Climate change - natural or man-made?

[El Tejon]

It's man made:  created out of whole cloth by Leftists to advance their agenda of socialism.

Global Warming, the ghillie suit of the Left.

[Nematocyst]

The inclusion of fauna in our data (per your PETM link) is not relevant, as fauna are mobile, and the mobility is influenced by "weather".

That makes no sense to me. What's your point?

The link I provided goes to the PETM Blog which offers a collection of articles about scientific investigations of the last large global heating event that caused a mass extinction, 55 million years ago at the transition from the Paleocene to the Eocene. (That event designates the "boundary" between those two human recognized time periods.)

The point of the articles, and the research that they describe, is that what we are facing now is similar - though not identical - to what happened then: a jump  in the average temperature of Earth by 6*C or so caused by excess ( = far greater than normal) carbon gases in the atmosphere. Note that 6*C was the average increase. The levels of increase at the poles was much greater, as is and will be the case now. (We've known that since Arrhenius published his work in 1895 on the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The principle still stands, despite the ignorant protestations of deniers.)

The only way to grasp the main point of the PETM blog is to read the entire series in the larger context of climate research of a climate scientist such as Spencer Weart.

The  PETM event lasted 200,000 years. That is, once it got hot, it stayed hot for along time. It was driven primarily by methane. (Current favored hypothesis: a methane megafart caused by volcanic activity under the Atlantic  that destabilized methane hydrates.)

Carbon gases in the atmosphere are now increasing roughly 30X faster than they did then. The carbon gas in this event is so far predominantly CO2. However, due to high rates of permafrost melting (which releases methane in large quantities) and ocean warming (which is again destabilizing methane hydrates), methane will soon play a more important role.

To answer your question in an easy, sound byte as you evidently desire ...

I  have no idea from where you pulled that. (Well, yes, I do have some idea, but it has nothing to do with anything I wrote.) I have no interest in "sound bytes". Sound bytes are a plague that helps dumb down an entire  populace. Sound bytes are precisely the problem with trying to understand this issue. It cannot be understood even with 3 minute segments on the evening news, let alone with sound bytes.
_________________

As for El T's argument that this is a leftist agenda, I can only laugh.

As for Microbalog's argument that "it is not possible to sufficiently cut the levels of our CO2 emissions without serious cuts in the quality of life", and "There are hundreds of millions of people who want to have flatscreen TVs and cars and houses and they will not be denied", that is probably a true statement.

The supreme irony of the situation is this. If the projections about climate that I offered 4 posts above are correct, then humans are about to be offered a new definition of "serious cuts in the quality of life" that is an order of magnitude more severe than any caused by living without flatscreen TVs and cars.

[crawdaddyjim]

The only way to grasp the main point of the PETM blog is to read the entire series in the larger context of climate research of a climate scientist such as Spencer Weart.

If something can only be grasped when inside of only a certain other thing. Then it is folly.


El T is correct. This whole Chicken Little escapade is nothing but a grab for power by those that should not have it at any cost.

Mankind will survive and flourish no matter the cataclysmic happenings on this mud ball. Civilization is a construct of the human mind.

[MillCreek]

Mankind will survive and flourish no matter the cataclysmic happenings on this mud ball. Civilization is a construct of the human mind.

If the mudball goes Tango Uniform, I don't see a lot of prospects for mankind flourishing.  Surviving, perhaps.  And I will take our current level of civilization any day over being a hunter-gatherer with a life expectancy of 30.

[MicroBalrog]

The supreme irony of the situation is this. If the projections about climate that I offered 4 posts above are correct, then humans are about to be offered a new definition of "serious cuts in the quality of life" that is an order of magnitude more severe than any caused by living without flatscreen TVs and cars.]

I disagree entirely. I would argue that when we fund bigger TV's and better computers etc. we also by that action fund research into better electronics and various other scientific advances.

Let me give you a number:

In 1961, computing power cost one trillion dollars per GFLOPS.

As of today, computing power costs 20 cents per GFLOPS, not accounting for inflation.

This means that computing power is now five trillion times cheaper than it was forty years ago. We have gaming consoles today that are more powerful then supercomputers were only five years ago.

