Edit by Evo:Due to claims of plagiarism, certain posts have been deleted from this thread.
There has been no direct evidence provided that proves the industrial revolution caused the current changes in the earth's climate. One could just as easily declare that climate change caused the Industrial Revolution.
As a warming trend continued through the 1600s and 1700s there was less emphasis on the populus surviving through heavy winters and more emphasis toward industrial inventions such as, lighter clothing (cotton weaves and production of looms) as well as abundant crops from a longer warm period (in the UK). The conditions were such that efforts were put toward satisfying (and profiting from) a more leasurely lifestyle amongst the former peasants and fiefdoms.
Its actually a matter of proving what came first:
a warming climate or the industrial revolution?
Standby to be surprised:
The first known accurate measurement of CO2 is:
Thenard, 1812 Traité élém. de chimie, 5 edit., vol1, p.303.
Value: 385,0 ppm
We also have:
W. Kreutz 1941, Kohlensäure Gehalt der unteren Luft schichten in Abhangigkeit von Witterungsfaktoren,” Angewandte Botanik, vol. 2, 1941, pp. 89-117
Average 1939-41: 438ppm.
(Current value ~381ppm)
The pile of ignored papers about measurements, before CO2 was structurally measured at Mauna loa, is about just under two feet high. Many are consistent with each other, showing two very weird short living decadal size spikes.
I wonder how it is possible that people still believe in mans significant role in global warming.
The narration on CO2 levels is based on the ice cores in Antarctica. Due to the very slow accumulation of snow (it is desert climate), the snow stays open for a very long time, a few thousand years. As long as the snow is open, air passes freely and variation in mixing ratios gets smooted. Shorter spikes are no longer visible.
Another technique for measuring paleo CO2 levels is by some (not all) plant leaf reactions on the CO2 concentration in the stomata count. The more CO2 the less stomata. So if fossil leafs in peat bogs can be counted an assessment can be made of the CO2 level.
http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/8100BPevent.gif [Broken] is such as assesment during the "cold event" of 8200 years ago. We compare the spikes of two different fossil leaf stomata counts (red and blue) with two level CO2 lines in ice core proxies (orange and black). The plusses indicate the temperature reconstruction in the Greenland ice cores, showing that the cold dip preceeded the reaction of the CO2 and also that there is no feedback whatsoever of the CO2 to the temperature.
As I've stated before, I'm neutral on the subject. I have actually talked to climatologists here at "http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/" [Broken] who say that while there is no doubt that our role in global warming is overplayed by alarmists, it is underplayed by the skeptics. While they spend most of their papers showing how the alarmists are overplaying the idea, they almost always put a disclaimer in the beginning stating that we should all try to reduce CO_2 levels, regardless. (I understand this is nearly impossible from an economists point of view).
Also, my biggest issue is that I don't trust the measurements being made, simply because we can't measure everywhere at once, and also (I don't know how carbon cycles work) it seems impossible to ever actually measure something that could somehow 'hide' from our observation window given certain weather patterns. Not just wind blowing it to where our sensors aren't, but what if CO_2 saturates liquids or solids (or chemically reacts) and we aren't able to detect it?
I seek understanding here, not argument. I'd actually prefer a simplified response and not a list of complex journal citings that I don't understand. THAT technique for argument is silly, as it seems to take the stance "here, I understand this and it backs up my statement, you're not understanding it is further proof that you're wrong."
I think we'll always see a spike of CO2 around a glacial maximum period since isostatic rebound causes increased volcanic activity.
How would one go about convincingly explaining things if they didn't have scientific data to back up what they said? Not to mention that we require people here to back up what they say with the scientific data unless they are just voicing a personal opinion, which is just that, a personal opinion. I guess a summary in layman's terms is what you are asking for but isn't it fairly clear already what the gist of the opposing posters is?
Because I've already seen them do the citing, over and over. I don't understand the statistics. I've pulled the journals from the shelves with the same problem.
At this point, I'd accept an uncited, laymen explaination from Andre, having seen him carefully document and cite everything already.
The gist of the opposing poster is that it's not antrhopogenic; that I can deduce. Most of the arguments, however, are how the alarmists are wrong (which I already partly accept). I'm just curious if there's a way to explain or analogize the details behind the stance.
I'm not, by any means, requiring it.
edit: actually, Andre's last post is exactly what I'm talking about.
