Debate among scientists about Global Warming vs Active Cycle

[terstorm1012]

I dunno Jim, I really agree with both you and X-Y-No! There's something that tells me that you're both on the same page and just not seeing it.

Is it possible, since greenhouse emissions keep solar energy from escaping back into space, that increased solar energy could aid an accelerated global warming (caused by 6billion+ humans and their industry)?

I really think that there is, and you've both presented data that proves this to me.

One last thing---Jim---Pinatubo Eruption caused cooling not warming as i recall.... The summer that followed it was the chilliest in decades. I remember it as the one summer we didn't go to the pool at all because it was too cold. It also was, incidentally, the summer of Andrew. I could be wrong though.

terstorm1012,


If you go back over my earlier comments in this thread or some of my other past comments in one of my AMO discussion you will see that I have said that the global warmers' can make a strong case about global warming by way of it effecting ozone levels. (Thinning it )

So I have no problem with that stance. Although then we need to look at what caused some earlier warming trends and why did that ozone deplete then because they seem to go hand and hand.

Your right Pinatubo did cause a cooling effect down below but it caused a warming trend in the lower stratosphere just like all major volcanic eruptions. So here we go again.

We have always thought that this cooling was only caused by the blocking of the sunlight. But could this also be related to the warming of the stratosphere, which then changes the teleconnection feedbacks, which then causes a cooling in the lower troposphere ?

This is exactly what changes in the ozone levels do. They cause temperatuee gradients in the stratosphere and this has an effect upon the troposhere by way of atmospheric and oceanic teleconnection feedbacks.


Jim

Makes sense.

I did not know about the stratospheric warming. Thanks for clueing me into this.

[Jim Hughes]

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


Good site for some balance to the debate

I'm still waiting for you to provide some citations to peer-reviewed papers from the '70s which suggested we were facing an imminent ice age. It really shouldn't be hard if there's anything to the claim at all ... so pony up, please.

Offering a link to a site which is just a laundry-list of the same old falsified and/or misleading claims doesn't cut it.

I remember very well how the news media/newspaper industry was talking about it back in the 1970's. Especially after those harsh winters in 76-78.

Even it that's true - newspapers are not peer-reviewed journals. I recall the news media writing a bunch of nonsense about the Bermuda Triangle back then too, but that doesn't mean the scientific community took the idea seriously.

But that is different from what you want. It would be hard to dig up a 30-40 year old research paper on the internet.

I don't insist on having the papers themselves. Citations will do. If it truly were such a prevalent idea in climate science as these AGW skeptics are claiming, there really ought to be hundreds of papers out there, but I'll settle for a handful.

I think Lamb and Eddy were two people who may have tried to say that one might be developing. But I say this cautiously since I am not 100 % sure.

This also does also not mean the majority believed this. But nobody was running around back then screaming about global warming either.


Jim

Of course not ... the idea of global warming was very new at that time, and it took a couple of decades of serious research for it to get to the level of confidence we've reached now. Seems to me that fact supports my view of this issue rather than this claim that it's all a fraud.

I am not saying that claims about global warming are a fraud and you should not imply that I am . I have made my stance perfectly clear.

I am just trying to point out how little is known about the space weather effect and my previous post is just one example.

( I look forward to hearing what you think about this possible relationship)

I feel like I am more open to both sides of the issue then yourself. I do not know how old you are but there was clearly some debate , minor as it may have been , about us entering an ice age in the 70's. Now whether these were a minor few is somewhat irrelevant here.

Science should not be built around what the majority says. It should be built around the facts and our understanding of these facts. Once you get into majority wins you develop a mob mentality within the science community and the people in the middle keep leaning towards the majority in fear of looking stupid or less intelligent. This is natural human behavior at any level. Much like the way someone chooses the winner of the Super Bowl.



Jim

[terstorm1012]

Jim, with your evidence and XYNo's evidence and the general Earth climate change it seems we're hitting this perfect storm for accerlated warming.

