With all the media concentrating on "man made climate change" it is easy to overlook the fact that there are huge natural forces at play which can profoundly affect the climate. These forces are far more powerful than the effect of man's CO2 emissions. Here is a link to an interesting lecture on some of them.
James E. Kamis: Geological Impacts on Climate | Tom Nelson Pod #121 - YouTube
I have shortened the article up to pose a conversation.
ReplyDeleteGeologists are paid by fossil fuels. Their jobs depend on it.
A person has trouble learning negatives when their job depends on it.
The data collected about climate change support the fact that humans (we) provided the nudge to change the climate.
Earth responds to small nudges from the past and now in the present.
The main nudge on earth is us.
https://skepticalscience.com/Geologists-climate-change-denial.html
Of all the people that doubt the science of climate change, geologists seem to be the most vocal. But they, of all people, should be the most concerned.
One survey of earth scientists found that while 97 per cent of actively publishing climate scientists agree humans are changing global temperatures, only 47 per cent of economic geologists (those who study geology with a view to its commerical exploitation) concur (pdf). In fact, among all earth scientists, economic geologists are the most sceptical.
However, the broader community of geologists seems convinced by the evidence that humans are causing global warming. The European Federation of Geologists says climate change is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and poses significant risks to human civilisation. The Geological Society of America concurs that "greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor [to global warming] since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s". The Geological Society of London states that "evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater".
So climate scepticism seems strongest among geologists closely linked to the mining and fossil fuel industries. Perhaps the words of Upton Sinclair shine some understanding on the forces at play here: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Renowned paleoclimatologist Wally Broecker sums it up beautifully: "The paleoclimate record shouts out to us that, far from being self-stabilising, the Earth's climate system is an ornery beast which overreacts to even small nudges."
We have already given our climate a big nudge. How do we know it's us causing the warming and not natural causes? Because we've directly measured it. Satellites measure reductions in heat escaping to space - direct empirical evidence that carbon emissions are trapping heat. Surface measurements measure more heat returning to Earth, confirming the increased greenhouse effect. We see many signatures of greenhouse warming such as winters warming faster than summers, cooling upper atmosphere with warming lower atmosphere and nights warming faster than days. The case for human-caused warming is based on many independent lines of evidence.
The feedbacks that amplified past climate change are now amplifying the warming caused by our carbon emissions. We're measuring more water vapour in the atmosphere, a strong feedback. Arctic sea ice is disappearing and satellites measure less sunlight reflected back to space - another significant feedback. The Earth's past and modern measurements all paint a consistent picture - our climate is already overreacting to our "nudge"
The problem is that the natural factors which have a strong effect on the climate are being ignored, including changes in cloud cover and the undersea volcanic activity, particularly near to the Arctic and Antarctic. You say that geologists are denying CO2 caused warming because it would affect their jobs. Well that argument applies even more strongly to "climate scientists" whose whole careers depend on the current hypothesis being correct.
ReplyDeleteWell that argument applies even more strongly to "climate scientists" whose whole careers depend on the current hypothesis being correct.
ReplyDeletePeer review takes care of the issue you have raised around climate scientists. The scientists that are lying are quickly ostracized and not listened to based in truth. If you are so convinced that climate scientists are basically a kangaroo court, there should be ample evidence of this. Peer review keeps the science sound even from mistakes made in publishing.
CO2 is noncondensable in the atmosphere, while water vapor is condensable. CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere is 100s of years while water vapor is about 9 days. Under sea volcanos can put millions of tons of water vapor in the air for short periods but it will in short time condense out of the atmosphere.
Water vapor goes into the air based on temperature. The more co2 we put into the air, water vapor content of the atmosphere follows suit and increases also due the higher co2 content increasing temperature. For every 1*C increase in temperature of the surface of the earth, there is a 7% increase in water vapor content.
From the human nudge of increased co2 in our atmosphere, the water vapor content has been increasing all along. Water vapor is one of the fast feedbacks of increased co2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Water_vapor_feedback
Water vapor feedback
Main article: Water vapor feedback
If the atmospheres are warmed, the saturation vapor pressure increases, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to increase. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the increase in water vapor content makes the atmosphere warm further; this warming causes the atmosphere to hold still more water vapor (a positive feedback), and so on until other processes stop the feedback loop. The result is a much larger greenhouse effect than that due to CO2 alone. Although this feedback process causes an increase in the absolute moisture content of the air, the relative humidity stays nearly constant or even decreases slightly because the air is warmer.[13] Climate models incorporate this feedback. Water vapor feedback is strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur.[14] Water vapor feedback is considered a faster feedback mechanism.[15]
Most of the atmosphere is not saturated with water vapour and also it is known that clouds can reflect the sun's heat out to space which is an important negative feedback. The system is far more complex than you imply. Please try and remove numbers from the articles you paste on here as it is very confusing.
ReplyDeleteThe numbers refer to sources from wikipedia that their information comes from. I have read that clouds are a possible positive feedback. So far early data show positive feedback adding to more warming on earth.
DeleteI must politely point out that you are not correct about clouds. As cloud cover varies so their effect must vary. Here is a simple experiment that anyone can try. Go out in the sun and stand there for a few minutes, then when a cloud goes across and cuts out the sun see how the temperature changes. If anyone finds it gets warmer please let me know.
ReplyDeleteThe seriousness of this all is clouds could become a catastropic feedback with 3 times the co2 of todays climate. You may think that everything is going to be just fine and our pollution barely matters. Once we get to this severe possibility, there is no turning back. This is one of the tipping points the climate scientists talk about. This would be a strong positive climate feedback.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Cloud_feedback
A 2019 simulation predicts that if greenhouse gases reach three times the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that stratocumulus clouds could abruptly disperse, contributing to additional global warming.
Pressel, Kyle G.; Kaul, Colleen M.; Schneider, Tapio (March 2019). "Possible climate transitions from breakup of stratocumulus decks under greenhouse warming" (PDF).
Kemp, Luke; Xu, Chi; Depledge, Joanna; Ebi, Kristie L.; Gibbins, Goodwin; Kohler, Timothy A.; Rockström, Johan; Scheffer, Marten; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim; Steffen, Will; Lenton, Timothy M. (2022-08-23). "Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (34)