Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years: study

[K. A. Pital]

What's scaring me here is some of the 'plans' listed here to get carbon out of the air are more damaging to the environment than the carbon is.

Yeah, right. Sinking parts of continents aren't damaging to the environment. Humans are, so let them die. Right?

[Setesh]

What's scaring me here is some of the 'plans' listed here to get carbon out of the air are more damaging to the environment than the carbon is.

Yeah, right. Sinking parts of continents aren't damaging to the environment. Humans are, so let them die. Right?

(Sorry it took a while to get back to this I've been busy and forgot about it.)

Okay, let's tackle the easy part. According to the the last survey I could google the world's grounded ice accounts for 29,300,000 km3 (floating ice does not count as it displaces the same amount of water it's melted mass will fill). 2,100,000 km3 of antarctic ice is below sea level and will be replaced with water, even after isostatic rebound. That leaves 24,000,000 km3 of water to spread out over the 361,000,000 km2 of the worlds oceans, after some areas flood this area will increase so the average rise will be between 63 and 73 meters total worldwide. And this is not going to kill anyone, even with the most pessimistic model for global warming climate change (ie they used higher temperature than the global warming theorists worst prediction) we're looking at 2000 to 10000 years for the ice cap of Greenland to melt off. Hell the ice from the last major ice age has taken 18000 years to melt off to the degree it has. If 2000 years isn't enough time to get out of the way of rising sea levels you have deeper problems than ocean depth.

As for the 'plans'

There is an easier way to get the CO2 out of the atmosphere by pumping sulphur up there as proposed by Professor Flannery

The guy who proposed it in Australia said it best.

"The consequences of doing that are unknown."

Nor was this proposed as a means of removing carbon, but as a means of dimming the light levels by coloring the sky. What planet in our solar system has a sulphur colored sky? Venus, guess why we can't live there. What did environmentalists spend most of the 80's trying to get stopped as a pollutant because of its very immediate detrimental effect on the environment? Oh that's right sulphur. Sulphur plus that carbon your so concerned about makes sulphur dioxide, mix it with oxygen and water in the atmosphere we get our old friend Sulphuric acid, which was the whole reason we were trying to get emissions of it cut in the 80's.

I read an article a while back suggesting we might do carbon capture by dumping plant material (like agricultural waste) somewhere where it can't decompose, like say encasing it in a concrete block and dumping it in a sealed vault or the bottom of the ocean. Plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere and incorporate the carbon into their tissues as they grow, and the infrastructure to do such a thing already basically exists.

It sounded like a pretty good idea to me.

We're looking at a phosphorus shortage in the future, the major sources of phosphorus used in fertilizer are running low. While not an emergency problem yet, mulch going back into the soil is going to become a necessary action of farming. If you want to get carbon out of the air with plants, plant trees, stop oceanic pollution that kills plankton, ect.. Which takes me back to Flannery's second idea in the article Big I put up and is a useful solution:

Wealthy people should pay poor farmers in tropical zones to plant forests - possibly through a direct purchase scheme like the eBay website.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Do you have any evidence that atmospheric sulfur aerosol would easily recombine with CO2 and form increased sulfuric acid precipitation? Or are you just qualitatively hand-waving atmospheric chemistry while denouncing the very sophisticated quantitative tools and theories predicting significant global warming?

The sun-myth is just another ridiculous piece of global warming denialism, the latest in a series by the Right.

[K. A. Pital]

If 2000 years isn't enough time to get out of the way of rising sea levels you have deeper problems than ocean depth.

Yes, we do - major industrial centers are sprawling out of control and the possibility of their relocation considering a simultaneous sea level rise is tenous. What do you think of not just coastal cities, but large inland territories which will go below sea level? How easy would it be to relocate the industry? And how would you deal with the loss of agricultural area - you can't just handwave more ground area into existence, right?

In essense, the question is: would humans find it more efficient to relocate than cool the Earth artificially - and if so, why? The arguments that solutions to climate change produce catastrophic outcomes hardly hold any water. On the other hand, the modelling involved in the plans for some sort of "dust shield" necessarily includes modelling of possible chemical reactions to determine the viability of the model.

So your best call is to carefully evaluate what's easier and less damaging for humans, not casually throw off the problem as if humans should simply relocate in several thousand years.

[Surlethe]

I agree with your chief point re. careful evaluation, Stas, but I have some issues with your evaluation of how dangerous this sea rise is going to be -

Yes, we do - major industrial centers are sprawling out of control and the possibility of their relocation considering a simultaneous sea level rise is tenous.

