Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then you position and theirs is to be considered fringe far outside the consensus and dismissed from the scientific debate. As another user just replied the scientific position is that 15% (or more) of the current warming can be blamed on solar variation.

I mean, shouldn't you be asserting this to Trakar who said:

My statements and understandings are not contradicted by, or in disagreement with lomiller's, pixel's or capel's.

lomiller speaks of solar cycle (sunspot activity) and there not being any compelling evidence supporting that such correlates (yet alone causes) climatic temperature change on the Earth.

I spoke of insolation (total solar energy impingement upon upper atmosphere) variations that currently account for about 15% of climate change forcing.

These are two very different statements talking about completely different aspects of climate and climate assessment.
 
65 million years ago, CO2 was 3,000 parts per million compared to the present 375. Temperatures were much warmer, which made rainfall (and fresh water) more plentiful. Since there was more atmospheric CO2, plants also required less water. The climate was not hostile at all to macro-scale life, as this is the period of meter-long dragonflies and very large animals such as dinosaurs.

Patrick Moore, cofounder of greenpeace, says global warming increases the availability of arable land as well as bio-fertility.

The IPCC claims that CO2 levels even slightly above what we are at now will acidify the ocean to the point that it will have very damaging ecological consequences, but they were wrong:

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N18/B3.php

Bottom line: we're not in any imminent danger as a result of a climate shift; natural or man made.

The use of political advocacy pseudoscience sites does not compelling support your assertions which are contradicted by established and well-evidenced legitimate scientific understandings and findings.
 
Then you position and theirs is to be considered fringe far outside the consensus and dismissed from the scientific debate. As another user just replied the scientific position is that 15% (or more) of the current warming can be blamed on solar variation.

The issue seems to be that you don’t understand the difference be cycle and variation.

Not all variation is cyclical and the Suns cyclical variation associated with sunspot cycles have no measurable effect of global temperatures (but a few recent papers have suggested some other interesting correlations)

It’s the non-cyclic variations in solar output that could have some temperature impact but no such variation has ever been directly measured and are only inferred from the change in solar output during the sunspot cycle. (I think there is another proxy as well, but I can’t recall if/what)
 
Patrick Moore, cofounder of greenpeace, says global warming increases the availability of arable land as well as bio-fertility.
Patrick Moore was an amateur astronomer so what do actual climate scientists say, ArmoredDragon?

Common sense would tell you that global warming decreases the availability of arable land as warming pushes the arable land toward the poles.
What is north of Indian arable lands? The Himalayas :eek:!
What is north of the Russian farmlands? Siberian tundra :eek:!
What is north of the Great Plains? The relatively infertile Canadian Shield :eek:!
What is south of South America? Less land :eek:!
What is south of Central Africa? Less land (but not by much until you run out land altogether) :eek:!
What is north of Central Africa? The Sahara Desert :eek:!

The IPCC claims that CO2 levels even slightly above what we are at now will acidify the ocean to the point that it will have very damaging ecological consequences based on many scientific papers rather than a single paper on a web site.

Bottom line: we're not in any imminent danger (on a time scale of days, weeks, months or even a few years) as a result of a climate shift; natural or man made
Actual bottom line: Within the next few decades the consequences of global warming will put us "in danger"
Positives and negatives of global warming
The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic.
 
So any thoughts on this one?
"Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says"
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

Oh dear.

' "Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline." '
An error in fact (global warming hasn't stopped since 2002, of course) and a prediction which will soon see this little gem forgotten. In the meantime I don't doubt many people think the science is now settled - after all, not-CO2, no need to deny the greenhouse effect (a contentious issue best avoided), and cosmic rays (easily linked with the Sun if that's one's particular bonnet-bee). Could not ask for better.

Shame about the prediction of cooling, though. Such hostages to fortune never get a happy ending. But what the heck, it can be edited out in future.
 
So any thoughts on this one?
"Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says"
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

Unsure if he's added anything new to this paper, but at first glance it looks like the same trope he's trotted out about once a year since 2008, without gaining much traction, support or recognition, but I'll go over it in a little more detail and comment if I see anything of particular interest. In previous papers the sole basis of his connection of climate warming to CFCs is that the curve of CFC percentage of the atmosphere better matched the curve of temperature change better than the curve of CO2 concentration. Unfortunately, spectroscopic analyses of atmospheric gases indicate that CFCs only contribute 13-14% of warming whereas CO2 is responsible for ~70% of warming. Let me see if he's added any new twists or supportive evidences then I can start comparing it to his previous papers
 
So any thoughts on this one?
"Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says"
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

It seems a case of mistaking correlation for causation. CFC emissions grew more or less along with industrialization, just as CO2 emissions did. Since both have the same underlying cause both would have similar correlation to warming. His hypothesis also claims that warming has now stopped, something there is no statistically significant evidence to support.
 
