'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

[Anome]

I'm not convinced that the "Hockey Stick" graph was actually produced by a computer program. After all, the graph is just an interpolation of known plot points, with some extrapolation at the end. The upward trend, as I understand it, starts around the time of the Industrial revolution.

Another thing about the Hockey Stick, which may not apply in this case but certainly does in a number of other denials, is that there were three graphs produced by the original paper showing three different possibilities for warming through the 80s and 90s. One was assuming the best case scenario where warming is offset by a number of other events (such as volcanic eruptions) that block out sunlight. Another shows no offsets, just the predicted effect of increased CO2 production. The final one shows increased CO2 production offset by a couple of major or semi-major (if that makes sense) seismic events (volcanic eruptions).

Now some denials claim the Hockey Stick is wrong because they use the Worst Case graph which predicts more warming than what actually happened during the 80s and 90s. The thing is, the middle graph is not only more accurate, but is based on assumptions that more closely match the actual events. There were a couple of major volcanic events that will have offset the effect of the increased CO2 production by a certain amount.

For the record, all three graphs, including the Best Case, showed increased warming. I got this information from a public lecture I attended at the Australian Academy of Science about 2 years ago now. The speaker was one of the people who worked on the chemistry of ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere. Some of the discussion about the Hockey Stick was in response to a question about Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

 

[eburacum]

The causes of past climate changes are complex; start with Rynner's Milankovitch cycles, which affect the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit and the axial tilt, which probably has the most noticeable effect; then add the slight variability of the Sun itself.

A much slower effect is due to the shapes and relative positions of the continents, as they drift around they cause ice traps and thermal reservoirs to form (ice traps like the arctic ocean, or the continent of Antarctica itself; thermal reservoirs like the Gulf of Mexico.
A much faster and shorter lived effect is due to volcanoes and other geophysical eruptions- these cool the climate temporarily although in the past big flood basalts have had longer lasting effects.

Finally the biosphere affects the climate by responding to these changes; sometimes the biosphere makes a little too much CO2 and methane, sometimes not enough. But Mankind's contribution to the mix is almost certainly of a larger scale than other biogenic contributions, and is unprecedented. AGW might be a minor effect, or it might be major; I expect it will be somewhere in between. After all, we'll run out of fossil fuels in a few hundred years.

 

[eburacum]

CO2 is different to water vapour, which as Almond13notes is a much more powerful greenhouse gas in our atmosphere; the difference is that CO2 increases as a result of mankind's use of fossil fuels, while water vapour increases with the temperature. So Water vapour acts as a positive feedback mechanism[/i], amplifying the effects of CO2.

Even the Milankovitch cycles are small effects, but they are amplified by positive feed back into massive effects, and so are CO2 changes.

 

[Xanatico]

Problem is some of those climate graphs you are shown have had the medieval warm period airbrushed out of history. Things look more dramatic that way you see.
I was at a lecture a while ago, which had something to do with solar radiation and it´s effects on climate. Around the end, he showed a graph with the different predicted climate changes, it had a width of about 10 degrees or so.

 

[Xanatico]

Also water vapour can turn into clouds, some of which cool the earth. CO2 can´t do that.

 

[ghostdog19]

What caused the climate changes of the past?

Crikey mate do you know how many climate changes there have been ? There must be a massive variety of causes from large meteorite hits to super massive volcanoes via solar cycles, forrest fires and dinosaur farts.

so basically the current climate change could be caused by any number of things.

 

[eburacum]

Also water vapour can turn into clouds, some of which cool the earth. CO2 can´t do that.

That's true; there are negative feedback mechanisms in the climate too, and we are lucky they are there, or the Earth would have been uninhabitable long ago. Negative feedback mechanisms include the increased albedo caused by increased cloud cover, and the increased growth of certain plants in high CO2 concentrations (which serves to limit the CO2 load in the atmosphere).

These negative feedback mechanisms are on balance less powerful in the current situation than the positive feedback systems such as water vapour greenhouse effect and decreased albedo due to diminished snow cover, according to the models.

 

[JurekB]

I'm now confused by this water vapour business. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas which is a lot worse than Co2. However at some point in the future due to the threat of Co2 warming up the planet, we could all find ourselves driving cars powered by Hydrogen fuel cells which emit nothing but water vapour.

Will this be really really bad for the planet or will all the extra water vapour produced simply turn to cloud and cool everything down?

 

[Peripart]

What caused the climate changes of the past?

Crikey mate do you know how many climate changes there have been ? There must be a massive variety of causes from large meteorite hits to super massive volcanoes via solar cycles, forrest fires and dinosaur farts.

so basically the current climate change could be caused by any number of things.