Assuming Setesh's calculations are correct, in the liberal limit we're looking at a 75 m rise over two millennia. That is an average of 4 cm per year. The sprawl of urban and industrial centers is not random; it is governed by economics. In particular, as the sea rises, assuming it does so at a relatively steady rate, it is going to put a slow upward pressure on the cost of locating business next to the waterfront through a variety of mechanisms, including insurance rates, repair of water & erosion damage, and eroding property values. Therefore, as the sea rises, if it does so slowly enough cities will naturally adjust themselves inland.

I think the pertinent question is not whether industrial centers are able to relocate, but what the cost of relocation is. In essence, the effect of rising sea levels here is to hasten the depreciation of assets near the waterfront; replacing them inland will drain money that in a warming-free world would have gone toward investment and economic expansion.

What do you think of not just coastal cities, but large inland territories which will go below sea level? How easy would it be to relocate the industry? And how would you deal with the loss of agricultural area - you can't just handwave more ground area into existence, right?

Again, relocating industry: will the sea rise occur quickly enough that industry cannot relocate itself? I do not think 4 m per century is so quick that industry will not naturally move itself. Again, the more pertinent question is: what is the cost of this relocation? As above, the hastened depreciation will cause a slow drain on resources; what will be the total drain over the next few millennia? As an analogy, think of a high wall built next to a young tree. The tree will not wither and die, but it will grow toward the light away from the wall. The energy going toward sideways growth and away from upward growth is analogous to the cost of relocating.

As far as agricultural area, I'm more worried about desertification and loss of farmland to cooling effects than to rising sea levels. There's also the creation of farmland as climate zones generally shift northward in the short run (before the shutdown of the oceanic conveyor triggers polar cooling); the net effect on crop production is to my knowledge not definite.

[Setesh]

Do you have any evidence that atmospheric sulfur aerosol would easily recombine with CO2 and form increased sulfuric acid precipitation? Or are you just qualitatively hand-waving atmospheric chemistry while denouncing the very sophisticated quantitative tools and theories predicting significant global warming?

The sun-myth is just another ridiculous piece of global warming denialism, the latest in a series by the Right.

He's talking about dumping enough sulphur to color the sky yellow-orange that's above and beyond the amount we had in the air when acid rain was a problem the first time. The behavior of stratospheric sulfur aerosol has been known for sometime from the studies started when Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. It will filter down into the troposphere and into the clouds. This is a known fact. The atmosphereic chemical reaction of sulphur (and certain nitrogen molecules) and carbon dioxide to form Acid Rain was discovered in 1852 in Manchester, England. Though not extensively studied on a global scale until the '60s. It is also a well proven fact.

As for 'denialism' what a great way to act the part of the fanatic, any inconvenient facts are just labeled 'denial'.

I talk about the fallacy of Man-made Global Warming to whomever will listen. I talk to many groups, large and small about how AGW is just bad science. I tell them that study results are hand-picked and modified to fit a pre-determined conclusion. That is: Man-made carbon emissions are responsible for accelerated, dangerous global temperature rises.

Many are enlightened by my graphs disproving the fictional Hockey Stick. They are amazed when I cite peer-reviewed studies that prove Polar Bears aren’t drowning and that arctic sea ice and glaciers are actually increasing in size. They laugh in disbelief when I flash photos of official surface stations next to air conditioners and barbecue grills. And then there’s the icing on the cake: I bust out IPCC’s failed computer model plots that show world temperatures going up. The room goes quiet. “But notice,” I say to my audience, “how the actual temperatures over the last decade are going down!” I then crumple up a copy of of the IPCC’s 2001 Report and pitch it into the trash in dramatic triumph while shouting, “The Man-Made Global Warming Hypothesis is pure HOGWASH!"

“CO2 is not a pollutant and reducing emission of it does nothing to abate the real pollutants (sulphur, particulates, metals, etc).” He adds emphatically, “We can’t afford to waste trillions of dollars needlessly chasing the CO2 fantasy.” In 2001, Don predicted the start of a cooling cycle in or around the year 2007. “We are just starting several decades of global cooling, which directly kills twice as many people as warming and many times more indirectly, ” he adds. “If we needlessly blow trillions of dollars trying to reduce CO2, we will have significantly reduced our ability to deal with global cooling and all it’s attendant problems (crop failures, reduced food supply, increased energy costs, increased transportation costs and interruptions, etc), all during three decades when global population will increase by 50%!”

“Caring for the environment is one very important issue, (but) it has little to do with climate change. Carbon dioxide is but a trace, and mankind’s CO2 footprint is a trace- of-a-trace.” He continues, ”CO2 is not a pollutant; it is a valuable feedstock for all plant and vegetable life on which we depend; and the bi-product is oxygen! The atmosphere and the sea buffer all changes. History alone shows that mankind can do virtually little to change climate: but we can keep our local environment clean!”

