Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years

[John Sayers]

Could you please quote a source for that?

Could you pleasee read the link I gave originally. Lord Monckton has assembled all the CURRENT PEER REVIEWED science on the subject of global warming.

It is NOT what you have be lead to believe by the biased green press.

[Dean Roddey]

But we're not the worst polluters. Far from it.

Per capita we pump out more carbon dioxide than anyone else. Per-capita we consume more energy than anyone else.

Our climate is very complex and no single person understands it completely. It is based on the sun, plate tektonics, ocean currents, atmospherics, and natural planetary change. Getting tunnel vision about one possible aspect of it only serves to obscure understanding of the overall phenomenon.

There's no tunnel vision involved. Yes all those things are part of the climate. But we are responsible for the effects that *we* cause, not those things that we cannot do anything about. There are so many of us now, and our technology allows us to have so many effects on the environment, that it's impossible to pretend like we are not having a major effect on the planet.

Loss of forests, pollution, carbon generation, pollution, loss of species, etc... We are causing these things ourselves, so these things are our responsibility to deal with. If those who came before us had done what we've done on the scale we've done it, we'd be a far worse situation than we are now. So I can't see how those who come after us are going to look very kindly on us if we don't work harder to not do it to them.

We have to live on this planet for the unforeseen future, i.e. a long freakin time. Even if you project out a thousand years from now, less than a blink of an eye, just the rate of those effects that have occured so far in this century, leaving aside potential increases in those rates, the prospects aren't good, IMO.

[John Sayers]

for every 100,000 air molecules 30 are Carbon Dioxide. Of the 30 - 1 is produced by man.

[Dean Roddey]

1. We've gotten onto the score board in a single century, which is nothing. And there are more and more people who want to live our lifestyle moving forward and more people being born all the time.
2. How do you know that that percentage increase isn't important?
3. We are producing those molecules on a continuing basis year after year, and that will go up and it will continue to increase in rate if we don't do something about that.

[Jon Doe]

Note that I don't believe or disbelieve ... .

This is indeed, wise.

[Jon Doe]

1. We've gotten onto the score board in a single century, which is nothing. And there are more and more people who want to live our lifestyle moving forward and more people being born all the time. 2. How do you know that that percentage increase isn't important? 3. We are producing those molecules on a continuing basis year after year, and that will go up and it will continue to increase in rate if we don't do something about that.

The population of the planet has doubled in my lifetime. To state that human byproducts increasingly effect the environment is merely stating the obvious. I still hold that contrary to popular opinion, the sky is not falling.

[John Sayers]

1. We've gotten onto the score board in a single century, which is nothing. And there are more and more people who want to live our lifestyle moving forward and more people being born all the time. 2. How do you know that that percentage increase isn't important? 3. We are producing those molecules on a continuing basis year after year, and that will go up and it will continue to increase in rate if we don't do something about that.

Yes Dean - but is it all bad?? Plant nurseries feed additional CO2 into their greenhouses to increase growth - they pump the air to 1000pmm.

For 2000 years in the Bronze Age, during the Holocene Climate Optimum (which is called an "Optimum" because warmer is
better than cooler), temperature was up to 5

[Dean Roddey]

I think that's stretching things way beyond reasonability. We've created the most powerful and extensive civilization of all time and we didn't need a climate optimum to do it, assuming that there's really any real connection to those previous events, which seems pretty iffy at best. And those civilizations didn't then start pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, so they weren't in danger of setting off a feedback cycle.

[Jon Doe]

I think that's stretching things way beyond reasonability. We've created the most powerful and extensive civilization of all time and we didn't need a climate optimum to do it, assuming that there's really any real connection to those previous events, which seems pretty iffy at best. And those civilizations didn't then start pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, so they weren't in danger of setting off a feedback cycle.

What is a feedback cycle?

[John Sayers]

danger of setting off a feedback cycle.

but Dr Roy Spencer, head of the Aqua satellite for NASA has already published a peer reviewed paper showing that CO2 does not produce a positive feedback. It produces a negative feedback.

[John Sayers]

What is a feedback cycle?

when your PA takes off it's a positive feedback. i.e it increases upon itself and is triggered by a tipping point.

