Global Cooling will kill us all!

[SSgtMobley]

This assumes that US setting emissions targets will have no influence on Chinese policy. As we saw in Montreal, that isn’t the case. We are standing in the way of a united front to bring China and the rest of the +5 nations to the table for firm reductions.

Without trying to get into politics (which is what governmental influences on foreign and local policies is), I would like to point out that China's current growth is based on being able to produce more on less due to their willingness to employ workers at remarkablely lower incomes than you and I. Since they are growing into a Superpower with the intention of globalizing their political agenda, I think it very likely that if the United States and the EU lower their production to match CO2 emmisions...OR if the United States and the EU raise their prices to match the regulations needed to match CO2 emmisions...that China will simply take up the slack and replace it 1 for 1.

[wanderingwaldo]

[SSgtMobley]

I'm trying to figure out if that is supporting or attacking my view.

Incidently, I wasn't stating that things shouldn't be done. I was largely stating my belief that things won't be done.

[wanderingwaldo]

I was largely stating my belief that things won't be done.

That's precisely what that picture is about - what is the good of posturing and BS when we all stand to lose the kit & caboodle when things go out of hand. The thing is that those who have benefited the most from GHG emissions (U.S.A.) also have the biggest change to make in order to solve the problem.

[Osiris Risen]

Without trying to get into politics (which is what governmental influences on foreign and local policies is), I would like to point out that China's current growth is based on being able to produce more on less due to their willingness to employ workers at remarkablely lower incomes than you and I. Since they are growing into a Superpower with the intention of globalizing their political agenda, I think it very likely that if the United States and the EU lower their production to match CO2 emmisions...OR if the United States and the EU raise their prices to match the regulations needed to match CO2 emmisions...that China will simply take up the slack and replace it 1 for 1.

China's growth was dependent on the same factors when we agreed to the Montreal Protocol, and that worked out just fine. A major expense we would have is converting our current infrastructure to use new energy sources, but due to the rapid growth in China they're constantly building new infrastructure. The difference between a coal plant and a renewable alternative is much less than building one and then replacing it with the other, which is what we'd be doing. Much the same way that it's cheaper to build a house powered by solar or geothermal than it would be to convert your current house.

With all the developed world powers shifting to renewables, the prices would come down (they already are in many cases) while the oil prices are only going to increase. For developing nations, building infrastructure based on renewable energy would be an investment that would more than pay for itself over time.

[wanderingwaldo]

Without trying to get into politics (which is what governmental influences on foreign and local policies is), I would like to point out that China's current growth is based on being able to produce more on less due to their willingness to employ workers at remarkablely lower incomes than you and I. Since they are growing into a Superpower with the intention of globalizing their political agenda, I think it very likely that if the United States and the EU lower their production to match CO2 emmisions...OR if the United States and the EU raise their prices to match the regulations needed to match CO2 emmisions...that China will simply take up the slack and replace it 1 for 1.

China's growth was dependent on the same factors when we agreed to the Montreal Protocol, and that worked out just fine. A major expense we would have is converting our current infrastructure to use new energy sources, but due to the rapid growth in China they're constantly building new infrastructure. The difference between a coal plant and a renewable alternative is much less than building one and then replacing it with the other, which is what we'd be doing. Much the same way that it's cheaper to build a house powered by solar or geothermal than it would be to convert your current house.

With all the developed world powers shifting to renewables, the prices would come down (they already are in many cases) while the oil prices are only going to increase. For developing nations, building infrastructure based on renewable energy would be an investment that would more than pay for itself over time.

If you give 3 years notice to industry with regulations that eliminate NEW INSTALLATIONS of non-renewable / non-sequestered sources they would have time to adapt. Then all new installations would be renewable or have the CO2 locked-away and efforts to lessen demand for the old infrastructure could begin. The planning cycle for a plant is rarely longer than 18 months or so. The payback time for a plant is typically 10-30 years depending.

[gridley]

Anyway, on to methodology.

Is there a set of equations that fully describe the Earth’s climate, given all relevant inputs (I can name a dozen at least; I’m sure you can name more)? If not, how is the proof of man’s impact on Earth’s climate “physics”?

