Truly Long Term Climate Info

[Castuserraticus]

I am a geologist used to working with data spanning millions of years. This is a primary reason I've been sceptical of the theory of anthropogenic driven climate change. The link below shows graphically and effectively the relavance of our human historical perspective. That is, we know squat about global climate variability because our time frame of observation is so insignificant. I collected tropical coral fossils on Ellesmere Island for a couple of summers. Also, the data has issues. The website also has links to the theory proponent websites.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/hist...ntext-of-scale/

 

And for a truly geologic scale:

http://climateobserver.blogspot.com/2009/1...nd-climate.html

 

 

There's a series of chart images or you can click on the youtube video to get slides with expanding time slices of temperature history from ice cores. Looking at the data trend for the last 3000-10000 years, it appears we are in a cooling trend.

 

One interesting note from the data is that the 10000 year stable warm period we are in coincides with the development of agriculture and resulting blossoming of human technology and culture. Could stable agricultural societies have developed at any other time? Migration certainly would been much more limited.

 

There are known issues with the ice core data. There is no ice less than 100 years old at the measured sites. It takes about 2500-6000 years for snow to turn into "sealed" ice under active accumulation and compaction. During this time, atmospheric gases are relatively free to move via diffusion. Until the ice becomes "sealed", the gases trapped within the ice are an average of the atmosphere over extended time periods. Because of this, short lived anomolous concentrations will very likely not be preserved or will be subdued. Natural sources of CO2 enrichment are volcanic eruptions. The average eruption spews 3 years worth of human emissions into the air within a few days to weeks. The temperature indicators in the ice are much more stable. Water molecules with different H and O isotopes behave slightly differently. Heavier water molecules are the first to condense and so are relatively enriched in the snow that falls at lower temperatures. The isotopic ratios of the water molecules provide accurate and durable temperature indicators.

So, we know the temperature at a given depth in the ice pretty accurately and have an idea of the long term CO2 and other gas content of the atmosphere with much less precision. The historical temperature record goes back 420,000 years and shows the variations humans are presently concerned about are absolutely meaningless. The heavens still revolve around the earth to many people.

The historical CO2 content of the atmosphere overall mimics the temperature data. The question then becomes what is the relationship? Recent work looking at past interglacial periods has tended to show that increases in CO2 lag increases in temperature by several hundred years. Some of this is attributed to release of trapped CO2 from melting permafrost. This is the reverse of what some would have us believe.

True historical temperature and atmospheric gas data is extremely sparse. There are a few ice cores from Greenland and the antarctic. Making global predictions on such sparse data is analogous to an alien landing in Sweden and pronouncing all humans are tall blondes with poor taste in choosing husbands.

 

Keep an open mind.

[Smitty]

Castus:

 

As someone who is mostly a skeptic, and thus, naturally sympathetic to your post, I'll ask the question that will be first and foremost on the minds of those that would dispute what you say:

 

"Are you connected in any way to the oil, gas, and/or energy industries, or would your livelihood be impacted by any of those industries being subjected to stringent global policies and agreements in regards to global warming".

 

I'm just saying eventually you'll be asked that. Whether you want to answer that is up to you...

 

Smitty

[rehsifylf]

Castus:

 

or would your livelihood be impacted by any of those industries being subjected to stringent global policies and agreements in regards to global warming".

 

 

Smitty

 

The oil and gas companies would be affected by carbon taxes the same way cable companies would be affected by the Broadcast tax- it would be passed on to the consumers. Anyone that lives in Canada that doesn't think they would be negatively affected by carbon taxes (i.e. we pay other countries tax for producing CO2) is kidding themselves. This includes everyone.

 

For example: teachers get paid by the government, the government gets money from taxes and royalties. If the royalties go away (much as Albertans believe they can force O&G companies to produce at a loss, it will not happen) - then a) less money for teachers, and b.) more taxes for everyone (including the teachers that are left).

 

When Jimbob deafulted on his mortgage last year - it affected more than JimBob and his bank, right?

[adc]

From my standpoint it makes no difference if you're employed by the energy sector or a closet greenpeace supporter........The argument you make is valid AND the belief that the universe revolves around the earth is a significant truth in the minds of many........Let's save the planet!!!...........How arrogant, given our millisecond of time here.......George Carlin, I wish you were still here ranting!!

 

[Ricinus]

I will leave the affiliations question to we all know who. BUT

 

Isn't a Geologist commenting on climate akin to a Climatologist commenting on Plate Tectonics, both fields being relatively young.

 

This is NOT meant as a personal attack or questioning your professionalism or knowledge and is meant to to taken in a lighthearted manner.