So any thoughts on this one?
"Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says"
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html
It seems to be a bit of biased reasoning. Professor Lu notes that global temperatures have decreased since 2002 and ascribes this to CFCs because that is the area that he is researching.

The problems look like
  1. 11 years are not significant in terms of climate. Global temperatures have increased over the last 30 or even 20 years.
  2. Professor Lu ignores the preponderance of la Nina events in the last 13 years which have a cooling effect on global temperatures : ENSO Temperature Trends
  3. The existing literature shows that CFCs have a smaller effect that CO2.
It's CFCs
Models and direct observations find that CFCs only contribute a fraction of the warming supplied by other greenhouse gases.
...
The proportion of CFC forcing compared to total greenhouse forcing is still around 14%, a close match to the IPCC estimate of 13%.

Small nitpick - single author paper :)!
It is fairly rare that a paper overthrowing decades of results by hundreds of scientists is authored by one person.

Lu's previous papers on his CRE theory have been described as interesting but then he went wrong, e.g. RealClimate's article Lu: from ‘interesting but incorrect’ to just wrong describes the response to what looks like the germination of his theory in 2010.
 
So any thoughts on this one?
"Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says"
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

Alarm bells ring when such a groundbreaking concept is published in a relatively obscure journal of an unrelated field. Will read the paper later, but going from the linked article there seems to be some problems, like:

- He uses the canard that temperatures have declined since 2002, which is very problematic since it's supposed to be mainly a statistical paper;
- an unsupported extrapolation from regional effects in an area where CFCs are known to accumulate to global effects;
- no explanation as to why the known physics of CFC has been so underestimated until now, and why it works so differently in the atmosphere from the laboratory;
- no explanation as to why the known physics of CO2 has been so overestimated until now, and why it works so differently in the atmosphere from the laboratory.

This is a major problem of concurrent hypothesis: we know the physical properties of the molecules, and a mechanism must be offered that explains why both of them work so differently from the expected, and in opposite directions.

But it would be extremely good if he was right. We would have to worry only about ocean acidification. I'm not throwing a party yet, though...
 
Scratch that, I'm not going to read it since the journal doesn't show up in sciencedirect, and I'm not shelling 20GBP for it.
 
So any thoughts on this one?
My first thought is "correlation does not equal causation". CFC emissions and CO2 emissions are both correlated with increasing industrialisation, so I'd expect a correlation between CFC emissions and warming even if the warming is entirely due to CO2 emissions. Having said that CFCs are greenhouse gases, so they would certainly make a contribution to AGW. I'd need more evidence than is provided in this paper to convince me that that contribution is greater than that of CO2.

Patrick Moore was an amateur astronomer
Wrong Patrick Moore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
 
Whoops!
Still not a climate scientist but at least in a related field (ecology). However this is still one person's opinion as stated in news articles - not in scientific journals - and without cited sources. A recent interview (Patrick Moore on the facts and fiction of climate change) contains some climate denier myths such as
  • "global average temperature has now been flat for the past 15 years": What has global warming done since 1998?
    The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.
  • "All of the models used by the IPCC that this increase in water vapour will result in a positive feedback".
    Actually all of the physics shows that water vapour has a positive feedback and the models include this physics.
    Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works
    But clouds are different!
    What is the net feedback from clouds?
    Although the cloud feedback is one of the largest remaining uncertainties in climate science, evidence is building that the net cloud feedback is likely positive, and unlikely to be strongly negative.
  • "One thing is certain, there is no “scientific proof” as the term is generally understood, that human emissions are the main cause of climate change today".
    This is very wrong. There is "scientific proof", e.g. a consensus supported by strong evidence in the published literature. That is what the IPCC report that he goes onto next states - it is very likely (as in > 95% certainty) that human emissions are the main cause of climate change today.
    Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
    Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.
 
Whoops!
Still not a climate scientist but at least in a related field (ecology). However this is still one person's opinion as stated in news articles - not in scientific journals - and without cited sources.

Is "skepticalscience.com" a "scientific journal"?

In fact it is a site maintained by one man, John Cook, who is also not a climate scientist.

I'm not necessarily challenging the material but I'm curious why the double standard.
 
