult move to renewables (or whatever) and a more sustainable lifestyle as soon as we can.

In theory if enough CO2 gets into the atmosphere then yes warming will occur but in practice the Earth's own checks and balances counter act our tiny contribution surely?

What would those checks and balances be? What time scales would they operate over? Would those checks and balances stop catastrophic sea level rise? At what temperature will they kick in? Do I sound like Devonian?

[Mondy]

Remind me again just how much CO2 is attributed to GW? I forget because it's that tiny..

[Thundery wintry showers]

CO2 has increased about 30%. Much of this is highly likely to be due to anthropogenic combustion and deforestation, although temperature-feedback mechanisms may have added to this contribution (increased CO2 can also follow temperature rises as well as the other way around).

[Mondy]

Thanks TWS. CO2 ppm I should've said.

Just found this graph:

I particularly like this graph as shows the Earth has been more warm than cool before. What is it they say about cycles? Natural, I believe. Would loved to have seen the alarmists get their knickers in a twist half way through both the Cretaceous to Tertiary years, as opposed to todays little melodrama

[Anti-Mild]

"I'm right", "No, I'm right", "AGW this, global cooling that", "<insert sarcastic putdown here>", "<insert sarcastic retort here>", "well, here's an article supporting my viewpoint", "pfft, that author's a discredited muppet, here's a definitive article showing I am right",.....

I know that the climate change forum is all about discussing the subject, but does anyone else feel like we go round in circles ad nauseum!!

Edited September 15, 2008 by Anti-Mild

[Iceberg]

Thanks TWS, worth saying that 80% of the increase in Co2 has the isoptopic signature associated with the burning of fossil fuels.

It also seems that some people don't understand how dependent the human population of earth is on a stable climate.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I also don't think the attitude of "I have my opinion and I'm sticking with it until irrefutable proof suggests otherwise" helps these discussions (and in my view members of both camps are guilty of this). Particularly as, in the realm of climate science, there is rarely such a thing as "irrefutable proof", the best you can generally get is very high likelihoods.

One major point of discussions is to express one's views and have them scrutinised by others, so that as a community having a discussion we can listen to and take on board other people's points, so as to help develop a well-rounded understanding of the subject and, based on this understanding, form well-rounded views. It doesn't work if people present a view, others make critical points in response, and the return is "I know I'm right, because I know I'm right".

In addition, policies have to be implemented reflecting current understanding of the whole system. In my view, one of the biggest failings of policymakers worldwide is the refusal to consider more than the one side of a debate, and the related problem of "X is more important than Y, so Y shouldn't come into it". Often the optimal decision is something that reflects the positive points on both sides of the debate.

[Mondy]

Thanks TWS, worth saying that 80% of the increase in Co2 has the isoptopic signature associated with the burning of fossil fuels.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/...iew_OISM150.pdf

Edited September 15, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[0000]

Thanks TWS, worth saying that 80% of the increase in Co2 has the isoptopic signature associated with the burning of fossil fuels.

It also seems that some people don't understand how dependent the human population of earth is on a stable climate.

I think most people appreciate that a stable climate was the kick start to human civilisation.So when the fossil resources are exhausted will everything be 'hunky dory'? I'm not saying we're heating /cooling but merely putting forward the idea that if you go looking for something you'll find what you want to find......so you feel we're warming? I believe it's Earths natural cycle,great! time will tell.

[Thundery wintry showers]

"The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

Actually, I sympathise with the view to an extent, in the sense that if we have too much emphasis on the "stick" and too little "carrot", we may force cuts in emissions without enough emphasis on developing viable alternatives, forcing cuts to advances in science/technology and damage to health and welfare of humans. I can't see how it would harm the environment though.

What they're forgetting is that we're going to have to cut emissions of greenhouse gases at some point whether we like it or not, simply because the means for releasing them is a finite resource. Thus it makes sense to work towards sustainable living as soon as we can and manage the cutdown through slowly reducing the extent to which we are dependent on fossil fuels, rather than waiting until economics dictates that we have to cut down.

[noggin]

If, as seems to be the case, there has been no increase in global temperature over the past few years (being very general here!) and even a possible cooling, I have to ask whether the IPCC and their associates predicted it? Dr Pachauri has acknowledged it and said it needs investigating. How is it that they did not forsee this and also, how are they now able to imply that the warming will start again after the cooling has finished? The only answer I can think of is that they are acknowledging natural "cycles". Either that or they have a better crystal ball/ set of runes now.

