The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

I read a comment like that and laugh to myself.

Excellent! I'm always glad to be a source of amusement.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

If you have data to contribute to the conversation, contribute it.

No Switchcraft because at the moment, it would be pointless. (I don't know about LordKelvin but...) You would quickly reject any evidence I say because I don't think you have a good handle on what your argument really is. For example:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

There are thousands of variables that alter the climate. Whether or not you have a particular dataset for solar output or the tilt of the earth doesn't change the rest of those variables.

I have given no arguments and yet you're already mobilizing your "thousands of variables" to prop up the one I may soon attack. Is that the debate style of someone who wants to judge each argument on its own merit?

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

...you will only contribute data if people promise to convert beforehand...it's a trick to try and stop debate, not foster it. That's not appropriate in any academic arena...

*smiles* Actually Switchcraft, my "trick" is following the scientific method.

LordKelvin has two hypothesizes - the warming in the last century is caused by the sun and/or the warming is continued warming from the last ice age. They sound reasonable and I applaud LordKelvin for stepping up and saying, "I think this is true."

The next step of the scientific method is to make predictions from the hypothesizes. For example, if the sun is responsible for warming then our measurements should show the sun is putting out more energy. Or, if this warming is due to glacial cycles then we should see a warming since the end of the last ice age. This is the step we're on.

The next step is testing the predictions which will require data. However, starting to test before both sides agree on a fair set of tests is of no help to anybody. Such results would be unconvincing. Also, LordKelvin deserves the ability to explore and modify his hypothesizes before they're tested.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

I was interested in seeing the data you claim to have but now I realize I wouldn't trust it if we were face to face.

You know Switchcraft, I don't have a monopoly on the information I'm offering. If you really wanted to know if what I'm saying is true you could always (*gasp*) research it yourself.

bkelly

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

You have to understand, bkelly, that I am not going to belabor the point about the Sun. Maybe it isn't the Sun. But as of yet, I have yet to see any actual EVIDENCE that the Sun isn't causing it. So until you do present something concrete, I cannot say "I will concede the Sun isn't causing it."

LordKelvin, perhaps my intentions are a bit more clear after my post to Switchcraft. I am not trying to get you to say the sun isn't causing global warming without evidence. I am trying to determine all of the ways that we might see your assertion in action.

I think that if global warming is caused by the sun then it's fair to assume that the solar irradiance at the Earth and/or the axial tilt of the Earth has increased. Can you think of any other ways the Sun could affect the Earth's climate that wouldn't be reflected in either of these parameters? I don't want to research these two areas and show they haven't increased only to have you say, "Oh well it still could be the sun because of X".

bkelly

[bkelly]

Kerostasis, I think you might be interested in this article in The Independent. It quotes polar scientists who give the North Pole a 50-50 chance of being ice free this year.

I bring it to you for two reasons.

First, it has yet another interview with our friend at the NSIDC, Mark Serreze.

And second, when I previously asked what it would take to convince you that there is a good chance that the planet is warming and Humans are responsible, you said:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

For my part, you'd have to show a study demonstrating unique warming that had never occurred previously on Earth.

Is being able to sail a sailboat up to the North Pole unique enough?

bkelly

[LordKelvin]

Originally Posted by bkelly

LordKelvin, perhaps my intentions are a bit more clear after my post to Switchcraft. I am not trying to get you to say the sun isn't causing global warming without evidence. I am trying to determine all of the ways that we might see your assertion in action.

I think that if global warming is caused by the sun then it's fair to assume that the solar irradiance at the Earth and/or the axial tilt of the Earth has increased. Can you think of any other ways the Sun could affect the Earth's climate that wouldn't be reflected in either of these parameters? I don't want to research these two areas and show they haven't increased only to have you say, "Oh well it still could be the sun because of X".

bkelly

Ok, I thought long and hard about the methods of our Sun warming the Earth. And I have come up with the following:

Let us assume then (since I have no concrete numbers or evidence as of yet from you) that the Earth is not in a natural warming period, and it hasn't moved closer to the Sun, nor has it received more radiation from the Sun, whether from sunspots or axial tilt.

Well, there is still the issue of the gaping holes in the ozone layer. There is an enormous, constantly shifting hole above the South Pole, and a periodic, smaller one above the North Pole. The reason the North Pole is melting, then, would be because while the amount of radiation from the Sun is the same, the amount breaching through to the surface and being absorbed is much higher at the pole. So why isn't Antarctica defrosting? Because land is a very good insulator. Ice, by itself, is much easier to melt than frozen soil, which the Arctic does not have, or only has in very small amounts.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by bkelly

You know Switchcraft, I don't have a monopoly on the information I'm offering. If you really wanted to know if what I'm saying is true you could always (*gasp*) research it yourself.

We could accept your new rule of evidence and require no-one to support anything they say. Or does that only apply to you? Because I can tell you right now it won't work. Why on earth should I chase down someone else's numbers when the easiest thing to do is assume that I continue to be correct and they continue to be wrong? How often have you felt greatly informed and had your eyes opened with a scientific claim that was not supported by numbers? How have you earned the right to be taken at face value?

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Well, there is still the issue of the gaping holes in the ozone layer.

Ah, good thinking. The concentration of ozone in our atmosphere has declined in the last 30 years, the time over which the Earth's warming has become very apparent.

