AGW Grudge Match

[Slim Chance]

Tonnington; As per our agreement to pursue a formal approach to this debate, here is the thread in which this can be accomplished.

I have cut/paste the principle positions that we each had outlined in late February. I ask that you review this and confirm the statement or make the necessary changes prior to getting down to brass tacks.

Feb 28th: Caveats

1. The discussion be focused on establishing that anthropogenic sources (carbon dioxide) are a significant contributor to climatic changes... To be more specific, these sources must be significant enough such that curbing these anthropogenic sources will - absolutely and measurably - alter the climatic system in a corrective manner.
2. Obviously, you are welcome to choose any reference sources you wish, however, the credibility of those sources are fair game. As this is an area of particular interest for myself, I will question any such sources with the onus being on me to identify and highlight the flaw(s).
3. You can submit any number of research papers as reference (obviously), but it is your responsibility to clearly tie everything together with an eye to satisfying caveat # 1. That said, if you elect to adopt a strategy of submitting a couple of thousand of reference points and holler "eureka!" like some idiot did earlier, then I will respond in kind in forcing the contributor to clearly articulate the individual results and provide the applicable conclusions.

Below are the respective statements that we both wish to support/refute:

Slim Chance:
To make it absolutely clear, my position is that I believe that the climate changes the Earth is experiencing are a part of the natural cycle that the globe has experienced for millennia. I do not support the contention that anthropogenic sources are significant enough to represent a factor that is large enough wherein curbing the CO2 output will have any real and tangible effect on redirecting the climatic systems.

Tonnington:
My defining statement is this: we've experienced about 0.8°C warming over the last century. The first part of the century was a mixture of anthropogenic and natural variability, while the latter half has been dominated by the anthropogenic signal. I will provide evidence from observations that confirms the expected results from an enhanced greenhouse effect. To show that the observed climactic changes are consistent, climate model results will be validated and used to show that the observations are an artifact of an enhanced greenhouse effect, and are not primarily the function of a known signal from a source of natural variability in the climate system.

 

[Slim Chance]

The view that I maintain is that climatic fluctuations are all part of a natural cycle that is evidenced throughout the history of the globe. Studies of core samples from recovered in anaerobic environments provide a clue to paleoclimatic conditions hundreds of thousands of years in the past. There are a myriad of studies that confirm the existence of significant periodic climate change in the form of periodic episodes of glaciation and recession. Clearly, these episodes represent cooling and warming trends during those periods.

Recent sampling of stalagmites recovered from blue holes in the Bahamas in the sub-tropical Atlantic gyre provide evidence of no fewer than 5 episodes of climate change in the last 80,000 years. Similar studies undertaken by Japanese researchers that extracted core samples from Lake Biwa , detail the paleomagnetic stratigraphy from the Pleistocene era. These findings confirm “continuous changes of the palaeoclimate during the time since the latest Pliocene or early Pleistocene”. Analysis of the cores yield results that illustrate the significant fluctuations in temperature to a period of 400 M years BP.

(National Geographic Society, Expeditions Council, Exploring the Bahamas Underground: Blue Holes and Biodiversity Conservation. 07/01/2008 – 12/31/2009 [Nancy Albury, Tom Illiffe, Brian Kakuk, Dave Steadman, Peter Swart, Keith Tinker])

(Palynological Study on 200 meters Core Sample of Lake Biwa in Japan; Norio Fuji, Shoji Horie
(Comm.b y Teiichi KOBAYASMHI.J , . A., Sept. 12, 1972))

What is established at this point is that there is a confirmed geological record of past episodes of significant climate change, the causes of which can only be speculated upon. Although many plausible theories exist, the one variable that can be utterly dismissed is the potential for anthropogenic sources as a significant, measurable and tangible factor.

At this point, it is essential that you provide your opinion on the principal statement that has been made, particularly as it relates to the anthropogenic contribution in the aforementioned studies.

 

[Tonington]

Amongst those who do not believe that human industry could possibly alter our climate, the primary response is that the climate always changes, and that this is entirely natural. The climate does often change, but to interpret that the changes we see now are natural requires data confirming this to be the case.

