Climate Change - Who's Fault? Or No-fault?

[cmotherofpirl]

Climate Change - Who's Fault? Or No-Fault?

The idea of a global climate change event which is caused by human activity and most specifically by the use of fossil fuels is considered by some people as a concept which cannot be denied.
Others who study the current changes in weather patterns and mean temperatures are far from convinced and posit other causes or sometimes admit they don't know the "why" but can chart the changes.

Dr. Anastasios Tsonis from the University of Milwaukee is one of the latter. Dr Tsonis is willing to say that there is a climate shift occurring, but admits he can't fully explain why it happens.
Dr Tsonis and the rest of the team of scientists at the University are using a math application called synchronized chaos.

The synchronized chaos was applied to data from the past 100 years and found it works well in describing the actual events which now seem to be occurring.

"Imagine that you have four synchronized swimmers and they are not holding hands and they do their program and everything is fine; now, if they begin to hold hands and hold hands tightly, most likely a slight error will destroy the synchronization. Well, we applied the same analogy to climate," researcher Dr. Anastasios Tsonis said.

The University team suggest the act of synchronization is capable of creating the resulting climate shift.
They also note the last climate shift probably occurred in 2000.

That would be the end of the warming trend which had been happening for the thirty years prior, and ushered in a cooling trend.

The synchronized chaos math application also appears to account for the global temperature trends over that 100 year period.

Eventually, the systems begin to couple and the synchronous state is destroyed, leading to a climate shift.

"In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century," Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."

The ability for a scientist of any field of research to state plainly and clearly that they don't have all the answers is a change which is rare.

Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?

"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.

Lets say that again - natural variability of climate.
It would be difficult to show the net affect of humans on the planet was a zero sum function in relation to localized climate changes. Creating lakes, where none existed, over grazing causing at lest in part the desertification of some areas. But the evidence for global shifts in climate due entirely to human fossil fuel use has not been proved yet, only hyped.
The weather changes, just as it has for the past few million years prior to Cadillac Escalades and coal powered electric plants.

[CatherineM]

I think climate changes do happen all the time and I do believe that we are in the process of one right now. I'm less concerned with what may be causing it than I am in learning to adapt to the changes. I wouldn't be surprised if our activities have accelerated an already present natural process. I am concerned that the rate of change is ahead of our capabilities to adapt without some pretty major upheavals. The last time such a dramatic change in climate happened was in 535AD when the sun was blotted out for a year and a half by a volcanic eruption off Java. It caused famine, droughts, floods, and some think it even led to the evolution of the Bubonic Plague, the Mongol hordes, and the rise of Islam because of shifting populations. I think we could be in for just such a dramatic change in populations, food growing regions, and especially fresh water supplies.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1815647' date='Mar 24 2009, 05:57 PM']I think climate changes do happen all the time and I do believe that we are in the process of one right now. I'm less concerned with what may be causing it than I am in learning to adapt to the changes. I wouldn't be surprised if our activities have accelerated an already present natural process. I am concerned that the rate of change is ahead of our capabilities to adapt without some pretty major upheavals. The last time such a dramatic change in climate happened was in 535AD when the sun was blotted out for a year and a half by a volcanic eruption off Java. It caused famine, droughts, floods, and some think it even led to the evolution of the Bubonic Plague, the Mongol hordes, and the rise of Islam because of shifting populations. I think we could be in for just such a dramatic change in populations, food growing regions, and especially fresh water supplies.[/quote]
I don't see it as all that dramatic, I think it more of a see-saw and having reached the top on the heating chart we are heading back down. Two additional facters will head us that way - volcanoes such as Mt Redoubt's ash release into the atmosphere, and the total lack of any sunspots which always has a dire cooling effect.

[CatherineM]

It's also past time for a magnetic field reversal. In some places in the Southern Atlantic, it is so weak that it has already switched, and compasses point South. That could potentially cause more havoc.

[Nihil Obstat]

My dad is a geologist, and knows the facts far far better than I do, but he believes that global warming is an entirely natural process, including this time, especially disagreeing with the idea of carbon dioxide contributing to anything.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'll be the first to admit who knows what's causing it. and, that i have more questions than answers.
but, i lean to it being man made. at first, my judgment was that it was too hard to decipher, a stab in the dark per a position. i took a position based on:

here is what i usually post when this topic comes up, just for easy reference for myself and anyone interested.