 

 

Regards Mike

[canadensis]

Castus:

 

As someone who is mostly a skeptic, and thus, naturally sympathetic to your post, I'll ask the question that will be first and foremost on the minds of those that would dispute what you say:

 

"Are you connected in any way to the oil, gas, and/or energy industries, or would your livelihood be impacted by any of those industries being subjected to stringent global policies and agreements in regards to global warming".

 

I'm just saying eventually you'll be asked that. Whether you want to answer that is up to you...

 

Smitty

 

The same questions should be asked of the Global Warming scientists that recieve grant money. They have interests to look after as well.

 

Actually when you ponder the question Smitty we are all connected to the oil, gas, and/or energy industries is some regard, even moreso residing in Alberta.

 

Some people choose to fill the trough and others choose to feed from it. Tell me where the difference lies?

[jksnijders]

That is, we know squat about global climate variability because our time frame of observation is so insignificant.

 

 

 

Keep an open mind.

 

 

 

Both very good points.

[Smitty]

Well, just FYI, I wasn't trying to be a prick in my post. But the tone of the threads lately just means an "ad hominem" question/attack would likely be forthcoming. Just wanted to try a "nip it in the bud" kind of approach.

 

And you guys are right, as an unemployed teacher, I know for myself job prospects are tied to gov't income, of which we all know a sizable chunk of pie comes from royalties. So I have an interest too, whether its through education, or owning a property in Ft. Mac.

 

Anyways, Castus, I like the points you made, and I'm glad you chimed in (and started this thread). Part of the point I am trying to make was a satirical comment on my own creeping cynicism (I try to use rose colored glasses, comes with being a teacher), in saying "that just because you work in industry xyz, you therefore /ergo must be biased, and anything you say must be invalid."

 

Which of course is nonsense. Just look at that guy Colvin, blowing the lid off the detainee torture issue, he's making the gov't look bad while collecting a gov't pay cheque? What's his agenda? Why bite the hand that feeds him?

 

I'd guess that its simply to report the facts and truths as he's collected them. Good for him. I hope there are many more like him (Sheila Fraser is another good example).

 

Smitty

[savagefan]

Daily we are bombarded by the media about AGW. It is hard not to agree with "The big lie". We are after all mere pawns in this great game of life (Mongo). Keep an open mind and read "Red Hot Lies" by Christopher C. Horner for a little balance. Would you believe The Sierra club takes money from EXXON?

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Daily we are bombarded by the media about AGW. It is hard not to agree with "The big lie". We are after all mere pawns in this great game of life (Mongo). Keep an open mind and read "Red Hot Lies" by Christopher C. Horner for a little balance. Would you believe The Sierra club takes money from EXXON?

 

While people have commented that the poll is meaningless I feel it does some some interesting points.

 

Firstly...513 viewed but only 58 voted

 

That shows me people don't really care that passionately one way or another... They are just assuming it is not that important and what happens...happens.

 

That was an expect response to situations where people continue to shout..."we are all going to die" Over and over again. Eventually they just accept it and move on.

 

Secondly only 35% seem to believe it strongly enough to put in a post... As it is an emotional topic for many on this side...I figured the number would be higher. The 14% that think it may be true...only bring it up to 50%.

 

About 40% say they just don't know...one way or another regardless how they say it. To me this says people want facts from a credible source that has not bias links to either side or ideology.

 

The question becomes...who on Earth can provide that security in providing truthful facts and yet also knowledgeable in the profession.

[canadensis]

The question becomes...who on Earth can provide that security in providing truthful facts and yet also knowledgeable in the profession.

 

Ha Ha.. The multi Trillion dollar question.

 

The thing is just some 25 years ago some of the current global warming proponents were saying we are indeed entering an ice age, this view was supported by the data and science of the day at that time. So was the data showing we were warming 25 years ago? I am no scientist but it must have shown cooling if the forecast was another ice age? The current data says we have been cooling for the past 10 years, Yet they say the long term trend has been warming, or so we are told? Confusing, eh?

 

In another 25 years we will have another data set supported by the science of the day that could say something 180* from what we are being told now. I would expect a big curve ball, like the earth is drifting towards the sun or earth's rotation is being effected by the development in China, or something crazy like that..

 

The whole scheme just screams "show me the money"

 

I am looking forward to what the next "crisis" will be. The next one has to be bigger than the current one as this has been the trend, it will be a definate hockey stick; but the blade will be much larger and you bet the answer to the problem will relate to business/industry/developed nations paying... Although this will be a hard one to beat, I am sure someone is up to the challenge!

