Eaarth

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We have had lots of volcanic eruptions since 1958 -- those are included in the Mauna Loa measurements. What greenhouse gasses do volcanoes emit?

CO2.
And they don't need to be erupting to pump out CO2.

Water.
Yes, water is a greenhouse gas. Even more so than CO2.
What should we do now ?
Stop using water ?
Ban hydrogen as a fuel, because burning it causes more water vapor ?

[dcb]

why do people bring up volcanos? The arguments against substantial anthropogenic climate change presented here are honestly pretty weak, not in the category of "hard facts". The climate does change on it's own, but we are also changing.

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview


But that doesn't mean anyone is saying to eliminate humans, or water, c'mon now. Don't be such extremists, or insist that people make graphs of whatever you demand.

[RobertSmalls]

If you had asked me "How strong is the case for AGW, and should we try to emit less GHG?", I would have answered "pretty darned good" and "sure, but don't break the bank" respectively. But extremists like McKibben really irritate me.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The permafrost... is melting.

More irritation. Very dramatic of you, but I am unmoved. Retreating tundra makes way for advancing tiaga, which is an improvement for anyone but a lichen-eater. Try something else.

More intense rain in Pakistan? That's highly anecdotal, but if true, it's actually a good thing for the people of Pakistan. Have you looked at satellite imagery of the country? Everywhere but the Indus valley looks pretty arid to me.

A "land hurricane" in the upper midwest? Meh. If it breaks stuff, rebuild stronger. It's not going to wipe out civilization.

Changes in weather patterns will be inconvenient, but sub-apocalyptic.

[Arragonis]

Note the Y-axis here. And also note the scale - thats a change of 310 ppm to 390 ppm. ppm = Parts per MILLION.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The permafrost... is melting.

Yes, the 'perma' part means it stays frozen in summer. The permafrost in Greenland has melted before. How do we know ? Well the Viking settlers there buried their dead. Its kind of hard to do that, or indeed start farming, when the ground is frozen solid, so it must not have been at the time they were there.

It got a lot colder (the LIA) so they left. Why is it called Greenland ?

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

One fifth of the entire country of Pakistan got flooded, while Moscow burned. The Philippines got hit by super-monsoon Megi with sustained winds of 178MPH winds with gusts to 195MPG. Vietnam got 30.5 inches of rain in one storm.

This is not normal.

These are not normal, but at the same time none of these events are totally unknown in those parts of the world.

We had flooding in the UK a few years ago and the standard was to blame AGW. The fact we built on natural flood plain obviously has nothing to do with it.

In 1947 in the UK we had one of the coldest winters on record. In 1948 there were several floods and disasters.

As I tapped, these things are unusual but not unknown.

[bestclimb]

I am still not convinced that changes in global temperatures/weather is a bad thing. The discussion about global warming is a red herring that distracts from harmful forms of pollution.

[Arragonis]

Hi,

I know this is insignificant but...

I'm 'retiring' from this debate at this point. Not because I don't believe in my position (which is of the "I don't know" strand of skepticism - aka the largest strand) but rather because I don't want to continue in this particular argument in this forum. I don't believe it adds any value to EM.

I believe most people come to, and contribute to, EM for the best reasons to themselves, mainly those are -

- AGW, I want to reduce my carbon footprint
- Political - I want to rely less of 'foreign oil' (depends where you live)
- Financial - I want to spend less
- Science - I want to be more efficient / waste less.

I have respect for all of those even if they are not my own.

I am 'retiring' because I just don't want to get into an argument over this and 'fall out' with lots of (internet) people I have come to respect, like Neil - I do read his posts and his threads a lot, I have even been known to visit his blog.

I don't agree with him over AGW but I will still watch his threads and his posts here with interest, especially the CarBEN project.

In the interests of balance with the original post I would recommend some other books like AW Mountford's "The Hockey Stick Illusion" or indeed Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth" for a balanced view alongside "Eaarth" (which I have only started reading). Yes I read both sides.

So with that, peace and Cheers everyone.

A.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by dcb

The arguments against substantial anthropogenic climate change presented here are honestly pretty weak, not in the category of "hard facts".

Neither are the arguments pro.
Th Arctic icecap has grown substantially after the 2007 low.
Europe has seen 2 cool winters, with the last one being particularly cold.

We should also not forget that we are now measuring life data that is not dampened over time in historical proxies.

For what little we actually know, we might be witnessing the trigger mechanism for severe global dimming over the next few centuries without us even realising it ...

[NeilBlanchard]

Vast portions of the Taiga and other northern hemisphere forests are dieing. The permafrost is melting and releasing large amounts of methane -- methane is ~20X worse a GHG than is carbon dioxide. Both of these are amplification/feedback loops.

The oceans are becoming more acidic -- and this is killing corral reefs and soon shellfish cannot form their shells. Plankton have died off by about 40% since the late 1950's -- they are the base of the food chain in the ocean.

For the past 600,000 YEARS, the carbon dioxide levels have not gone above 275-280ppm. Starting around 1850 -- when we started burning coal, the levels of carbon dioxide have steadily climbed above that level, and have accelerated when cars became more common. The levels really took off around 1970, and now have climbed past 390ppm. This is 40% increase in a mere 150 years -- the exact same time period of our industrial age.

Hmmm.

Since 1970, the Arctic ice and the Greenland ice and the Antarctic ice have all melted faster and faster. This year for the first time in recorded history, both the northwest and northeast passages were ice free for several months. Russia, Canada, the USA and others have started jockeying for access to the oil and gas that until now has been inaccessible.

Ocean levels have risen, both from increased melting of land ice, and because warmer water is less dense. At least two island nations (Maldives being one) have begun the process of finding other land to buy -- so they can move their countries!

There is about 5% more water evaporation now -- which is another amplification/feedback loop. This is part of the reason that we are seeing record breaking rainfall in many places around the world. We have had at least SIX unprecedented floods here in the USA, this year alone.

Crop yields are *not* generally helped by warmer temperatures. Droughts are more intense. The rate of species extinction is up about 100X what it used to be.

California and Arizona may well run out of water. Georgia and Florida have been in a 20 year dispute over water that have greatly intensified in the past few years. The aquifers under much of the USA have dropped in levels by 100's if not 1,000's of feet. The water level in the Amazon is lower than it ever has been.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

For the past 600,000 YEARS, the carbon dioxide levels have not gone above 275-280ppm.

And over those 600000 years, peak temps during interglacial periods have been higher than they are now.
Peak temps have been higher during the very interglacial period we are in now.

Looking at the graphs, it may very well be the cosy warmth right before earth cools down sharply again.
Never forget that we sorely need that greenhouse effect.

[RobertSmalls]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Hi,

I know this is insignificant but...

I'm 'retiring' from this debate at this point.

Your reasons are more noble than mine, but I'm out as well. I don't think either side has any new viewpoints to bring the table for page nine, and I'm no longer enjoying the discussion.