Literally every single input isn’t relevant for establishing energy balance and radiative forcing. The equations you’re looking for can be found here.

I'm not trying to restart the debate, but I do want to publically thank ghostface for pointing me at that textbook; when I have a day free I intend to look it over.

[FOG3]

Anyway, on to methodology.

Is there a set of equations that fully describe the Earth’s climate, given all relevant inputs (I can name a dozen at least; I’m sure you can name more)? If not, how is the proof of man’s impact on Earth’s climate “physics”?

Literally every single input isn’t relevant for establishing energy balance and radiative forcing. The equations you’re looking for can be found here.

I'm not trying to restart the debate, but I do want to publically thank ghostface for pointing me at that textbook; when I have a day free I intend to look it over.

Here's the counter argument laid out nicely. Whether those advocating UN control of the world's economies want to acknowledge they exist or not is their problem.

Seems as how the pdf is naturally not searchable I can't be sure, but in all the likely places I looked it didn't acknowledge the CO2's concentration's relationship with temperature is logarithmic, if the presumption it even is a driver is presumed valid. The relationship is logarithmic in that it takes a geometrically higher concentration CO2 to get the same change in temperature, logarithmic. Not that people here seem particularly interested in such facts more then not. Nope have to toe the party line, and anyone who dares to commit heresy is to be treated as a heretic.

[ghostface]

Here's the counter argument laid out nicely. Whether those advocating UN control of the world's economies want to acknowledge they exist or not is their problem.

I'll debunk this in a bit.

Seems as how the pdf is naturally not searchable I can't be sure, but in all the likely places I looked it didn't acknowledge the CO2's concentration's relationship with temperature is logarithmic, if the presumption it even is a driver is presumed valid. The relationship is logarithmic in that it takes a geometrically higher concentration CO2 to get the same change in temperature, logarithmic. Not that people here seem particularly interested in such facts more then not. Nope have to toe the party line, and anyone who dares to commit heresy is to be treated as a heretic.

1. The textbook is searchable.
2. The author is Ray Pierrehumbert, and he is quite aware of the logrithmic relationship(e.g. comment #35 here).
3. Denial of mainstream science follows a predictable pattern and relies on the same arguments regardless of the subject in question- it's really only the details that differ.

# Claim that mainstream science isn't actually science in the first place, e.g. it is "religion", "unscientific", "unfalsifiable", "politics", etc.
# Claim that there is an establishment/conspiracy (liberal, leftist, intellectual, political, etc.) pushing its agenda, censoring and/or persecuting those that "dare to dissent"; sometimes conflating science with brutal totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, or religious persecutions like the Inquisition or witch hunts.
# Claim that a vocal minority making claims outside of the primary scientific literature justifies the assertion that a controversy exists; use of open letters/petitions/polls/surveys of alleged experts often on topics outside of their field to give or further impression of same.
# Deliberately equivocate on the meaning of scientific vs. lay terminology (e.g. "theory", "hypothesis", etc.) to persuade lay persons that mainstream science hasn't "been proven".
# Present claims made outside the primary literature as equal to or more credible than studies in refereed journals- even claims made by politicians, or think tanks with clear ideological agendas.
# Present self-contradictory alternatives to/criticisms of the mainstream view without apparent realization or acknowledgment of their mutually exclusive nature.
# Present admissions to or criticisms of problematic aspects relating to the mainstream view that have since been resolved for years, decades, etc. as though they are still relevant; conflate mainstream science to past instances of scientific or pseudoscientific failure without evidence of how the same is occurring.
# Attack opinions and/or statements made outside the primary literature, even claims made by politicians, or organizations with clear ideological agendas as if this is equal to or more credible than publishing criticisms in refereed, respected journals.
# Attack areas of remaining study or uncertainty that may or may not even fall under the scope of the basic premise to give the appearance of discrediting the main tenets.
# Assume any gap or error as positive evidence for the opposing position with no illustration of it being such.

Test this against anti-evolution arguments, vaccine-autism believers, 9/11 Truthers, or any other group that rejects mainstream science.

So far you're engaging in at least three. I have no doubt that the link you provided will have more.

[Shadowsbane]

I would like to suggest people take time to watch this "informative"video on the subject.