“To accuse one of being unconcerned about the environment simply because they reject the AGW “pseudo-science” is not only illogical – it’s patently absurd. I firmly believe that each of us has a moral responsibility to be a vigilant steward of our planet and environment for future generations, and that the reckless spending of energy and resources on a scientifically unsubstantiated fad like AGW is deplorable.”

“The answer is OF COURSE we should “save” the planet and “protect” the environment, but in this case there isn’t anything to that needs saving or protecting. The probability of catastrophic warming is so low, and the costs to protect against radical climate change are so high, that we are better off being reasonably prudent and not panicking by adopting burdensome—and unproven—new rules and regulations.”

And on the side of global warming you've got Al Gore, owner of the largest 'carbon offset' company in america. And a whole lot of pseudo-science from the IPCC, so glaring was the bad science Christopher Landsea (currently Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center) resigned over the IPCC's attempt to claim global warming influenced current hurricane intensity change. He was suspicious that they erased inconvenience facts from the data (citing an extremely powerful hurricane that hit in the 1970's that was uncounted) to make them fit the conclusion they wanted.

I'm not saying we shouldn't stay on top of cleaning the environment, but let's go after some real pollutants and not fad fantasy ones. You want to clean CO2 out of the air go plant a tree. Lobby to clean pollution out of the ocean so plankton (the largest group of CO2 to O converters) population swells.

All quotes (except Landsea's) taken from http://www.GlobalWarmingHoax.com

[Surlethe]

nd a whole lot of pseudo-science from the IPCC, so glaring was the bad science Christopher Landsea (currently Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center) resigned over the IPCC's attempt to claim global warming influenced current hurricane intensity change. He was suspicious that they erased inconvenience facts from the data (citing an extremely powerful hurricane that hit in the 1970's that was uncounted) to make them fit the conclusion they wanted.

Do you happen to have some evidence for these claims?

I'd also like to see you make a detailed argument against AGW arguing directly from peer-reviewed studies, instead of citing experts; for every expert you cite, I'm sure I can quote two who declare AGW true.

[Samuel]

It sounds like global warming is good for the Russian Federation than. I think it isn't a problem for the first world- we can just build nuke plants to get more water. Seriously, California might have water rationing next year. It might be a one off thing, but the glaciers that feed it are declining so...

Honestly, the only place truly screwed is Bangladesh. Storm hits and you have a sudden jump. Of course, with less fresh water available for them, they are screwed in other ways.

[Setesh]

If 2000 years isn't enough time to get out of the way of rising sea levels you have deeper problems than ocean depth.

Yes, we do - major industrial centers are sprawling out of control and the possibility of their relocation considering a simultaneous sea level rise is tenous. What do you think of not just coastal cities, but large inland territories which will go below sea level? How easy would it be to relocate the industry? And how would you deal with the loss of agricultural area - you can't just handwave more ground area into existence, right?

In essense, the question is: would humans find it more efficient to relocate than cool the Earth artificially - and if so, why? The arguments that solutions to climate change produce catastrophic outcomes hardly hold any water. On the other hand, the modelling involved in the plans for some sort of "dust shield" necessarily includes modelling of possible chemical reactions to determine the viability of the model.

So your best call is to carefully evaluate what's easier and less damaging for humans, not casually throw off the problem as if humans should simply relocate in several thousand years.

Okay here, the worst case scenario 100% ice melt, this is what the world would look like.

from here

Your honestly suggesting that a gradual move over the coarse of 2000 years, would be somehow be unfeasible or in someway economically disastrous? That generations of people will simply wait to drown rather than move as the area becomes not only unsafe to live in, but economically unfeasible as waterfront companies relocate? We're talking a few centimeters a year, 5-10 years for the lowest flood zones to reach ankle depth.

The problem with geo-engineering is simply not everyone agrees its necessary, or that global warming exists. Also the sulphur guy at least had the balls to admit he didn't know the long term effects of 'dimming' the globe.

[Surlethe]

It sounds like global warming is good for the Russian Federation than. I think it isn't a problem for the first world- we can just build nuke plants to get more water. Seriously, California might have water rationing next year. It might be a one off thing, but the glaciers that feed it are declining so...

Honestly, the only place truly screwed is Bangladesh. Storm hits and you have a sudden jump. Of course, with less fresh water available for them, they are screwed in other ways.