Is "skepticalscience.com" a "scientific journal"?

In fact it is a site maintained by one man, John Cook, who is also not a climate scientist.

I'm not necessarily challenging the material but I'm curious why the double standard.

Well it is saying what is very widely accepted by the climate scientists.

An individual blogger might have a good article about evolution and linking to that would be fine. If someone was saying that evolution was wrong in some aspect then they'd better have some pretty high quality evidence to back that claim up - using whale.to would not be good enough.

In other words: one is simply summarising what the experts agree on, whilst the other is making an outrageous claim.
 
Is "skepticalscience.com" a "scientific journal"?

In fact it is a site maintained by one man, John Cook, who is also not a climate scientist.
Who on Earth told you that? More intersteningly, why did you believe them? It's easy enough get acquainted with the real version http://www.skepticalscience.com/

I'm not necessarily challenging the material but I'm curious why the double standard.
Only perhaps regarding your imaginary version of SkS.
 
A recent interview (Patrick Moore on the facts and fiction of climate change) contains some climate denier myths ...

No surprised there, he's off-the-peg. When environmentalism became more mainstream and there was less and less focus on Moore he switched to environmental positions which would guarantee him attention. He has never showed signs of deep thinking, but does appear to be a narcissist.

Of course deniers fete such people because they are prodigals returned, the oracles people such as you and me "used to believe". It would be sad were it not so hilarious to watch.

Moore's droning about new farmland has been going on for at least thirty years : the world has been warming, yet there's no sign yet of any new land being exploited, and I've not even heard of any plans to do so. But the droning will continue, just like droning about the Sun and how SkS is all written and sourced by one man.
 
Is "skepticalscience.com" a "scientific journal"?
Why would you think that, batvette?
(And why the quotes - scientific journals actually exist :D!)

It is obvious that Skeptical Science is a blog (started by John Cook and now maintained by a number of people). There is a commitment to cite real climate science.

Patrick Moore's mistakes are basically climate denier myths that are debunked by the scientific literature cited and explained in the blog entries, e.g.
 
I'm not necessarily challenging the material but I'm curious why the double standard.

I’m not sure what point you are even trying to make here. Scepticalsccience.com extensively cites peer reviewed papers in it’s entries. The “double standard” you are “pointing out” simply doesn’t exist.
 
USA Today says global warming could green arid regions?

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2377179

Apologies for the mobile link. I'm on a train.

This sort of story would probably make the casual media consumer less concerned.

So how do we get people away from being "casual media consumers?" Or barring that do away with "casual media," which would probably be the better solution all around. If people want to read inaccurate trivia and Hollywood drivel, they should have that option, but every bit of information contained within should carry warning labels indicating that such are inaccurate and often completely the opposite of reality. Perhaps make it a finable offense for writers and media outlets to present inaccurate or misleading information that is not clearly labeled as "fictionalized alternatives to reality."

(I know "taking it to the extremes," but I'm open to any more reasonable proposal that would actually bring back some sense of respectability and accuracy to print, audio and video media.)
 
Why would you think that, batvette?
(And why the quotes - scientific journals actually exist :D!)

It is obvious that Skeptical Science is a blog (started by John Cook and now maintained by a number of people). There is a commitment to cite real climate science.

I'm still curious then why you felt the need to include those qualifiers as if they were meaningful. It only offers the appearance of a lack of perspective of your own views, that others must adhere to a strict regimen of legitimacy that your own references needn't be required to. The only climate science accepted as real is that which we agree with, dissent has never happened and if it did well by golly those scientists would have made millions and been showered with Nobel prizes- not shouted down and marginalized.
Or blacklisted:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/jun/24/climate-change-sceptics-are-less-credible-scientists-finds-survey

I think the comments in that one are more telling than the article.

I mean it's not as if research papers by credible climate researchers were ever published concluding that half the cause of the warming was the sun not man.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008437/abstract

Just to have them completely ignored by the cabal. That was not real climate science.

Nor were these:

http://www.amazon.com/Variability-Climate-Sciences-Series-Volume/dp/0792367413/ref=sid_dp_dp

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sun-Solar-Analogs-Climate/dp/3540238565/ref=sip_rech_dp_7

http://www.amazon.com/Role-Sun-Climate-Change/dp/019509414X

Countless others, published by credible academics. Nobody read them, they were not widely promoted. Discredited? Or ignored, marginalized and dogpiled on until their authors complied with the status quo, lest they make the "not credible" blacklist?
 
