[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

What would disprove the notion that man is causing climate change?

If the average annual temperature (smoothed over 5 years) by 2030 is cooler than today, that would be a pretty good indicator that the theory is mot supportable. By 2050 would provide even more evidence.

But the evidence is pretty overwhelming. Then agin, the evidence for the Tehory of Evolution is pretty overwhelming too, but a lot of people don't buy that either.

[andyt]

Zipperfish wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

What would disprove the notion that man is causing climate change?

If the average annual temperature (smoothed over 5 years) by 2030 is cooler than today, that would be a pretty good indicator that the theory is mot supportable. By 2050 would provide even more evidence.

But the evidence is pretty overwhelming. Then agin, the evidence for the Tehory of Evolution is pretty overwhelming too, but a lot of people don't buy that either.

Is the evidence for man-made warming really that strong? It would seem to be hard to differentiate it from any natural processes that might be occurring.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

What would disprove the notion that man is causing climate change?

If the average annual temperature (smoothed over 5 years) by 2030 is cooler than today, that would be a pretty good indicator that the theory is mot supportable. By 2050 would provide even more evidence.

You're rational. Myself, I would merely expect the argument from the AGW cultists to take on the form of...

Global warming caused global cooling! It's because it was so hot that it's now so cold!

[Zipperfish]

andyt wrote:

Is the evidence for man-made warming really that strong? It would seem to be hard to differentiate it from any natural processes that might be occurring.

Bart is of the opinion that there is no warming trend at all, but rather cooling, so the issue as to the cause of warming isn't on the table with him.

It could certainly be natural, but that's unlikely. That said there's a lot of uncertainty because scientists don't really understand the climate system all that well and are discovering new things all the time, like the Ocean Conveyor mentioned above, for example.

Scinetists are pretty sure it's not the sun, since the solar irradiance and global temperature trend don't correlate very well. There is no known cyclical weather event that we know of causing it. It could be that it is natural climatic event as we come out of the Little Ice Age or recovering from the Pleistocene Ice Age we are currently in, but it doesn't really explain the rate of change of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and also, you'd expect a clearer correlation with solar irradiance.

The reason I subscribe to anthrpogenic global wamring is because I asked myself: If CO2 emitted by humans isn't warming the atmosphere then why not? If you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and you accept that we've emitted about 500 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, then, to my mind, you'd expect an increase in atmospheric CO2, and if you get an increase in atmospheric CO2, you'd expect average global temperatures to rise, which is exactly what is happening.

[andyt]

Zipperfish wrote:

The reason I subscribe to anthrpogenic global wamring is because I asked myself: If CO2 emitted by humans isn't warming the atmosphere then why not? If you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and you accept that we've emitted about 500 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, then, to my mind, you'd expect an increase in atmospheric CO2, and if you get an increase in atmospheric CO2, you'd expect average global temperatures to rise, which is exactly what is happening.

I like your thinking.

But what is the increase in CO2? - Does it correlate with our emissions? I remember writing a paper on forests as carbon sinks in the 70's - it seemed there were a lot of questions about what systems would be carbon sinks. Just recently, it seems, they've determined that forests in general aren't - we can't get no credit for our boreal forests.

But how does CO2 explain the warmer than current temps during the middle ages warm period? There's a reason the Vikings called the east coast of the US Vineland.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

Bart is of the opinion that there is no warming trend at all, but rather cooling, so the issue as to the cause of warming isn't on the table with him.

No, I recognize that there is a larger macro trend of warming that's been ongoing since the apogee of the current ice age. We're now at the tail end of a 20,000 year warming trend that put an end to the ice sheet that once covered almost all of Canada.

In the shorter, micro-trend, the hypothesis that we're experiencing 'catastrophic' warming has been effectively disproved by nature herself. Ten years ago we were told not to expect there to be any snow in California due to projected warming and here we are at the start of an early ski season.

The thing with earth's climate is that it trends to cold more than it trends to warm. We should be thankful for a warm period because life in a cold period sucks @$$.

[ASLplease]

Cool, I cant wait to go icefishing so could everyone please run outside and start their V12 SUVs?