Not quite. The effects of global warming are really a load of climate changes caused by the rapid rise in the retention of insolated energy. For instance, in the extreme long run, I understand that we're looking at the oceanic conveyor shutting down because of desalinization; since the conveyor is a heat distributor, its shutting down is actually going to cool down the northern climes, while equatorial temperatures rise. So look for northern Europe and New England to cool down considerably.

Edit: Kanastrous' post dumped to Testing.

[Samuel]

Not quite. The effects of global warming are really a load of climate changes caused by the rapid rise in the retention of insolated energy. For instance, in the extreme long run, I understand that we're looking at the oceanic conveyor shutting down because of desalinization; since the conveyor is a heat distributor, its shutting down is actually going to cool down the northern climes, while equatorial temperatures rise. So look for northern Europe and New England to cool down considerably.

Yeah, but most of Russia doesn't benefit from that heat exchange- that is why it is so cold compared to Western Europe, even at the same latitude. So they get stronger as Western Europes demand for their gas increases astronomically.

[Setesh]

nd a whole lot of pseudo-science from the IPCC, so glaring was the bad science Christopher Landsea (currently Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center) resigned over the IPCC's attempt to claim global warming influenced current hurricane intensity change. He was suspicious that they erased inconvenience facts from the data (citing an extremely powerful hurricane that hit in the 1970's that was uncounted) to make them fit the conclusion they wanted.

Do you happen to have some evidence for these claims?

I'd also like to see you make a detailed argument against AGW arguing directly from peer-reviewed studies, instead of citing experts; for every expert you cite, I'm sure I can quote two who declare AGW true.

Not for Landsea's claims but I do have some inconvenient facts that don't support global warming.

Antarctic sea ice for January 2009 were up significantly over 1997, Jan 2009 sea ice was also up 23% over 1980. The 'global warming' model predicted less sea ice and more interior ice due to snowfall in the warmer climate. Sea Ice is not caused by snow fall but by colder sea and air temperatures, which were not predicted by any of the global warming models.

Maps showing the ice increase are available for comparison here
Also according to the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (available at GISS.NASA.gov) the winter temperatures of Antarctica have dropped by 1 degree since 1957.

Glacial core measurement
Image
here we have the ratio of CO2 to temperature as found in the vostok antarctic core samples. Rather amusingly it shows that over 400000 years of data, the CO2 levels do not drive the temperature up but rather that rising temperatures raise the CO2 levels and when the temperature drops CO2 levels drop but at a far slower rate. This is caused by average oceanic temperatures as cold water can hold more CO2 than warm. This shows a that the high CO2 trend of today were caused by the rising temperatures rather than being the cause, also note that at times with far higher CO2 concentration than we have today did not stop or even slow temperature drop.

The last few years have been problematic for the global warming models with the decreasing winter temperatures. By the way here in Maine we just this January, broke our coldest winter temperature record. We got a record -50 breaking our previous record from 1926 of -48, and ties us with Vermont's record low in 1933 for coldest New England temperature.

I'll put up a few more later, right now I need a break from the computer.

[Kanastrous]

I hope this question isn't too tangential.

I believe we're all in agreement that industrial society adds a lot more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than was added by natural processes over the last several thousands of years. Where does this CO2 go? Is there a mechanism posited to remove or sequester it from the environment (can the warmer oceans absorb *that* much additional carbon dioxide?), or is it continuing to accumulate but its abundance has no important effects?

[Akkleptos]

Be it as it may, but what's for sure is that something is seriously fucking up weather patterns in a lot of places. So, even if it's not Global Warming™, something else is happening.

The Bihar flood
The Iowa flood
The Tabasco flood
... and many others, dubbed "unprecedented".

Not to mention Global Warming™ IS happening. Yeah, 2005, big deal. Isn't it more evident now, if you watch world news?

[Guardsman Bass]

How about we do nothing of the kind. Global warming (or The New Ice Age if you were around in 1974) is complete and utter fraud. John Coleman, the man who founded the weather channel thought there was something screwy about this in'74. What did he find? That global average temperature over the last hundred years has not changed with our increased use of fossil fuels, but instead follows almost exactly the increases and decreases in solar activity. Despite the real increase of carbon in the atmosphere the actual amount is still in the range of a trace gas. (increase of 215 parts per million up to 385) But it still accounts for .0041 of a percent of the total make-up of the atmosphere, far to low to affect a real impact on global temperature.

I see somebody has been reading contrarian websites, since they didn't apparently realize that the "Global Cooling in the 1970s" was never actually held or accepted by the Scientific Community, unless you consider Newsweek to be a major scientific publication.

Your claims about the solar variations are bullshit, too - what the science actually shows is that the link between ups and downs in solar activity during the recent global warming is actually quite tenuous.