This is consumerism-driven developement, and this is developement that means we are better able to research stuff like cancer, AIDS,  construction materials, genetic engineering, etc. It is echoed by similar research in other fields.

This is a good thing whose influence is far beyond the obvious implications of bigger shiny.

[Nematocyst]

If something can only be grasped when inside of only a certain other thing. Then it is folly.

Ah, spoken like a true sound byte connoisseur! 

Heaven forbid that something so simple as climate
would require any substantive thought. <Gasp!>

All you need to understand is that air  is what you breathe
and clouds are fluffy white and sometimes drop rain.

That's it! No muss. No fuss.

Don't worry. Context means nothing.
All of life can be understood via sound bytes.

Some classics include:

• Be all that you can be.
• Tastes great, less filling!
• Got milk?

And yes, this is all a giant conspiracy dreamed up by leftists that want to control the world.

That's it. Really. No really. It's true. Believe me! Really, really, really. It's true.

If I say it enough times, it will be true. Really. It's true. It's all a leftist conspiracy.

Really. It's true. No thought is needed here. Only sound bytes.

Everything is going to be fine. Carry on. Nothing is wrong.
_____________

I'm laughing over here.
 
No, really, I'm in stitches.

Please, continue. I'm reading with great interest.

I feel that I'm on the edge of grasping the secrets of ... something.

[Boomhauer]

Haven't we already had this thread eleventy-billion times?

[Nematocyst]

The supreme irony of the situation is this. If the projections about climate that I offered 4 posts above are correct, then humans are about to be offered a new definition of "serious cuts in the quality of life" that is an order of magnitude more severe than any caused by living without flatscreen TVs and cars.

I disagree entirely. I would argue that when we fund bigger TV's and better computers etc. we also by that action fund research into better electronics and various other scientific advances.

For the record, Microbalrog totally missed my point.

This is a really informative thread for me.
It's helping me understand much better
why people are not grasping the nature of this issue.

[MicroBalrog]

I disagree entirely. I would argue that when we fund bigger TV's and better computers etc. we also by that action fund research into better electronics and various other scientific advances.

For the record, Microbalrog totally missed my point.

Why did I miss you point?

My argument is like this:

1. I am not certain how great the damage from global warming will be (I've read varied predictions).

2. I am incapable of estimating the possible damage myself due to lacking the intellectual tools.

I do however believe that:

3. The damage that'll be done to us by global warming will not be worse than the damage that would be caused to our civilization, long term, by reducing our standard of living and economic growth.

Moreover, as I am a 19th-century positivist, I believe the economic power, ingenuity, etc. of humanity will help us get over this one. The sky is not going to fall.

[Nematocyst]

Why did I miss you point?

Please read my statement from page 1 again, more carefully this time.

By 2050, most continents south of 66* latitude will be rapidly moving towards desertification.
(That's based on simple physics. Above 77*F or so, soils don't hold water w/o daily rain.)

Let me state that more clearly.

With a 5*C (9*F) increase in global temperature -
which is guaranteed now, regardless of what humans do -
all of the continents will become mostly desert.

Again, in case you missed it the second time,
that's just physics: above 77*F, soils don't hold enough water
to support forests, grasslands or grain farms.

Deserts aren't known for growing large quantities of grain,
which has fueled the growth of civilization.

Without grain - the base of the food human chain -
all the GFLOPS on Earth are worthless.

[MicroBalrog]

According to Wikipedia,

Climate model projections indicate that global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century

So we don't know if it'll be a 5-degree increase.

Also, I doubt heavily that the Russian tundra (for instance) will be turned into desert.

[Nematocyst]

So we don't know if it'll be a 5-degree increase.

The average level of CO2 in the atmosphere during an ice age is 180 ppm.

The average level of CO2 in the atmosphere during an interglacial
(like in pre-industrial times) is 280 ppm.
Highest CO2 level in the last 650,000 years is 300 ppm.

We're now at 387 ppm.

Given that an ice age is, on average, 5*C colder than now,
and that's related to a 100 ppm increase in CO2,
I'm arguing that there will be at least a 5*C increase.

(Really. Just do the math.)