In the atmosphere, the causes that drive these changes are referred to as forcings. Changes in incoming solar irradiance, orbital changes which alter the angle of the sun’s rays, changes in the reflectivity of the surface of the planet, volcanic dust in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; all have signatures, and all can be measured as a radiative forcing on the climate system.

The first aspect I will touch on is the fingerprint issue. The fingerprint of a greenhouse warming is evident in our climate system. Satellites are measuring a cooling stratosphere, at the same time that the troposphere warms:

This chart clearly illustrates the fingerprint issue. The spikes that appear are from major volcanic events. When the dust that is spewed out into the upper atmosphere cools the troposphere, the solar energy that would have passed through to the lower atmosphere bounces back into space, passing the column of air in the stratosphere twice. This warms the stratosphere, and cools the troposphere.

When greenhouse gases are increasing, the effect is similar. Incoming solar energy passes through the stratosphere, and then bounces off the surface of the planet. On the way back up, due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, more and more of the outgoing long wave radiation will be trapped. The Earth then has to warm to go towards thermodynamic equilibrium. Since less radiation is escaping to space, the stratosphere will cool.

Natural mechanisms of warming will not have this signature. An enhanced greenhouse is the only one which traps outgoing radiation, the only one which can explain how the temperature trends can be moving in opposite signs in the upper and lower atmosphere.

The second aspect is the confirmation of the energy balance. As above, there appears to be evidence of a greenhouse warming. Other sources of investigation can confirm this. Satellites measuring the outgoing radiation have found evidence of the enhanced greenhouse effect (1,2,3). These satellite studies are confirmed by ground-based measurements(4,5,6). Thus, the earth must warm(7).

Attribution studies are the experiments where researchers input various factors and evaluate the models for consistency with observations. These experiments have confirmed the observations of a warming planet, and the fingerprint of the current climate shift, including temperature, precipitation, circulation patterns, etc.

The anthropogenic signal has been detected in the world’s oceans, consistent with expected changes due to an enhanced greenhouse effect (8). In fact, a review of the literature on attribution finds that the anthropogenic signal is found in such variables as: the surface temperature in global, hemispheric, and regional scales, ocean heat content, atmospheric circulation, atmospheric temperature, and even tropopause height (9).

It’s clear from these attribution studies, that absent the anthropogenic signal, the climate would have experienced reduced warming in the early 20th century, and cooling thereafter. This is clearly not what has happened, and given the results we have only one physically consistent and empirically supportable explanation, which is that the contribution of humans to the greenhouse effect is the primary driver which is now driving our climate.

It’s not enough to examine the paleoclimate and proclaim that the cycles and circumstances of the past are what are now driving the climate. Statements like that require evidence, for which there is none. The physics of the major forcings clearly indicate a climate driven by anthropogenic sources (10).

1. John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges. 2001. Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature, 410: 355-357.

2. Jennifer A. Griggs and John E. Harries. 2004. Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present. Proceedings of the Society of Photographic Instrumentation Engineers, Vol. 5543, 164, doi:10.1117/12.556803.


3. Claudine Chen, John Harries, Helen Brindley, and Mark Ringer. Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006.

4. Kaicun Wang and Shunlin Liang. 2009. Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D19101, doi:10.1029/2009JD011800.


5. Rolf Philipona, Bruno Dürr, Christoph Marty, Atsumu Ohmura, and Martin Wild. 2004. Radiative forcing - measured at Earth’s surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L03202. doi:10.1029/2003GL018765.

6.Wayne F.J. Evans. Measurements of the radiative surface forcing of climate.

7. Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, and T. Wong (2009), An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D17107, doi:10.1029/2009JD012105.