*snip* creationist-style quote mining

Interesting selection of comments you got there - the first apparently forgot about satellite temperature measurements as well as the oceanic and non-city ones, the second predicts global cooling (with no evidence), the third is a chemical engineering professor who makes a bunch of statements with no proof (why the fuck should I care about his opinion again?), and the last two make bald-ass statements with no proof.

But of course, it couldn't be complete without the obligatory conservatard attack on Al Gore (who never represented himself as an expert, and global warming hardly depends on his credibility), a mention of the Landsea controversy (Landsea was criticizing the IPCC for waffling on whether or not the lead author on the section on hurricanes was using his position to promulgate an unproven hypothesis- that greater hurricane intensity was associated with global warming. As it is, that actually ended up in the report, according to Roger Pielke. Hardly the suppression that Landsea was bitching about), and a link to a website with loads of quotes and selectively quoted reports without context.

Antarctic sea ice for January 2009 were up significantly over 1997, Jan 2009 sea ice was also up 23% over 1980. The 'global warming' model predicted less sea ice and more interior ice due to snowfall in the warmer climate.

Which model? I'm noticing selective citation use here.

Also according to the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (available at GISS.NASA.gov) the winter temperatures of Antarctica have dropped by 1 degree since 1957.

Funny you should mention the Antarctic cooling, since the evidence is starting to show that Antarctica has been warming since 1957. Of course, since Global Warming never predicted universal, overall warming all over the place, I don't see what the point was of bringing up the temperature change in one specific place.

Not that it's particularly been surprising - you've been using the usual "shotgun" approach that creationists are fond of when attacking evolution, by throwing out a bunch of claims.

here we have the ratio of CO2 to temperature as found in the vostok antarctic core samples. Rather amusingly it shows that over 400000 years of data, the CO2 levels do not drive the temperature up but rather that rising temperatures raise the CO2 levels and when the temperature drops CO2 levels drop but at a far slower rate. This is caused by average oceanic temperatures as cold water can hold more CO2 than warm.

Why don't you take a look at your own chart? Notice how the peaks in CO2 almost always correspond with the peaks in temperature? This helps explain some of the discrepancy, when it does exist.

For that matter, take a good long look at the entire Real Climate website while you're at it. The guys who post and run it are working climate scientists who have been involved in research on this stuff, such as Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, among others. It pretty much addresses virtually everything that has been raised about climate change, including the criticisms you've brought up.

The last few years have been problematic for the global warming models with the decreasing winter temperatures. By the way here in Maine we just this January, broke our coldest winter temperature record. We got a record -50 breaking our previous record from 1926 of -48, and ties us with Vermont's record low in 1933 for coldest New England temperature.

For someone willing to post a gigantic, bandwidth eating chart, you sure apparently don't have any grasp of the concept of trends.

Seriously, though, go back and read your criticisms. They're basically a scattershot of attacks, some valid questions, some of them creationist-style attacks (including quote mining and irrelevant ad hominems, like that on Al Gore). Go check out the realclimate.org website, read up on whatever you like, then come back and post here.

[Guardsman Bass]

For that matter, it's not as if there haven't been global warming debates on this board in the past. Try using the search engine.

[D.Turtle]

I hope this question isn't too tangential.

I believe we're all in agreement that industrial society adds a lot more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than was added by natural processes over the last several thousands of years. Where does this CO2 go? Is there a mechanism posited to remove or sequester it from the environment (can the warmer oceans absorb *that* much additional carbon dioxide?), or is it continuing to accumulate but its abundance has no important effects?

The best place to go for proper (non-idiot wingnut denialist) ansewers in all matters relating global warming is the RealClimate blog. Look under "Start here" for some pointers on where to look for info.
Under "Index" you can find lots of articles about various subjects relating to global warming.

For example: How much will sea level rise?
Or Antarctic warming is robust
Or about the thing that started this thread: Irreversible Does Not Mean Unstoppable.

And of course, not to ignore the question you posed: The ocean IS a carbon sink. The problem is, nobody is sure how much it can take up before stopping to do so. Additionally, it does not take up all the additional carbon emitted by humans. And lastly, if temperatures rise far enough, oceans can actually become a carbon (and other greenhouse gasses) emitter - and then we are seriously up shit creek.

[Sky Captain]

Does it really matter in the end whether global warming is man made or not because if we do nothing to reduce fossil fuel consumption and go as usual we are soon going to hit various peaks in fossil fuel supply and it will have nearly as bad consequences as climate screw up. If we do everything to reduce fossil fuel consumption it will not only reduce pollution, but also make fossil fuels last longer and give more time to switch to non fossil energy sources. We have a win-win situation here.