Lays everything out nice and clearly.

My problem with this whole thing is the fact that while scientists may be all intelligent, and wise and whatnot, someone is still paying their bills. Not too many people are willing to perform their occupation for free.

There isn't anything wrong with making money, but at the end of the day one cannot ignore that fact about humanity.

All this "green" technology is a huge moneymaker, especially from and for governments. They offer huge tax incentives and grants to "study" whatever they wish, and they can tax people however they wish based off of those results.

Traditional technology offers the same thing, huge corporations pay huge sums to have people "study" things relevant to their industry.

However, in the end governments have the deeper pockets.

Two extreme examples could be:

Long time ago, coal mining companies argued that black lung wasn't a result of the mine work, and hired scientists to prove that claim. Lead companies did the same thing, same with gold companies (refining gold requires arsenic)

or

Nazi Germany hired anthropologists and doctors to prove that the Jews were a sub-species of man, and not on equal footing as the rest of the world. These were also well respected members of their fields, and the eugenics movement helped propel the idea.

Personally I distrust anyone who seems to always have my best interests at heart, or in this case the best interests of the entire world, but then again that is just my $.02

[ghostface]

I would like to suggest people take time to watch this "informative"video on the subject.

Lays everything out nice and clearly.

That was pretty amusing. The rest of your post was as well. A little too on the nose, but overall, not too shabby.

[Tobian]

Hey all, I stop by to read your forum from time to time but I do not think I have posted before. anyway this happens to be a subject that I have been doing a little reading on for a bit and when I saw it here too I attempted to read through it all. 13 pages was to much for me to read every line but I did read a fair number and I might have just missed it but I did not see anything about solar cycles effects on the earths temps.

I am not saying I believe it any more than I do 2012, global dimming or big foots farts causing climate change, but it is yet another piece of info to throw out for you all to debate and entertain me with

I think this article sums up most of the data into one easily read source even if a bit on the alarmist side.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 83,00.html

but for anyone else wanting to get more in-depth with the subject go to
www.solarcycle24.com and read through the message board.

[wanderingwaldo]

Hey all, I stop by to read your forum from time to time but I do not think I have posted before. anyway this happens to be a subject that I have been doing a little reading on for a bit and when I saw it here too I attempted to read through it all. 13 pages was to much for me to read every line but I did read a fair number and I might have just missed it but I did not see anything about solar cycles effects on the earths temps.

I am not saying I believe it any more than I do 2012, global dimming or big foots farts causing climate change, but it is yet another piece of info to throw out for you all to debate and entertain me with

I think this article sums up most of the data into one easily read source even if a bit on the alarmist side.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 83,00.html

but for anyone else wanting to get more in-depth with the subject go to
www.solarcycle24.com and read through the message board.

Phil Chapman is not really an authority on the subject of climate change.

[Old_Man]

I wasn't sure where to insert this, and didn't want to start a new topic…

Caveat…this is from a anti-GW site and hopefully won't start a rant about which is correct and which isn't. I actually work in the environmental field and due to rather conflicting data…I'm on the fence. That said…due to previous long term temperature trend cycles over the last +500,000….we are due for a cooling cycle (into the next ice age). Frankly…global warming is more appealing.

The concern is the sun has peaked and is now going into a cooling cycle as per previous cycles.

November Solar Activity Report – sunspots and 10.7cm radio flux up, but the solar magnetic Ap index crashes
Posted on December 6, 2011 by Anthony Watts
This is strange. Usually we see the geomagnetic Ap Index increase with increasing sunspots and 10.7 cm radio flux. But the Ap index (the third graph below) has crashed to the third lowest level since January 2000, matching what it was a year ago. This is the second month of decline, and the decline is steep.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/06/november-solar-activity-report-sunspots-and-10-7cm-radio-flux-up-but-the-solar-magnetic-ap-index-crashes/

Presently, sunspots are numerous, but fading…certainly this could simply be an anomaly…but then the AMO went negative to a level not seen since 1996…
Raw data:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.data

Article (again same site…so bit of precaution here):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/09/the-november-amo-index-goes-negative-first-time-since-1996/

The trend line:


So…..I would take this as…regardless of human input…it could be that due to a large drop in solar output….the possibility of cooling trend beginning….and then again, we could be seeing an anomaly and nothing more……...