[FONT=&quot]8. Tim P. Barnett, David W. Pierce, and Reiner Schnur. 2001. Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world's oceans. Science, Vol. 292, 270-274. doi: 10.1126/science.1058304.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. The International ad hoc Detection and Attribution Group. 2005. Detecting and attributing external influences on the climate system: a review of recent advances. Journal of Climate, Vol. 18, 1291-1314. doi: 10.1175/JCLI3329.1.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. Gerald A. Meehl, Warren M. Washington, Caspar M. Ammann, Julie M. Arblaster, T. M. L. Wigley, and Claudia Tebaldi. 2004. Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate. Journal of Climate, Vol. 17, 3721-3727.[/FONT]

 

[Tonington]

Didn't convert from MSOffice very well...

 

[Ron in Regina]

Didn't convert from MSOffice very well...

It looks just fine to me. I'd love to see this debate on this Thread to remain
in the format that it has started in. Good job to both of you.

 

[darkbeaver]

Yes, very civilized thus far.

 

[Slim Chance]

Numerous theories have been forwarded to offer explanation regarding the dramatic fluctuations observed throughout the geological record including massive volcanic eruptions to possible meteor hits. What all these theories have in common is that they are all founded on a natural source/causation and they all seek to explain dramatic, rapid changes. What is absent in all of these theories is any form of input from an anthropogenic source.

Macro cycles are evidenced in the geological record (see following reference). These macro cycles are comprised of shorter “micro” cycles. These cycles can be measured in seconds/minutes (if one wished), days, weeks, years, decades, etc… Below is a reference point of accumulated climate data for many/most Canadian cities. The records stretch back many years. This will serve as an example.

Canada's National Climate and Weather Data Archive

Choose a location that you feel is representative and search the historical data. Analysis will yield a result that illustrates the “micro” cycles of the system. When these results are superimposed over the geological paleoclimatic record, the result is that the localized (in any region), cyclical fluctuations represent trending “micro cycles within macro cycles”.

Point of comment: There has never been a moment in time wherein the climate conditions on the globe as a whole have repeated themselves – identically… I will refer back to this point at a later date.

Tangible environmental impacts are recorded in the geological record. These changes were a byproduct the natural cycles during those times. Some of the highlights are as follows:

The Pleistocene

Early Pleistocene 1.8 MYBP - 750,000 YBP (MIS 20-36)

·Matuyama-Brunhes polarity reversal 750,000 BP marks Early/Middle boundary

Middle Pleistocene 750,000-130,000 YBP (MIS 6-19)

·MIS 6 & 8; Illinoian Glacial

1. possibly more severe than Wisconsin glaciation
2. ~150 m drop in sea level; major land bridges exposed

·MIS 7; interglacial

1. warm climates & dense vegetation in North America & Europe
2. little continental erosion or marine sedimentation
3. formation of paleosols
4. sea level higher than today

Late Pleistocene 130,000-10,000 BP

·Sangamon Interglacial MIS 5e or all of MIS 5

1. MIS 5 (130,000-75,000 YBP) or just substage 5e (130,000-115,000 YBP)
2. midlatitudes slightly warmer than today
3. sea level slightly higher than today
4. widespread paleosols

(15. Ice Age Chronology)

Also see Pollen diagram showing the relationship among warm, cool and cold climatic elements from every horizon in Lake Biwa.: (Palynological Study on 200 meters Core Sample of Lake Biwa in Japan; Norio Fuji, Shoji Horie (Comm.b y Teiichi KOBAYASMHI.J , . A., Sept. 12, 1972))

The highlighted text likely sounds all too familiar relative to the debate on AGW today… These are the threats that are being directly associated with AGW. As you can see, these actions have been occurring hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[petros]

I have one questuion for the author.

You state; "The view that I maintain is that climatic fluctuations are all part of a natural cycle that is evidenced throughout the history of the globe."

What is the name of this "natural cycle"?

Without naming the "natural cycle" you've already lost the debate.

Lets go through a few which are NOT currently limiting factors
Milankovitch is a bust, Sunspots (solar EM) are also a no go, Chandler's wobble doesn't gooble, la Lune is out of tune? Nope?

So what's the "natural cycle'? Without naming one this attempt at a science on science thread just died.

