global warming is not human caused paper

Post by **clv101** » 13 Oct 2007, 15:15

Bozzio wrote:
SaturnV wrote:
Bozzio wrote: Hi Chris,

Could you explain why?
There is a finite but tiny quantity of carbon on earth, and a very small proportion of this is constantly being cycled naturally. The rest is locked up, as fossil fuels and in the ocean deep and does not ordinarily enter the carbon cycle. But if we release it into the atmosphere, either as CO2 or methane, then the natural balance within the cycle is upset.
Yes, yes, I understand that. The question was more about why Man's 3% CO2 emmission is more significant than the other 97%?

'cos the other 97% are balanced by the natural sinks - maintaining the dynamic equilibrium Biff mentioned since the last ice age.

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 13 Oct 2007, 15:27

clv101 wrote:
Bozzio wrote:
SaturnV wrote: There is a finite but tiny quantity of carbon on earth, and a very small proportion of this is constantly being cycled naturally. The rest is locked up, as fossil fuels and in the ocean deep and does not ordinarily enter the carbon cycle. But if we release it into the atmosphere, either as CO2 or methane, then the natural balance within the cycle is upset.
Yes, yes, I understand that. The question was more about why Man's 3% CO2 emmission is more significant than the other 97%?
'cos the other 97% are balanced by the natural sinks - maintaining the dynamic equilibrium Biff mentioned since the last ice age.

So what created the last ice age and what brought the planet out of it? I assume the natural sink changed.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 13 Oct 2007, 15:32

Bozzio wrote:
So what created the last ice age and what brought the planet out of it? I assume the natural sink changed.

Because of the current disposition of the continents due to continental drift it is thought that the global climate system is currently (in geological terms) very finely balanced between glacial and interglacial conditions. The Earths orbit is not a perfect circle and the earths rotational axis also wobbles. Periodic changes in these are thought sufficent to trigger the glacial - interglacial oscillation. Basically it's due to the amount of sunshine in the Northern hemisphere varying over very long periods.

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 13 Oct 2007, 15:35

skeptik wrote:
Bozzio wrote:
So what created the last ice age and what brought the planet out of it? I assume the natural sink changed.
Because of the current disposition of the continents due to continental drift it is thought that the global climate system is currently (in geological terms) very finely balanced between glacial and interglacial conditions. The Earths orbit is not a perfect circle and the earths rotational axis also wobbles. Periodic changes in these are thought sufficent to trigger the glacial - interglacial oscillation.

Can we therefore be sure that such an oscillation is not playing a part this time in affecting the earth's temperature?

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 13 Oct 2007, 15:38

Bozzio wrote:
skeptik wrote:
Bozzio wrote:
So what created the last ice age and what brought the planet out of it? I assume the natural sink changed.
Because of the current disposition of the continents due to continental drift it is thought that the global climate system is currently (in geological terms) very finely balanced between glacial and interglacial conditions. The Earths orbit is not a perfect circle and the earths rotational axis also wobbles. Periodic changes in these are thought sufficent to trigger the glacial - interglacial oscillation.
Can we therefore be sure that such an oscillation is not playing a part this time in affecting the earth's temperature?

Of course, its bound to be there - continents dont move that quickly! the question is whether the effect is being swamped by man made activities Some American research (sorry dont have a link) has indicated that this interglacial is already overlong. Human activity over the last 8000 years may have deferred a return to a glacial era..

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 13 Oct 2007, 15:39

skeptik wrote:
Bozzio wrote:
skeptik wrote: Because of the current disposition of the continents due to continental drift it is thought that the global climate system is currently (in geological terms) very finely balanced between glacial and interglacial conditions. The Earths orbit is not a perfect circle and the earths rotational axis also wobbles. Periodic changes in these are thought sufficent to trigger the glacial - interglacial oscillation.
Can we therefore be sure that such an oscillation is not playing a part this time in affecting the earth's temperature?
Of course, its bound to be there - continents dont move that quickly! the question is whether the effect is being swamped by man made activities.

Continents don't move that quickly no but the little ice age happened in seconds on a geological scale. How does one account for that?

Post by **clv101** » 13 Oct 2007, 15:40

Bozzio wrote:So what created the last ice age and what brought the planet out of it? I assume the natural sink changed.

See here: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/18/93514/869

Orbital mechanics trigger, ice-sheet dynamics provide primary forcing, CO2 feedback provides secondly forcing.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 13 Oct 2007, 15:42

Bozzio wrote: Continents don't move that quickly no but the little ice age happened in seconds on a geological scale. How does one account for that?

