Global warming is not caused by CO2

PlasmaSphere

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/g.../10/55974.html



What do you make of that? thats not going to go down very well at the IPCC, thats for sure!

Amazing really that it has taken so long for people to realize that variation in the original source of Earths heat can effect the climate in a big way. Maybe we should be calling it solar warming, rather than global warming. These space websites seem to agree;


Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists; http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng_021009.html

New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change; http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...04_red_jr.html

Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on the Earth's Climate (Danish Meteorological Institute, Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division); http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Global Warming Detected on Triton; http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/199...runc_sys.shtml

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

Study says sun getting hotter; http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm

Solar System Warming?; http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3434

chroot

The IPCC is primarily a political organization, so I believe its views on science should be considered skeptically.

It also wouldn't surprise me at all if CO2 turns out to be mostly irrelevant. Water vapor is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, and the Earth has endured long periods of enormous CO2 concentrations in its geological past without any calamitous increases in temperature. The hydrologic cycle has a much, much larger impact on our climate than our lightbulbs, and it'd be silly to think otherwise.

Right now, all we have to go on are models -- systems of differential equations solved numerically by supercomputers. Obviously, the addition or removal of a term or two can radically affect the predictions of such models, and we all know that these models are still very much in their infancy. We have no evidence that they are capable of predicting anything at all, in fact.

It's actually quite amazing to me that so many people are willing to spend so much money solving a problem (CO2 emission) that exists only as a prediction of some poorly-understood differential equations.

This is not to say I'm not an environmentalist -- I think pollution is terrible, I prefer bikes to cars, and I would love to see governments and corporations held to higher standards with regards to their environmental impact. If anthropogenic global warming is the impetus they need to finally clean things up, great -- I just personally don't believe it for a minute.

I see the entire AGW exercise as nothing more than an illustration of human psychology: people always seek to find patterns in randomness, and people always need something to fear.

- Warren

chroot

On the other hand, this paper presumably does not present any evidence of its hypothesis either (I have not read it yet). Can cosmic rays really influence cloud cover to an extent large enough to change climates? Has the solar wind actually varied enough to make cosmic rays suspect?

- Warren

PlasmaSphere

When people say that CO2 may not have such a drastic effect that is often attributed to it, people usually react as if you have said that you endorse pollution. They are completely separate issues. Pollution from man is obviously bad for the environment in every way, but that does not mean that it is causing global warming. Even if CO2 is not fully to blame for global warming, we still need to cut down on emmissions for other reasons.

I just wish people would focus on real environomental problems instead of coming up with apocoliptic senarios where the whole of the human race is doomed. I for one would much prefer more effeort to be put into saving the rain forests, stopping pollution of the sea, preventing the spread of man made genetically modified organisms and other more imporatant issues.

That is the reason why people have an inherent tendency to beleive global warming is caused exclusively by us, as it gives them a good reason to want to protect the environment. They have good intentions at heart, but i feel we are beggining to loose focus on what is actually going wrong with the planet.

In my opinion there are far worse things than the Earth warming a bit. The IPCC is far to political now, and the whole global warming movement is based on politics and money, it should be about the general condition of the planet, not about something that currently the evidence is so weak for.

Coin

I think that when on the one side we have the consensus of basically the entire climatology community and the last couple decades of research, and on the other side we have a single paper as paraphrased by newsmax (which is NOT an objective or reliable source) then the weight of the benefit of the doubt clearly goes to the former. If this paper does in fact present evidence against the climate change consensus then the climatology community is obligated to address that evidence and provide an explanation as to why the consensus should deserve to stand in face of that evidence. But solar-caused warming hypotheses have been around a long time, and I would have been well-known to the people who comprised the IPCC report. I think it would have to take some pretty dramatic new information to change or even significantly impact the conclusions already drawn about those hypotheses.

In the meantime, I find it very unusual that this paper-- which is presented here as something rather earth-shattering-- is not being reported on absolutely anywhere I can find except newsmax. What do you think this tells us about the paper's actual significance and impact? Does this paper actually say anything new, or provide significant new arguments or data, or simply restate what is already known about a fringe hypothesis about global warming? There are other slightly suspicious things about this paper as presented in the article. One minor point would be the phrasing "Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly."-- "but very costly"? It is probably not reasonable to dismiss a paper based on a single sentence, but does this strike you as scientific analysis or the wording of someone with an axe to grind? Something slightly more worrisome might be the inclusion of Fred Singer as paper coauthor, who according to Wikipedia is "an American electrical engineer and physicist. He is best known as President and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke[1] and is science advisor to the conservative journal NewsMax." Hmm...