I think that this is what annoys me most about the current one-sided debate. If the politicians were to come out straight with the truth, which is:

"The climate appears to be gradually changing, but the Earth is such a complex mechanism that there are any number of things that could be causing, individually or collectively"

then I would give them respect, but wouldn't feel over-enamoured with being lumbered with "green" taxes.

But they try to make us feel guilty with lines like:

"The climate is changing, the seas are rising, it's totally unprecedented and IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT"

and shame the populace into accepting ever-increasing curbs on their behaviour. It's despicable.

And as Xanatico says, the Mediaeval Warm Period is now considered (to steal from Al Gore) An Inconvenient Truth so it's expunged from the graphs. Also ignored as inconvenent are the cooling of the planet between 1945 and 1970 (smooth graphs are so much easier for the public to understand, you see) and the fact that global warming tends to produce carbon dioxide, rather than the other way round.

The sheer vitriol directed at those who dare to ask for a sensible discussion about the evidence for man-made climate change is fearsome. To question the climatic orthodoxy is the modern heresy.

Of course pollution is bad, of course we'd like to have a stable climate, but to suggest that every hurricane or tropical storm is as a direct result of man's actions is disingenuous at best, and dangerous at worst.

 

[eburacum]

I'm now confused by this water vapour business. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas which is a lot worse than Co2. However at some point in the future due to the threat of Co2 warming up the planet, we could all find ourselves driving cars powered by Hydrogen fuel cells which emit nothing but water vapour.

Will this be really really bad for the planet or will all the extra water vapour produced simply turn to cloud and cool everything down?

Good point. I'll look into that furher. But my first guess would be that the water vapour would soon condense, as it is emitted at fairly high temeratures; for extra water vapour to remain in the air the whole atmosphere has to get warmer, albeit ever so slightly.

 

[almond13]

I'm now confused by this water vapour business. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas which is a lot worse than Co2. However at some point in the future due to the threat of Co2 warming up the planet, we could all find ourselves driving cars powered by Hydrogen fuel cells which emit nothing but water vapour.

Will this be really really bad for the planet or will all the extra water vapour produced simply turn to cloud and cool everything down?

Good point. I'll look into that furher. But my first guess would be that the water vapour would soon condense, as it is emitted at fairly high temeratures; for extra water vapour to remain in the air the whole atmosphere has to get warmer, albeit ever so slightly.

How about the scientifically erudite contributors on this thread putting everyone straight about the role of water vapour in the greenhouse scenario: a bit of useful science for a nice change? :headbutt: :headbutt:

 

[ghostdog19]

I think that this is what annoys me most about the current one-sided debate. If the politicians were to come out straight with the truth, which is:

"The climate appears to be gradually changing, but the Earth is such a complex mechanism that there are any number of things that could be causing, individually or collectively"

then I would give them respect, but wouldn't feel over-enamoured with being lumbered with "green" taxes.

Government's way of making you pay for the air you breath. What I haven't quite understood is how they've quantified the unquantifiable by putting a price on it. I'm not inclined to believe the 'scientific data' collected by a government who's 'scientific data' in the past has amounted to a load of made up and fiddled figures.

"Global Warming" is the new word for "Cold War". I'm pretty certain that when governments launch stratergies like this there has to be some reference to temperature in the title.

Quick question... wasn't it the Labor party* who tried to convince us we were heading into an Ice Age? (before Thatcherism... hey, maybe they were referring to Thatcherism!?!)

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Quick question... wasn't it the Labor party* who tried to convince us we were heading into an Ice Age? (before Thatcherism... hey, maybe they were referring to Thatcherism!?!)

No. It was climatologists in the the early days of Climatology. Politicians had fuck all to do with it. (Pardon my French).

Politicians have mostly been very reluctant to acknowledge Global Warming. Taking appropriate action could mean damage to the economy and lost votes. Although, back in the Eighties, it was Thatcher (a very decent industrial chemist, by all accounts), who does appear to have grasped some of the essentials of both the Global Warming debate and the debate about CFCs and the Ozone Layer. For all her faults, she was a scientist.

The real debate about Global Warming is not political. The change is not 'gradual'. Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves really are melting, the permafrost of Siberia, ditto and giving up its ancient methane. What these changes may mean, Globally, or in the North Atlantic, as the North Atlantic Conveyor slows, may be debated. But, change due to Global Warming is happening and apparently at an increasing rate.

 

[eburacum]

How about the scientifically erudite contributors on this thread putting everyone straight about the role of water vapour in the greenhouse scenario: a bit of useful science for a nice change?

Both water vapour and carbon dioxide are compounds, with three atoms apiece; the atomic bonds in these compounds (also in methane, with five atoms) absorb infra red radiation and retransmit it isotropically. Nitrogen and oxygen, the other components of the atmosphere (both of which have two atoms per molecule), don't absorb infrared radiation anything like as strongly.

