Earth is Billions of Years Old, and Yet We Take Credit for the Climate!!!

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

LOL

1. "You can't prove every detail, therefore you must be completely wrong."

Also an argument used by those moonbats who have 09/11 conspiracy theories.

2. "Something is wrong, therefore fixing it must be our highest priority, regardless of whether that is even possible."

I love that one. They are both quotable

I find both positions a bit...childish.

At best.

[Cecil Arnold]

This is almost an amusing thread. The question, "earth is a billion years. . ." is typically "hide the ball" since it ignores the reality (ego aside) that there has never, in the history of the earth, been so many of us using so much heat producing fuels. So far as scientist, no one seems to remember the time when you could turn on the TV and see a scientist or medical doctor telling you the benefits of cigarettes or other tobacco products. Once tobacco regulation started to be introduced the tobacco companies hired even more "scientist" to assure us that there product was neither harmful or addictive. Isn't it funny how self interest can sway science?

[John Schreiber]

I'm with Ed, I enjoy reading and posting things which are controversial. It stretches my brain and improves my knowledge. I learn from what others say, and I hope others will learn from what I say.

I'll dive in and try to respond to Ed's post.

When you say "it would be entertaining to try to insert a little science into the debate." I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that you think you and others on this board can meaningfully debate the validity of a complex scientific theory in the area of climatology? Or are you saying that any intelligent lay person is qualified to challenge experts? If so, I ask if you are an expert in some areas of your life – and would you agree that the theories of untrained people are as valid as your own in those areas?

You are mostly right about science and your example of Lord Kelvin is a wonderful example of how science works. His theory was good as far as it went, but a new theory came along which was better. Theories get stronger and stronger, but science recognizes that new data may be recorded or a new theory may come along which works better. Science is self correcting and its greatest honors are reserved for those who come up with new theories which displace the old. There are no "facts" in science, but there are theories strong enough to bet your life on.

When you say "Consider these scientists' motivation" and mention "well paid scientists," you question the integrity of scientists. THAT'S GOOD. We should always question everyone's integrity and depend on good data not trust and enthusiasm. But I don't understand what you would prefer. Do you want the opinions of poorly paid scientists? Are you saying that professional scientists should not tell us what they learn? Or are you saying that scientists have a financial incentive to cry about a crisis? If so, keep in mind that the oil industry is supporting most of the scientists who are actively arguing against global warming and the US government has been decreasing funding for research about the Earth during the last six years.

The good news is that science constantly tests and retests theories with new data. Theories which keep working with more and more data get stronger. (That is what has changed re. global warming in the last 10 years.)

Then you make a scientific statement which seems to finish it for you. "Wouldn't you agree there is overwhelming evidence of drastic climate change predating people? Congratulations. You have just stripped bare the theory that humans have caused the current climate change. Where's their rebuttal? Where's your rebuttal?" I could give my best attempt at an answer, but I'm not a climate scientist. I'll just quote the Global Warming FAQ from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Note that NOAA is the part of the United States' Department of Commerce, not a some fringe group.)

"Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. There appears to be confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance. With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend. But, from the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases. There are many indications that the sun also has a longer-term variation which has potentially contributed to the century-scale forcing to a greater degree. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases."

Does that answer your question. The rebuttal is, yes, there have been slow gradual changes in the past. What we are seeing now is much faster and appears to be related to the FACT that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Here's NOAA's FAQ on greenhouse gases.

"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)."

There's some science, and it's easy to find. Sorry it's so long, but I don't answer complex questions with simple answers.

[John Schreiber]

There is a delicate balance going on with greenhouse gases, but why should we be so certain we have a major influence on that balance. The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. CO2 and methane are very minor components of the greenhouse effect. Look it up.

OK, I looked it up.

The solid dark blue line in the graph below (from NASA) is the effect of water vapor in "forcing" change in temperature. Note that while water vapor is a very major greenhouse gas, it has very little effect in changing temperature.

Fig5a.gif

Apparently the reason that water vapor has such a small effect is because the amount of water vapor in the air depends on the temperature of the air. If it gets warmer, more water can be in the air, if it gets colder, more water turns to rain and comes out. Changes in water vapor do not drive (force) climate change, it is a result of climate change.

[Lee DeRaud]

If the medium-blue curve (with the downward spikes) is what I think it is, all we need to "solve" the greenhouse-gas problem is one decent-sized volcanic eruption every year. Of course, that would make life extremely unpleasant for people in the surrounding areas...or at least be the basis for a whole slew of cheesy disaster movies.

[John Schreiber]

If the medium-blue curve (with the downward spikes) is what I think it is, all we need to "solve" the greenhouse-gas problem is one decent-sized volcanic eruption every year. Of course, that would make life extremely unpleasant for people in the surrounding areas...or at least be the basis for a whole slew of cheesy disaster movies.

There are some scientists working on ideas like that. (On my screen, it's a spiky gray line.) More pollution of one kind might in fact be the solution to pollution of another kind.

That gets to be like taking medication to cure an illness. In this case, we don't know if that medication would work or what side effects it might have. But it still might be easier than decreasing our output of CO2.

[TYLER WOOD]

I still think most of you are missing the reason for this post. He may not be meaning to question the scientists capabilities, or their motivation. I see it as he is questioning whather it is worth our time, energy, money, and raw materials to prevent something that we may not even be able to stop. We see everything from the point of scientific measurements. They have only been acurate enought in the (loosly) past 100 years to be able to keep acurate measurements. Is the rise in temperature normal? Yes it is increasing at a faster rate now, we can proove that. But what is the cause of the rise, natural or man. We see temperature variation all throughout time. We have records from ice samples (sketchy at best) showing rise and fall in temperature over a couple centuries. But how fast did it rise? We don't have enough records of acurate measurements to make any assuptions that we are raising the temperature faster than ever before. Not one scientist in the world could acurately make that claim, yet that is what tree huggers, and politicians are saying. Even if they tried they would be wrong. After the Kraktoa eruption three years later the temperature rose 2 degrees in one year! We are not even at one degree in a century. Yes it was due to a volcano, but we can not say what is causing it now.