Perhaps make it a finable offense for writers and media outlets to present inaccurate or misleading information that is not clearly labeled as "fictionalized alternatives to reality."

Let me guess, "Springtime in Berlin"? Fascism certainly is refreshingly appealing when we call it science!
The time for debate is over, violators will be drawn, and quartered. The pieces to be drawn, and cornered. Their heads to be then placed upon a pike- not the fish....
 
I'm still curious then why you felt the need to include those qualifiers as if they were meaningful.
What "qualifiers", batvette?

I stated the facts:
  • Skeptical Science is a blog
  • It was started by John Cook.
  • There are now an umber of contributors.
  • The blog has a stated commitment to cite real climate science:
    Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?
The only climate science that we should accept as real is in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

batvette, you ignored the actual science that I cited.

Patrick Moore's mistakes are basically climate denier myths that are debunked by the scientific literature cited and explained in the blog entries, e.g.
Or blacklisted:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...s-finds-survey
I think the comments in that one are more telling than the article.
Climate change sceptics are less 'credible' scientists, finds survey
You would be wrong, batvette, since there is no blacklist in Expert credibility in climate change. In fact there are no lists at all in the paper.

If the paper had listed the people surveyed then I would agree with Eric Steig's opinion that would be characterized as a pair of blacklists (one for supporters, another for deniers):
Notes From the Whaling and Warming Wars
The idea of listing the names of those people analyzed is disturbing for reasons that should be obvious. In this respect I completely agree with Roger that the “blacklist” metaphor is appropriate. And it cuts both ways too. People can now use this list to create their own “blacklist” of so-called “believiers.” I object to being on either list.

What the paper does have is a rather dubious method of grouping people as convinced by the evidence (CE) or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) using various sources.

I mean it's not as if research papers by credible climate researchers were ever published concluding that half the cause of the warming was the sun not man.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008437/abstract
Just to have them completely ignored by the cabal.
Obviously you are not in the cabal :rolleyes:!
To be more exact you seem to have no idea how to do literature searches or are just stating an uninformed opinion. The latter is likely since you list what look like standard textbooks below and state that no one has ever read them!
Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600
Has been cited 28 times, batvette - that is not "completely ignored" :eek:.

Climate scientists know that some of the cause of the warming in the last few hundred years was the sun not man.
Climate scientists know that none of the cause of the warming in the last 35 years was the sun.
Climate scientists know that most of the cause of the warming in the last 35 years was man.
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

Nor were these:
...some textbooks...
Countless others, published by credible academics. Nobody read them,
Edited by LashL: 
Edited for moderated thread.

batvette, Can you list a few thousand of these countless other books credible academics about the known and acknowledged influence of the Sun on climate change that
  • nobody read and
  • were not "widely" promoted
Why do you think that books about basic climate science need to be "widely promoted"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm still curious then why you felt the need to include those qualifiers as if they were meaningful. It only offers the appearance of a lack of perspective of your own views, that others must adhere to a strict regimen of legitimacy that your own references needn't be required to. The only climate science accepted as real is that which we agree with, dissent has never happened and if it did well by golly those scientists would have made millions and been showered with Nobel prizes- not shouted down and marginalized.
Or blacklisted:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...ics-are-less-credible-scientists-finds-survey

I think the comments in that one are more telling than the article.

I mean it's not as if research papers by credible climate researchers were ever published concluding that half the cause of the warming was the sun not man.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008437/abstract

Let me get this straight, you think a survey of over 1000 climate scientists that finds climate deniers have credible publication records is somehow evidence of a "cabal" while a single panned paper is credible form no other apparent reason than it says what you want to hear?

BTW how seriously do you expect us to take a physics paper who's very title comes from a philosophy that rejected physical explanations?

Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/phenomenology

1. A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I mean it's not as if research papers by credible climate researchers were ever published concluding that half the cause of the warming was the sun not man.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008437/abstract
The warming since 1600, not the warming in the last 35 years (which, of course, continues). None of that has been caused by changes in solar output because solar out put has been stable for the last fifty years and more.

Just to have them completely ignored by the cabal. That was not real climate science.
Only in your imagination were they ignored, of course. You think papers like that aren't mainstream when in fact they are. They don't argue against AGW in the slightest.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sun-Solar-Analogs-Climate/dp/3540238565/ref=sip_rech_dp_7

http://www.amazon.com/Role-Sun-Climate-Change/dp/019509414X

Countless others, published by credible academics. Nobody read them, they were not widely promoted. Discredited? Or ignored, marginalized and dogpiled on until their authors complied with the status quo, lest they make the "not credible" blacklist?
What makes you think these aren't mainstream works? None of them appear controversial. The last includes a history of the study of solar forcing "from its beginnings in the early 1800's" so it's hardly been ignored. It's not some hand-wavy fog of ignorance and speculation in which some rescue might be found.