[Setesh]

I hope this question isn't too tangential.

I believe we're all in agreement that industrial society adds a lot more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than was added by natural processes over the last several thousands of years. Where does this CO2 go? Is there a mechanism posited to remove or sequester it from the environment (can the warmer oceans absorb *that* much additional carbon dioxide?), or is it continuing to accumulate but its abundance has no important effects?

Major source of CO2 control

High CO2 boosts plant respiration, potentially affecting climate and crops

The leaves of soybeans grown at the elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) levels predicted for the year 2050 respire more than those grown under current atmospheric conditions, researchers report, a finding that will help fine-tune climate models and could point to increased crop yields as CO2 levels rise.

The study, from researchers at the University of Illinois and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, appears this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Plants draw CO2 from the atmosphere and make sugars through the process of photosynthesis. But they also release some CO2 during respiration as they use the sugars to generate energy for self-maintenance and growth. How elevated CO2 affects plant respiration will therefore influence future food supplies and the extent to which plants can capture CO2 from the air and store it as carbon in their tissues.

While there is broad agreement that higher atmospheric CO2 levels stimulate photosynthesis in C3 plants, such as soybean, no such consensus exists on how rising CO2 levels will affect plant respiration.

"There's been a great deal of controversy about how plant respiration responds to elevated CO2," said U. of I. plant biology professor Andrew Leakey, who led the study. "Some summary studies suggest it will go down by 18 percent, some suggest it won't change, and some suggest it will increase as much as 11 percent."

Understanding how the respiratory pathway responds when plants are grown at elevated CO2 is key to reducing this uncertainty, Leakey said. His team used microarrays, a genomic tool that can detect changes in the activity of thousands of genes at a time, to learn which genes in the high CO2 plants were being switched on at higher or lower levels than those of the soybeans grown at current CO2 levels.

Rather than assessing plants grown in chambers in a greenhouse, as most studies have done, Leakey's team made use of the Soybean Free Air Concentration Enrichment (Soy FACE) facility at Illinois. This open-air research lab can expose a soybean field to a variety of atmospheric CO2 levels – without isolating the plants from other environmental influences, such as rainfall, sunlight and insects.

Some of the plants were exposed to atmospheric CO2 levels of 550 parts per million (ppm), the level predicted for the year 2050 if current trends continue. These were compared to plants grown at ambient CO2 levels (380 ppm).

The results were striking. At least 90 different genes coding the majority of enzymes in the cascade of chemical reactions that govern respiration were switched on (expressed) at higher levels in the soybeans grown at high CO2 levels. This explained how the plants were able to use the increased supply of sugars from stimulated photosynthesis under high CO2 conditions to produce energy, Leakey said. The rate of respiration increased 37 percent at the elevated CO2 levels.

The enhanced respiration is likely to support greater transport of sugars from leaves to other growing parts of the plant, including the seeds, Leakey said.

"The expression of over 600 genes was altered by elevated CO2 in total, which will help us to understand how the response is regulated and also hopefully produce crops that will perform better in the future," he said.

source

Which is why I keep saying if you want to clean CO2 out of the atmosphere. Stop ocean pollution and plant trees, don't go overboard with half-baked geo-engineering schemes. We haven't exceeded the natural variance of CO2 the planet has had in the past (the aforementioned vostok samples show points when CO2 reached well over 300ppm before human civilization). The climate will cope with CO2, its a normal part of the environment. We really need to concentrate on other pollutants.

The quotes were not the argument in and of themselves, they were to make a rather simple point everyone seems to have missed. Despite media claims the scientific community does not have consensuses on global warming.

[Surlethe]

Thanks for your responses, Setesh. Would you mind supporting your claims about climate model discrepancies with citation of peer-reviewed studies?

We haven't exceeded the natural variance of CO2 the planet has had in the past (the aforementioned vostok samples show points when CO2 reached well over 300ppm before human civilization). The climate will cope with CO2, its a normal part of the environment. We really need to concentrate on other pollutants.

I think you're missing two things w.r.t. that vostok data. First, the current level of CO2, according to your chart above, is well over 350ppm. Second, you're ignoring that even if CO2 has historically lagged temperature, that's because it's only been liberated by warming and then contributed via feedback mechanisms. In other words, we have indeed exceeded the natural variance of CO2 over the last 450000 years, and since CO2 is known to cause warming, we should be expecting human-liberated CO2 to cause natural warming.

Will the climate cope with CO2? Sure. The key question, as Stas brought up earlier, is: how will humans cope with the climate coping?