[quote]QUOTE
detractors from MMGW man made global warming, who say it's not ssignificant, and only a hoax, usually rely on sun flares and volanoes.
if you don't know what i'm tlaking about, then don't debate me.


essential facts.
one is that studies have shown that the sun cycles have accounted for only a third of the warming that's occurred.
the other is that the volcano theorists have never cited sources.
the other is that they think 1.5 or so degrees is all that can really be attributed to man made gases.

i've never seen any sources cited for the volcano theory, but here's what i can find pointing that the volcano thing is a myth:
--------------
The volcano theorists can't even keep their stories straight. In his book, Limbaugh claims that the 1991 Pinatubo eruption put 1000 times as much chlorine into the atmosphere as industry has ever produced through CFCs; yet on Nightline, Pinatubo is alleged to have produced 570 times the equivalent of one year's worth of CFCs. Both can't be right. It turns out neither are.

The figure 570 apparently derives from Ray's book--but she said it was Mount Augustine, an Alaskan volcano that erupted in 1976, that put out 570 times as much chlorine as one year's worth of CFCs. Ray's source is a 1980 Science magazine article--but that piece was actually talking about the chlorine produced by a gigantic eruption that occurred 700,000 years ago in California (Science, 6/11/93).
---------
i'd also add, that hte common sense answer to me is... consider all the smoke stacks out there. consider all the pollution, places like LA. i'd bet california itself is like a volcano very short period in intervals. doesn't this make the most sense, considering how little and how infrequent volcanoes erupt?
----------


scientific article saying the sun is only accounting for a third of our warming
-------------
QUOTE
With respect to global warming, though solar activity has been at relatively high levels during the recent period, the fact that solar activity has been near constant during the last 30 years precludes solar variability from playing a large role in recent warming. It is estimated that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity account for between 18 and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999
QUOTE
It is found that current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the
twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than
do models. The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater
influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of
changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse
gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century.

^ Stott, Peter A.; Gareth S. Jones and John F. B. Mitchell (15 December 2003). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change". Journal of Climate 16: 4079-4093. Retrieved on October 5, 2005.
----------------------




Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported, and give discussions of the topic at the link:
-----------------
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): [url="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/.."]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/..[/url].
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): [url="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/.."]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/..[/url].
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): [url="http://www.grida.no/.."]http://www.grida.no/..[/url].
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS): [url="http://books.nap.edu/.."]http://books.nap.edu/..[/url].
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - [url="http://www.socc.ca/.."]http://www.socc.ca/..[/url].
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): [url="http://epa.gov/.."]http://epa.gov/..[/url].
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - [url="http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/.."]http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/..[/url].
* American Geophysical Union (AGU): [url="http://www.agu.org/.."]http://www.agu.org/..[/url].
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): [url="http://www.ametsoc.org/.."]http://www.ametsoc.org/..[/url].
* American Institute of Physics (AIP): [url="http://www.aip.org/.."]http://www.aip.org/..[/url].
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): [url="http://eo.ucar.edu/.."]http://eo.ucar.edu/..[/url].
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): [url="http://www.ametsoc.org/.."]http://www.ametsoc.org/..[/url].
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): [url="http://www.cmos.ca/.."]http://www.cmos.ca/..[/url].
-------------------------

so, if our ice caps are melting, and there's a correlation (while acknoledging that correlation doens't imply causation) between Co2 and temp, and the ice caps have gotten dirty since the industrial revolution... and everything else, MMGW substantial, makes sense.

if the sun only acccounts for a third, that means the other third is coming from us, at least as far as i can tell from sources.
now, that two thirds might now be enough in itself. but, it's still the majority of hte heating, as far as i can see. so, if it's two thirds, i don't see how you could say that's not significant. to quibble on "significant" is just that, too, quibbling, so i hope no one does it, as it's not an argument worth fighting over.

qualifiers
-----------------
now, given that the flares will inevitably go down, the question is what to think of that warming that is occuring by us. when solar goes down, our warming wo't matter as much. in the mean time.... how much are we hurting the planet? this is the msot fundamental. it's hard to pin point specific levels of harm with specific temp increases.

what true is that we picked a very convenient time to be warming the planet any given solar cycle being up at the moment.

to say say our effect is surely causing bad effects is not wise.
to say global warming is a hoax is idiotic.

the question is what to do based on the uncertainty.
one thing i'm not sure of is why even if GW is so bad, if that's such a bad thing in the bigger picture. increased crop cycles etc. warmer etc. prob unintended side effects is what we have to worry about. i mean, manhattan would get flooded some, up to the WTC even, but is that so bad overall? pretty expensive an all but i don't know[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