That's if CO2 stabilizes at 387.
We both know that won't happen.

Why? People want their standard of living.
It's increasing now at 2 ppm per year.
In < 60 years, we'll be at 500 ppm.

Translation: far more temp increase than a mere 5*C.

[BryanP]

The correct answer is "both".

We have a winna.  My personal belief is that it's a natural trend that is being exacerbated by pollution.  Is it all our fault?  No.  Do you light a bonfire in your house when it's 90F outside?  No.

[R32dude]

We're now at 387 ppm.

Based on your math shouldn't we have already seen a 5C increase over the past 100 years?

[crawdaddyjim]

Look at it this way.

We as a whole can either do something or do nothing.

If we do nothing and the earth becomes a desert. Then we adapt or die off.

OR nothing happens and we continue to develop as a whole.

If we make all the changes that people like Nematocyst believe we should do.

We devolve backwards and pretty much guarantee our demise.

I will take my chances as a sovereign individual. In my world he is free to live like a Luddite if he so chooses. In his world no one has a choice.

Jim

[Desertdog]

Highest CO2 level in the last 650,000 years is 300 ppm.

We're now at 387 ppm.

It looks like the highest reading in the last 650,000 years is really 387 (the present), IF the time lines are right. 

I see NO big problems from it and, frankly I do not believe there will be any big problems from it.

The earth is always adjusting inself as far as climate goes, and we, us pitiful little people, are not going to change the big earth by our puny little efforts of trying to lower the CO2 content.

Explode enough Atomic Bombs in one day and you may make a dent in the weather/climate, but shortly good old earth would be back doing what she wants to, without as much as a hiccup.

PS.  The CO2 counts rising followed, not preceeded, the hot periods of time by about 800 years.

[Racehorse]

The average level of CO2 in the atmosphere during an ice age is 180 ppm.

The average level of CO2 in the atmosphere during an interglacial
(like in pre-industrial times) is 280 ppm.
Highest CO2 level in the last 650,000 years is 300 ppm.

We're now at 387 ppm.

Given that an ice age is, on average, 5*C colder than now,
and that's related to a 100 ppm increase in CO2,
I'm arguing that there will be at least a 5*C increase.

(Really. Just do the math.)

That's if CO2 stabilizes at 387.
We both know that won't happen.

Why? People want their standard of living.
It's increasing now at 2 ppm per year.
In < 60 years, we'll be at 500 ppm.

Translation: far more temp increase than a mere 5*C.

That math only works under the assumption that there's a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature increase. Is that a proven assumption?

[Desertdog]

These CO2 scientist remind me of a joke I heard many years ago.

The scientist had a frog that he had taught to  jump on the  command "jump".  To start, he measured how far the frog could jump with all four legs.
Then he cut off one of the frog's front legs and said jump, and measured how far the frog jumped.

The scientist did this with each leg.  When he cut of the frogs last leg, and said "Jump", the frog just sat there.

The conclusion he arrived at is, "The Frog had become deaf.

[MechAg94]

It's the pirates.  The increase in piracy off eastern Africa has resulted in declining temperatures the last 10 years.  That is why Bush hasn't sent the Navy in to wipe them out.  They are afraid of Global Warming.  :) 

[MechAg94]

I got this quote from someone I know.  I liked it. 
http://www.twainquotes.com/Mississippi.html

In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
- Life on the Mississippi

[Nematocyst]

I am astounded by some of the logic here.
I want to walk away, but like an accident on the Interstate, I can't quit looking.

PS.  The CO2 counts rising followed, not preceeded, the hot periods of time by about 800 years.

That's a non-issue that I address in this post.

If we make all the changes that people like Nematocyst believe we should do.

We devolve backwards and pretty much guarantee our demise.

In addition to not understanding the difference between periods and commas,
the author is making an inaccurate ass-umption about my intentions.

Here is my statement from this post about what people "should do" about this.
(Translation for the reading impaired: I could give a flying crap what you do.)

I make no claims at all about what people should or should not do about this. I make no assertion that you should, let alone must, change your life style, let alone give up your liberty. Do what you want. It's your decision, and I have no intention of trying to force you to do anything about it. I own an F-250 diesel. I'm not planning to sell it. I don't drive it much these days because fuel is so expensive, but I'm not selling it over this issue.

