Global Cooling?

imind · Mar 12, 2008

first of all, thank you for removing the offensive remarks and i admittedly, as you offered, "lack of ability to decipher scientific notation". i never claimed to be a climatologist, and my arguement from the outset has been that a consensus does exist. i have felt comfortable asking for peer reviewed studies and presenting some because there are climatology sites online that do an exceptional job of putting the research into terms most can understand.

back to the schwartz paper. you seem to suggest that he fears nothing of AGW, when his own words contradict this

i offer again in his own words...

A report on Fox News introduced the study by saying, "Skeptics are increasingly certain the [global warming] scare is vastly overblown," and other news sources said Mr. Schwartz's study debunked the notion that global warming is a force with which humanity needs to contend.

This, he said, was not what he was trying to prove at all. Global warming is a very real reality, he said, and his study spells that out -- though in a different manner than those carried out by other scientists and organizations.

Titled "Heat Capacity, Time Constant and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System," the study used observations of Earth's temperature and the oceans' heat content to determine the planet's sensitivity to increasing levels of carbon dioxide, which results from fossil fuel combustion.

In his study, he explains that the Earth could be only about one-third as sensitive to a doubling of carbon dioxide as predicted by the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Mr. Schwartz estimated a rise in the Earth's global mean surface temperature of 1.1 degrees Celsius versus the IPCC's estimate of 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of carbon dioxide.

Regardless of the difference in temperature, Mr. Schwartz said this increase is not to be taken lightly, nor does it imply climate change is a false claim to be sniffed at.

If his estimate is correct, "it means that the climate is less sensitive to [carbon dioxide] than currently thought, which gives some breathing room," said Mr. Schwartz, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry and has been at the Brookhaven Lab for about three decades. "But a lower sensitivity does not solve the long-term problem that would result from continued buildup of [carbon dioxide]."

...

Currently, Mr. Schwartz is studying the role of atmospheric aerosols -- basically particles in the air that create what looks like smog or air pollution to the human eye -- in climate change.

The aerosols "have a cooling influence on the climate," he said. "But that's not good because it's masking the true magnitude of the greenhouse effect, so the warming taking place is probably greater than we're actually experiencing."

It could be decades before scientists really understand to what degree aerosols -- which are largely associated with fossil fuel combustion -- impact climate change, but Mr. Schwartz said the influence could be substantial and preventing scientists from correctly assessing the damage of the greenhouse effect on Earth.

Ultimately, Mr. Schwartz said, the goal is not only to understand climate change but to have policy-makers be able to act on the findings in order to deter further environmental damage.

"We want the research to be at hand that says this greenhouse effect is real, and that would allow better-informed decision making," he said.

Indeed, the greenhouse effect is real, Mr. Schwartz said, and humanity needs to curb their own actions or the children living today could be facing a very dire situation by the time they're seniors.

link

not to mention the criticisms of his finding to begin with, and since you are adept at understanding the scientific notations, i would ask you to address the following criticism of it. i offer a piece and the rest can be found following the link...

Despite the celebratory reaction from the denialist blogosphere (and U.S. Senator James Inhofe), this is not a "denialist" paper. Schwartz is a highly respected researcher (deservedly so) in atmospheric physics, mainly working on aerosols. He doesn't pretend to smite global-warming theories with a single blow, he simply explores one way to estimate climate sensitivity and reports his results. He seems quite aware of many of the caveats inherent in his method, and invites further study, saying in the "conclusions" section:

Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it might have to be said that it remains to be seen. In this context it is hoped that the present study might stimulate further work along these lines with more complex models.

link

after this it delves into methodolgy with mathematics beyond my ability to understand, but i get the gist of what is being said. please take a look at it and correct any errors you see. some highlights...

One of the biggest problems with this method is that it assumes that the climate system has only one "time scale," and that time scale determines its long-term, equilibrium response to changes in climate forcing.

...

This makes it abundantly clear that if temperature did follow the stated assumption, it would not give the results reported by Schwartz. The conclusion is inescapable, that global temperature cannot be adequately modeled as a linear trend plus AR(1) process.

...

In short, the global temperature time series clearly does not follow the model adopted in Schwartz's analysis. It's further clear that even if it did, the method is unable to diagnose the right time scale. Add to that the fact that assuming a single time scale for the global climate system contradicts what we know about the response time of the different components of the earth, and it adds up to only one conclusion: Schwartz's estimate of climate sensitivity is unreliable. We see no evidence from this analysis to indicate that climate sensitivity is any different from the best estimates of sensible research, somewhere within the range of 2 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2.