 

[AnnaG]

If one doesn't think anthropogenic manipulation of climate is possible and climate change can only be "natural" how would one recognise anything else even if it was caused by humans? I don't think it's possible for them to see it.

 

[Ron in Regina]

If one doesn't think anthropogenic manipulation of climate is possible and climate change can only be "natural" how would one recognise anything else even if it was caused by humans? I don't think it's possible for them to see it.

Slim Chance:
To make it absolutely clear, my position is that I believe that the climate changes the Earth is experiencing are a part of the natural cycle that the globe has experienced for millennia. I do not support the contention that anthropogenic sources are significant enough to represent a factor that is large enough wherein curbing the CO2 output will have any real and tangible effect on redirecting the climatic systems.

AnnaG, I think the two of you are decsribing two different things. Significant enough &
can only be "natural" being two different things...it doesn't look like Slim Chance is saying,
"can only be "natural".

Petros, I too, didn't see a name for the Natural cycle Slim Chance is describing.
Does it have to have a name? If it is unnamed (yet?), does it mean it's unreal?

 

[AnnaG]

AnnaG, I think the two of you are decsribing two different things. Significant enough &
can only be "natural" being two different things...it doesn't look like Slim Chance is saying,
"can only be "natural".

I wasn't pointing fingers, but since you brought it up, I do think the Slim has blinders on, yes. He states that humans haven't had a significant impact on climate, but obviously, the "experts" don't even agree whether we have or not, so how could non-experts say definitively? And I don't think the experts agree because even they don't know enough about climate yet.
IMO, we do impact our climate significantly, but that's just my own opinion from what evidence I've seen.

 

[Tonington]

The highlighted text likely sounds all too familiar relative to the debate on AGW today… These are the threats that are being directly associated with AGW. As you can see, these actions have been occurring hundreds of thousands of years.

The climate responds to perturbations, which have associated forcings. A forcing is measured as watts per square meter.

1. You haven't said yet which natural factors you think are forcing the climate, you've identified evidence of natural forcings in the past and events but you haven't connected the dots.
2. You haven't identified what the associated forcings with those phenomena(on) are, today or in the past.
3. You haven't provided any support against the observed energy budget, forcings, climatic fingerprint, or attribution studies I mentioned.
4. Therefore to maintain that it is a natural event without evidence is an untenable position.

 

[Slim Chance]

I have one questuion for the author.

You state; "The view that I maintain is that climatic fluctuations are all part of a natural cycle that is evidenced throughout the history of the globe."

What is the name of this "natural cycle"?

Without naming the "natural cycle" you've already lost the debate.

Lets go through a few which are NOT currently limiting factors
Milankovitch is a bust, Sunspots (solar EM) are also a no go, Chandler's wobble doesn't gooble, la Lune is out of tune? Nope?

So what's the "natural cycle'? Without naming one this attempt at a science on science thread just died.

The natural cycle that I am referring to represents all of the known and even more unknown mechanisms all of which combine to affect the environment on the planet. These factors all combine to manifest themselves in an expression that is observable.... Does it have a formal name? Does it matter? Considering that the thrust of my argument is based on the notion that "I do not support the contention that anthropogenic sources are significant enough to represent a factor that is large enough wherein curbing the CO2 output will have any real and tangible effect on redirecting the climatic systems." It really doesn't matter what you decide to call it, does it?

What I have provided so far is proof that massive fluctuations in the climate/weather/surface conditions/rates of growth/etc, etc, etc, have occurred on multiple occasions in the absence of mankind... To pretend that it doesn't exist because a name hasn't been attached is without merit.

This is only part of the base of the argument that I am forwarding.

 

[Tonington]

The natural cycle that I am referring to represents all of the known and even more unknown mechanisms all of which combine to affect the environment on the planet.

In other words, untestable. You can't produce a hypothesis to test against mechanisms which are unknown.

Again, to claim this is more likely than a physical explanation we have that is consistent with known physics is fallacious. It's not logical, and not a supportable assertion.

Does it have a formal name? Does it matter?