Radiating isotropically means that the radiation is re-emitted in all directions equally; so about half of the infra-red gets radiated back towards the ground. This is the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide is produced by volcanoes, by respiration of living things, including plants, and by burning fossil fuels. Volcanism is sporadically important, as the CO2 produced by an individual volcano can be considerable. But over time it averages out to quite a low figure. From Wiki;

Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic releases are about 1% of the amount which is released by human activities.

On the other hand, the water vapour level in the atmosphere is a slave to temperature.
From here;

Lonnie Thompson, a climatologist at Ohio State University, said, "In the climate community, there has been debate as to whether water vapor is a slave to temperature."

"This research indicates that small changes in temperature, driven by greenhouse gases, put more water vapor into the atmosphere, which drives up the temperature more," said Thompson, who studies ice cores and glacier retreat in the tropics.

Under normal conditions, much of the heat that is emitted from the Earth's surface, called long-wave radiation, goes into the atmosphere and back out to space. But water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb some of that heat, Thompson said.

With an increased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, more long-wave radiation is trapped, then emitted back to Earth, Thompson said. "So you have more energy to heat the Earth's surface."

By plotting recent climate data and geographical data, the researchers found that the increase in greenhouse gases in Europe has caused a major disruption in the natural cycle of water evaporating from the surface of the Earth.

The water cycle—in which water evaporates, rises into the atmosphere, and eventually returns to Earth in the form of precipitation—has been disrupted to the point where the water vapor itself is helping to fuel the temperature increase, Philipona said.

 

[eburacum]

Incidentally I must admit that Climatology was the only exam I have ever failed, back in 1975; so I am not a very reliable source. (I did manage to pass it second time round, tho).

 

[eburacum]

The two studies I have found concerning the effect of a hydrogen economy on global warming gases do not seem to indicate that water vapour emissions will be significant in the overall greenhouse effect; the authors are however concerned that hydrogen leaks will possibly decrease the ozone layer, and increase the trophospheric H20 level, which might be a bad thing. Mostly the removal of hydrocarbons from the energy equation tend to decrease the overall greenhouse effect significantly; but this is very dependent on the method used to generate the hydrogen in the first place.
PDFs on this subject
http://eprints.rhul.ac.uk/archive/00000 ... etalH2.pdf
http://www.hyweb.de/Wissen/pdf/h2impact ... 5_p624.pdf

The additional water vapour added at low level by hydrogen combustion in a hypothetical hydrogen economy seems to be minimal, because the extra water vapour simply contributes to the relative humidity, which is mostly dependent on the temperature. In other words, adding more water vapour at low level inhibits evaporation and transpiration, so the atmosphere doesn't get much damper.
Or so it seems to me. Water vapour can be removed easily from the atmosphere by cooling; whereas CO2 has a long residence time and is only removed by photosynthesis or geological chemical reactions.

 

[almond13]

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

[eburacum]

Some figures suggest that water vapour is responsible for 98% of the greenhouse effect. But as I said before, it is a feedback cycle, so that a little bit of warming (either from anthropogenic CO2, or the Milankovic cycle, or solar irregularities) get amplified enormously by the increased humidity.

Think of it as an old fashioned thermionic valve; the tiny signal goes in, and is amplified enormously by the extra electrons flying from the filament to the plate. Water vapour is the electron flow; CO2 is (one of) the sources of the signal.

 

[rynner2]

Some figures suggest that water vapour is responsible for 98% of the greenhouse effect.

:shock:

The only answer is to drain the oceans!

 

[almond13]

Some figures suggest that water vapour is responsible for 98% of the greenhouse effect. But as I said before, it is a feedback cycle, so that a little bit of warming (either from anthropogenic CO2, or the Milankovic cycle, or solar irregularities) get amplified enormously by the increased humidity.

Think of it as an old fashioned thermionic valve; the tiny signal goes in, and is amplified enormously by the extra electrons flying from the filament to the plate. Water vapour is the electron flow; CO2 is (one of) the sources of the signal.

I can see what you're saying, but I can't see the logic involved. What exactly is feeding back from what in order that 98pc gets warmed from 2pc. What you seem to be saying is that the CO2 acts as some kind of heating element for the rest of the atmosphere. This could easily be checked in the lab with a glass jar and a light. Does the addition of 2pc CO2 cause the temperature in the jar to rise?
In your thermionic example the amplification is due to the larger current across the cathode- anode being interrupted by the small grid voltage. In other words there is a power source involved. I can't see where the extra power comes from in the case of an atmospheric temperature that is regulated by water vapour cloud cover to 98pc.
I've not looked into this, but i would think that the water cycle of the earth is at equilibrium with more vapour blocking more sunlight and vice versa. Rising temperatures would tend to produce more cloud to reflect away the sunlight and so on.

 

[rynner2]

For info:

Water vapour is a transparent gas (and lighter than air, BTW), so does not reflect sunlight.