Bystander

Three hundredths of a percent in solar output corresponds to a 20 mK change in earth surface temperature. That's over 20 years, and includes no discussion of instrument drift, or measures to correct for instrument drift. Polar "melting" on Mars? Over seven (?) years (I ain't gonna reread that one for this post) isn't a long enough time frame to say anything.

As rebuttals of the IPCC arguments these papers are as strewn with bad science as the IPCC --- concatenations of unstated, implicit "if" statements that go on for a half dozen to dozen logical steps to reach meaningless conclusions.

Science is about unambiguous tests of single "if" statements.

PlasmaSphere

That is a valid point, it has not been published in any mainstream media, but considering they are not likely to agree with what they are saying, that really proves nothing. I dont know if the paper is published yet, or is online to see, i would very much like to read it before jumping to conclusions though.

I would imagine that since the solar wind is technically an electric current (as the flow of charge, by definition, is an electric current) that an increase of the amount of particles in the solar wind would have the capabiltity of heating the upper atmosphere by electric current heating. The word 'wind' in solar wind has always confused me, you do not say that your kettle is powered by 'wind' flowing through your wires, you call it an electric current. Also the amount of particles in the solar wind does not neccisarily correspond to the light output, or heat output, of the sun, as sometimes the solar wind stops completely. It has stopped for two entire days before; (NASA - The day the solar wind stopped) So if their is a relationship between the amount of electric power in the solar wind and the temparature of the Earth, its going to be very complex. But I think that variation in the suns output is a definate conteder for GW, although there are obviously many other factors that influence it aswell.

jim mcnamara

We butted heads earlier on this topic. Do you mean to say
'As rebuttals of the IPCC arguments these papers are as strewn with bad science as is the IPCC <science>'

If so, yes, I agree. IPCC was/is almost as much political as scientific.

CC is real. CO2 is undoubtedly a player. I'm not a climate scientist, just a Population Biology type and I have not read primary materials on the subject.

PS: From what I'm told it is getting to the single "if" that is a colossal problem in climatology - analogous to getting to the level of changing temperature regimes bacterial growth patterns.

Bystander

Wouldn't call it "head-butting" --- "A failure to communicate," perhaps. --- Strother Martin.

Guess maybe I need to check Chicago on preferred styles for use of ellipses --- but, you got what I meant.

"Real?" Certainly. Everything on earth is a "player." Identifications of significant players present the bases for debate.

?

Observations: increased atmospheric CO₂, from the Keeler curve, 1948 to present; rising sea level, from 150 years or so of tide gauging.

IPCC hypothesis: fossil fuel consumption leads to increased atmospheric CO₂ which leads to increased GMT which leads to increased melting of icecaps which leads to increased sea level.

How many untested "ifs" in the IPCC hypothesis? "If₁" biological activity fixing carbon and producing CO₂ is constant, and "if₂" CO₂ exchange between the atmosphere and ocean is constant, additional sources of atmospheric CO₂ lead to increased atmospheric concentration of CO₂. "If₃" Arrhenius' hypothesis that CO₂ is the major "greenhouse" contributor to earth surface temperature is correct, increased CO₂ concentration will result in increased atmospheric temperature. "If_4a higher air temperatures lead to increased surface melting of ice caps, and "if₅ that meltwater can percolate through 1-3km of ice to lubricate glacier movement, or "if_4b there is some mechanism transferring heat from the warmer atmosphere to the icecap-earth interface (Pinatubo, Hekla, and Krakatoa particulate signatures are NOT coincident as would be expected from surface melting), lubricating movements of ice caps, then there will be increased ice "run-off" from Greenland and Antarctica resulting in increased sea level. "If₆" there are no other sources of water inflating ocean volume, the logic train can be followed in the opposite direction to confirm the hypothesis.

"If₁:" has biological production of CO₂ been matched by biological fixation over the past century? What is the fixation rate for fallow (in the sense of dry-land wheat farming in the American mid-west --- crop one year and leave idle the next, not allowing weeds to grow) agricultural land? What is the CO₂ production rate for that same fallow ground? (The soil is well aerated and contains significant organic material.) Given that the earth's human population increased from 1-2 billion to 6 billion during the 20th century, what area has been converted from year round fixation by weeds to every other year crop production?