[Dean Roddey]

but Dr Roy Spencer, head of the Aqua satellite for NASA has already published a peer reviewed paper showing that CO2 does not produce a positive feedback. It produces a negative feedback.

You seem to have a tendancy to quote single papers or books which are at odds with widely held scientific opinion, which you tend to want to believe because they support your view, but in the process ignore the much more widely held view. These people who you quote, if they were widely believed in the scientific community, would be highly famous because they all seem to be proving that the rest of the scientific community is wrong on fundamental things.

Anyone can post a 'peer reviewed' article, since it just requires being accepted by a published scientific article. But you would kind of need to have more than one published article to prove that CO2 is now not a greenhouse gas and that it's increased concentration doesn't cause warming.

Can you point to any broad change in the scientific community that CO2 is no longer a danger for global warming?

[Dean Roddey]

What is a feedback cycle?

It's any process which feeds on itself in a positive or negative way. It's just like guitar feedback. The strings are affected by the speaker output, which feeds back into the pickups which causes the speakers to react which causes the strings to react, etc... It feeds on itself.

Large climate changes, such as the ice ages, are feedback events. A cycle starts which feeds on itself and creates further effects that make it go further, etc... So you start getting more snow cover, which reflects more sunlight back out into space, which cools the planet more, which causes more snow, etc...

That kind of thing. Greenhouse cycles can also be feedback cycles. More heat is held into the atmosphere which causes more release of gases, which causes more heat to be held in, etc... Venus is an example of a greenhouse feedback cycle run amok.

[Jon Doe]

You seem to have a tendancy to quote single papers or books which are at odds with widely held scientific opinion, which you tend to want to believe because they support your view, but in the process ignore the much more widely held view. These people who you quote, if they were widely believed in the scientific community, would be highly famous because they all seem to be proving that the rest of the scientific community is wrong on fundamental things.

In the 15th century the widely held scientific opinion was that the world was flat. In 1492 a Spanish sailing captain disproved this.

Adhominem attacks are unnecessary in this discusion.

[Jon Doe]

It's any process which feeds on itself in a positive or negative way. It's just like guitar feedback. The strings are affected by the speaker output, which feeds back into the pickups which causes the speakers to react which causes the strings to react, etc... It feeds on itself. Large climate changes, such as the ice ages, are feedback events. A cycle starts which feeds on itself and creates further effects that make it go further, etc... So you start getting more snow cover, which reflects more sunlight back out into space, which cools the planet more, which causes more snow, etc... That kind of thing. Greenhouse cycles can also be feedback cycles. More heat is held into the atmosphere which causes more release of gases, which causes more heat to be held in, etc... Venus is an example of a greenhouse feedback cycle run amok.

When was the last "feedback cycle" on earth?

[Dean Roddey]

In the 15th century the widely held scientific opinion was that the world was flat. In 1492 a Spanish sailing captain disproved this.

This is not true. Few educated people after the Greeks believed that the world was flat. This is a very widely held misconception. Everyone involved in his preperations to sail knew perfectly well the earth is round. It was merely a matter of how big the sphere was, which was the crux of whether his theory was going to work or not (i.e. that he could get to the Indies sailng the other way.)

Not that it would make any difference to this issue anyway. People always bring up this point, as though some possible misunderstanding in the pre-scientific world means that widely held scientific understandings today are somehow bogus and that one guy posting an article somehow disproves that consensus.

Adhominem attacks are unnecessary in this discusion.

There was none. I pointed out that he is quoting very limited sources as proof of the incorrectness of a widely held consensus.

[Dean Roddey]

When was the last "feedback cycle" on earth?

The last really bad one would be the last ice age, AFAIK. Not all of them are going to run all the way to the extreme. Some will go for a while and be affected by some larger change that counter acts them in some way. And our planet certainly has compensating mechanisms, else it wouldn't be able to maintain any sort of equilibrium.

The issue is whether our continuing to pump out greenhouse gases and de-forest the planet could contribute to an upwards cycle because we overwhelm the normal compensating mechanisms. I.e. we pump out CO2 while simultaneously killing off one of the largest absorbers of CO2 that would constitute a natural compensation mechanism if we were not interfering.