A response to the paper, raising these (and other) issues, has already been submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, and another response (by a team in Switzerland) is in the works. It's important to note that this is the way science works. An idea is proposed and explored, the results are reported, the methodology is probed and critiqued by others, and their results are reported; in the process, we hope to learn more about how the world really works.

Greatcloud · Mar 13, 2008

I don't care what you say i'm cold.

Mid-Holocene and Medieval Warm Period Temperatures in China both found to be warmer then today's temperatures

Still willing to join the Kyoto economic suicide pact?

excerpt:

Reference: Ge, Q., Wang, S., Wen, X., Shen, C. and Hao, Z. 2007. Temperature and precipitation changes in China during the Holocene. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 24: 1024-1036.

What was done:
Noting it is widely believed that "increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing higher global atmospheric temperatures," and, therefore, that "paleoclimate data are essential for both checking the predictions of climate models and characterizing the natural variability of [earth's] climate system," the authors reviewed proxy temperature records of China that span the entire Holocene, while providing greatest emphasis on the last two millennia.

What was learned
The warmest period of the Holocene occurred between 9600 and 6200 years ago, during portions of which, in the words of Ge et al., temperatures "were about 1°C-5°C higher than the present in China." They also report that "during the past two millennia, a warming trend in the 20th century was clearly detected, but the warming magnitude was smaller than the maximum level of the Medieval Warm Period [our italics]," which they describe as having occurred between AD 900 and 1300. What is more, they say that "the modern warm period has [only] lasted 20 years from 1987 to 2006," and their annual mean temperature series of China since AD 1880 indicates that the country was actually warmer in the mid-1940s than it is today.

What it means
In light of the findings of the five researchers, it would appear that the climate-alarmist claim that the warming of the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented, does not apply to China, for it was bested there by the warmth of the Middle Holocene of several thousand years ago, as well as the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period of a single thousand years ago (which Ge et al. attribute to elevated solar activity and lack of volcanic eruptions), and even the warmth of the mid-1940s of only half a century ago, which also cannot be ascribed to elevated atmospheric CO2. Consequently, their findings cast great doubt upon what we continually hear from the likes of Al Gore and James Hansen, i.e., that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are the greatest threat ever to be faced by the planet. Mountains of ever-accumulating real-world evidence from all around the world consistently demonstrate this claim to be false."

Peer reviewed pdf file discrediting CO2 as primary forcer of GW.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf

Here is another peer reviewed pdf file disproving CO2 as primary forcer of GW.

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/22835.pdf

</IMG>

IisJustMe · Mar 13, 2008

imind said:
i offer again in his own words...

I appreciate the research effort you put in. You'll notice, however, that Professor Schwartz (his proper title, I believe) never uses the words "anthropogenic global warming" or any other term implying humans cause the climate change. I've never denied climate change. Climate change has occurred through our human history, as is evidenced in the geographic and fossil records. However, Prof. Schwartz does not believe humans are the driving force behind this temporary warmup, and despite the way some of his quotes are contextualized in your additional links, he is not saying it is catastrophic, either. In fact, as I originally stated, his study emphatically shows that the most the increase in CO2 gas volumes can produce is the previously mentioned 1.1 degree Celsius rise, of which he says 0.7 degrees has already occurred.

I have to admit, I'm not that good at reading this brand of scientific paper either. In my life prior to being a psychologist, I was a helicopter pilot, army officer and aviation engineer. I can deal with the math, but not with the moles, cubic meters of volume, etc., not without a lot of "cogitation." But as I've reread the article over the last day, it appears he is saying the main reason the increase in CO2 volume cannot account for much temperature change is that the earth's atmospheric volume cannot increase, but must decrease. This is a natural event in an "open atmospheric system" such as earth. By that, I mean there isn't a glass bubble around the planet to hold in the atmosphere. In the long term, the volume must have a steady net decrease.

Over the thousands (or millions, whichever age of earth one subscribes to) of years the volume can do nothing but decrease, with minor offsets accounted for in the CO2 release by humans and the oxygen release by plants. Still other offsets occur from chemical reactions, volcano eruptions, and other naturally occurring events, plus the (according to Prof. Schwartz, minor) volume increases from industry, home heating, etc. But in the long term, the volume must decrease. Any increase must be offset, in fact overcompensated, by the continuing decrease through loss of atmospheric gases into space.