I think it is something we should worry about. When the Medivial Warm Period that MGC mentioned began, the Plauge of Justinian hit the Byzantine empire(542AD); when the Warm Period began shifting to the Little Ice Age, the Black Death hit...I found these correlations watching a show about the Black Death on the history channel. Our health systems in most of the developed world are thankfully vastly superior now so we are ready...hopefully.

[Jim Hughes]

Jim, with your evidence and XYNo's evidence and the general Earth climate change it seems we're hitting this perfect storm for accerlated warming.

You could be very well right and we could be on our way there. Or even be there. But lets hope we are not.

A lot of this might depend upon whether the changes in space weather the past 50 years has been having an effect or not. A quiet extended period could cause a reversal of the warming trend. OTOH we should still be dong certain things even if space weather were to account for 90% of the warming. It would be ludicrous not to.

But what and how much do we do? And who feels the brunt of these rules ?


Jim

[x-y-no]

I am not saying that claims about global warming are a fraud and you should not imply that I am . I have made my stance perfectly clear.

The trouble is there are two threads of conversation here. MGC and sponger are making this assertion, and in this particular case you were responding to my reply to sponger. I understand that you are not making this same claim. Sorry if there was any confusion about that.

I am just trying to point out how little is known about the space weather effect and my previous post is just one example.

( I look forward to hearing what you think about this possible relationship)

I think I've made it clear in the past that I see significant possibility of space weather influencing weather in the polar regions. I'm more skeptical of the idea that it has so much influence in the tropics.

I feel like I am more open to both sides of the issue then yourself. I do not know how old you are but there was clearly some debate , minor as it may have been , about us entering an ice age in the 70's. Now whether these were a minor few is somewhat irrelevant here.

I'm 45.

I disagree that it's insignificant that the ice age hypothesis was a minor issue, because it is being advanced by MGC and sponger in this thread as some sort of counter-evidence to our level of confidence regarding anthropogenic global warming today. And in that context, it's extremely significant that the ice age hypothesis was not the subject of any peer-reviewed research, as opposed to AGW which is the subject of thousands of peer-reviewed papers.

Science should not be built around what the majority says. It should be built around the facts and our understanding of these facts. Once you get into majority wins you develop a mob mentality within the science community and the people in the middle keep leaning towards the majority in fear of looking stupid or less intelligent. This is natural human behavior at any level. Much like the way someone chooses the winner of the Super Bowl.



Jim

That all sounds very nice in theory, but if we reject the importance of peer-review and lend the same credence to any offhand speculation as we do to carefully researched, reviewed and independently verified ideas, then we are pretty much rejecting the entire framework of science.

I don't agree with that at all.

[Jim Hughes]

I think I've made it clear in the past that I see significant possibility of space weather influencing weather in the polar regions. I'm more skeptical of the idea that it has so much influence in the tropics.

I do not ever remember you using the term significant so maybe I am making some headway about the space weather effect upon weather/climate. Even if it is only at the poles.

I understand your skeptical stance about the tropics but you do understand that if you believe in the connection to the higher latitudes then it has to have an effect upon the tropics or anywhere else for that matter. Eventually.

The AO , NAO, and Aleutian Low effect many mid to low latitude atmospheric and oceanic teleconnections. The phases of the NAO is related to the very subject we have been discussing here. The AMO.

The Aleutian Low effects things like the ice growth in the Bearing Sea. This then effects the SST's anomalies around the North Pacific and possibly even the North Atlantic.

The placement of the Aleutian Low can also effect SST anomalies along the coast of Canada and occasionally as far south as the Pacific Northwest. Which then can effect upon someting like the California current.

All of this can then effect things like the PDO , ENSO, Cold Tongue etc....So once you believe in the connection to the polar weather/climate then you have to open up the door for the other feedbacks.

Now maybe you were just referring to my theories regarding the 500 km/sec solar wind speed or certain particle levels in regards to the possible influence that they may have upon tropical systems. I do not know.