"If₂:" Same sorts of questions apply to marine biological fixation and production regarding commercial fisheries peaking 10-15 years ago at 100 million tons per year, bycatch decomposition in surface waters, and possible changes in surface to deep water carbon transport.

"If₃:" heat transfer from earth's surface to the 3-4 K CMB? Heat transfer measurements for low density (earth's atmosphere) gases are an absolute b*tch; sorting conduction from radiation is next to impossible. Ditto for measurements of absorbances/emissivities. Effects of 300-400 ppm traces in such systems? Nobody's got a clue.

"Ifs_4a,b:" "a" doesn't fly in the Antarctic, nor for most of Greenland until air temp exceeds m.p. of water, plus, the particulate signatures of volcanic events haven't been merged to the point that the ice core crowd have any trouble finding places to drill and date events. "b" is simply absurd --- but, I have no clue what effects climatologists are apt to appeal to explain behaviors of natural systems --- e.g., Nova's Mystery of the Megaflood and it's appeal to "supercooled" water melting the Missoula glacial dam by friction --- violation of conservation of energy, ignorance of far more heat available from cold bottom water in deep lakes, and complete ignorance of impoundment depth limits for gravity dams.

"If₅:" need I go into detail? You've tried to thaw ice from your driveway or front walk during cold snaps by pouring boiling water on it.

"If₆:" 3000 km³ of groundwater are pumped per year globally. The recharge rate is NOT the 99% asserted by the IPCC in whichever report it was a couple years back with a hand-waving "spit-in-the-ocean" dismissal of groundwater consumption. The ugliest of SWAG numbers for wetland "reclamation" (destruction by drainage, diversion, other methods) during the 20th century is 5x10⁶ km²; what's the depth of the water column in the average wetland? 1 m? 10? 3? I haven't a clue.

These "ifs" are all addressed implicitly (by assertion) rather than explicitly (by analysis) in the IPCC reports. They can be handled one at a time.

Temperature effects on bacterial growth patterns? Single variable. Temperature, nutrient concentration, and oxygen activity, pH, and/or other variables? T effects pH, diffusion of nutrients, oxygen solubility and diffusion in the medium, and you design the experiment to investigate those relationships. You're still working on unambiguous tests of the coupled "ifs." Decoupling the "ifs" can get a little ugly (especially in pop. studies), but you're still sticking to the scientific method and testing them, rather than taking an IPCC approach and asserting results, or ignoring factors completely.

vivesdn

The solar input is obviously a key factor on earth climate. But we can do nothing about it.
Now, for a given input, the greenhouse efect of CO2, water, methane, .. can influence the I/O balance.


And the point still is: can we do something to increase output to restore the I/O balance that allows for glaciers to exist?

PlasmaSphere

Is there anywhere online that you can look at average global temparature data? I would be interested to see if any time after the the solar wind stopped for two days there was a dip in worldwide temp. It was pretty unique occurence, happened Dec. 13, 1999: From May 10-12, 1999.

Contrapositive

Makes me wonder if switching to hydrogen would be worse for the environment, since it produces water vapor instead of CO2.

vivesdn

Water vapour is a greenhouse agent. But water vapour creates also clouds which reduce solar input (higher night temperature -GH effect- but much lower daylight temperature -an effect that we could call umbrella effect).
But water vapour is important to have sufficient water and snowfall. Snow cover has a high albedo (increase of solar output) and is a coldness reservoir (snow needs to be melted before surface temperature can rise above 0ºC).

If you know the exact weight of each factor, you could know if switching to hidrogen is good or not.

By the way, hidrocarbons already produce roughly one molecule of water for each molecule of CO2.

Coin

This is an interesting question. However shouldn't we ultimately be making the hydrogen by cracking water in the first place? So there would be a closed loop.

chroot

Yes, Coin, hydrogen would ideally be produced (using any energy source available) by splitting water.

- Warren

Contrapositive

Yes but we would be splitting liquid water and not vapor that is in the air.

Bystander

Hydrogen is a high specific impulse fuel for "cost is no object" projects like the space program. The residence time for water vapor in the atmosphere is 1-2 weeks. The forum guidelines include a request that users remain "on-topic" in replies to threads. "Other Sciences" forums are effectively unmoderated, meaning users have to keep themselves on topic. These posts belong in http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...drogen+economy , or your choice of a couple dozen "alternative energy" threads, rather than in a discussion of the quality of the science behind the GW adherents' arguments and of the GW skeptics' objections.