[andygates]

No surprise that the AMO is negative: it's an oscillation, after all. The "new normal" that scientists are seeing in the Arctic has more positive AMO than before, not a complete case. As usual when applying scheme science to a Watts post, "it's more complicated than that.".

As for trends, it's that four years? That's too short by far. The standard is thirty years; climate data if noisy and it's easy to fool yourself (or others) with improperly short chunks of time.

[ghostface]

I wasn't sure where to insert this, and didn't want to start a new topic…

Caveat…this is from a anti-GW site and hopefully won't start a rant about which is correct and which isn't. I actually work in the environmental field and due to rather conflicting data…I'm on the fence. That said…due to previous long term temperature trend cycles over the last +500,000….we are due for a cooling cycle (into the next ice age). Frankly…global warming is more appealing.

The concern is the sun has peaked and is now going into a cooling cycle as per previous cycles.
[snip.]

Just as an FYI, you've got this very mixed up (or your source does). The glaciation cycling of the Pleistocene (the temp and CO2 cycles you've posted) were not driven in any way by sunspot activity or changes in the behavior of the sun itself. Rather, they're driven by changes in the amount of sunlight received by the Northern Hemisphere high latitudes in summer due to cyclical changes in the Earth's movement relative to the sun, aka orbital or Milankovitch forcing. The distribution of received incoming solar radiation (insolation) determines how much snow and ice melt in the Canadian Arctic each summer. More insolation, less snow and ice; less insolation, more snow and ice. This change in the amount of snow and ice alters the planet's albedo (reflectivity) and therefore how much energy it absorbs. The earth then warms or cools in response to the increase or decrease in its planetary energy balance, which causes more snow/ice melt or growth, further altering temperature. Then other feedbacks, notably GHGs (the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean, and the amount of CO2 and methane locked in frozen soils, and the amount of methane produced by wetland extant; the increase or decrease of water vapor with temp changes) further magnify the initial, orbitally-induced change.

Solar activity does also fluctuate, but the net effect on climate is orders of magnitude smaller than that of Milankovitch cycling.

The ocean-atmosphere couplings like the AMO and ENSO are also important features of the climate, but like solar variability tend to have the most impact on interannual to decadal timescales, and result in changes to temp (globally-averaged, regionally they can be much more significant) an order of magnitude smaller.

The question of whether or not we should have already been on our way towards a new glacial maximum absent greenhouse gas emissions is an interesting one. Two of the three main drivers of orbital forcing were certainly heading that way over the past several thousand years, and we see the Arctic cooling in response for the last few thousand years before man-made warming reverses the trend. We don't have a definitive answer because there is no perfect analog to the present orbital conditions in previous interglacials. The point is moot, however, because we've long since increased GHGs far beyond the threshold necessary to initiate a new ice age. And before anyone starts claiming that's a "good thing" consider that there are ways to prevent the next glacial maximum that don't require contributing to ocean acidification and other knock on effects from perturbing the carbon cycle.

If you have any questions or need clarification on anything I just wrote, let me know.

Edited to add: I will also drop some references to studies from the primary scientific literature in when I get the chance.

[Tater Raider]

I think the whole issue is something that is far more complicated than even the scientists studying it can comprehend, but I applaud their efforts at further research.

It has been established that climate changes. Anything else is theory and conjecture and tends to get hijacked for political purposes in my expeirence.

I tend to try to avoid the entire issue as a result, but am willing to discuss it with anyone who wants. Just send me a PM.

EtA: You have your CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, solar cycles, obital deviation, and so on and the weatherman can't get the tempurature right in tomorrow's forecast, so I'm willing to stand by my scientists can't comprehend everything that drives climate change and to what extent and how it all interacts, but will add "at this time" to the remark.

Also added: Global cooling or warming or whatever isn't likely to kill me tomorrow. Or the next day. Or the next. At what point will it matter to me... get back to me in 25 years if I'm still around and I might have an answer.

[ghostface]

First off, I just want to say thanks for being civil and respectful, Tater Raider. This is a topic that can get people riled up, and it's important to remember that we're all on the same team here.