[Iceberg]

Don't understand that Noggin, I have never known a climate scientist who does not acknowledge natural cycles( how ever much the Anti movement would like to believe it).

Quite simply a leveling off of the increase was forecast, but It is largely impossble to predict ENSO more than 1 year in advance.

0.069 0.196 0.442 0.272 0.280 0.314 0.389

The above are the Hadley global temperature anomalies(all positive) as you can see with the except of March there is a clear monthly trend for the anomaly to increase as we move out of the La Nina phase. Indeed the Global figure for July was higher than any July before 2000 except the EL NINO driven 1998.

If we want to talk about short term trends the trend this year has clearly been warming.

[0000]

If, as seems to be the case, there has been no increase in global temperature over the past few years (being very general here!) and even a possible cooling, I have to ask whether the IPCC and their associates predicted it? Dr Pachauri has acknowledged it and said it needs investigating. How is it that they did not forsee this and also, how are they now able to imply that the warming will start again after the cooling has finished? The only answer I can think of is that they are acknowledging natural "cycles". Either that or they have a better crystal ball/ set of runes now.

Well I must say that's well said Noggin.............all you can do is look at the facts,if the Earth is cooling then it's obviously not warming....simple as,I fail to see the debate in that.If it were warming I'd agree with the facts there.

[Thundery wintry showers]

As far as I'm aware, the IPCC has always acknowledged that natural cycles exist, and indeed, acknowledged that it would be stupid to ignore their importance, as they have caused changes in climate many times throughout the history of the planet.

The projected warming trend graphs are indeed somewhat simplified, but the IPCC are trying to point at what they feel, on the basis of current scientific evidence, will be the general trends over the next 100 years- subject to short-term variation as a result of natural cycles. Of course, as scientific understanding still has a lot of room for further improvement, it doesn't mean that they will be right. But nor does a short term stalling of the warming trend prove that they are wrong.

[SP1986]

A philosophical question....

If global warming is a load of rubbish as some think or hint (which is fair enough), with the current situation perhaps people could question that the global cooling theory is just as 'a load of rubbish' as the global warming one?

Both ends of the extreme spectrum when we think about it?. This is not an opinion of mine it's just a philosophical quesitioning because maybe we need a balance?

[trevw]

Yes you can Or, at least, we can have falling temperatures and still have AGW.

So Essan, is that Global temps can fall with AGW? So more CO2 can lead to cooling?

BFTP

isn't the point just that if you have a temperature graph zigzagging and wavering up and down all over the place then adding a steady warming will not stop it doing this.. Your zigs will just get slowly higher over time while on average your zags no longer go as low - So as we enter a period when the natural forcings combine in such a way as to cool the climate (such as now) you would expect to see the temp dropping, just not as much as it would have without the slow but steady background warming..?

I can imagine that this is a frustratingly hard hypothesis to disprove if you believe the proportion of warming caused by us is low but resorting to the suggestion that a few years of platea/slight cooling trend does the job is scraping the barrel a bit if you ask me. Also the absolute certainty that is used when making the statements reminds me somewhat of pressure sales techniques I've been at the wrong end of (this is a comment on the tone of various blogs I've read rather than anyone on here particularly)

On a related note I'd not thought about this before but I read something recently about the fact that while El Ninos increase the recorded temps they actually cause significant reduction in the overall 'heat content' of the 'biosphere' (not sure if that's the right word for atmosphere including seas but can't think of anything else). This is because the warm patch of ocean emits much more heat into space. La Nina would obviously have the opposite effect, depressing measured temps while causing less emission into space and effectively storing up heat.

Given this I would imagine a strong El Nino (losing heat) followed by a weak La Nina (depressing temps but not gaining as much heat as lost) then neutral conditions would result in a period of reduced temps as well. I've not heard anyone else saying this it just seemed to follow logically..?

Trev

[osmposm]

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

EDIT: Sorry, dismissive post by me about wording on petition card withdrawn after finding further details of credential-checking at project website.

It might have saved time and trouble, DXR, if you'd given a bit more detail in your post....but then that's not your style.

Edited September 15, 2008 by osmposm

[Mondy]

...and is the above pdf file equally laughable?