Climate Change

[Gepeto]

Your FIFY is still gender specific...it's just correct now. My assumption woulda been right 99% of the time around here (98%?)

Didn't need to make you defensive... my bad.

[wyeaster]

[wyeaster]

[wyeaster]

[neufox47]

What is your opinion on the idea that carbon levels lag behind temperatures, and that temperature is the driving force behind carbon levels rather than the other way around?

Do you disagree with the physical properties of co2 as accepted by virtually every physicist? How would that even work?

The last two years co2 levels increased 3 ppm each year. The levels of co2 have been increasing at accelerating speeds. If your theory of more co2 will result in more co2 sequestration, why do we see accelerating increases?

Yea, adding .8% more of a gas each year is a big deal when it happens for hundreds of years. We've almost doubled the co2 in the atmosphere. We are on pace to see close to 1,000 ppm by 2100.

The ideas you share really show why the average person is unqualified to develop a personal opinion on this matter. Lacking an understanding of math beyond basic algebra doesn't seem to preclude people from opining on systems that require advanced calculus and statistics. It's like asking a persons opinion on avalanche conditions due to a persistent weak layer only to find out they have never taken an avy course and don't spend time in the mountains during winter.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Didn't need to make you defensive... my bad.

No, I appreciate the correction. Typically I wouldn't assume gender, but again, around here it's a pretty safe bet (unfortunately, I would say). Still amazed at her posts and hope it's not in vain (IMO probably more important for those she's not directly addressing, which is worth keeping in mind).

[::: :::]

As far as I can tell,

the number I see being used.

but we know this is not the case.

These are not my ideas. I have no idea about any of this.

Just stop

[Buster Highmen]

As far as I can tell, in ice core measurements, there is no debate that they show CO2 levels lagging behind temperatures. The general explanation seems to be that in the past temperatures increased due to changes in the Earth's orbit. This led to ocean temperatures increasing, thus releasing carbon from the oceans. This positive feedback loop led to more warming.

I think the question was whether you accept that CO2 holds heat more readily than other common atmospheric gases.

Anyway, see this: https://www.newscientist.com/article...lobal-warming/

where it says:
The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming.

It's because 100% of the carbon emissions are not getting sequestered. 40% is the number I see being used.

I think there's solid data on CO2 increases in the atmosphere, right?

Sure adding .8%/year would be a very big deal if CO2 levels were something that has stayed constant throughout history, but we know this is not the case. CO2 levels are variable, and at times, have been significantly higher than we see today.

I don't understand your point here. CO2 concentrations are rising and CO2 hold more heat than other common atmospheric gases, so that rise in CO2 will drive a rise in warming. What part of that statement is inconsistent?

These are not my ideas. I have no idea about any of this. I came across some skeptic information that presented a more compelling case than I was expecting. Klar is being nice enough to offer a professional opinion.

Science requires skepticism, but it also requires one to acknowledge the arguments that explain the data. Climate change is a pretty well supported theory. It's detractors don't really offer another explanation, another constructive argument about what will happen as CO2 levels rise.

[californiagrown]

[QUOTE=cumicon;5038899] The mainstream portrayal of climate change is that humans are the sole driver. QUOTE]

No. No, that is not true at all. And if that is the way you have understood it, you lack the aptitude to process or analyze scientific journals, arguments, and data. Only morons, and those totally brainwashed by the far right or left wing agenda actually think that is the "portrayal". Its tough to have discussions and conversations with people who cherry pick your words, and hear what they want, instead of actually listenting to you and processing what you are saying. Leave your political views out of it and just focus on the science... not the talking heads with agendas spinning the science to support their agenda.

Science isn't political. What to do about the scientific conclusions IS political, but too many damn idiots don't understand the difference.

[Buster Highmen]

Rather than get into another point by point debate that no one wants to read, I would say that yes, I do have questions about how well the relationship between CO2 and temperatures is understood. For example, this a graphic I have come across a few times:
Attachment 207775
If this is accurate (klar?), what are we to make of the relationship between temperatures and CO2?

Klar already addressed that very graph. See earlier in the thread: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...41#post5038141

Is the root of your skepticism hinged on the claim that CO2 holds more heat than other common atmospheric gases?
Or do you accept that?