Clouds are formed from water droplets, and do reflect sunlight.

Water vapour is necessary for clouds to form, but WV does not necessarily form clouds.

 

[eburacum]

This page discusses the '98%' figure (it turns out to be a myth) and also gives a nice explanation of how the amplification works.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
Note that the amplification isn't a feedback loop, so the Earth doesn't get into a runaway greenhouse state- yet. That seems to have occured on Venus because CO2 was no longer being removed by geological processes.

 

[Anonymous]

That seems to have occured on Venus because CO2 was no longer being removed by geological processes.

How is CO2 removed geologically?

LD

 

[Xanatico]

CO2 causes chemical erosion of rocks, and so get´s bonded with the rock.

 

[almond13]

However, given the Pinatubo results, the models are probably getting the broader picture reasonably correct.

Hi eburacum
This is full of uncertainties and the bottom line above is about all that can be expected, the “broader picture” being that the earth is warming. The cause of the warming is still uncertain and the research does not give a licence to blame the proles' for the results. There is no mention of the natural cosmic effects, cycles of the sun being responsible, and I'll bet that no such is included in the models.

 

[almond13]

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
Last Updated: 11:15pm BST 17/07/2004

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html

Dr John Butler, the astronomer in charge of the project, told BBC News Online: "We can see global warming taking place over the past two centuries that suggests that changes in the Sun are at least partially responsible."
The data will confuse some climate experts who argue that the influence of changes in the Sun on rising temperatures has already been studied, and discounted, as a major cause of global warming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm

Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm.



Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun's activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.
Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, such as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258342,00.html#

 

[Timble2]

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
Last Updated: 11:15pm BST 17/07/2004

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html

The problem with taking isolated quotes is that people don't read the whole paper, and of course viewpoints are revised as more data become available. A more recent publication by Dr Solanki says:

This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant.
In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric heating
caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changesin the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux.

i.e contrary to what the headline says you can't just blame the sun, there're other factors with a much greater influence.

BTW: In your last quote from Habibullo Abdussamatov, if you read the entire article you'll find that there's quite a few contrary viewpoints from other researchers.

 

[almond13]

BTW: In your last quote from Habibullo Abdussamatov, if you read the entire article you'll find that there's quite a few contrary viewpoints from other researchers.

Hi Timble
For once we agree, this is just the point that i was making. The almost total unreliability of the reports. There are no facts that cannot be refuted by another authority. I hope that you read the one about the return of the ice age.

The facts as i see them are, that yes, we have warming and no we don't have a clue what's causing it, but we are experiencing pressure to say that it's caused by artificial emissions. And, if we want an easy life, that's exactly what we are going to say, but we need an escape route just in case it all goes tits-up.

 

[bazizmaduno]

Pietro_Mecurio wrote:

The real debate about Global Warming is not political. The change is not 'gradual'. Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves really are melting, the permafrost of Siberia, ditto and giving up its ancient methane

Aye - methane is a BIG problem.

If the sun's output remains the same (long term, it doesn't - it's a G2 star), anthropogenic global warming (AGW) increases due to increased CO2, which increases water vapour (H2O - cloud cover). When the oceans warm, this increases the disassociation of methane hydrate - already happening (remember the tankers' sensors going off?). Warm the permafrost - increased methane production AND CO2. If you warm things generally, plant respiration increases (CO2, again). The seas' are the major sink of CO2, but they need Iron (Fe) to increase CO2 absorption, providing there's sufficient sunlight - but photosynthesis is decreased by cloud cover (H2O). It may be that solar output is increasing,which will warm things up a bit, positively feeding into the already AGW.

Remember, not everywhere will get warmer initially. Climate is a complex distribution of heat (thermodynamics). The extra heat will be re-distributed more violently - but it will get hotter, wetter and windier, generally.

As the Antarctic melts, there willbe a 'rebound' of the tectonic plates, causing vulcanism - if it's SO2 that's good, as the aerosols will tend to cool; but SO2 will acidify the oceans, and reduce photosynthesis. SO2 will also affect plant life. If it's CO2...

As the sun's output increases, well - get used to it. AGW is here to stay.

 

[wembley8]

I hope that you read the one about the return of the ice age.

Er, that's from 1998. There has been quite a lot of work done since then. I don't think you'll find many taking that line now.

The facts as i see them are, that yes, we have warming and no we don't have a clue what's causing it,

Actually we have a very good idea what's causing it, as the IPCC made clear. But (as with the tobacco health issue) there are a lot of people who would rather obscure the issue. As with the tobacco health issue, we may not have 100% evidence yet - but how long would you like to wait?

First the skeptics said there was no global warming; next they said it wasn't caused by CO2. Prediction: their next move will be to deny that reducing CO2 emissions will help.