I think the whole issue is something that is far more complicated than even the scientists studying it can comprehend

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. In one sense, this universally true about literally everything. We don't have perfect knowledge of anything. That doesn't mean that we don't have a "good enough" understanding of a great many things for practical purposes. For example, we don't perfectly understand all aspects of aerodynamics and engineering, but that doesn't prevent us from making airplanes that can get you where you want to go.

The climate system is no different. We don't understand it perfectly, and given the limits of human intellect, we probably never will. That isn't to say that we don't have a "good enough" understanding of the climate system to be able to make practical decisions. We have a wealth of observational, theoretical, and geological/paleoclimatic data to draw on, and how much we actually do know would probably surprise you.

It has been established that climate changes. Anything else is theory and conjecture and tends to get hijacked for political purposes in my expeirence.

I think this is a useful point to discuss. I'm going to break it into two parts, in an effort to keep things on the rails. First part:

Anything else... tends to get hijacked for political purposes in my expeirence

I like the fact that you qualified the statement by saying that it held true for your experience. You are recognizing that your personal experience might not hold true for others- and indeed, it does not. I think it's also good to keep in mind that in discussions of environmental science issues, there is a tendency to conflate scientific facts with political beliefs or policy outcomes. It's important, in order to keep things from degenerating into political bickering, to keep science-focused discussions on topic and leave political arguments out of it.

Second part:

It has been established that climate changes. Anything else is theory and conjecture

This isn't actually the case. First, it's probably useful to understand that "theory" has different meanings inside and outside of science. Outside of science, it's often used as a synonym for speculation, as you're using it here. Inside of science, theory means something much different. Theories in science are well-supported by evidence. Thus it's possible to have "the theory of X" and also "the fact of X" without being contradictory. The germ theory of disease transmission is both theory and fact. Evolution through natural selection is both theory and fact. And so on.

There is a tremendous amount beyond "climate changes" that is factual. The greenhouse effect is a fact (albeit an in hindsight poorly named one). That changing the planetary energy balance results in changing its surface temperature is a fact. There are more basic components of understanding climate related to atmospheric chemistry and physics, fluid dynamics, etc. that are as well-established as anything in science.

It's absolutely true that there are still unknowns in climate. But these issues are a great deal more specific and nuanced than the big picture stuff that is the usual focus of internet discussions- e.g. the magnitude of aerosol dimming over the instrumental record. The precise equilibrium climate sensitivity down to tenths of degrees.

However, we know enough about the climate system to say in broad strokes how we're altering it, roughly how much of the warming over the instrumental record is due to human actions, by about how much we'll warm in response to a given level of GHG increases over a given interval. There are, to be sure, error bars on the numbers, but we're not operating blindly.

I tend to try to avoid the entire issue as a result, but am willing to discuss it with anyone who wants. Just send me a PM.

I applaud you keeping an open mind. That's a great attitude to have. I am writing this outside of a PM because climatic change is unquestionably a survival-related topic, and it's been my experience that there a lot of people who are very interested in the subject matter, but don't have the confidence or background to have an informed discussion on the topic, who would benefit from a public rather than private exchange.

EtA: You have your CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, solar cycles, obital deviation, and so on and the weatherman can't get the tempurature right in tomorrow's forecast, so I'm willing to stand by my scientists can't comprehend everything that drives climate change and to what extent and how it all interacts, but will add "at this time" to the remark.

Again, I think it's great that you're recognizing that what holds true for you might not hold true for others. It's important to keep that in mind. It's also great that you're seemingly willing to revise your current position in light of further evidence.

EtA: You have your CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, solar cycles, obital deviation, and so on and the weatherman can't get the tempurature right in tomorrow's forecast

This is an area of confusion for a great number of people. Weather forecasting is actual quite a different prospect than discussing the general behavior of certain climate features on multidecadal timescales.

Weather forecasting is an initial value problem. Climate change over long timescales is a boundary value problem. When we discuss changes to the Earth's climate due to increases in GHGs, we're not attempting to forecast the weather at any given place or time. We're talking about changes to the entire system. In pretty much the same way that I can't precisely predict the exact outcome of rolling a pool of dice, but I can tell you that the average will converge on as the number of rolls increases, weather prediction is not the same as what constrains climatic norms.

Also added: Global cooling or warming or whatever isn't likely to kill me tomorrow. Or the next day. Or the next. At what point will it matter to me... get back to me in 25 years if I'm still around and I might have an answer.

I think that it's useful to bring this up. For those of us lucky enough to be in relatively well-developed countries with relatively high standards of living, climate change may not necessarily be a big deal. This is especially true for those of us who live in the higher latitudes (but not too high, e.g. the Arctic), and those of us who aren't going to be alive in 2100 or further out. However, I think it's worth noting two points- one of them scientific, the other a combination of science and values.

First, we have already changed the climate relative to what it would have been absent our influence. Some of those effects have been small, some of them even beneficial. But climate change is something happening now, not just in the distant future. The relatively small amount of sea level increase we've contributed to already due to thermal expansion of the ocean and glacial runoff is already a part of storm surges happening now. The tropics are expanding poleward now, and that's affecting mid-latitude storm tracks now.

Second, the decisions we make about our path forward will have an enormous impact on future generations. This isn't an opinion, or an advocacy of a certain outcome. It's strictly a scientific issue about the atmospheric residency of a large pulse of carbon, and how long it takes the planet to return to equilibrium. Now, to me personally- as a matter beyond science, as a matter of values- I personally believe that it is irresponsible to ignore the impact my decisions may have on the lives of people who won't get a say in the matter.

Thanks for your comments!

[angelofwar]

It just as well may...that's the perfectness of the earth...constant change. An over grown field is more susceptible to fire, starting it anew. Maybe mother earth is due for a spring cleaning? What better way than a naturally occurring ice age???

[Tater Raider]

Lots of great stuff.

I'm heading for PM to discuss this further and edumacate meself a wee bit whilst I'm at it. Thanks for reading what I was trying to convey and responding so completely and politely. Sometimes I think this is what sort of discourse the interwebz was supposed to generate.

Then I end up with something in my email from 4-chan.



Thanks again!

[KiltBill]

Mother Nature’s coming to ‘That’ stage of her cycle. Mankind’s away to suffer from severe mood swings, hot flushes and severe cold fronts.

We can waste time wondering if we have hastened it’s arrival by smoking in the house, dropping fag ends in the goldfish bowl or drgging filth into the house. But it won't stop the inevetable...

We can move the kids and breakables out of harms way, stock up the fridge and await the impending storm, knowing we have done all we can to minimize losses.

[tookieblueeyes]

"The world is heating up due to green house gasses"
"The earth is cooling down and we are looking at another potential ice age"

It doesn't seem like ALL the scientists out there agree on what is really going to happen, so take it with a grain of salt and adopt the same thought process of "wait and see" that so many others have adopted, because the fact remains... it's only going to be fact, when it happens! Whatever happens!

[ZScott]

When I was in high school 30 years ago, the 'Coming Ice Age' got almost as much press as 'Global Warming' does these days.

Yeah, wasn't the ice age supposed to happen like 10 years ago...............

[Evan the Diplomat]

I'm about three years too late to this thread. I'm no scientist, but my wife is. A no foolin' PhD geophysicist research scientist specializing in in paleo-magnetism with two master's degrees in earth sciences on the side.

As she explained it to me, and has been mentioned here, the earth is in between ice ages. We are heading for an ice age but it is going to come very very gradually, not in a week like the disaster flick "The Day After". I'm sure she simplified it for me, but I figure 1000 years or 20,000 years.

That's on the geological calendar, meanwhile based on the data she's seen and the peer reviewed scientific literature, she does not doubt that human activity is warming our atmosphere. Bottom line, none of us will ever live to see an ice age so no need to prep for that. We will see higher average temperatures and more extreme variations in weather as more energy (in the form of heat) enters the medium.

At this point she gives the caveat that she's not a climatologist but says that it will likely manifest itself as more, or more violent, thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, ice storms, rain storms, snowfall and flooding from these extreme precipitation incidents.

Yes, the 2011 - 2012 winter here in the mid-Atlantic was very mild, but next year it could be another snowpocalypse.