The science against climate change

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Saigon, Sep 15, 2012.

  1. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    11,434
    Thanks Received:
    870
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +1,240
    I thought it might be good to have a thread where those who do not believe humans play a role in climate change could present their science.

    Much of the debate here seems political to me, which at the end of the day does not prove anything. We know polar ice is melting, we know glacier are retreating - what I want to know is why, and what will happen next.

    Please leave the politics to one side here, and stick to strong scientific reasoning.
     
  2. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,192
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    skeptics dont believe that humans have a dominant role in climate change. presumably everything in the environment has an effect on the climate system.

    artctic sea ice is shrinking, antarctic sea ice is growing, glaciers and ice caps grow or retreat due to temperature and local conditions. blaming CO2 for such things is a non sequitur. the majority of glacial retreat happened before we started pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the air. why are you so sure that the natural cause for melting stopped and the unnatural CO2 seemlessly took its place?

    if we put politics to the side and stuck to strong scientific reasoning there would be no claims of CAGW in the first place.
     
  3. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    11,434
    Thanks Received:
    870
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +1,240
    Thanks, Ian, those are interesting points.

    The case might be stronger in Antarctic ice were growing, whereas unfortunately it is only growing and cooling in Eastern Antarctica. The Western Antarctic is experiencing unprecedented calving and warming, meaning the net effect is negative.

    You mention temperature and local condititions, but when was the last time we saw glacial retreat and polar melting on a global level, and with apparently increasing speed?

    Some 97% of the world's glaciers are in retreat, in Alaska, South America, Europe and Asia. The Arctic ice hit new lows this year. Temperatures are becoming more extreme.

    These are global trends, with local weather patterns acting on top of those wider trends.

    As for CO2, the science is not now terribly new. I believe it was first suggested in the 1860s, and we have a fairly clear picture of CO2 levels in the atmopshere going back several thousand years.

    We certainly know that the CO2 level is increasing dramatically, of course.

    When I look at these charts:

    Trends in Carbon Dioxide

    it seems clear that there is a link between CO2 and temperature.

    Yes, temperatures have risen before, but not at this rate, and not with this apparent acceleration.

    Of course there have always been natural cycles and high and lows - but they alone do not describe the trend we see in the chart linked above.

    If the current trends are not unprecedented, they are certainly unprecedented in recorded history as we know it, anyway.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,192
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    saigon- surely you are not saying the rate of retreat of glaciers is faster now than it was 150-100 years ago? it was obviously much more massive in nature back then.

    I spoke of sea ice. apples to apples. planes and satellites can accurately measure sea ice. the two poles seem to balance each other out.

    WAIS is warming, the rest of the continent is cooling. that much is agreed upon. whether the effect is net negative is not. GRACE is a wonderful tool but it hasnt been around long enough to work out the bugs in the calculations, corrections and conclusions.

    you seem to think glacial retreat and sea ice shrinking has never happened before. what about the MWP or the RWP, etc? weather extremes? why dont you guys read some history. the last 50 years has been some of the most benign weather in written records.

    the real point is how much do you think CO2 has changed the equilibrium temperature of the earth's surface, at which latitudes, and to what extent that affects local conditions. equatorial regions receive the bulk of the sun's energy, have the smallest temperature increases, and the most efficient ways of shedding energy(ie. radiation is not that important, many other pathways are available, some of which are triggered by *increased temperatures*). the cell systems which carry energy from the equator to the poles are driven by temperature differentials. if the poles warm and the equator stays the same there is less energy to power weather patterns.
     
  5. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    11,434
    Thanks Received:
    870
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +1,240
    I agree that the real issue is with CO2, but just to look at a few of the other points you touch on here:

    I am. I believe that this trend is unprecedented in both scale and for how global it is.

    [​IMG]

    The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened.

    Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Thi graphic shows the historical curve going back to 1500. The falls in the 1850s were severe, but also relatively brief, although many glaciers never entirely recovered. You might also ask yourself if the industrial revolution played any part in that.

    IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2012
  6. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    11,434
    Thanks Received:
    870
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +1,240
    I agree, and of course this is not an easy thing to measure accurately. There is a subjective element to this at the moment, although hopefully we will see clearer patterns emerging as time passes.

    But I call this pattern alarming:

    [​IMG]

    If it is not caused by CO2 - what is it?

    Is this really part of a normal cycle that happens to coincide with a rise in the concentration of atmospheric CO2?
     
  7. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,192
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    [​IMG]

    I think if you compare the amount of retreat up to 1950 compared to the supposedly CO2-induced recent retreat, you will find the overwhelming majority of the loss was in the earlier era.
     
  8. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    11,434
    Thanks Received:
    870
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +1,240
    Ian C -

    In Alaska that may well be.

    But the IPCC link above alo includes glaciers from Europe, NZ, South America and Asia.
     
  9. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,192
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    there have been dozens of threads about the actual measuring of global temperatures. much of the increase is simply 'adjustments' to the raw data, and changes to the weightings of individual areas. I really dont want to rehash the same points over and over again. global temperature is almost a useless concept except to create fear by massively overstating the precision and accuracy of the readings , and hiding the methodologies of the adjustments.
     
  10. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,192
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441

    great- hook me up with a handful of maps showing the actual measured retreat of those glaciers over the last 150 years. thanks in advance.


    on a slightly different tack, why do you think glacier melt is intimately conected with CO2? is it just the temperature component over and above whatever the temp would have been without CO2. or do you think CO2 actually affects the local conditions as well?

    are you worried about land use change and particulate effects as well? where does human population fall in your worldview?
     

Share This Page