Carbon cycle (singular)? Of course, there are a lot of them --- probably as many as there are people studying the carbon cycle:
1) break the earth into reservoirs (atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, carbonate rocks, fossil fuel deposits, marine sediments --- as much detail as you want);
2) for each of "n" reservoirs, there are n-1 fluxes between the selected reservoir and the other reservoirs, combinatorially, (n2 - 2n + 1) total fluxes to measure;
3) measure those fluxes, and the chemistries (organic, inorganic, solid, liquid, gas, plus other details);
4) calculate residence times for carbon in each reservoir, residence time being defined as total C content of reservoir (assumed to be constant at some steady state) divided by the sum of rates at which C is added, or the sum of rates at which C is subtracted, to or from other reservoirs;
5) be consistent in the use of the reservoirs you define (Trenberth at NCAR is a good example of how not to do this --- atmospheric reservoir suddenly turns into all "mobile" C on the planet when calculating residence time of fossil fuel derived CO2 in the atmosphere);
6) take up residence in the nearest padded cell when you find out that most reservoir and flux data are order of magnitude estimates.
The C-cycle is a transport and mass balance game --- old-fashioned, smash-mouth physics, not the carny shell-game you see in the popular press. Tricky chemistry? No. Run away from sensors? Atmospheric mixing and general flow patterns are well enough known that those measurements are fairly reliable --- downwind from power plants, and surface measurements in California's Mammoth Basin are obvious outliers. Hidden reservoirs? Probably not significant --- "hidden" means low flux and little interaction --- might be a fair-sized hydrate reservoir to be considered for deep ocean studies, plus frozen tundra and peat bogs.
thanks! I'm going to have to look over the math later. I can see how to do it, but I don't understand how it works conceptually. I'll re-think it later; I'm anxious to leave my particular setting at the moment.
About the skeptics role in climate change, it may be interesting to take note of Richard Courtney's analysis of the structural social powers in the global warming industry here.
I toyed a little with the psychologic elements of global warming here.
Actually, we have a very intense discussion about atmospheric CO2 about the same elements http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4567&start=1 [Broken]. (six pages and counting)
But if you want to compare laymen and specialists, check where the knowledge comes from.
I do not believe any of us here at this small Earth forum on PF are funded by oil or coal companies. I sure as hell am not. :rofl:
Ah, the great phrase uttered all throughout history.
I feel mild today. One should wonder what this would add to the substantiation of catastrophic global warming. It suggests that the skeptics use all kind of devious tricks to convinces others that it is not true. Consequently they are crooks so they are wrong. This red herring or fallacy is known as Argumentum ad hominem
Now study the arguments of the sceptics and jot down how many times they contend that alarmists climatologists are either funded by global warming promoting goverments in the Kyoto threaty and hence that they are obliged to produce global warming or climatologists have noted that alarming about global warming places them in the limelight which is good for social status, building up autority and hence collecting the required funding.
Happen to see that reasoning lately? No? That's because the sceptics don't need red herrings, since they can simply point to the evidence that there is no such things as catastrophic antropogenic global warming.
Of course the basic physics of greenhouse effect are well understood and I spend some threads about that here last year, the complex chaotic interaction of all the players in the climatology is definetely not. Both sides agree on a rather weak basic greenhouse effect of CO2. But allegdly it is positive feedback that amplifies the greenhouse forcing of CO2. This is highly disputed. Olavi Karner has some very interesting publications about that.
So the best thing to do is consulting the empiric evidence of the paleo climate in the last era's, like the Quartenary and of course that has happened, but that should include all geologic evidence. Unfortunately in reports of IPCC it's all about modelling, ice cores and hockeysticks and very little about Mammoths and Horses being able to live in high arctic Siberia during the "coldest" part of the Last Glacial Maximum. If you ignore enigma's like that you're bound to go wrong and modelling with wrong data leads to nothing, garbage in garbage out.
Let's go on with one of the elements, the stable water isotopes (dD and d18O in the ice cores are supposed to represent temperatures, as fractination processes with isotopes are temperature sensitive, nothing wrong with the physics here. But the problems start when we think seasonality.
The annual overal average of the isotope value is the weighted overage of the indivual snow shower values times the volume of snow that they bring. In other words if you have a wet summer and a dry winter, the isotope record will registrate a lot of "warm" summer isotopes and a few "cold" winter isotopes, as the winters in the Arctic are usually dry, it's too cold to snow. Now when we happen to have a dry summer (which may be warmer due to the abundance of sun) there are much less "warm" isotopes accumulated and the average annual value will appear to be much lower, which spuriously suggests a colder period.
Now is this important? and can we see that happening?
