obviously english must be your second language....what I said was CO2 makes up 3% of the total greenhouse gases currently....water vapor is the largest. The amount of CO2 from people sources is miniscule. This is published information twit. As I said I give the references in another thread somewhere here.



No actually I have a Ph.D., background in organic chemistry, geology and rock physics. And unlike you I have read the original literature and not someones interpretation. As well I realize the limits to models....they require that you have taken into account all the variables and all possible interactions...since we do not know what all these are (there are new hypotheses pretty much every month in various journals).


well before you put pen to paper perhaps you should do some research. Modelling water vapor is extremely difficult....they haven't quite figured it out yet. Again look at the references I supplied elsewhere.
It is a very well known fact that IPCC is controlled by politicians...there are a number of cases where the scientists involved in the original study have written complaints to the IPCC because of the distortions.

It would make Peak Oil alone look like a bagatel. Child's play.
If we lose the Gulf Stream, or even see it weaken substantially, then all bets are off.

What Hadleigh isn't yet talking about publicly is several critical factors, of which one is that "Stabilization" is not an option.

The reason I say this, and have written as much in New Scientist, is that there are a wide range of positive feedback loops that are, for the most part, unlocking natural stores of carbon as a result of Warming/ Climate Destabilization/ Sea Level Rise/ Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Concentration, and are releasing it to the atmosphere.

This is an iterative process driven firstly off our past exponential growth of fossil fuel emissions, and then interactively anong the various outputs.

The key question is not how soon the feedbacks could accelerate Warming to the point of shutting down the Gulf Stream, but how soon they will add sufficient annual carbon emissions to the atmosphere to swamp the planet's natural sinks, that now take out between 25 & 40% of our output each year.

If the sinks get swamped, then even halting global fossil fuel combustion would be to no avail, as the feedbacks would then be wholly self-fuelling and behond any human intervention.

The need for action, of a form that will endure the coming stresses, simply cannot be overstated.


regards,

Backstop.

PS.

If the above depresses people then they'd better get used to it, as this information is becoming ever more widely available. But depressing people is far from my intention. I'm looking for those with the spark to face the issue and to dedicate themselves to its resolution.

So drop me a line . . .

Rocdot - Here is what is written overleaf for all to see.

Your attempt brazenly to misquote me so as to build a petty critique on that in order to ignore the facts that are inconvenient to you, is on a par with your earlier diatribe.

This dialogue is at an end as there is plainly no point in its continuance.

Backstop

The problem with the Hadley Had3CCM model (as any kind of coupled model) is that there is no easy way for them to locate from first principles (i.e. fine grid models) the bifurcation points that lead to various flow patterns of the thermohaline currents. They were very upfront in that particular publication ... they have no way of predicting the particular combination of events that will lead to a shut-off. Hence they jump-start their model into a shut-down and watch the sequence of events unfold. Obviously this is not of value in predicting WHEN this will happen, but of immense importance to understand the global sequences of a thermohaline shut down.I did notice that some of the models that look into thermohaline shut downs DO point out that the rate of rise is paramount. Slow rises at the same level over the longer periods of time are well tolerated.

Regarding the positive feedback cycles: my understanding is that the methane-hydrate reservoirs are not explicitly modelled. It would be "fun" (not really) to see if there is a point in the simulations when a methane burp leads to a hyper-accelerated phase of global warming. If the particular instability is built into the climate system and is close to the GS shut-off threshold ... then there is no way of knowing how the climate will evolve globally (well massive die off is for certain though).

Have to say though that climate modeling beats the hell out of our petty models of biochemical networks in cells
Backstop: I noticed that the Oceanographic Dpt in Hawai have looked into the possible impact of massive deployment of OTEC plants in the thermohaline circulation (and have said that they can sustain a 2TW production over a long periods of time) but did not make the connection with climate stability or instability. Has anyone really looked into possible (maybe even positive) ways to influence this current with OTEC plantships? Maybe even stimulate marine photosynthesis, generate electricity and sequester a few tons of carbon on the way?

It now appears that greenhouse gases are important after all, but not CO2. Its methane. Take a look at this:

Evolutionary Accident Probably Caused The Worst Snowball Earth Episode




http://www.physorg.com/news5576.html

Sigh. So anyone who questions the validity of current GW models is naive, or a 'loony fundamentalist'?

I find it interesting that peak oil does seem to attract people who immediately accept models that predict future destruction, and dismiss models that do not predict this. Why should that be?

The fact remains that we've had global cooling even relatively recently - 'the little ice age'. Plus, southern britain used to be like the mediterranean. Therefore, climate change and global warming have happened before - with no human input at all. if GW is caused simply by man releasing co2 into the atmosphere, then how can this be explained?

It is obviously caused by other factors then. So why all the concentration on just co2 emissions? It may be that co2 emissions contribute to GW, but it may be that this contribution is so tiny, that there is no point worrying about it. There is evidence to suggest that GW is caused simply by our sun giving off more energy - which it does in cycles, and its currently in a very 'hot' part of a cycle. Increased solar radiation would have a far larger effect on the climate than co2.

I thought folk on peak oil were supposed to be open to all ideas? Im challenging the accepted theory that humans releasing co2 is the only factor causing GW. Im saying it may play a small part in GW, but that GW is a natural process that happens from time to time, with nothing that can be done about it - so lets not waste money and time with co2 controls.