[Jon Doe]

There was none. I pointed out that he is quoting very limited sources as proof of the incorrectness of a widely held consensus.

Several people quoted valid sources. This isn't about a show of hands. It's about facts.

If you go back and read old issues of Farmer's Almanac you'll find people have been arguing about the climate/weather for centuries.

This is just the same song in a modern key signature.

[Dean Roddey]

Well, yeh, it is about a show of hands. Clearly there are two sets of 'facts' or at least interpretations of the facts, otherwise there wouldn't be any argument. The issue is which one is correct. If there is a significant consensus in the scientific community that specializes in the area that one interpretation is correct, that carries a lot of weight.

[Jon Doe]

The last really bad one would be the last ice age, AFAIK. Not all of them are going to run all the way to the extreme. Some will go for a while and be affected by some larger change that counter acts them in some way. And our planet certainly has compensating mechanisms, else it wouldn't be able to maintain any sort of equilibrium.

That's a lot of free variables for a scientific argument.

[John Sayers]

Dean - Dr Roy Spencer is one of our leading climate scientists. He heads the NASA Aqua satellite project which is the latest and most sophisticated climate satellite we have. It is the result of his research and the data gained from the satellite that he used to draw his conclusions regarding climate change.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

I suggest you read his views.

[Dean Roddey]

I'm not sure I get your point. Scientific arguments aren't characterized by having no compexities or free variables. They are characterized by how well they explain the complexities or free variables and predict their actions.

The climate is complex, effects based on a single feedback cycle can certainly be overwhelmed by some other effect and prevent the cycle from going to the extreme. This is hardly any sort of controversial idea. A negative feedback cycle could be overwhelmed by an increase in output from the sun, or vice versa. An upwards cycle could be cut short by a very large volcanic eruption that lowers temperatures. Either cycle could probably be heavily affected (upwards or downwards) by some change in large scale ocean currents.

It's a complex system. But it makes no sense to me to use the complexity of the system as an argument against being very careful about how we monkey with it by our actions. It should be an argument for being very careful exactly becasue of the complexity of what we are monkeying with.

[Dean Roddey]

I suggest you read his views.

I may if I get the time. But no matter what he says, do a search on 'greenhouse gases' and see how many articles you find that demonstrate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Is his one article supposed to override all those years of research and publication? I ask again, can you show any broad support for his position in the scientific community?

You have to see the point, right? You are saying, read this one guy's article, it proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. But I'm saying, read the huge number of articles over probably decades now, that shows that it is and that it's concentration in ice cores correlates strongly with large temp differences and so fort. If an article proves something, then why doesn't it work the other way, when there are way more of them? Why do you read one article and believe this disproves a far larger body of work?

[Jon Doe]

I'm not sure I get your point. Scientific arguments aren't characterized by having no compexities or free variables. They are characterized by how well they explain the complexities or free variables and predict their actions. The climate is complex, effects based on a single feedback cycle can certainly be overwhelmed by some other effect and prevent the cycle from going to the extreme. This is hardly any sort of controversial idea. A negative feedback cycle could be overwhelmed by an increase in output from the sun, or vice versa. An upwards cycle could be cut short by a very large volcanic eruption that lowers temperatures. Either cycle could probably be heavily affected (upwards or downwards) by some change in large scale ocean currents. It's a complex system. But it makes no sense to me to use the complexity of the system as an argument against being very careful about how we monkey with it by our actions. It should be an argument for being very careful exactly becasue of the complexity of what we are monkeying with.

The point I'm making is that "feedback cycle" is a more technical way of saying, "something really bad might happen but we don't really know."

I think lay people already know this and that's why there have been predictions of armegaddon since the beginning of recorded history.

[Dean Roddey]

No, feedback cycles have happened, numerous times in the past. The ice ages being particular spectacular examples of them. The question is not whether they happen, but whether we could contribute to one happening.

And you don't answer my point that the very complexity of the system should argue for us being careful about our concerns about how effects on it, not be less worried.