[Buster Highmen]

The "mainstream" are not analyzing scientific journals and data. It seems crazy to me that you take exception to this. I'm pretty sure if you ask any random person on the street who believes in climate change what is causing it, they will tell you its humans (agriculture, fossil fuels, etc.)

If the average person concedes that climate change is caused by people, that's consistent with AGW theory.

I'm missing what's wrong with that.
,
Are you saying people are just going with the theories posited in mass media? And this is a fault?

[californiagrown]

The "mainstream" are not analyzing scientific journals and data. It seems crazy to me that you take exception to this. I'm pretty sure if you ask any random person on the street who believes in climate change what is causing it, they will tell you its humans (agriculture, fossil fuels, etc.)

Yes, AGW is caused by humans. The A part is pretty critical to that acronym. That is the focal point of the debate, and is why there is all this debate. People will think you are asking about the most popular aspect of climate change to debate... and its the most popular aspect because its the one that WE CAN AFFECT, and is the one that is NOT NATURAL OR NORMAL.

Its like talking about oil spills in the ocean and saying they are not a problem because the earth naturally seeps many times more oil naturally into the environment than any man made spills. Its true, but its an oblique point whose intent is to distract from and lessen the importance of the debate at hand.

[::: :::]

I am confused what we are even arguing about here.

anthropogenic climate change is driven by human influence

that idea is not at odds with the existence of a natural climate cycle already in place

[Buster Highmen]

I just skimmed through the thread, and did not see anything relating to that graph.

My skepticism is not hinged on CO2 holding more heat than other gases. I would say these are the main points that sum up my skepticism:

OK, so we agree: CO2 hold more heat.

-There are many factors that influence climate, this appears to be a complex system and not totally understood.
-The climate on earth is never constant, and sometimes changes drastically

That seems irrelevant.

-The temperature changes we have seen in the past century are totally normal in the context of Earth history

That seems irrelevant.

-CO2 levels are not constant have been significantly higher in the past than they are today

That seems irrelevant.

Also, I should say I absolutely believe humans are having an effect on the climate. It is the significance of the human factor that I am skeptical of.

OK. I think there's data to indicate that the increase in CO2 is largely man made.
There is also data that correlates this increase in CO2 with a rise in temperatures.

Getting back to this point, that graph you posted is referenced in this post:
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...99#post5033899

Where the paper from which the graph is taken has this abstract:

The relation between the partial pressure of atmospheric carbon dioxide (pCO2) and Paleogene climate is poorly resolved. We used stable carbon isotopic values of di-unsaturated alkenones extracted from deep sea cores to reconstruct pCO2 fromthe middle Eocene to the late Oligocene (∼45 to 25 million years ago). Our results demonstrate that pCO2 ranged between 1000 to 1500 parts per million by volume in the middle to late Eocene, then decreased in several steps during the Oligocene, and reached modern levels by the latest Oligocene. The fall in pCO2 likely allowed for a critical expansion of ice sheets on Antarctica and promoted conditions that forced the onset of terrestrial C4 photosynthesis.

See http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5734/600 .

Regarding the human factor in GW, please see Klars thoughtful post:
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...36#post5034336 ..that explain
In summary, this data and the models that explain it do support the hypothesis that the human factor in GW is significant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>


I'll keep banging the drum that part of the problem is the way we look at phenomenon and how we jump to conclusions. It's not just semantics, it's a different more modern way of looking at the world.

Surely we burly, assured men will get more action and be more impressive in the squat thrusts of social media and can wage glorious vbattles over truth and facts and shit. It's just so romantically medieval.

It's just that stuff can be a lot more subtle and "facts" like Newtonian physics explain some things, but there's other phenomenon that fails to be explained by Newtonian physics.

So, it's OK to look at the world in terms of theories and theories are supposed to change and we are supposed to be skeptical. But none of the things you've listed really make an argument against AGW as far as I can understand.

It's one thing to be skeptical of a theory and a whole different thing to claim AGW isn't "True".

As a society, in America at least, we've lost the ability to have a discussion, to admit the potential flaws in theories.

Instead we just head down some buttheaded paths of warring truths because of team loyalty. As long as we function like that, we're more fucked than any result of climate change could ever be.

Besides, I don't know shit about this mainstream deal, I'm exstream.