The quotes were not the argument in and of themselves, they were to make a rather simple point everyone seems to have missed. Despite media claims the scientific community does not have consensuses on global warming.

I'm not sure I agree. A scientific consensus doesn't mean every single researcher in an area tangentially related to the subject agrees with the proposition under contention; it means that the broad majority of researchers (some eighty or ninety percent?) agree. Citing a mere five or ten scientists doesn't support the argument that a quarter of climate researchers disagree with AGW.

[aerius]

The last few years have been problematic for the global warming models with the decreasing winter temperatures. By the way here in Maine we just this January, broke our coldest winter temperature record. We got a record -50 breaking our previous record from 1926 of -48, and ties us with Vermont's record low in 1933 for coldest New England temperature.

And we just had a week of 10°C temperatures and rain in Toronto, in the middle of fucking February when it should be freezing cold every single day. We used to have several -30°C or colder days every winter, we haven't one in years. The proof for global warming is undeniable!

[Guardsman Bass]

We haven't exceeded the natural variance of CO2 the planet has had in the past (the aforementioned vostok samples show points when CO2 reached well over 300ppm before human civilization). The climate will cope with CO2, its a normal part of the environment. We really need to concentrate on other pollutants.

So? That doesn't change the fact that CO2 has been playing a role in this warming, and the rate of the current warming is far faster than most of the prior ones. The climate will "cope", but most likely with negative repercussions on humanity.

But by all means, continue the creationist-style "shotgun" attack you've been doing. It's entertaining.

The quotes were not the argument in and of themselves, they were to make a rather simple point everyone seems to have missed. Despite media claims the scientific community does not have consensuses on global warming.

Wow, you quoted a grand total of five scientists (not all of whom are trained in the relevant fields - like your chemical engineering professor). Meanwhile, all of the professional associations of scientists in the US associated with the relevant fields, plus the National Academy of Sciences, plus the IPCC (which actually is quite scientific - even critics like Richard Lindzen have actively participated in it, even if they were skeptical of some of the science) all point out that it's happening. That's about as close to an official consensus that you're going to get in the scientific community.

[Setesh]

By all means let's pull out the peer reviewed science.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Full paper can be viewed here.

What does this mean? The entirety of of the greenhouse effect hysteria is based on fictitious numbers, bad science, and false prepositions.

Here's another from Environmental Geology

The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.

Full article found here

What does it mean? While the first exposed the bad science this one also points out that even if the underlining idea of greenhouse effect was true, human civilization has little to nothing to do with it.

And anouther this time from Progress in Physical Geography 27,3 (2003) pp. 448–455
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Climate models are now being used extensively to diagnose the causative, especially anthropogenic, factors of observed climatic changes of the past few decades (Palmer, 2001; Stott ., 2001; Thorne ., 2002). These models are also used to make long-term climate projections and climate risk assessments based on future anthropogenic forcing scenarios (Saunders, 1999; Palmer, 2001; Houghton ., 2001; Pittock, 2002; Schneider, et al S.H., 2002). Many such exercises help to shape public policy recommendations concerning future energy use and various ‘climate protection’ measures in order to prevent ‘dangerous climate impacts’ (e.g., Schneider, S.H., 2002; O’Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002). But meaningful and credible scientific confidence, resting either on the traditional deterministic method of quantification or the probabilistic mode of measuring change (as favoured by, for example, Washington, 2000; Räisänen and Palmer, 2001; Schneider, S.H., 2002) cannot yet be made to such computer experiments because climate models do not yield sufficiently reliable, quantitative results in reproducing well-documented climatic changes around the world. (This work was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research grant AF 49620-02-1-0194 and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration grant NAG5-7635.)

Can be found on Harvard's website here

What does it mean? The climate change models used hype global warming lack sufficient detail to be accurate (IIRC the IPCC used Palmer) and are off at best, wildly inaccurate at worst. The farther ahead the prediction the worse it will be.

[Rye]

I don't know whether this should get its own thread or not, but I recognise a lot of the things said in this thread from a recent documentary the BBC did on the subject of the controversy over AGW, and it deals with a lot of the usual arguments, including the sun one.

It's called Earth - The Climate Wars and has 3 parts. It's really worth watching, regardless of the side you're on. Part 2 addresses the sceptics.

[Guardsman Bass]

By all means let's pull out the peer reviewed science.

Your link is dead.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.

Not exactly. "Heat trap" would be more appropriate, since CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and radiates it back to the surface after the sun's light heats the earth's surface.

According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.

Ah, so in other words, virtually no one noticed that their measurements apparently contradicted the 2nd Law. That's quite a bold claim for a research paper - perhaps if the link was living, I could actually take a look at it.

Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,

It was an analogy. Nobody's claiming that the CO2 effect acts exactly like an actual green house made of glass.

(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,

Bullshit. You take a wide range of surface temperature measurements from both land and ocean (and let me guess, you're going to bring out the "thermometers affected by the Urban Heat Island" effect nonsense in your next post), at similar times, plus atmospheric temperature measurements via satellites, and you figure out the mean from that data.

(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,

It would help if the link actually worked.

(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,

(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Full paper can be viewed here.

I'll wait for you to fix the link.

Here's another from Environmental Geology
The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth,

They make the claim, on page two, that since 99.97% of the energy in the system comes from the Sun, therefore changes in insolation are the primary drivers in changes in insolation on Earth (that, and outgassing).[I find that questionable with regards to the current warming, since, as I linked to earlier, the connection between the current warming and increases in solar activity is tenuous at best.

(2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate.

This is stating the obvious.

Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.
Full article found here

They make a number of what I believe to be questionable claims in that article. Like there claim that since the current CO2 emitted by human processes represents only a small fraction of the total CO2 emitted, period, into the atmosphere over the Earth's entire geological history, therefore we can assume that the anthropogenic CO2 emission of humanity is insignificant in terms of its affects on the climate. Notice how it doesn't exactly follow? The fact that there was a lot of CO2 in the past says nothing about whether or not the current balance of human emitted CO2 has had a noticeable warming effect on the climate.

They also rely heavily on their own claim about the Adiabatic Theory of Heat Transfer in the atmosphere, which is by no means accepted as true, and claim that the oceans are actually losing their ability to absorb CO2 (which they claim is at least partially responsible for the rise in CO2 contributions attributed to mankind). This has also been heavily disputed - Other scientists point to examples like increasingly acidic oceans and the sort.

What does it mean? While the first exposed the bad science this one also points out that even if the underlining idea of greenhouse effect was true, human civilization has little to nothing to do with it.

Interesting that you would first claim that CO2 is irrelevant, then go on to say "well, maybe it's relevant, but it's not humanity's fault." What you do you actually believe?

And anouther this time from Progress in Physical Geography 27,3 (2003) pp. 448–455
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Climate models are now being used extensively to diagnose the causative, especially anthropogenic, factors of observed climatic changes of the past few decades (Palmer, 2001; Stott ., 2001; Thorne ., 2002). These models are also used to make long-term climate projections and climate risk assessments based on future anthropogenic forcing scenarios (Saunders, 1999; Palmer, 2001; Houghton ., 2001; Pittock, 2002; Schneider, et al S.H., 2002). Many such exercises help to shape public policy recommendations concerning future energy use and various ‘climate protection’ measures in order to prevent ‘dangerous climate impacts’ (e.g., Schneider, S.H., 2002; O’Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002). But meaningful and credible scientific confidence, resting either on the traditional deterministic method of quantification or the probabilistic mode of measuring change (as favoured by, for example, Washington, 2000; Räisänen and Palmer, 2001; Schneider, S.H., 2002) cannot yet be made to such computer experiments because climate models do not yield sufficiently reliable, quantitative results in reproducing well-documented climatic changes around the world. (This work was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research grant AF 49620-02-1-0194 and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration grant NAG5-7635.)

Can be found on Harvard's website here

What does it mean? The climate change models used hype global warming lack sufficient detail to be accurate (IIRC the IPCC used Palmer) and are off at best, wildly inaccurate at worst. The farther ahead the prediction the worse it will be.

Nobody claimed they were perfect - they've been improving over time (that study was in 2003, for example, while the most recent IPCC report was released in 2007). Moreover, I'm highly skeptical of claims by these particular authors (Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas) - they've been criticized for bad analysis and use of data on other papers they've written, particularly those about the Medieval Warm Period.

I notice, Setesh, that you haven't exactly been answering any of the rebuttals posted to your prior claims. Instead, you continue on the creationist-style "shotgun" path, throwing out argument after argument, not really stopping to respond to criticisms of the arguments you throw out. Some of them are valid criticisms, some are red herrings, and some are bullshit, as I've pointed out. You certainly aren't consistent on the attack - you bring up papers that claim that the very idea of CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas is bullshit, then bring up a papers that say, "Well, maybe it is acting as a greenhouse gas, but it's natural".

Again, go take a gander over at Real Climate. They've talked about virtually every issue related to global warming, from a professional standpoint. They also have the advantage, unlike Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, of not being on the payroll of the George Marshall Institute (a conservative think-tank that has been funding and publicizing attacks on global warming since 1989, and a noticeable recipient of Exxon-Mobil and American Petroleum Institute funding).