The "accepted" theory took a long time to be accepted. The first reaction to most people to global warming was exactly like yours: we know the Earth's temperature has changed in the past, surely our input isn't a big influence in all this? It has taken a long time for scientists to put together convincing proof that our input does have a significant influence. You are still dismissing their proof, without having looked at it.

Here's a quote someone once said to me:

"Creationism is science, evolution is not."

Hmmmmm perhaps... but I'm going love it when global warming kicks our prissy air conditioned bumms and there are massive die offs. Of course you know they'll say "god's punishing us for our sins" then go drive away in their SUV's. The only sin being committed is that upon our planet. You know how it's rude when a guest comes into your home, trashes it, then leaves? Humans are the guests, and we're trashing the home. I hope mother nature comes back and kicks our ass. We deserve it.

Energy Spin -

re Hadley, I'd agree that the problem of hard prediction is one of the impossibility of predicting the actual butterfly's wing - i.e. the initial conditions, from which shut down would occur. Particularly in view of the probability of a myriad such potent butterflies being on standby.

The identification of a critical rate of warming over a given period looks a more promising line of enquiry, but this too has major limitations, not least in the real-world probability of feedbacks and 'parasol-decline' greatly affecting the rate of warming. Some feedbacks have of course been very steady, such as DOC coming out of peat bogs since the early '60s (off ~320ppmv) that has risen at 6%pa and would equal our present CO2 output by ~2060 if CO2 concentrations continued to rise steadily.

Yet in one sense I'd almost urge scientists to strike and refuse govt.s any further information unless they initiate direct cogent action on the issue. Look at it this way, if we gave GW a territory, an expansionist ideology, a flag and a few rusty old tanks, can you imagine how fast the West would be gearing up to deal with it ?

With regard to OTEC I'd be very wary for a number of reasons, including:

a huge lack of confidence in predictions of the outcomes on marine dynamics of such large-scale interventions,
the diversion of major fractions of investment from sustainable energy development, and
the lack of any firmly identifiable social or ecological benefits beyond fossil CO2 displacement & possible net sequestration.

Personally I'd rather see the planet largely reforested with appropriate native coppice species as a feedstock for methanol > fuel cells. But that's another matter . . .

regards,

Backstop

I'm with linlithgoil ......global warming discussions seem to lack any appreciation for serious scientific debate. Many of the folks here have jumped on the "humans are causing global warming" bandwagon without critically analyzing any of the arguments. The minute we point out inconsistencies in the the arguments put forward the immediate response is character assasination (eg: oh you must work for an oil company...you just have your head in the sand). Nothing could be further from the truth in my case.....my mission is to make sure that the facts are analyzed and not opinions. Comments such as "scientists all agree" or the "general concensus is" get my dander up....they don't agree and there is no general concensus.

In terms of CO2 we have to realize that although CO2 levels have increased in the past 40 years they are actually quite low on a historical basis if you look back several hundred million years. In actual fact CO2 levels were orders of magnitude higher in the Ordovician than they are now and low and behold it was a time of continental glaciation. So if CO2 is the main culprit in global warming why didn't all the ice melt? There are also periods where CO2 in the atmosphere was low and temperatures were higher than they are now...paleoclimatologists have largely been ignored when they bring forward these observations.

And again I just want to reiterate the point that predictions of what is going to happen are based on models. Models are generally good approximations if you have an excellent understanding of what all the variables in the equation are and you completely understand all the possible reactions that might occur. Currently we do not and the models have yet to be able to replicate the past temperature history. The following are some quotes from folks who are in the Global Warming camp:



Finally linlithgoil's comment that we should not be spending a lot of time trying to control something we can't has some validity because of the massive amounts of money that are being thrown around. Junkscience has a continually ticking clock where they note that since February of this year when Kyoto came into affect total global spending has been $70 billion US and the predicted affect on temperature of all that spending is 0.0007 degree C! Whether they are accurate or not with regards to the actual temperature change .....don't you think this money could be used for better things? .....development of sustainable food sources for African countries......building medical facillities and schools in the third world.....cancer research etc.

that was a good post rockdoc. it is interesting how many people dismiss the data from ages back that you presented. i dont know why anyone would do this - it is so obvious that CO2 is not the only/sole cause of global warming - we have the data to back that statement up.

so why concentrate only on CO2? Is there some motive behind this? Are governments using CO2 and GW as a smokescreen to prepare for peak oil? No idea, but im definetly a CO2 GW sceptic.

Climate change is a natural part of the earth's and solar system's cycles - it must be - because its happened before at different times with no stimulus from man whatsoever.

I like the discussion questioning the role that CO2 plays in GW. But just to remain unbiased here, I found this:

Fossil Fuels May Decrease Earth's Natural Capacity to Store Carbon



http://www.physorg.com/news5582.html

And this:

Earth ‘losing fight against global warming’



http://www.sundayherald.com/51146

Fallacy. It never happened that fast. Never.

Take a look at my avatar.

Actually it has, in fact faster. From 1879 to 2003 average temperatures rose from 7.42 C to 10.51 C.....from 1695 to 1733 average temperatures rose from 7.25 C to 10.47 C...similar temperature increase in much less time. Note also that the latter time period was one where CO2 levels were at an all time low.