Jim

[MGC]

I brought up the ice age example to show that scientific theories are sometimes wrong or sometimes right. Thus, I take all this talk of man made global warming with a big grain of salt. For all I know X-Y-No you well may be right. I'm just not buying into the global warming is human's fault. I've read their arguments but I'm not convinced. Too many researchers are biasied by money and they will say what the money giver wants to hear to keep their grants. Fact of the matter is no one knows what the climate will be like next week lest 10 years from now. Too many Chicken Littles out there......MGC

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

edited 520 EST...I changed the confidence levels based on
my essays and researched articles..

Just a quick point addressed to the general public and no
one in particular:
The earth has been hotter...during the volcanic prehistoric
times when massive storms much worse than hurricanes roared
across earth...but this theory does not necessarily negate the fact that global warming is occuring now...



In my relatively low-confidence opinion....I think that there's a:

10% global warming has little effect on Atlantic Hurricane Season
60% that global warming is increasing just Storm Intensity
30% that global warming is increasing both storm intensity and frequency

[sponger]

[/quote]But you can't do that, because they don't exist. Just admit it already - you're dead wrong about this. No shame in being wrong now and then - the only shame is in continuing to insist on a falsehood after you've learned better.

Wow, such an open mind! I can't understand why you press the position that the scientific community is in agreement on anything, including that the earth is warmer or that dirty capitalist man caused it.

Educated open minded people will always have a hard time swallowing that a gas, which 95% to 99% of which is naturally occuring, that our small contribution would have any signifigant impact on avg temps.

But hey, lets not let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good agenda. I have a theory that asteroids cause cancer, so I am going to find evidence to support my theeory and disregard all other facts. Now that is science in action!

[mike815]

interseting insight tampa hurr. very interesting keep it up.

[x-y-no]

I brought up the ice age example to show that scientific theories are sometimes wrong or sometimes right. Thus, I take all this talk of man made global warming with a big grain of salt.

It's a pretty poor example, since on the one hand you had some idle speculation on the part of a very few scientists with no real research and no peer review behind it, and on the other hand you have a field of research which has been intensively studied by a very large number of researchers for several decades. Hardly a valid comparison.

For all I know X-Y-No you well may be right.

Well, that's more reasonable than "it's all a fraud" I guess.

I'm just not buying into the global warming is human's fault. I've read their arguments but I'm not convinced. Too many researchers are biasied by money and they will say what the money giver wants to hear to keep their grants.

Ah well ... that was short lived ... now we're back to it's all a fraud again. One wonders why you don't complain about the hefty speaking fees and consulting stipends that prominent skeptics earn. Why doesn't their profit motive bother you?

But you really are misapprehending the mindset of most good scientists. Nothing would please most scientists more than proving other scientists wrong - there's much more fame and fortune in that than in being an anonymous member of the herd.

Fact of the matter is no one knows what the climate will be like next week lest 10 years from now.

Uhhh ... no that's wrong. In fact we know with extraordinary precision what climate will be like next week.

[x-y-no]

Wow, such an open mind! I can't understand why you press the position that the scientific community is in agreement on anything, including that the earth is warmer or that dirty capitalist man caused it.

I'm interested in science and what it can tell us about reality. I'm sorry you don't share that interest.

And please don't put words in my mouth. I have never in my life referred to "dirty capitalist man" or any variant thereof.

Educated open minded people will always have a hard time swallowing that a gas, which 95% to 99% of which is naturally occuring, that our small contribution would have any signifigant impact on avg temps.

The human contribution of atmospheric primary GHGs is a heck of a lot higher than 1 to 5 percent.

But hey, lets not let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good agenda. I have a theory that asteroids cause cancer, so I am going to find evidence to support my theeory and disregard all other facts. Now that is science in action!

That does appear to be your philosophy. Glad you admit it at least.

[caribepr]

Wow!!! I wanted to include about 10 quotes but why?? The depth of knowledge in this debate is really interesting - fascinating actually. I don't know one...hmm, there is no fraction I can think of that would work...but make it low...of the scientific background shown above, but I do garner bits of knowledge here and there and thank those of you who have asked MGC for back up, as I don't know what it would take to make reality known in that case (interesting news bit today on the European failing on their goal of eight percent reduction of greenhouse gases versus the 2. 8 (maybe that is wrong but it was 2. something) that has been accomplished since the goal was set in 1990 - gee, maybe this is real and able to be controlled by humans?) as well as the level of respect that has been shown for 99.9% of the debate.
Carry on!