[Danno]

Man is not powerful enough to impact climate /Thread

The relative of a friend posted the same thing on FB; this appears to be a major tenet of deniers, but I don't really understand it. We certainly know that man can destroy both micro and macro environments. We can "chop down" a mountain mining for coal, we can pollute our rivers to the point where they can catch and stay on fire, we can chop down millions of acres of forest, we can cause earthquakes through hydraulic fracturing, we dry up rivers through our consumptive use. We can destroy our ozone layer through the use of CFCs.

Why then is it so hard to believe we can, on a global scale, change the climate ever so slightly, a degree or two?

[mall walker]

I personally wouldn't waste even a second of my time engaging with someone posting pepe memes.

[tom tuttle from tacoma washington]

The relative of a friend posted the same thing on FB; this appears to be a major tenet of deniers, but I don't really understand it. We certainly know that man can destroy both micro and macro environments. We can "chop down" a mountain mining for coal, we can pollute our rivers to the point where they can catch and stay on fire, we can chop down millions of acres of forest, we can cause earthquakes through hydraulic fracturing, we dry up rivers through our consumptive use. We can destroy our ozone layer through the use of CFCs.

Why then is it so hard to believe we can, on a global scale, change the climate ever so slightly, a degree or two?

Because Dog would never allow it.

[neufox47]

As far as I can tell, in ice core measurements, there is no debate that they show CO2 levels lagging behind temperatures. The general explanation seems to be that in the past temperatures increased due to changes in the Earth's orbit. This led to ocean temperatures increasing, thus releasing carbon from the oceans. This positive feedback loop led to more warming.



It's because 100% of the carbon emissions are not getting sequestered. 40% is the number I see being used.



Sure adding .8%/year would be a very big deal if CO2 levels were something that has stayed constant throughout history, but we know this is not the case. CO2 levels are variable, and at times, have been significantly higher than we see today.



These are not my ideas. I have no idea about any of this. I came across some skeptic information that presented a more compelling case than I was expecting. Klar is being nice enough to offer a professional opinion.

Here is the science on the "lag". In summary, warming causes a release of co2 from the oceans and other areas, so while temperature may initially increase independent of co2 levels, co2 increase causes a rise in temp, which causes more co2 release:

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:

The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing ofheat between the hemispheres.The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.

While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2increase (Figure 2).


Or a video.
https://youtu.be/dHozjOYHQdE

But that wasn't my point. My point was that unless you have a proof to show that co2 properties are wrong as physics currently understands them, we KNOW co2 causes warming. It is only a question of how much warming.

Secondly, no one disagrees that not all carbon we release is staying in the atmosphere. However despite this, we see logarithmic increase in co2, 3ppm per annum the last two years. This means that when my (potential) kids are old, we will have an atmosphere approaching 1000 ppm. Yes, the atmosphere used to be 1000 ppm. The atmosphere also used to be uninhabitable for mammals. The earth also used to have 1000 foot tides and be mostly covered in molten lava. When was the last time we had co2 levels of 1000 ppm and what was the temperature then?

Again, you clearly have no basis to think you should be able to reach your own conclusion on whether AGW is real. Just like you have no basis to reach your own conclusion about whether a drug that is highly toxic will work to kill cancer cells or whether a vaccine is effective. You should rely upon the best minds in the scientific community that studies this, or obtain an advanced understanding of math and physics that would make you capable of studying this. Until then, give all the input you want about what humanities response should be to AGW, but don't pretend you possess the scientific tool kit to draw your own conclusions.

[californiagrown]

Again, you clearly have no basis to think you should be able to reach your own conclusion on whether AGW is real. Just like you have no basis to reach your own conclusion about whether a drug that is highly toxic will work to kill cancer cells or whether a vaccine is effective. You should rely upon the best minds in the scientific community that studies this, or obtain an advanced understanding of math and physics that would make you capable of studying this. Until then, give all the input you want about what humanities response should be to AGW, but don't pretend you possess the scientific tool kit to draw your own conclusions.

Problem is, this common sense idea is generally only common sense to folks who work or have been involved in the STEM community. It goes back to the whole "the more you know, the more you know you don't know" thing.