Ah...well who knows? I wasn't discussing short term random changes.

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 13 Oct 2007, 16:14

clv101 wrote:
Bozzio wrote:So what created the last ice age and what brought the planet out of it? I assume the natural sink changed.
See here: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/18/93514/869

Orbital mechanics trigger, ice-sheet dynamics provide primary forcing, CO2 feedback provides secondly forcing.

Thanks for the link.

I was intrigued by this comment

"Someone else asked about aviation growth to which Hansen again replied the climate could probably afford a few more decades of aviation growth, given we address power plants and vehicles. "

Does Hansen advise the government?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 13 Oct 2007, 17:34

Aviation growth not very relevant to climate change. The oil will either get burnt in a plane or somewhere else, and as we peak oilers know, it will get burnt just as quick as we can get it out of the ground. So Hanson's comment probably came with a 'whatever' type shrug of the shoulders.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 13 Oct 2007, 17:37

Bozzio wrote:
"Someone else asked about aviation growth to which Hansen again replied the climate could probably afford a few more decades of aviation growth, given we address power plants and vehicles. "

Does Hansen advise the government?

I regard that as pretty reckless talk as the artificial layer of cloud, soot and over 200 types of VOC's we've collectively created at 30.000 ft, moreso in the Northern hemisphere , and especially over the arctic where there are a lot of great circle international routes, is one of the big known unknowns in climate science.

There's some evidence, from a study done on surface temperature records of the period just after 9/11 when all aircraft were grounded, that this does have an effect on the diurnal temperature range. When the contrail layer isn't there it gets slightly colder at night. (this is something I remember reading a few years ago so don't ask for details! I haven't read any followup work which confirms or refutes the analysis)

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Natura ... mg_id=3120

Post by **clv101** » 13 Oct 2007, 17:38

biffvernon wrote:So Hanson's comment probably came with a 'whatever' type shrug of the shoulders.

Ha! It did exactly! The question was from an anti-airport expansion campaigner who I think was a little disappointed in Hansen's answer.

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 13 Oct 2007, 18:15

biffvernon wrote:Aviation growth not very relevant to climate change. The oil will either get burnt in a plane or somewhere else, and as we peak oilers know, it will get burnt just as quick as we can get it out of the ground. So Hanson's comment probably came with a 'whatever' type shrug of the shoulders.

As I've said before, why discuss CC on this forum if we accept the remaining oil and gas will be burned anyway?

Seems to me that the goal posts are being constantly changed here. One minute we should listen to the Heathrow protestors. The next minute it's all irrelevant.

I think I'll turn up my heating since its impact will be tiny compared with aviation fuel use which is apparently now irrelevant anyway. Besides, I'll be helping to bring on peak gas which in turn will aid the reduction in CO2 output.

I wish you'd all make up your mind!

Post by **clv101** » 13 Oct 2007, 18:33

Bozzio wrote:As I've said before, why discuss CC on this forum if we accept the remaining oil and gas will be burned anyway?

Don't understand your logic there, why should that fact affect whether we talk about climate change?

Bozzio wrote:Seems to me that the goal posts are being constantly changed here. One minute we should listen to the Heathrow protestors. The next minute it's all irrelevant.

It's not black and white as you make out. Two aspects - making best use of a finite resource (which probably isn't flying around the UK/Europe on short haul flights) and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Bozzio wrote:I think I'll turn up my heating since its impact will be tiny compared with aviation fuel use which is apparently now irrelevant anyway. Besides, I'll be helping to bring on peak gas which in turn will aid the reduction in CO2 output.

If we agree that there is a finite amount of gas, the production rates is limited and it's all going to be burnt then sure - turn the heating up and burn it however you like. It won't make any difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. However it will make a difference to your wallet, the national balance of payments and the allocation of gas (there's an equity issue).

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 13 Oct 2007, 19:12

Bozzio wrote: Seems to me that the goal posts are being constantly changed here. One minute we should listen to the Heathrow protestors. The next minute it's all irrelevant.

Two different arguments. Hansen is making a rather blas? comment in the context of climate change.

In the context of PO, I think the Heathrow protestors are absolutely right. Building more runways and terminals is going to be a massive waste of resources. Personally I'd rather spend the money (now, while we can still afford to) on identifying all low income pensioners and ensuring that their housing is properly insulated. In twenty years time the current projections of passenger growth will seem absurd. Flying I think will revert to its status it had the first half of the twentieth century - the domain of the military and the ultra-rich.