-the hockey stick idea, that cycles are natural, is why i was often skeptical. but, if you look at the recent rise, it coincides with manmade activity.. temp and CO2 was going up at man made activity time... yet for a signficant while before man activity was flat... is pretty notable, right? even if conceding that on the big picture it looks hard to decipher.... that it's doing what it did, when it did... is suspect, right? in a few years when it's had hundreds to do something.
-40% in the last forty years, during the most human active times, the ice has diminished. that is pretty coincidental, if not man made, isn't it? i want ot stress that it's 40%.... almost half of it... in a few years when it's had hundreds to do something.
-and ice cores are noticeably blacker and less black at the time of the clean air act and man made activity? which indicates that it's not just co2 etc from natural cycles causing it... and that there's twice the co2 that's ever been out there as that graph by the scientists shows, would indicate humans are significanlty putting stuff into the air that has effects on things. this point is not really debatable that i see given the graphs and ice core. (whether it's causing heat increase is debatable)



i think that CO2 is so alarmingly high, as shown in that graph, should at least make people second guess the idea that humans are insignificant contributors. i mean, even if CO2 didn't cause warming,,, we still cause about twice of the CO2 as has ever been done... and since we don't know or sure if it causes warming, we should at last be cautious.
if you take the simplistic idea that CO2 can cause at least some warming, even if just a little, then having twice as much in the atmosphere should give pause.

here is some interesting data on the idea that CO2 does to some degree, no pun intended, cause warming.
[quote]QUOTE
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
Filed under:

* FAQ
* Greenhouse gases
* Paleoclimate

— group @ 9:42 AM - (Français)

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

To read more about CO2 and ice cores, see Caillon et al., 2003[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

most of the data i provide, if true, debunks most conservative myths about the causes. it does'nt prove a cause though. but, it does give indication that CO2 does cause warming. i don't htink most debate that it does.
so, if we have twice the CO2 in the atmosphere as we've ever had, in earth history, that should give pause.
i remember being skeptical of al gore when he showed that graph "yeah, but it does'nt prove causation", but then i realized, that's a heck of a lot of gas, and if i concede Co2 does cause some, i should be weary. it was like i was living under a rock until i had that realization, and i see it all the time in many many other people.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if a cause can be determined, then i'm all ears.
which is why cmother's post is interesting.
i'm not sure i understand it though "holding arms together causes warming" is all i got looking at it at first, i'll read it closer.
it still looks speculative.

edit: on closer inspection, they didn't give a cause, other than saying mystically "natural variation". why does it vary like that naturally? whatever the reason, they have a model that closely mirrors human activity, without saying it's man made, which shouldn't be taken lightly. obvisouly, the devil is in the details, as to how the program was made, its assumptions, etc. without more info, i'm not chaning my position based on a mystical program. (programs/models come and go, everyone and their dog's got one.

Edited March 25, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, this isn't a left/right issue. my stance on this changes with the facts.
a very good indicator as to who's a cookie cutter, is this issue, by their need to be close minded on this issue (or issues like this), or their lack of concern, brush off etc. not that i'm accusing any one in particlar, just saying. (many take it personally when i'd never even consider them one) take this advice to heart. the world is not black and white like that. abortion doesn't have to do with global warming. GW doesn't have to do with taxes. etc. republican and democrat are merely common day institutions that have no bearing on truth. if all you ever say is one side of it, you're obviously a cookie cutter. it doesn't mean you're not smart, just think for yourself.

Edited March 25, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Lounge Daddy]

It's the sun's fault. Take it up with Sol.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i posted a study that said the sun only accounts for a third of the warming.

a smarter response on your part would have been 'you criticize cmother's article saying it's merely a 'model' and everyone and their dog's got one. yet, all that study you cite is, is a model'
i admit i am a bit ignorant about the study's methods. i assume it's not just a model like everyone's got.

whatever the case, CO2 does cause some warming, and we've got twice as much as we've ever had in the air right now.

whatever the case, it'd be smarter response, to say 'gee, CO2 does cause some warming as that article shows. we have twice as much as we ever did in the air. plus ice gets blacker with industry and less black at the clean air act time. and ice melts and heat increases signifancatly during man made activity of recent decades, when it's had hundreds or thoiusands of years to increase. big coincidence?'
at that point, yu could still call it dirt, but at least you've acknowledged the difficult data contrary to your position. that's what smart people do.

i don't see how anyone could maintain that we aren't having any effects, wihout a doubt. this is a matter of good judgment. saying 'causation doesn;t imply correlation' or 'it;'s all a coincidence' and so thinking t's all irrefutabliy bunk, might make you sound smart to someone in middle school, but it doesn't reflect good judgment, or common sense.