It sucks having someone tell you to change your way of life and to pay more money based upon circumstances that you don't understand. Instead, they listen to the narrative which causes them the least pain, whether it is right or wrong.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Well shit, better stay away from Flat Earther pages, Creationism pages, anti vax pages, and pretty much the rest of the internet. You seem awfully impressionable.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Orbital changes effecting weather? Bull fucking shit. The more we learn about atmospheric composition effecting weather, the larger the Goldie Locks Zone gets. We're actually closer to the sun when it's winter in the northern hemisphere. Gyroscopic procession, or whatever it's called, may have some effect, but it's hard to measure. May not matter as much as greenhouse gases.

[stuckathuntermtn]

So for those of you who question climate change, are there other prevailing scientific theories you question?
Perhaps black holes and graviton waves are made up too?
The anatomy of an atom?
The anatomy of a mammal?
What else do you think is wrong?
It can't really just be one thing. Often, scientific knowledge is interconnected.
If the basic fundamental physics of global warming are questionable, other building blocks of our understanding of the universe must be open to new interpretations then. If one thing doesn't work, the other thing that follows the same rules must also have a flaw.
So, go on. Tell us. Maybe we'll finally get to the Grand Unifying Theory.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Ok: they are wrong.
Clear enough?

[Mofro261]

This is fair, but I think its worthwhile to make an effort to try to understand the subject even if you don't have the scientific background. I feel like people think I'm trying to battle with people about whether AGW is real or not, when I'm really just presenting some skeptic arguments I have come across and looking for clarification.

Attachment 207775

But where is this one figure you are stuck on from, can you provide a source?

Part of the scientific method involves not just the reliance on a quoted piece of data as the graph you provided, but also follow up into the source of the data in it's original context. In this case, the figure you site in fact itself sites 2 sources- a website that plots temperature as a function of geological time in the context of plate techtonics- http://scotese.com/climate.htm. and the second that is looking at paleo-carbon content and the influence of of different factors including plants, on carbon. levels. http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2...n020100182.pdf


Here is the direct conclusion of the authors sited for the C02 graph in the 2001 paper:

Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared tothose for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained itsoverall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARBIII, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appearsto have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop duringthe Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary,late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added tothe model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by thestandard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification.Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect

They note uncertainty in these early measurements prior to 400 million years ago as they are trying to measure in 10 million year increments, but they also note that very high levels of carbon were drivers for mass extinctions.

Likewise, the author who has done the temperature analysis -and how he does it based on the percentage of land mass within a given climate zone across the geographical record, has continued to update his graphs also appears to be a staunch proponent of AGW:

According to a natural cycle, controlled in part by changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit, this warm period should continue for another 40,000 years or so. Then, if Nature has its way, the Earth will slip back again into the grips of another major ice age and frigid landscapes will once again expand outward from the poles. But Nature may not have its way. Things have changed. We have changed things. The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere during the last 200 years of human industry has amplified this natural warming trend and the average global temperature has risen rapidly. The average global temperature was 12 ˚ C during the Last Glacial Maximum(21,000 years ago). During the following Interglacial period, the average global temperature slowly rose to 13.8˚C. Since 1880, it has increased another .6˚ degrees to 14.4˚C ( as of 2015). This rate of warming is ~50 times faster 1 than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years.

So in all appearances, this graph represents propaganda, repackaging data from unrelated studies to support a narrative that is not consistent with either of the authors conclusions based on their own data.

[Buster Highmen]

I'm not seeing anything addressing that specific graph in the other thread.

It's there. Klar even specifies the study from which that graph came and calls it into questionability.

Again, the abstract does say
The fall in pCO2 likely allowed for a critical expansion of ice sheets on Antarctica and promoted conditions that forced the onset of terrestrial C4 photosynthesis.

So the article from which that graph came says that CO2 affect the expansion of ice sheets. By inference, CO2 affected the average temperature.

The abstract you quoted doesn't address the wild fluctuations we see between temperature and CO2 in the graph.

It doesn't address giraffe dick size either. But it does say that CO2 levels influenced climate, average temperatures in particular.

I'm not claiming that AGW isn't true. I became skeptical after reading some denier stuff, and presented some of those arguments here to see what the response is.

If you can't correlate the responses with the array of questions you're asking, I can't communicate with you. The point remains that there's a shitload of data to support the AGW claims.