Still other factors Prof. Schwartz states have greater effect on global surface temperature variations are solar flux and oceanic absorption/reflection. He rightly states that the AGW computer models do not take these events into account, which makes for bad procedures, bad science, and bad projections. I agree with Prof. Schwartz, Dr. William Gray and others: There is no substitute for observation. The computer models not only generally fail to consider empirical data, that which they do include becomes exaggerated in the data entry process for reasons that escape these true scientists. The main reasoning behind entering inflated data is to obtain "worst-case scenario" results that are neither realistic nor, returning to the original point, supported by observed conditions.

Computer models are great for building aircraft. But we still didn't order 7,500 Apaches without building one to make sure it actually flew. Despite our computer models being excellent, there were still factors about the bird the computers didn't predict, some of which were very negative in effect on crew and mission. We had to fix them. The AGW supporters are doing remarkable work. But they really can't produce definitive projections based on data that inflates data for observed conditions and fails to be faithful to the actual data that can be observed, confirmed and properly entered into the programming.

I wouldn't accept their approach to science in order to build a helicopter. I don't understand why they expect everyone in their field to unanimously buy into their results without criticizing their methods, methods that are not acceptable for scientific research.

Avatar · Mar 13, 2008

IisJustMe said:
I appreciate the research effort you put in. You'll notice, however, that Professor Schwartz (his proper title, I believe) never uses the words "anthropogenic global warming" or any other term implying humans cause the climate change. I've never denied climate change. Climate change has occurred through our human history, as is evidenced in the geographic and fossil records. However, Prof. Schwartz does not believe humans are the driving force behind this temporary warmup, and despite the way some of his quotes are contextualized in your additional links, he is not saying it is catastrophic, either. In fact, as I originally stated, his study emphatically shows that the most the increase in CO2 gas volumes can produce is the previously mentioned 1.1 degree Celsius rise, of which he says 0.7 degrees has already occurred.

I have to admit, I'm not that good at reading this brand of scientific paper either. In my life prior to being a psychologist, I was a helicopter pilot, army officer and aviation engineer. I can deal with the math, but not with the moles, cubic meters of volume, etc., not without a lot of "cogitation." But as I've reread the article over the last day, it appears he is saying the main reason the increase in CO2 volume cannot account for much temperature change is that the earth's atmospheric volume cannot increase, but must decrease. This is a natural event in an "open atmospheric system" such as earth. By that, I mean there isn't a glass bubble around the planet to hold in the atmosphere. In the long term, the volume must have a steady net decrease.

Over the thousands (or millions, whichever age of earth one subscribes to) of years the volume can do nothing but decrease, with minor offsets accounted for in the CO2 release by humans and the oxygen release by plants. Still other offsets occur from chemical reactions, volcano eruptions, and other naturally occurring events, plus the (according to Prof. Schwartz, minor) volume increases from industry, home heating, etc. But in the long term, the volume must decrease. Any increase must be offset, in fact overcompensated, by the continuing decrease through loss of atmospheric gases into space.

Still other factors Prof. Schwartz states have greater effect on global surface temperature variations are solar flux and oceanic absorption/reflection. He rightly states that the AGW computer models do not take these events into account, which makes for bad procedures, bad science, and bad projections. I agree with Prof. Schwartz, Dr. William Gray and others: There is no substitute for observation. The computer models not only generally fail to consider empirical data, that which they do include becomes exaggerated in the data entry process for reasons that escape these true scientists. The main reasoning behind entering inflated data is to obtain "worst-case scenario" results that are neither realistic nor, returning to the original point, supported by observed conditions.

Computer models are great for building aircraft. But we still didn't order 7,500 Apaches without building one to make sure it actually flew. Despite our computer models being excellent, there were still factors about the bird the computers didn't predict, some of which were very negative in effect on crew and mission. We had to fix them. The AGW supporters are doing remarkable work. But they really can't produce definitive projections based on data that inflates data for observed conditions and fails to be faithful to the actual data that can be observed, confirmed and properly entered into the programming.

I wouldn't accept their approach to science in order to build a helicopter. I don't understand why they expect everyone in their field to unanimously buy into their results without criticizing their methods, methods that are not acceptable for scientific research.