[MGC]

Ha, the climate will be cold in the Northern Hemisphere and many will wonder where this darn global warming is as they scrape ice from their windshields.

I would never pay a stipend to hear someone speak. I guess I'm too cheap.

Global warming is a fraud because:

A. The media promotes it and we all know which way the wind blows the media.
B. Entertainers, most of whom are nitwits, promote it while driving around in their Bentleys.
C. I say so and I am the ultimate authority. Just joking of coures.....MGC

[MiamiensisWx]

Ha, the climate will be cold in the Northern Hemisphere and many will wonder where this darn global warming is as they scrape ice from their windshields.

I would never pay a stipend to hear someone speak. I guess I'm too cheap.

Global warming is a fraud because:

A. The media promotes it and we all know which way the wind blows the media.
B. Entertainers, most of whom are nitwits, promote it while driving around in their Bentleys.
C. I say so and I am the ultimate authority. Just joking of coures.....MGC

Actually, the media is both ways. One minute it seems to capitalize on global warming, while the next it is repeatedly bashing those who are concerned about climate change (e.g., environmentalists). In reality, sometimes it is one way in the media, sometimes it is the other.

[caribepr]

Ha, the climate will be cold in the Northern Hemisphere and many will wonder where this darn global warming is as they scrape ice from their windshields.

I would never pay a stipend to hear someone speak. I guess I'm too cheap.

Global warming is a fraud because:

A. The media promotes it and we all know which way the wind blows the media.
B. Entertainers, most of whom are nitwits, promote it while driving around in their Bentleys.
C. I say so and I am the ultimate authority. Just joking of coures.....MGC

Actually, the media is both ways. One minute it seems to capitalize on global warming, while the next it is repeatedly bashing those who are concerned about climate change (e.g., environmentalists). In reality, sometimes it is one way in the media, sometimes it is the other.

Good points Cape Verde.

MGC, if that is the basis of your very strong opinions on the issue of global warming, you just answered all my wondering. Point C taken as a joke included.

Sometimes a segment of Americans just scare me bad, even if I am one.

[kevin]

That is because they are frightening.

[x-y-no]

Ha, the climate will be cold in the Northern Hemisphere and many will wonder where this darn global warming is as they scrape ice from their windshields.

Ah ... so even you know with some fair accuracy what the climate will be not only a week from now, but well into the winter. So your claim that we don't know what the climate will be in a week is clearly false, as I said. Thanks for demonstrating my point for me.

I would never pay a stipend to hear someone speak. I guess I'm too cheap.

That's evading the issue. I didn't ask what you would pay, I asked why you impugn the motives of all those climate scientists working away at the issue of AGW, but you don't question the motives of prominent skeptics who are earning fat speaking fees and stipends from industries and organizations interested in muddying the waters.

Global warming is a fraud because:

A. The media promotes it and we all know which way the wind blows the media.

The media does not do or fund basic science. How "the wind blows" in the media is immaterial to the claim you are making that all those climate scientists are conspiring to commit this giant fraud on the world. Try again.

B. Entertainers, most of whom are nitwits, promote it while driving around in their Bentleys.

So I guess you would claim that if an entertainer were to prominently discuss the importance of fire safety but then fail to clear the brush from around his house, then forest fires are "a fraud." Right? It's the same logic, MGC - it's up to you to demonstrate why one is valid reasoning and the other isn't.

C. I say so and I am the ultimate authority. Just joking of coures.....MGC

Actually, I don't think you are joking. My distinct impression is that this is precisely the fundamental basis of your argument.

[sponger]

Here is another tidbit for all those who still have an open mind. The author is a geologist but has some interesting insight.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf

[terstorm1012]

Sponger, interesting read but some of that contradicts what Jim has told us about Stratospheric warming/cooling.