If you wish to disprove anthropogenic caused warming and to establish it's due to something else, it certainly does matter.

"I do not support the contention that anthropogenic sources are significant enough to represent a factor that is large enough wherein curbing the CO2 output will have any real and tangible effect on redirecting the climatic systems."

Which my post addressed directly. It gave evidence for carbon dioxide and other increasingly abundant greenhouse gases causing warming, by direct measurements of longwave outgoing radiation, by direct evidence of radiative cooling in the atmospheric slab above the troposphere, with detailed experiments which isolate known factors, and test those. Unknown factors always go in the error term, because we do not know about them, and cannot control them. To show that something is significant, it must be clearly important in spite of the error term.

What I have provided so far is proof that massive fluctuations in the climate/weather/surface conditions/rates of growth/etc, etc, etc, have occurred on multiple occasions in the absence of mankind...

And humans died of natural causes before we invented guns. This is an irrelevant fact.

 

[Slim Chance]

The climate responds to perturbations, which have associated forcings. A forcing is measured as watts per square meter.

Agreed...

1. You haven't said yet which natural factors you think are forcing the climate, you've identified evidence of natural forcings in the past and events but you haven't connected the dots.

I am looking at this from a different angle, that being humanity's "forcings" are not strong enough to alter the climate in the manner that is being assumed by groups like the UN/IPCC, specifically wherein curbing man's CO2 in the UN/IPCC prescribed manner will correct/reverse or stabilize the climate.

As far as the identification of which natural forcings I am referring to, the answer is all of them.. Anything that is not directly caused by mankind from volcanic eruptions (as you pointed-out) to the CO2 contribution of a gnat's respiration to massive meteors that hit the Earth.

2. You haven't identified what the associated forcings with those phenomena(on) are, today or in the past.

What I hav provided is direct, irrefutable evidence that these fluctuations have occurred in the past in the absence of man on multiple occasions. These fluctuations of the natural cycle have been so severe that glaciers (in some cases - over 1 km thick) have advanced to envelope the better part of an entire continent. Conversely, the recession of these episodic ice ages articulates the severe warming that had the net effect of melting the glaciers.

In the end, it is the product of many mechanisms but the common, underlying factor is that it does not include the input from man.

3. You haven't provided any support against the observed energy budget, forcings, climatic fingerprint, or attribution studies I mentioned.

I will get into that.. On that note, I can say that you have not offered any input on the contributions I have forwarded.

4. Therefore to maintain that it is a natural event without evidence is an untenable position.

I find your comment remarkable. To begin, this "debate" is still in its infancy, however, considering that the most basic reference points I have provided (and I am not anywhere close to being finished) are absolutely incontrovertible as is the fact that they occurred without any conceivable form of anthropogenic input - Yet, you are able to conclude that there is no argument supporting the "natural event" suggestion.

I'm a little curious though... You suggest that there is no evidence: Are you stating that episodic continental glaciation never happened, nor did the warming periods that forced the glacial recessions?

The above is a pivotal point and we will need clarity on your position as it will have a strong impact on my direction.

 

[Tonington]

I will stipulate that the climate has changed before, without the aid of man. That was never in doubt...

 

[petros]

The natural cycle that I am referring to represents all of the known and even more unknown mechanisms all of which combine to affect the environment on the planet. These factors all combine to manifest themselves in an expression that is observable.... Does it have a formal name? Does it matter?

So it's something you believe in? Do others believe in it too?

 

[petros]

I will stipulate that the climate has changed before, without the aid of man. That was never in doubt...

I wonder if man has something to do with 90% of the ocean being killed off too? The ocean is far far bigger than the atmosphere so I bet it must be a lot harder to screw up. What do you figure T?





nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Tonington]

I'd wager considerable money on that bet, lol.

 

[darkbeaver]

Climate change has been good to the part of Nova Scotia I live in. I can't remember a warmer March or an easier winter for that matter.100% of the earths climate is electrically driven someone should work that into their argument or I'm afraid the debate will not even be about functioning physics. There's nothing like electric current to force things along.