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that it is hydrogen that escapes into space not the far heavier compounds such as carbon dioxide.

IisJustMe · Mar 13, 2008

Avatar said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that it is hydrogen that escapes into space not the far heavier compounds such as carbon dioxide.

All the elements and compounds escape, but you're right, the lighter ones reach an escape velocity more easily than the heavier ones. But the relative volume of the gases affects their rate of escape as well. CO2 averages .03 to .06 percent of atmospheric volume, Hydrogen is ten times that concentration. CO2 molecules are a bit more than 44 times heavier than the hydrogen atom. Because of those combined factors, hydrogen escapes the atmosphere at 13 times the rate of CO2, and I'm just taking scientists' word here, because the math is too complex for me to follow. Still, all gases currently making up earth's atmosphere escape, and the atmospheric volume is minutely decreasing at a more or less predictable rate.

Greatcloud · Mar 27, 2008

I believe in global cooling and that the whole world is waiting for the sun to warm us up;but only for this summer. This may be the only summer we have that will be this warm. Like my favorite summer 1968, the summer of love. I was 8.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, CO2

</IMG></IMG>

IisJustMe · Mar 27, 2008

Since 96.5% of CO2 comes from trees and other plants, the quickest way to cut CO2 emissions is to cut down trees. I don't suppose the enviro-nuts would go for that, though. Truth is, neither would I, but it is the quickest answer, like it or not.

Avatar · Mar 27, 2008

IisJustMe said:
All the elements and compounds escape, but you're right, the lighter ones reach an escape velocity more easily than the heavier ones. But the relative volume of the gases affects their rate of escape as well. CO2 averages .03 to .06 percent of atmospheric volume, Hydrogen is ten times that concentration. CO2 molecules are a bit more than 44 times heavier than the hydrogen atom. Because of those combined factors, hydrogen escapes the atmosphere at 13 times the rate of CO2, and I'm just taking scientists' word here, because the math is too complex for me to follow. Still, all gases currently making up earth's atmosphere escape, and the atmospheric volume is minutely decreasing at a more or less predictable rate.

Ah, thanks. Missed this post earlier somehow.

revolutio · Mar 27, 2008

IisJustMe said:
Since 96.5% of CO2 comes from trees and other plants, the quickest way to cut CO2 emissions is to cut down trees. I don't suppose the enviro-nuts would go for that, though. Truth is, neither would I, but it is the quickest answer, like it or not.

Maybe I'm missing your source on this but plants and other photosynthetic organisms remove CO2 from the atmosphere. It is dead trees that produce CO2 thus cutting them down and disposing of them would remove probably the largest CO2 sink in nature and add even more CO2 on top of that. Though it is true that most CO2 emissions are natural in origin.

Anyway I just thought this debate was interesting. I hadn't done much peer-reviewed reading on climate change since I frankly don't care so I spent a while browsing databases. Bottom-line: I would be hesitant to put forth any opinion in any direction on this debate. There are dozens of annual reviews and metanalyses supporting and down-playing man's role in the current climate change. I'm don't specialize in climatology or ecology so I might be overlooking things but most of the methodologies used seem very reliable. Also I see far fewer conclusive statements being made in journals than I do in magazines, newspapers, and speeches. For the most part it looks like science is doing what it is supposed to which is carefully critiquing posited theories and not jumping to conclusions.

Well, I suppose political/economic/ideological interests never played well with science (see genetics).

Avatar · Mar 27, 2008

revolutio said:
Maybe I'm missing your source on this but plants and other photosynthetic organisms remove CO2 from the atmosphere. It is dead trees that produce CO2 thus cutting them down and disposing of them would remove probably the largest CO2 sink in nature and add even more CO2 on top of that. Though it is true that most CO2 emissions are natural in origin.

Yes, true. That's the carbon cycle. Trees and vegetation remove CO2 from the atmosphere, animals eat said vegetation and release CO2 through respiration and methane through excretion.

IisJustMe · Mar 28, 2008

Sorry, I didn't see this right away because of the errors the site has been having. The answer is, both are true.

"On land, plants themselves represent a global mass equivalent to about 1500 billion tonnes of carbon at any one time. Plants utilize carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, but also produce it during respiration. The net effect is an uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere equivalent to around 60 billion tonnes of carbon each year."

