pic
August is Art Top banner
Home arrow My View arrow My View arrow CO2 deniers show lack of respect for climate
Thank you for visiting The Valley Reporter website. Please note that not everything that appears in the printed version of the paper appears here. If you would like to read everything we can have the paper delivered to your door just click here
CO2 deniers show lack of respect for climate PDF Print E-mail
Nov 19, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Over the past month I've been digging into my own understanding of the role CO2 plays on climate. This research has proved even more educational, humorous and rewarding than I could have imagined. For entertainment, take a look at "Climate Denial: Crock of the Week" on YouTube, which debunks a few of the latest denier nostrums or myths. But for the basics, you should refer directly to the International Panel of Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report for the most comprehensive peer-reviewed summary.

First, let's be clear -- there is no longer anyone saying the earth isn't warming. That fact has been drilled home even to the most die-hard deniers. But there are still many doubters out there.

In bumping around the internet, SkepticalScience.com, Climateprogress.org and RealClimate.org have emerged as my three favorite sites. SkepticalScience actually chronicles and rebuts the Climate Change denier's arguments and ranks them by the number of occurrences online.

"It is the Sun" is argument number one at 6.8 percent. It's true that without the sun warming the earth, it would be a very cold indeed. But that's not the question; the real question is, what's different now?

It has been claimed that recent solar activity is the source of global warming. Bunk. The Naval Research Laboratory and NASA reported in September 2009 that, "if anything," solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years, and 10 percent of the warming in the past 100 years.

Let's look at the "Milankovitch Cycles," named after the Serbian mathematician who first proved that the reoccurring ice ages are a result of the Solar Forcing from three reoccurring variances in the earth's relationship to the sun. Precession (how close the earth comes to the sun), a 20,000-year cycle; Eccentricity (earth's orbit goes from almost circular to elliptical), a 100,000-year cycle; and Obliquity (changes in the earth's tilt with reference to the sun going from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees), a 41,000-year cycle. Add up these three oscillating variables, we get a reoccurring pattern (Solar Forcing) that accurately predicted the past and future ice ages.

So why does that matter? Well, first, the sun's variation in the last 100 years (and more specifically the last 10 years) is not the source. Secondly, we can quantify the solar forcing function to validate climate models. A "forcing function" is how varying effects create climate change, a very important concept to climate scientists. More recent observations show clear evidence that global temperature has been very divergent from solar radiation for the last 20 years. Which should finally put a nail in the coffin of that argument.

SkepticalScience.com's number-two issue is "Climate has changed before," which ranked at 6.1 percent.

Man affects the earth by burning fossil fuels (creating more CO2), industrial processes (creating halocarbons, CH4 and N2O), cutting down forests, flying jets making contrails, etc.

The earth reacts, with both positive and negative feedback loops, affecting the total Radiative Forcing function. The positive feedback loops mean we retain more heat; the negative feedback loops mean we retain less heat. If we could keep this in balance, we would have a stable climate.

Currently our little world can't keep up with the changes you and I are causing.
The current Radiative Forcing is a scorecard of the climate's condition (which clearly isn't good), but that's not our only problem. The earth's land and water also respond to warming by releasing CO2 directly. This accelerates the amount of greenhouse gases beyond what man creates, further accelerating (positive forcing function) global warming.

How does warming cause a rise in atmospheric CO2? As the oceans warm, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. When the permafrost melts, CH4 (long stored in the frozen tundra) is emitted. Molecularly, CH4 is 20 times more damaging than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Which brings us back to Milankovitch Ice Age cycles. Ever wonder what the ice core drilling was all about? From these ice cores, scientists have obtained CO2 release data as the climate changes. This evidence allows us to predict how much CO2 we can expect the earth to produce relative to the earth's rising temperature. It's interesting to note the roughly 800-year lag between peak temperature and peak CO2. This indicates it takes a while for the CO2 out-gassing from the ocean to catch up with the warming trend. So, in conclusion, you ain't seen nothing yet, baby.

We humans release CO2 (with our coal plants, cars, industrial pollution, etc.), the planet warms and releases more CO2, we continue to release more CO2, and . . . well, you can see where this is going. You've heard the phrase "Tipping Point" . . . .

Coleman lives in Warren.


Print | E-mail

Comments (1)
RSS comments
1. Nov-23-2009 09:00
 
This article will add some levity and is
What happened to global warming?  
 
By Paul Hudson  
Climate correspondent, BBC News  
 
 
 
Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade  
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
 
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.  
 
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.  
 
So what on Earth is going on?  
 
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.  
 
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?  
 
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
 
 
Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases  
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.  
 
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.  
 
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.  
 
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  
 
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.  
 
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.  
 
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.  
 
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.  
 
Ocean cycles 
 
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.
 
 
In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down  
 
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.  
 
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).  
 
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.  
 
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.  
 
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.  
 
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.  
 
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."  
 
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.  
 
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.  
 
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.  
 
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.  
 
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.  
 
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.  
 
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.  
 
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
 
 
The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume 
 
 
Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.  
 
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.  
 
So what can we expect in the next few years?  
 
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.  
 
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).  
 
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.  
 
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.
IP: 65.19.76.53
 

Write Comment
  • Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
  • Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
  • Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
  • Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button.
  • Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Title:
Comment:

Code:* Code
I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved

<Previous   Next>
readonline300B.jpg

Advertisement
Bournes_Side_300

WEATHER


Waitsfield Weather Forecast, VT (05673)


Last comments
Alpine Village Land Trust cele...
AVLT Board member
Warren Alpine Village, a subdivision started ...
07/09/10 11:05 More...
-- Dean Auslander

Job number one
This is exactly why the PSB review proce
Applying the Act 250 permitting process to sm...
07/09/10 11:32 More...
-- SAM

Waitsfield Telecom receives $5...
Technically Speaking
George, Technically speaking Cable would be a...
07/09/10 11:12 More...
-- Logan Cooke