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

The reason the North Pole is melting, then, would be because while the amount of radiation from the Sun is the same, the amount breaching through to the surface and being absorbed is much higher at the pole.

That would make sense as ozone absorbs UV radiation.

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

So why isn't Antarctica defrosting? Because land is a very good insulator. Ice, by itself, is much easier to melt than frozen soil, which the Arctic does not have, or only has in very small amounts.

That doesn't make much sense because the heat capacity of water is surprisingly high and frozen soil wouldn't require extra energy to undergo a state change when it reaches 0 degrees C.

I think the possibility that the shrinking ozone is causing the global warming we've been seeing is worth consideration, but I don't think it fits under your "caused by the sun" hypothesis. If it's all right with you, I'd like to consider this your third hypothesis of a more likely cause of global warming than CO2 emissions. Fair?

Originally Posted by bkelly

I don't want to research these two areas and show they haven't increased only to have you say, "Oh well it still could be the sun because of X".

I've been thinking about this statement and decided it's unrealistic. Even I still think that it's possible the sun is responsible, I just think it's very unlikely. A better summary of what I don't want you to say is, "Yes, you have shown X, and Y but I still believe global warming is more likely due to the sun than CO2 because of Z."

bkelly

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by leejo

We could accept your new rule of evidence and require no-one to support anything they say. Or does that only apply to you?

Obviously not, leejo. I have produced no evidence so far and therefore have supported nothing.

At the moment, all I am going is creating focus on what the argument is and what needs to be shown. Feel free to join us. Other than shooting more energy our direction and shining in different areas, what are likely ways that the sun could be causing global warming?

bkelly

[leejo]

Don't make this my problem! I didn't assert anything except that you're acting like someone who keeps evading the question. My evidence is every post you make until you answer the those questions.

[LordKelvin]

Ok, but then the question looms: do we want to continue exploring the possibility that the Sun is causing this, or switch to ozone discussions?

Which actually reminded me of something. Sunspots don't increase the Sun's energy output. They do, however, vary the strength and intensity of the solar wind. If the solar wind is stronger, with the North Pole still relatively closer to the Sun than the South Pole, as the solar wind 'blows' over the pole, it spreads the magnetic field potential of the Earth thinner there, allowing more radiation to seep in. With a stronger solar wind, more highly charged particles come in, only to be trapped once inside.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Ok, but then the question looms: do we want to continue exploring the possibility that the Sun is causing this, or switch to ozone discussions?

Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays, According To New Research

ScienceDaily (Apr. 4, 2008)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0403083932.htm

[LordKelvin]

That's nice, but not relevant to my argument. I never mentioned anything about cloud cover.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

That's nice, but not relevant to my argument. I never mentioned anything about cloud cover.

Solar Variations Too Small To Have Influenced Climate Since 1600s
Editor's Summary
Nature, 14 September 2006
http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...62&method=full

Best I'm going to do for you. If you are legitimately serious about learning about global warming you should start by reading and researching science journals. I hear there is something called the Internet that could help you. A video game forum is not the place to learn about science and politics.

[LordKelvin]

Thanks for posting that, because it underscored the point I was trying to make earlier. It says that the Sun's energized plasmas (ie, solar wind) has not yet been ruled out, and this is what I was hypothesizing.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Thanks for posting that, because it underscored the point I was trying to make earlier. It says that the Sun's energized plasmas (ie, solar wind) has not yet been ruled out, and this is what I was hypothesizing.

*sigh* How do I reach these keeeeds?

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Ok, but then the question looms: do we want to continue exploring the possibility that the Sun is causing this, or switch to ozone discussions?

I'd like to agree on the primary means of testing your three hypothesizes before I start researching and backing up my offers. It's quite possible that what needs to be tested will change.

If you are satisfied with the notion that, if the sun were the a significant cause of global warming, that it would probably be reflected in the total solar irradiance that the Earth receives and/or the degree to which the Earth's tilt has increased, then I recommend we move on to your second hypothesis. You are of course welcome to add to or modify this list in the future.

You second hypothesis was that the recent warming of the Earth is natural, a continuation of the warming the planet has seen since the end of the last ice age. I did not say it before, but two predictions from this hypothesis sprang to my mind:

1) In general, the planet would have been been warming since the end of the last ice age.
2) The rate of warming we see today would be unexceptional when compared viewed in context of the warming since the end of the last ice age.

What do you think? Is my list of predictions a complete list of the primary testable effects that we would expect if your hypothesis were true?

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Which actually reminded me of something. Sunspots don't increase the Sun's energy output. They do, however, vary the strength and intensity of the solar wind. If the solar wind is stronger, with the North Pole still relatively closer to the Sun than the South Pole, as the solar wind 'blows' over the pole, it spreads the magnetic field potential of the Earth thinner there, allowing more radiation to seep in. With a stronger solar wind, more highly charged particles come in, only to be trapped once inside.

Well, kinda. Sunspots are created by intense magnetic activity which also means more solar energy output. There is correlation between 22 year magnetic cycle of the sun and solar wind, but it's not as strong. The solar wind doesn't seep in at the poles because the magnetosphere is "spread thin" but because the magnetic field of the Earth is in alignment with the magnetic field of the solar wind. These particles are what create the Aurora Borealis/Australis.

Why do you bring this up?

bkelly