Here is a clue, compare the "temperature" spikes (actually mainly processed isotope ratio values) of Greenland of Alley 2000, the same as my previous graph) with the snow accumulation:
How can Alley know if those precipitation changes is summer or winter heavy and thus whether or not those isotopes are affected by changing seasonal precipitation spikes? Is there any reference to that from other geologic proxies?
It may be clear that whether this wild rollercoaster "temperature" graph is true or not is one of the most essential elements of the global warming idea.
The next post the fun will start.
Continuing the narration.
See the "Younger Dryas" on the last link in the graph? It's utterly frustrating that the img feature is not working here and not being able to illustrate the narrative.
Anyway, lesson one, paragraph one, sub A of Paleo climatology is about the Younger Dryas, the most intense studied period, as being a sudden but brief return to ice age conditions. If the isotopes were temperatures then Alleys graph of the ice cores clearly shows how cold it suddenly got.
However less than 1000 miles south of those ice cores, this happened:
Younger dryas arid with mild summers? Wouldn't that be quite consistent with the isotopes in the ice cores? No summer precipitation so no warm summer isotopes and hence a spurious cold signal while the preceding (and successing) humid period with cooler summers brought lots of warm summer precipitations and warm isotopes to produce a spurious warm signal.
Nevertheless the discoverers don't want to rock boats and don't want to challenge textbooks, so they invent an "ad hoc" hypothesis to force the square reality down into the round cannister of paradigms:
Always those models, nicely predictable without the erratic chaotic behavior of reality. But how many more ad hoc hypotheses do we accept (got a bunch to follow) before we realize that three strikes is out. This study is simply very consistent with the isotopes reflecting seasonal precipitation changes as the ice cores are indicating in reality.
That's the problem, the believing part. That's what made global warming big, believing because somehow it's appealing to believe it.
Furthermore, every measurement is a local event, then and there. Also the Manau loa CO2 measurements, so why should I believe that this would be representing the global CO2 signal? But be patient, we're editing presently a paper with 320 peer reviewed scientific references with about 70,000 measurements of CO2 from three continents from 1812 to 1961, before the Mauno Loa CO2 records. None of those are the IPCC reports. Why? I wonder. I's hard work though and it may take another year but we need to make it completely fail safe. That is, avoiding the data mining and other statistical tricks as had happened with the hockey stick.
Solin4, Do you realize that your post still contains a few fallacies. Like the truth holding the opinion of complete mankind in contempt. The bandwagon fallacy.
Let me give an example of interpretation of nature that has accumulated more and more adherents, reaching a larger and larger majority, over decade after decade, and in the light of more and more data, that has turned out to be radically incorrect.
Stomach / peptic ulcers!
last year the Nobel price for medicine went to the discovers of Helicobacter, the bacteria that causes stomach ulcers. Before 1981 99,99% of mankind knew that peptic ulcers were caused by a wrong life style and stress. NOT! And it took 20 years or so and a lot of scolding before it became accepted. While the first demonstration in 1982 on the top of my head, convincingly showed that they were right. But nobody wanted to believe it, it was just too outrageous. i'm happy that it's accepted and I was easily cured. But how many people died needlessly from peptic ulcer just because mankind happens to be the most stubborn species of the world.
There is a reason why it is formulated this way.
Advise, listen to anybody who has a verifiable story and don't judge on fallacies.
The "incontrovertible fact" has been discussed in detail in P&WA, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=123372 . Go through it if you wish, don't if you don't --- I ain't gonna go through another tutorial on temperature measurement --- none of the "greenhousers" have ever bothered to review the quality, uncertainty, and systematic errors in meteorological temperature measurements. No one but a complete idiot uses other peoples' data without such a review. It is inconclusive. It cannot be used to demonstrate an increase in temperature, nor a decrease in temperature, nor a constant temperature over the past century.
There we go, politeness gone. Nobody has managed to comunicate anything. No convincing power at all in some plain objective factual observation. Only fallacies. the aggravating spiral up until Godwins law is reached.
For climate it is irrelevan that CO2 goes up, the effects are minor and I can proof that beyound doubt, that is, I can show where the proof is and I was only at some 2-3% with the Greenland ice core misinterpretation.
but I will never be able to penetrate the pachyderm fallacies of the positive feedback loop of the urge to scaremonger and the urge to be scared. That's why there will always be tales of devils and dragons. Global warming is just a pseudo rationalized version of that, replacing the Y2K millenium bug, which replaced the nuclear winter threath and the mutual assured destruction. Before that we had the eugenics treath which was casus belli for World War II. There must alway be a treath regardless if it's true or not. We're still a long way away from fallacy free science.
Separate names with a comma.