The reason current warming is not attributed to solar variation is that current warming is not caused by solar variation. It is caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect, often referred to as AGW. Just as predicted by mainstream science well before the event.
 
Let me guess, "Springtime in Berlin"? Fascism certainly is refreshingly appealing when we call it science!
The time for debate is over, violators will be drawn, and quartered. The pieces to be drawn, and cornered. Their heads to be then placed upon a pike- not the fish....

Godwinning arguments is not unusual from those of a "with me or a'gin me" extremism mindset. I said nothing about censoring, I merely suggested a means to help prevent the gullible and feeble-minded from being unduly influenced by charlatans, cranks and crackpots. I also suggested that those that willfully lie or mislead be fined. I ended by acknowledging that this was perhaps a bit extreme and that I was open to more reasonable suggestions.
 
I'm still curious then why you felt the need to include those qualifiers as if they were meaningful. It only offers the appearance of a lack of perspective of your own views, that others must adhere to a strict regimen of legitimacy that your own references needn't be required to. The only climate science accepted as real is that which we agree with, dissent has never happened and if it did well by golly those scientists would have made millions and been showered with Nobel prizes- not shouted down and marginalized.
Or blacklisted:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/jun/24/climate-change-sceptics-are-less-credible-scientists-finds-survey

I think the comments in that one are more telling than the article.

I mean it's not as if research papers by credible climate researchers were ever published concluding that half the cause of the warming was the sun not man.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008437/abstract

Just to have them completely ignored by the cabal. That was not real climate science.

Nor were these:

http://www.amazon.com/Variability-Climate-Sciences-Series-Volume/dp/0792367413/ref=sid_dp_dp

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sun-Solar-Analogs-Climate/dp/3540238565/ref=sip_rech_dp_7

http://www.amazon.com/Role-Sun-Climate-Change/dp/019509414X

Countless others, published by credible academics. Nobody read them, they were not widely promoted. Discredited? Or ignored, marginalized and dogpiled on until their authors complied with the status quo, lest they make the "not credible" blacklist?

This is a conspiracy theory that you are welcome to promote, discuss and support, though it would probably best be done in the appropriate Conspiracy Theory section of JREF.
 
What makes you think these aren't mainstream works? [/QUOTE]

Great point. He didn’t even look at the content of these, he just looked for titles he assumed supported his position.

While I haven’t read these books either I’ve read papers by the authors and they explicitly reject the position batvette was trying to support.

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract
 
Godwinning arguments is not unusual from those of a "with me or a'gin me" extremism mindset. I said nothing about censoring, I merely suggested a means to help prevent the gullible and feeble-minded from being unduly influenced by charlatans, cranks and crackpots. I also suggested that those that willfully lie or mislead be fined. I ended by acknowledging that this was perhaps a bit extreme and that I was open to more reasonable suggestions.
It's not as if the matter of people being held to account for what they say is a new subject of discussion, discord, and general disarray when the information environment is in flux (cheap paper, radio, the interweb).

To my mind the biggest problem with calling the denial movement to account is how little they have to account for. They've provided the likes of us with entertainment over the years, but can you imagine a substantially different world without the denial movement? Some greater sense of urgency at climate conferences without swivel-eyed clowns?

With or without the denial movement we were going to be right where we are in 2013, awaiting yet another IPCC report (notice how the gaps between reports keep getting longer?) and a climate conference which, in 2015, will absolutely set things in stone by 2020. At the latest. Except in circumstances. You know, circumstances. Circumstances pertaining to future situations, which are by nature unpredictable. It would be unreasonable not allow for those.

It was always going to go this way, and here it is still not slowing down as it circles the drain.
 
It seems the CO2 fertilization effect, often touted by the "skeptics" as a purely positive boon for humanity and the biosphere definitely has it's downside.

Guy Midgley has a more pessimistic view of atmospheric CO2’s apparently increasing influence. “We [South Africans] like our non-forest ecosystems,” he said, noting that aside from the impacts that an increase in woody plants will have on grassland wildlife and livestock ranching, the country’s grasslands form watersheds that feed rivers vital to the economy. Studies show that water yields of South African grassland catchment areas drop significantly when invaded by alien trees, one reason that the government spends millions of dollars a year to remove them.