[Zipperfish]

Quote:

I like your thinking.

But what is the increase in CO2? - Does it correlate with our emissions? I remember writing a paper on forests as carbon sinks in the 70's - it seemed there were a lot of questions about what systems would be carbon sinks. Just recently, it seems, they've determined that forests in general aren't - we can't get no credit for our boreal forests.

But how does CO2 explain the warmer than current temps during the middle ages warm period? There's a reason the Vikings called the east coast of the US Vineland.

It correlates fairly well with emissions. If all the CO2 we emitted stayed in the atmosphere, we'd be up arouund 500 ppm CO2 right now. But it doesn't work that way, of course. There's a carbon cycle, and of course, the carbon cycle, like all teh other cycles is super-complicated. The ocean and terretsial environment can absorb some CO2. How much they can absorb/process is a matter of pretty much conjecture at this point, if you ask me.


They also have a way of tagging anthorpogenic CO2 versus "natural" CO2 because the anthrpogenic CO2 due to fossil fuel combustion has been out of circulation for a few hundred million years and so has a different isotope profile. Forests were a carbon sink last I checked. I wasn't aware that anyone was even questioning that.

I gather we're likely--though not certainly--warmer than the Medival Warm Period (MWP) now. I really don't know that much about it. I'm an amateur physicist, so I enjoy all the radiative physics involved in the climate change debate. The MWP gets into tree rings and abstruse statistical models, and I don't really understand it that much. The sceptic blog Climate Audit goes into it in excruciating detail.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

No, I recognize that there is a larger macro trend of warming that's been ongoing since the apogee of the current ice age. We're now at the tail end of a 20,000 year warming trend that put an end to the ice sheet that once covered almost all of Canada.

In the shorter, micro-trend, the hypothesis that we're experiencing 'catastrophic' warming has been effectively disproved by nature herself. Ten years ago we were told not to expect there to be any snow in California due to projected warming and here we are at the start of an early ski season.

The thing with earth's climate is that it trends to cold more than it trends to warm. We should be thankful for a warm period because life in a cold period sucks @$$.

All right, noted. I remember you going on about an imminent ice age at one point--maybe you were just being facetious.

"Catastrophic" is thrown around a lot, but not defined. I like Bjorn Lomberg's line, something to the effect that climate change is a problem not a catastrophe. I say regyulate the low-hanging fruit, like coal-fired electrical generaiton facilties and vehcile emission standards adn move on.

Overfishing on the open seas is a way bigger and more immediate problem, in my opinion. We have no idea what's going on out there, and what little we do know isn't reassuring. The collapse of a major fishery in Africa or Asia will cause major starvation.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

The collapse of a major fishery in Africa or Asia will cause major starvation.

And the 'Earth First' crowd will celebrate such a famine as a means of reducing human populations and their individual carbon footprints.

Really, I see the whole drama over global warming to be a matter of a left-wing, authoritarian, global government solution in search of a problem to justify the desired solution.

[N_Fiddledog]

Hey Zip, I haven't had a chance to talk to you lately. Remember how last year you were telling me how warm water in the Pacific was killing all the salmon? Explain this year's bumper salmon run to me.

[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Hey Zip, I haven't had a chance to talk to you lately. Remember how last year you were telling me how warm water in the Pacific was killing all the salmon? Explain this year's bumper salmon run to me.

Global warming is causing an overpopulation of salmon and it's threatening the delicate balance of the Pacific Ocean's ecosystem.

See, no matter what happens, it proves AGW theory. That's why the climate cultists dropped 'global warming' and instead adopted 'climate change' as their new mantra. That way no matter what happens they can claim it proves they're right.

It gets warm, they're right. It gets cold, they're right. If nothing happens, then they'll still claim to be right by saying man is then preventing natural climate change.

It's like playing three card monty with a street hustler. No matter what card you pick you'll be wrong and they'll be right and that's because they're cheating. Just read the 'climategate' emails for yourself and you'll see how the game is played.

It's not science, it's just a big fucking con game is all it is.