[Castuserraticus]

I do not believe in "global" conspiracies. We all have biases. Most scientists on both sides of the debate generally believe they are dispassionately analyzing the data. Just like any other topic, some let passion blind their objectivity. I've worked with people who, despite drilling dryholes, would not back down on their theory.

 

I am in the energy industry. My other passion is economics. In both these fields, significant dollars are invested based on theories that result from interpretation of relatively sparse data. If you are consistently wrong, it's not the data's fault, it's the interpreters fault.

 

Being in the industry does bias my opinion somewhat. In the academic world, bias often comes from developing a pet theory. There can be huge $$ for a researcher who has a pet theory adopted by governments, industry, or other academics.

 

Geology= earth science. It integrates physical processes like wind, wave, and current action on sediment transportation, with biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, and climatology to answer questions about the earth's past. One geologic "law" is the present is the key to the past. Modern observable processes leave indelible marks on the rocks. Using knowledge of these processes we can analyze the rock components and tell definitively that a set of rocks were initially deposited in a slow moving fresh water river within an environment that was arid and warm. We can tell that other rocks were deposited within a warm shallow tropical sea that was occasionally isolated from normal marine water so that evaporation concentrated the salts. Based on Eocene tree fossils, we know that parts of the Arctic islands were covered by a boreal forest 50MM years ago. During the Cretaceous Albian period there were volcanoes in NE Alberta and W Sask. Their "pipes" are host to diamond deposits now. These islands have not changed latitude. The Pleistocene glaciers scraped over 3000 ft. off parts of Alberta. Glaciology, geochemistry, paleontology, mineralogy, paloeclimatology, geomorphology, sedimentology, paleomagnetics, and many other specialized fields are parts of geology. The planet we think of as being static from our limited human perspective is very far from it.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I do not believe in "global" conspiracies. We all have biases. Most scientists on both sides of the debate generally believe they are dispassionately analyzing the data. Just like any other topic, some let passion blind their objectivity. I've worked with people who, despite drilling dryholes, would not back down on their theory.

 

I am in the energy industry. My other passion is economics. In both these fields, significant dollars are invested based on theories that result from interpretation of relatively sparse data. If you are consistently wrong, it's not the data's fault, it's the interpreters fault.

 

Being in the industry does bias my opinion somewhat. In the academic world, bias often comes from developing a pet theory. There can be huge $$ for a researcher who has a pet theory adopted by governments, industry, or other academics.

 

Geology= earth science. It integrates physical processes like wind, wave, and current action on sediment transportation, with biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, and climatology to answer questions about the earth's past. One geologic "law" is the present is the key to the past. Modern observable processes leave indelible marks on the rocks. Using knowledge of these processes we can analyze the rock components and tell definitively that a set of rocks were initially deposited in a slow moving fresh water river within an environment that was arid and warm. We can tell that other rocks were deposited within a warm shallow tropical sea that was occasionally isolated from normal marine water so that evaporation concentrated the salts. Based on Eocene tree fossils, we know that parts of the Arctic islands were covered by a boreal forest 50MM years ago. During the Cretaceous Albian period there were volcanoes in NE Alberta and W Sask. Their "pipes" are host to diamond deposits now. These islands have not changed latitude. The Pleistocene glaciers scraped over 3000 ft. off parts of Alberta. Glaciology, geochemistry, paleontology, mineralogy, paloeclimatology, geomorphology, sedimentology, paleomagnetics, and many other specialized fields are parts of geology. The planet we think of as being static from our limited human perspective is very far from it.

 

 

Nice post.

 

People like to pick on Geologists as being incapable of commenting on the geological temperature record and yet it appears it only pertains to geologists that DON'T agree with the current man made global warming threat theory.

**********************************************************

This is an IPCC recent study....

 

10,257 people with some interest in climate were approached. Not sure where they picked the group from.

 

of which

 

15.5% were geochemists

12% were geophysicists

10.5% were oceanographers

5-7% were geologist, paleogeolgists, hydrogeologists

5% were climatologists. Just to be clear you are relying on 51 people to spend Billions of your tax dollars...

balance were anyone else on their list...

 

greater than 50% were actively doing work on climate research which is interesting since nowhere could I find how they derived their statistical sample. For instance (and I am not elluding this to be the case just something a scientist should ask)...is the study sample biased? Did the list of names come from the IPCC or was it a random mail out to anyone with a masters or Ph.D. in an accredited University? If for instance this survey was sent to only those doing research or affililated with research trying to prove global warming then you would skew the results. Again...I am not saying this occurred...but surveys have to be taken carefully. Understanding only 5% were climatologists and I would not hesitate to assume that all 5% are being paid currently to study global warming...what else could they say? If their convictions fall in that direction it is only logical.

