The Cycle of Global Warming 42

[davidbeach]

I haven't seen it mentioned recently, but I recall reading that one possible trigger mechanism for northern hemisphere ice ages is an open Arctic Ocean. Open ocean means more water into the atmosphere, more water in the atmosphere means more precipitation, more precipitation in the form of winter snow the more likely that it won't all melt before the next winter in the far northern climes. Warming might be the trigger for an ice age.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Warming might be the trigger for an ice age.
If there is one thing that I hope we all agree on is that climate is cyclical. The earth is, always has been, and probably always will be, either warming or cooling based on its own internal systems.

Should be we be reasonable stewards of our environment? Absolutely, to me that's not even an issue. But I question the wisdom of expending considerable resources to address an issue that has so many facets that we don't understand, when there are so many other things that need attention that we can do something about.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[SomptingGuy]

Global warming? Pah! Show me a plot with millions of years on the X-axis.

CO2? Pah! Before those climate-changing plants and animals gobbled it all up and locked it in fossils underground the World was a better place. Burning them is releasing it again (theists could argue that we are restoring the World to how (s)he first made it).

The fate of the Gulf Stream? Pah! The Gulf Stream is a temporary effect caused by the current positions of the World's tectonic plates, coupled with the land piled on them. And the seas around them. It'll change ... eventually, gradually.

My point is that the World changes. As an aside, I live near the sea and there are people living in houses on the edge of cliffs nearby expecting the cliffs to never change. Do they not know where cliffs come from?

 

[z633]

To how (s)he first made it? That would be an unstable collection of mass and gas that could not sustain conventional life as we know it.

Maybe the Saudi King should buy panama and have it graded into the ocean, because before it existed, the global ocean currents flowed through it and that actually made the northern Africa part of the world a tropical paradise. They could use the tourist money after the oil runs out.

Everybody is making too big of a deal about it. Human activities effect the environment. We need to limit the effects of the impact of the environment. Do you what to go back and use leaded gas, remove all pollution controls that annoy are first but in retrospect have greatly improved quality of life. CO2 control is just another form of emmissions control. Working globally and getting the developing countries to incorporate the latest technologies that are mass produced, economical and have net advantage over disadvanage. It can be done, slowly, and coincedently will be a great head start into sustainability as oil-coal breadfruit becomes cost prohibitive.

 

[LCruiser]

Actually the Sahara was a verdant plain only 5,000 years ago in the Holocene maximum. Not much continental drift since then. Just a little warmer...

 

[Quantum50]

One reason we need to understand our impact (more likely, the lack thereof) on the global environment is if we truly changed it for the worse, can we arrogantly assume we can affect change for the better....or do we just make things worse in the process. There are those (breast-beaters) whom think that no matter what we do, we'll muck things up. They somehow think it's thearaputic to accept guilt where none previously existed.

 

[epoisses]

A couple thousand inuit who complain there are not enough seals to kill or millions of people who die of aids and malaria, I think it's pretty clear which problem deserves a higher priority.

 

[electricpete]

epoisses - if we believe the scientists, the changes that we see today in the artic will be just the tip of the iceberg, if we continue the status quo.
Greg is right - there have been many variations in climate within our recent history. The purpose of my multiple links was to respond to a question that appeared to question whether there was any warming going on in the artic. As I indicated the question is not whether it's going on but why (natural cycle or man-accelerated).

There are several in this thread who point to historical climate change apparently as proof (!?) that the current climate change are not man-created. What it proves is that from a layman's perspective there is a plausible alternative scenario. It doesn't prove one way or another what the causal factors are. To make an educated guess on that question will require consideration of the climate model with all it's forcing functions well as looking at rates of change and applying statistical analysis. If we adopted the stance that any change which does not exceed historical climate extremes should therefore be disregarded, I guess we won't be taking any actions until we see something like an ice-age? I hope we agree that is not the correct approach.

The proof to me is not in the warming, it is in the consensus among scientific organizations cited above. (I have not yet seen any credible scientific organizations or panels yet cited on the other side although I will repeat my request for someone to prove me wrong on this.)

One historical criticism of the state-of-the-art climate models is that they predict more warming from CO2 than we have actually seen. To the extent we see global warming trends become apparent, it tends to counter this criticism and support the models.

regarding corus' link - cooling of Northern Europe as I understand it would be associated with slowing down of the North Atlantic ocean conveyor, all part of the same scenario predicting overall global warming which does not mean warming everywhere, but an average warming with different changes depending on where you are.

Sompting guy - that looks like an interesting reference although I don't plan on spending the money for it. I would like to ask if you think that this single author has comparable credibility to LANL, LLNL, NANA, NOAA, NAS, WHOA, IPCC?

davidbeach - I think you are correct. An accelerated ice age is identified as a possible result of man-induced global warming but the time frame is very long. The global warming scenario's are already upon us with dramatic change forecast within a century.

Quantum - I don't see what's arrogant about trying to minimize our impact. Quite the contrary it is arrogant to on one hand acknowledge CO2 has increased by 25% as a result of man's activities, continues to increase at an INCREASING RATE, is identified as a contributor to global warming by our most credible scientific organizations, has barely begun to show it's effects due to the huge thermal inertia of the system.... and on the other hand to conclude that we don't need to do anything about it because A - someone on the internet said it doesn't exist B - we think we can cope with it when it happens, C - insert your favorite lame excuse here. THAT is arrogant!