As for me, I'm planning contingencies, because it's clear to me - based on sound evidence
(see Weart, Pearce & RealClimate) that the problem is real, accelerating and will get much worse very quickly.

And that is a testable hypothesis.

[Iain]

My interest in this issue started as a purely scientific one, trying to understand an interesting phenomena and debate. Since then though I've become far more interested in public understanding of science and the portrayal of science.

The attacks on science and scientists on this issue are interesting. Generally the public in the West are pro-science, science has been responsible for massive improvements in public health, standards of living etc. There are a couple of issues where the public resort to the mad scientist, the dangerous scientist and the bad scientist ideas. Interesting that they are issues where the public, or parts of the public, dislike the conclusions and so attack the methods.

[MechAg94]

I am astounded by some of the logic here.
I want to walk away, but like an accident on the Interstate, I can't quit looking.

Yeah.  And it always makes your posts so much more persuasive when you go out of your way to be arrogant and condescending.  It hurts you even more when your logic is even worse.  :D

[grampster]

See, here is the problem.  Some scientists seem to think that the climate is changing and it's warming, caused by humans.  Some think it's cooling because it's responding to cycles caused by the sun.  Some say the ice is disappearing at the north and south poles.  Others show evidence that the ice pack is greater at the south pole and getting larger at the north pole.
There seem to be other scientific opinions that are combintions of the above, including one I read a couple years ago that said all humans have to do is jump up in the air at precisely the same time and the wobble of the earth will change, because of the change in weight of the earth, and all will be ok.

It seems that everytime someone cries wolf, it usually involves vast sums of money and the requirement that humans reduce themselves to the lowest common denominator, especially evil America who hoards and wastes all of the Erf's resources and we eat babies.  (Nigeria has the lowest carbon footprint, by the way)  The other thing I've noticed is that most of the time, the wolf cryers, as usual, are wrong.  Remember Gulf War I?  The eggheads said if we resist Sadman and he blew up the oil wells in Kuwait, we'd have Nuclear Winter.  Well we did, he did, and guess what?  It didn't happen.

The other thing that I notice is that the most vocal promulgators of Human Caused Global Warming Climate Change glaringly omit plunging ahead with the most logical way of producing energy; nuclear power plants.  That single omission makes anything those people say to be suspect, especially when their solutions to "the problem" are nothing better than expensive niche type energy producers like wind and solar.  CNG is clean, and we have a lot of it.  They don't support that either.  I also notice those folks don't have much to say about how we'll get along until all those expensive niche energy producers are able to provide ALL of the energy we need to progress...(oops, I forgot.  They don't want us to progress, they want us to live like Nigerians)  Also, maybe if those folks took a bath once in awhile, so that one could stand being in the same room with them, their opinions might be more germane.

Perhaps the climate is changing.  Maybe it is getting warmer, maybe it's getting colder.  Scientists that study the past do agree that the earth's climate has shifted drastically from time to time.  (That is all, imho opinion, that Nemo is saying; fecal matter happens climate wise, and his studies seem to say it's getting warmer.)  What chafes me is the arrogance of some folks who believe that humans have the wherewithall to be able to be anything but a small contributor in the machinations of the earth, one way or the other.  Should humans be careful about how we live?  Certainly.  But any observation of how Men get along with each other on a worldwide basis should convince anyone that the horrors that some folks inflict on their neighbors seems to trump any notion that they'd treat the ground, water and air any better.  So until all the bloody dictators and murderers decide to live in peace, I say Bite Me to all that throw rocks at America for our wonderful standard of living.  No other nation has done more to clean up it's yard than America.

[MicroBalrog]

The attacks on science and scientists on this issue are interesting. Generally the public in the West are pro-science, science has been responsible for massive improvements in public health, standards of living etc. There are a couple of issues where the public resort to the mad scientist, the dangerous scientist and the bad scientist ideas. Interesting that they are issues where the public, or parts of the public, dislike the conclusions and so attack the methods.

That old canard again.