 

anyways of the 10,257 people surveyed...30.7% responded to some degree. I feel that is a good response rate for any survey.

 

One thing that I read was that many scientists that know their own field well would say they see no evidence in their data for global warming. They still however say that since colleges in other areas see evidence then they believe it also. That peer acceptance has some startling flaws insofar as while one side refutes it...they ignore it to follow the masses. If everyone just assumes everyone else believes it then we perpetuate that feeling over and over again...potentially falsely so.

 

As for how many climatologists are out there... ? From what I can see 157 people are driving the ship right now.

 

If 157 doctors around the world said something radical...would people really jump on board to have a dangerous unproven operation this quickly?

[snuffy]

I'm glad someone pointed out the ad hominums. The truth of an argument has nothing to do who's making it.

 

Regarding the poll, it's interesting for what it is, but what is that? I would wager that noone here knows anything more about the field of climatology than I do about seismic interpretation, namely nothing (though I like the pencil crayons). As technology makes us ever more specialized, perhaps we need to accept that are certain subjects on which our opinions are unqualified.

 

Which brings us full circle to the climate change debate and hating on science that's raging on pretty much every active thread on this board. It comes down to the credibility of your sources and this is where I lose the tune because the choice is a stark one. One the one hand, you have the peer-reviewed literature in its entirety, and on the other you have the Glenn Becks and random bloggers who's claims are not subject to any kind of scrutiny. It seems to me that you'd have to be pretty desparate to believe the later over the former.

 

Sundance - you keep claiming, in various ways, that the scientific community is a monolithic bloc united by politics and who's findings derive from such politics. But you're contradicting yourself, because, as your friend told you, science is a viciously competitive, backstabbing field. Given this, your claim is comparable to the GWB 911 conspiracy theory. If some post-doc out there, having just finished 5 years of 60+ hour weeks @24K/year to get his degree and now making the king's randsom of 40K, could make a name, and possibly a wage, for himself by blowing the whistle on this grand conspiracy, he would.

 

 

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I'm glad someone pointed out the ad hominums. The truth of an argument has nothing to do who's making it.

 

Regarding the poll, it's interesting for what it is, but what is that? I would wager that noone here knows anything more about the field of climatology than I do about seismic interpretation, namely nothing (though I like the pencil crayons). As technology makes us ever more specialized, perhaps we need to accept that are certain subjects on which our opinions are unqualified.

 

Which brings us full circle to the climate change debate and hating on science that's raging on pretty much every active thread on this board. It comes down to the credibility of your sources and this is where I lose the tune because the choice is a stark one. One the one hand, you have the peer-reviewed literature in its entirety, and on the other you have the Glenn Becks and random bloggers who's claims are not subject to any kind of scrutiny. It seems to me that you'd have to be pretty desparate to believe the later over the former.

 

Sundance - you keep claiming, in various ways, that the scientific community is a monolithic bloc united by politics and who's findings derive from such politics. But you're contradicting yourself, because, as your friend told you, science is a viciously competitive, backstabbing field. Given this, your claim is comparable to the GWB 911 conspiracy theory. If some post-doc out there, having just finished 5 years of 60+ hour weeks @24K/year to get his degree and now making the king's randsom of 40K, could make a name, and possibly a wage, for himself by blowing the whistle on this grand conspiracy, he would.

 

My poll...for what it is worth shows that the issue is still very much seen as undecided versus proven. It is the people that end up agreeing to a policy or plan and the people have to buy into it. That is the basis of our political system. In the absense or suppression of debate and contrary thought and opinion, the media can definitely have an impact in popular opinion. In the end we just have to hope there is strong contrary opinions and debate to ensure we flush out the truth and facts.

 

The climate gate emails shows the suppression in the system, the systematic attempts to repell those with contrarian opinions via black listing them from publishing in specific Journals, peer pressure, denying access to raw data etc. Ask any scientist if denying access to raw data to confirm another scientists findings is ok.

 

In the absense of this huge problem...if other scientists could not find credible reasons to argue against global warming theory and we had the debate out in the open and not suppressed then we could be way more confident real science had been done correctly.

 

 

I have not contradicted myself and I don't need to go back and look myself but please tell me specifically where in case I had a typo. What my buddy said is that in certain fields and at certain levels there is intense pressure for funding and politics abound in sometimes getting that funding. Money affects many aspects of our lives and scientists are not immune.

 

Insofar as global warming is concerned and conspiracies...well the emails prove it. As for other fields...my friend says it happens elsewhere also. He also said this is a relatively new problem in academia. Politics follows power IMHO. Scientists that are studying something that is at the forefront of research or innovation can often find themselve embroiled in politics.