I see a repeated refrain through the posts that there appear to be so many contradictions within climate science that we can't possibly hope to understand the problem and shouldn't waste any effort in addressing since the results of our tremendous efforts will be unknown (and if you listen to LCruiser, limiting CO2 would plunge us into an ice age!). The contradictions appear within the cluttered cacaphony (sp?) of cyber-space and the media. As we know there are winners and losers in acting responsible and the losers will undoubtedly try to influence us with any smoke and mirrors they can muster. If the appearance of widespread scientific disagreement created through these smoke and mirrors creates uncertainty, and if uncertainty means inaction, then I guess it's been a pretty effective strategy. They score bonus points using by keeping the discussion politically charged with plenty of labels like "fear monger" and "alarmist".

The uncertainty and chaos does not extend to the mainstream scientific community. They have spoken in large credible groups with a fairly uniform message urging us to reduce CO2 production as I have cited above.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

I will say that I think there are intelligent well-informed people on both sides of the issue. I didn't mean to imply that everyone who argues against man's inluence on global warming is trying to obscure the truth as they see it. (Only some and particularly the oil interests). For that matter there are probably people on the other side who try to obscure the truth on some issues. Plenty of spin and labeling on both sides... not the exclusive domain of one side or the other.

I think it's an interesting discussion and I hope it continues on a fairly amicable level.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

In rereading my comments, it's probably also important to acknowledge that there are not just two sides. A lot of intelligent people look at the issue and come up with important distinctions in the way we should view the problem.. For example some agree there is strong evidence of man's effect but want to proceed to the next practical question: what could we do and how much would it cost? I have a hard time proceeding to that next important discussion without addressing the other voices that question whether CO2 has any effect at all.

It's inherent in this multi-participant dialogue format (and maybe in the political discussion at large) that those important distinctions are sometimes lost and the discussion focuses towards the differences between the extreme views. I'm not sure how to overcome that but I'm going to make an effort to avoid viewing this problem, the solutions, and the participants through a one-dimensional prism (with only two extremes of view.)

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

What would be the cost to the US of leveling our CO2 production within 20 years?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[LCruiser]

The Innuit, polar bears, seals, etc. did fine a thousand years ago during the Medieval Warm Period.

Also, the rate of increase of CO2 concentration is concave downward, not upward. 3D dimensional analysis shows it peaking in about 50 years.

 

[electricpete]

You are correct that I mis-spoke on the CO2 concentration. Our rate of addition of CO2 to the air is still increasing today. The rate of increase of CO2 in the air is not increasing (there are removal mechanisms that increase as concentration increases so the air concentration is not an integral of the input).

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

On the subject of Lomberg, I found this criticism of his book. It is clear this author thinks Lomberg's book is hogwash.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00040A72-A95C-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322

The interesting thing is that the author of this piece is John Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American.

I don't put Scientific American in quite as high of a credibility category as the organization I cited above, but I have to think they are a fairly respected organization with a pretty scientific outlook on these political questions.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[z633]

Regardless of who's right and who's wrong. The technology is available today to mitigate the accumulation of CO2. These devices that are fundamentally based on nanobiotechnology artificial photosynthesis function similar to the silicon solar panels, except that instead of 20-25% efficiency, these run currently 45% in the lab. These obviously require sunlight, water effluent that is basically partially treated sewer waste water. The output is methane and purified water. The methane can be stored back into the ground or converted into hydrogen fuel, at the normal efficiency that still is not acceptable for mass utilization. Also desalination plants have been discussed as the intake has a good amount of inherent nutrients, plus the process is adaptable to salty intake water, seaweed. IPO is coming. Sorry can
not link, proprietary secrecy you understand.

 

[GregLocock]

electricpete, you might want to read a bit more about SciAm and Lomborg, there's more than a hint of a witch-hunt about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjorn_Lomberg

has some interesting links.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[electricpete]

That is interesting. He's a controversial guy. What conclusions you draw from that I guess depend on your predispositions.

Greg - you have GOT to check out this article on another book he wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Crises,_Global_Solutions

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

No, never mind. Wrong link. I had edited something humorous into Wikipedia at the link below but I guess it doesn't show up immediately (maybe they have a reviewer in which case it'll never show up)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Crises,_Global_Solutions

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[GregLocock]

I have no great sympathy for Lomberg, he wrote a controversial book... and got a controversy. Although on balance I think he is right in a lot of ways. Your links just lead to a stub article.

Meanwhile, since we were playing my experts are smarter than your experts, here's what some amateur chair-warmer at a little known college had to say:

EARTH IN THE BALANCE
Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
WSJ.com
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060627/20060627_15.html

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[GregLocock]

Ah, addendum, well OK, your short lived jocularity is now in the bit-bucket. Wiki is pretty tough on that sort of thing, I guess they are scared of it turning into eng-tips.

Anyway, the Lindzen article is a good read, it articulates many of the cynic's points well. But I would add, I don't know if he's a respected climatologist, as such, but he's a damn sight closer to the source than I am.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.