South African ecologists are trying to figure out how best to stop trees from taking over savannas, perhaps with “fire storms” — controlled fires set on hot, dry days to maximize the heat they generate — or careful tree-thinning. But super-hot fires might have their own negative effects on ecosystems, and manual thinning could be too expensive. Midgley said that by reaching today’s level of 400 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide, “we’ve turned the evolutionary clock back 5 million years in under a century. It’s a massive change in how our ecosystems work.” He noted that atmospheric CO2 could hit 600 ppm by 2100, a level last seen during the Eocene epoch of 34 to 55 million years ago, when forests covered nearly all of the planet and long before modern grasses and the large savanna mammals that we know today evolved.

“We’re in a brave new world from a plant’s perspective,” said William Bond. “It’s a little frightening. Our plains animals have their backs against the wall.” The new invading trees won’t do anything meaningful to combat climate change, he said, because they’re a negligibly small carbon sink in global terms.

“We’ve got to stop the problem at source,” he said. “We’ve got to stop burning fossil fuels and sending carbon into the air.”

“Wangari Maathai was wrong,” he chuckled playfully, referring to the Kenyan environmentalist and Nobel Peace Prize winner who advocated a tree-planting campaign across the continent. “Trees aren’t always a good thing.”

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_surprising_role_of_co2_in_changes_on_the_african_savanna/2663/
 
@bobwtfomg
That article you posted from by Adam Welz is much better explained by Allan Savory.

Allan Savory: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change who even recently won the Buckminster Fuller Challenge

Savory has explained in much greater detail and with far more experimental data the real reasons for the changes in the African Savanna ecosystems. Further he has shown with a "proof of concept" Project Hope how to harness that knowledge to end the threat of global warming. The problem is also the solution. The excess carbon in the atmosphere can be harnessed to improve the soil, reversing the current trend.
 
Climate scientists know that some of the cause of the warming in the last few hundred years was the sun not man.
Climate scientists know that none of the cause of the warming in the last 35 years was the sun.
Climate scientists know that most of the cause of the warming in the last 35 years was man.

If most was man but none was the sun what was the remainder?
 
Solar - Center, Stanford University


SOLAR INFLUENCES ON CLIMATE
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf
...Of greater importance to climate change issues are longer‐term drifts in this radiative forcing. Recent estimates suggest a radiative forcing drift over the past 30 years associated with solar irradiance changes of 0.017 W m^−2 decade^−1 (see section 2). In comparison, the current rate of increase in trace greenhouse gas radiative forcing is about 0.30 W m^−2 decade^−1 [

It is important to remember of course that there are other natural impacts (generally of lower impact than solar variation) that do have climate forcing ramifications, just as there are more Anthropogenic impacts (generally of lower impact than greenhouse gas radiative forcings) which demonstrate climate forcing ramifications. Solar output variances provide a + climate forcing over the last 3 decades, but it is only about 5.7% as much forcing as the combined GHG + climate forcing over the same time frame.
 
If most was man but none was the sun what was the remainder?
Mostly reduction in sulphate aerosols but there's also natural variation perhaps tied to multidecadal oscillations in ocean behaviour.

What we do know is that none was down to the Sun's stable activity, and that most if not all is AGW.
 
If most was man but none was the sun what was the remainder?
You seem to be referring to the last sentence in
Climate scientists know that some of the cause of the warming in the last few hundred years was the sun not man.
Climate scientists know that none of the cause of the warming in the last 35 years was the sun.
Climate scientists know that most of the cause of the warming in the last 35 years was man.
so I will expand on it:
Climate scientists know that the answer to Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? is no - in the last 35 years none of the global warming was caused by the Sun because it cooled :eye-poppi!
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

Climate scientists know that we have caused the level of CO2 to rise and this accounts for most of the warming. AFAIK, the rest is accounted for by feedback , e.g. water vapor.
Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.
 
If most was man but none was the sun what was the remainder?
Other factors which affect average global temperatures over such time periods include variations in ocean currents and variations in the amount of volcanic activity.

No-one who understands the complexity of the climate system would ever claim that any particular period of warming or cooling was due solely to a single factor. But if average global temperatures rose whilst one particular factor was producing a negative forcing it's safe to conclude that that particular factor was not a contributor to that particular period of warming.
 
It cooled from what? What is the reference you're using to compare this "cooling" trend from?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom