Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

jeffk · 04-29-2006, 10:04 AM

Climate fluctuations, warming and cooling, are normal and have been occurring before man became a significant player in the world.

The methodology of global temperature measurement has only become precise in the last few decades. Measurements prior to that become more questionable the further back you go. Even current measurements may be influenced by the local "heat island effects. The amount of warming (.6 C, 1.1 F over the last century) is in the "noise" of our ability to measure temperature accurately.

Computer models suffer greatly from GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). There is still no model that is able to accurately project climate changes.

CO2 is not the most important contributor to "greenhouse" effects; water vapor and oxygen are more significant. The amount of CO2 that is contributed by human activities is disputable and is probably less than that contributed via "natural" causes. More CO2 may be a positive contribution to the biosphere.

Overall, climate is extremely complex and we do not know how all the components work and interact.

Here is a link to a discussion of some of the issues of interest:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

This is a summary of the points in the discussion:

The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.
The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems

I don't deny that some warming may be going on. However, the amount of warming, the cause of it, whether it is a problem, and how much we can control it are very unsettled issues. The current proposed costs for "fixing" it are enormous and very real with very uncertain benefit. We need significantly better information before committing enormous resources to this questionable effort.

04-29-2006, 10:04 AM	#103
jeffk Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,162 Thanks: 205 Thanked 431 Times in 248 Posts	Warming?, maybe Climate fluctuations, warming and cooling, are normal and have been occurring before man became a significant player in the world. The methodology of global temperature measurement has only become precise in the last few decades. Measurements prior to that become more questionable the further back you go. Even current measurements may be influenced by the local "heat island effects. The amount of warming (.6 C, 1.1 F over the last century) is in the "noise" of our ability to measure temperature accurately. Computer models suffer greatly from GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). There is still no model that is able to accurately project climate changes. CO2 is not the most important contributor to "greenhouse" effects; water vapor and oxygen are more significant. The amount of CO2 that is contributed by human activities is disputable and is probably less than that contributed via "natural" causes. More CO2 may be a positive contribution to the biosphere. Overall, climate is extremely complex and we do not know how all the components work and interact. Here is a link to a discussion of some of the issues of interest: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ This is a summary of the points in the discussion: The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential. The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C. The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it). The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising. The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.) Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales. Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects. Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere. There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat. Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term). Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems I don't deny that some warming may be going on. However, the amount of warming, the cause of it, whether it is a problem, and how much we can control it are very unsettled issues. The current proposed costs for "fixing" it are enormous and very real with very uncertain benefit. We need significantly better information before committing enormous resources to this questionable effort.