 

I am not sure how old you are snuffy but a great comparison is working at a company. When inexperienced and eyes wide open and taking the whole world in often the subtle yet important things going on around us gets missed. Nuances of character, interactions with others, what you are working on compared to what others are doing, who you know, what you say, when you get into work and when you leave...etc... all work in somewhat seemingly magical and secret ways to move people up the ladder faster than others. If you don't know the game is even being played...you are oblivious. If you play and play incorrectly you get fired. If you play and play nasty you will burn bridges. If you play, play well, get lucky...etc. you can move fast. If the stakes are high...like tens of millions of dollars in grants, research funding, political favortism, higher esteem in your profession...people can get nasty right out of the shoot. Please note I have not said every where this happens...not all scientists are lumped together...but rather certain groups...in certain fields...can get nasty!

 

I hope that you never run into this problem but still end up working on exciting areas of research!

 

Hope that answers your questions.

 

Merry Christmas all.

 

Sun

[calkid75]

Question: Does anyone actually believe that any action agreed to internationally will actually make a difference?

 

I know I don't as I don't think that at this point the world could make enough changes to effect the future if man actually did cause global warming, and secondly I think that the changes are far beyond man's control.

 

I would like to hear other views though as I don't currently understand where someone is coming from if they believe man will actually change this, or can.

 

Guy

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Question: Does anyone actually believe that any action agreed to internationally will actually make a difference?

 

I know I don't as I don't think that at this point the world could make enough changes to effect the future if man actually did cause global warming, and secondly I think that the changes are far beyond man's control.

 

I would like to hear other views though as I don't currently understand where someone is coming from if they believe man will actually change this, or can.

 

Guy

 

I am not sure what they mean by legally binding. Can Uganda sue us? What is the punishment for not meeting targets? Do we pay someone...lose trade...what?

 

Can someone answer that for me? Much appreciated.

[wtforward]

Sun

 

From one of the most prestigious science journals (the other day)

that some people access daily "The Calgary Sun" I see that AP

has done a review of said e-mails (some million words I think)

and found nothing substantially erroneous to discredit the current

science findings. Does that count for nothing ? Maybe they are part

of the conspiracy too. As to geologists weighing in on climate change matters;

that is fine, everyone has an opinion but I think it gets a little

dangerous when we go to the ear/nose and throat guy for a

brain tumor. But hey they are both doctors and practice medicine.

You should be ok.

 

PS Have you read the book yet ? Wanna borrow my copy...seriously ?

The great thing about the book is that you can read it as a fiction if you like.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sun

 

From one of the most prestigious science journals (the other day)

that some people access daily "The Calgary Sun" I see that AP

has done a review of said e-mails (some million words I think)

and found nothing substantially erroneous to discredit the current

science findings. Does that count for nothing ? Maybe they are part

of the conspiracy too. As to geologists weighing in on climate change matters;

that is fine, everyone has an opinion but I think it gets a little

dangerous when we go to the ear/nose and throat guy for a

brain tumor. But hey they are both doctors and practice medicine.

You should be ok.

 

PS Have you read the book yet ? Wanna borrow my copy...seriously ?

The great thing about the book is that you can read it as a fiction if you like.

 

Arguing that has grown stale for both of us. Clearly there are lots of information on the web right now that clearly shows issues are present. Quoting specific emails does nothing to the debate.

 

My only final comment is that with this press...hopefully data sharing and contrary opinion will be allowed in the process.

 

Then and only then will I decide one way or another. As I mentioned...while I lean to the no side...I can quickly move to the yes side.

 

As for books. Have you read "the Deniers" yet? You might think he took a side in the book...but he did not.

 

Cheers

[reevesr1]

Bob,

I usually read most of what is put up on this subject. In reality, due to the skeptic nature of some on this board, I probably read more on the "I don't believe it" side of things. The first link was interesting. What would be more interesting however would be if someone could tell me what the last 100 yrs would look like in the absence of man made CO2. Impossible question, but just because we can increase the time scale and make the temperature change appear to be meaningless in no way makes it meaningless. (and of course the corollary is just because it appears meaningful does not make it meaningful)

 

To the second link, I didn't watch. When their title starts off with telling me how I've been misled by the nefarious group of politicians, activist scientists (funny how a scientist is only an activist when he disagrees with the person calling him an activist) and environmentalists, I pretty rapidly lost interest. Didn't sound to me like they were keeping an open mind, as you caution us to do. That and the website looked like crap. I know, not a legit reason for not reading, but I'm pretty busy. Break over.