CO2 respiration in plants

Sixty billion tons, by the way, is nothing in comparison to the atmospheric volume of CO2. Earth's atmospheric mass is 5.137 × 1018 kg, with CO2 representing 383 ppm of that mass, or about 0.6% of that total. That's trillions of tons of CO2.

revolutio · Mar 28, 2008

I realize that the yearly uptake by vegetation is tiny compared to the amount in the atmosphere. But I was under the impression that an enormous quantity of CO2 is necessary to keep the Earth at its usual temperatures. So that tiny amount is actually tremendously important to maintaining habitable global temperatures

IisJustMe · Mar 28, 2008

revolutio said:
I realize that the yearly uptake by vegetation is tiny compared to the amount in the atmosphere. But I was under the impression that an enormous quantity of CO2 is necessary to keep the Earth at its usual temperatures. So that tiny amount is actually tremendously important to maintaining habitable global temperatures

As at least one recent study has shown (and there are others but I didn't have time to look for the links) even massive quantitative increase in CO2 levels wouldn't significantly increase global temperatures.

Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System (by Stephen E. Schwartz, Brookhaven Institute)

revolutio · Mar 30, 2008

IisJustMe said:
As at least one recent study has shown (and there are others but I didn't have time to look for the links) even massive quantitative increase in CO2 levels wouldn't significantly increase global temperatures.

Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System (by Stephen E. Schwartz, Brookhaven Institute)

*yoink*

Thanks for the article I'll plod through this. I was looking for something discussing the actually sensitivity of the atmosphere. As I said, what I'd read previously pointed towards a pretty narrow range of variation in the atmospheric make-up but those were mostly secondary sources (Scientific American articles etc.) and weren't very specific.

IisJustMe · Mar 30, 2008

revolutio said:
Thanks for the article I'll plod through this.

I needed dictionaries for chemistry and physics to read it. Not to mention a guide to scientific notation.

Greatcloud · Apr 5, 2008

Now Africa is receiving reports of snow fall the most significant being Mt. Kilimanjaro. Bahgdad even got snow for the first time in recorded history. I predict this winter will be even harder then this year as far as snow fall.

Falling Snow cartoon 1 - catalog reference cgan980

: giraffe, giraffes, snow, snowdrift, snowdrifts, snow drift, snow drifts, snowfall, falling snow, heavy snow, winter, winters, wintertime, harsh winter, harsh winders,

Add this image to your shopping cart.
View shopping cart.
View other cartoons by this artist.
More search options and faster thumbnail browsing.
'Boy, it's a harsh winter this year...'
</IMG></IMG>

It snowed here in Oregon where I live only last week, and that is at sea level. Im sure a lot of you out there had or are having significant snowfall too.

Greatcloud · Apr 5, 2008

Hey, I is Just me hope your wife and children are fine. Just wanted to say we are in a battle to believe like we do. So I am going to keep this thread alive.

I needed dictionaries for chemistry and physics to read it.

Lol, me too I sometimes feel like i'm back in college with all these qualifed, and unqualifed scientists round here. Keep up the fight for the truth to come to life. (notice how it's hard to get a GC denier to talk about NH & SH cooling ?) (Or detail disscussion about solar temp. change ?). Those two issues are only two areas that are needing discussion. Please write back, God bless.

Greatcloud · Apr 9, 2008

So then what of the many facets of GW are the most critical, in regards to sheading light on the issue. If it is the same main facets of GW, AGW and the suns energy; what two aspects of these are the most noteworthy . I believe cosmic ray theory and proxy data for the sun. For AGW it would have to be the Troposphere.
John Casey and SSRC
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=2659
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin highly credentialed Russian scientist
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/global_co.html
These scientists are predicting a coming minimum with extremely cold temperatures globally. They say it may start as soon as 2012.
What does everyone think of these two scientists and what they espouse ?

Greatcloud · Apr 9, 2008

It's so cold at night here I get chile BUMPS lol.

Greatcloud · Apr 14, 2008

My area has hit record cold temperatures this year. Has anyone else had a record broken for cold temperature ?

It is too bad that the cold will have more deaths by far then any GW did. We should be getting ready for next fall/winter now.

God bless us all
</IMG></IMG>

Global Cooling?

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Well-Known Member

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Senior Member

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Well-Known Member

Apatheist Extraordinaire

Well-Known Member

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Apatheist Extraordinaire

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Apatheist Extraordinaire

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency