It is quite arrogant to believe that man has no contribution towards global warming Since even the petroleum geologists here admit they do not know the cause of global warming, then why the rush to dismiss any anthropogenic causes. My view is that the environment was in a relatively stable balance for 30,000 years. There were sufficient natural carbon sinks to offset the production of carbon emissions. Then with the advent of the industrial age, the production of human caused carbon emissions substantially increased, and has subsequently grown exponentially. These are proven facts, not supposition. This, along with the destruction of natural carbon sinks and the lack of creation of carbon sinks to offset the human production of carbon emissions has created an imbalance. The argument that the amount of human caused carbon emissions is substantially small compared to naturally occurring emissions fails to appreciate two points. 1) The naturally occurring carbon emissions were in substantial equilibrium until relatively recently with natural carbon sinks. It is the exponential growth of human caused carbon emissions that has lead to an imbalance. 2) carbon emissions are retained in the atmosphere for centuries, with at least 25 percent staying forever. Archer, D. The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate (Princeton Univ. Press, 2008).
So even if humans are only contributing 5% per year, that is rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. One simplistic example would be if you had a balancing scale that was initially even. If you continue to add even a small amount at periodic intervals, eventually you would have a substantial imbalance. This is what is presently occurring. It is my belief, that:
1) global warming is occurring.
2) global warming is at least a partial result of carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases.
3) that man does contribute to the production of carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases
Those are all indisputable.
The remainder are my opinions based on serious review of studies done by recognized experts in the field of climatology.
4) That the only element that we can control is the contribution of carbon emissions by man, as well as the increase in carbon sinks to offset those emissions.
5) That the failure to take action will have irreparable damage to the future of mankind.
What I hope to find out is:
6) the cost of reducing those emissions sufficiently to reduce the damage balanced against the cost of failing to take proper action
There are a number of impressive studies being done by climatologists, by economists, by experts in every field imaginable, even by national security agencies that are trying to quantify the economic and social disruptions that could be caused by global warming along with the likelihood of those disruptions occurring. I encourage others to take the time to review these before ginning up "facts" to push their political leanings on this important issue.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: It is quite arrogant to believe that man has no contribution towards global warming Since even the petroleum geologists here admit they do not know the cause of global warming, then why the rush to dismiss any anthropogenic causes. My view is that the environment was in a relatively stable balance for 30,000 years.
Well, we did have an ice age which peaked about 20,000 years ago and lasted until about 8,000 years ago. So I wouldn't say the environment has been in a stable balance.
Humans were around back then. Imagine if their societies were as advanced as we are now? As the ice sheets receded, sea levels rose nearly 400 ft. The increasing temperatures wiped out many species. I wonder how panicked they'd be about the changes and if they felt the conditions back then were the ideal ones for human life?
Anyway, it's not that I disagree that humans contribute to current global warming. But we've already existed and survived through a whole lot of it.
@Dog You can talk about arrogance all you wish. Clinging to anthropomorphic causes reflects either ignorance of the real science or egotistical thinking on your part. Judging from what you wrote it is ignorance. So let me enlighten you. One of the reasons petroleum geologists take a dim view of AGW is because we deal with sea level problems and their driving mechanisms every day. There are distinct patterns of sea level changes recorded in the stratigraphic record. These patterns are intimately linked to the biotic productivity in marine ecosystems that are in turn driven by climate changes. Those changes have varying amplitudes. Small scale cycles frequently display a Malenkovich periodicity of around 100,000 years, a periodicity that ties to astrophysical motions and processes. Oil geologist have spent the past 30+ years studying the cyclical nature of the stratigraphic record and the processes that control them. It's done not with some ludicrous idea of dismissing global warming or from some asinine perspective that we have a vested interest in doing so. Instead, our research focus is on trying to use the cyclcity as a tool for reconstructing subsurface geologic relationships. My own research focuses on the cyclcity observed in natural gamma radiation, specifically uranium that is fixed in the marine environment by sorption to organic matter. Turns out that variations in organic matter and the amount of uranium fixed by it is a proxy for marine productivity, so once again we are back to trying to elucidate the causes of said periodicity. . What we see is a repetition of conditions alternating between icehouse and greenhouse worlds. None of which was driven by egotistical man. If that makes us arrogant. So be it. From my perspective, oil geologists compared to climatologists have decades of more experience addressing and trying to understand the flux of global sea level and climatic changes. The problem is it is not politically sexy nor can a host of others make money off of our work as can the AGW crowd.
Why is it that we should trust AWG predictions but when predictions fall flat like all the hurricanes we were suppose to have since Katrina, we should not even question or debate even further? I wish this wasn't driven by politics, we would get much more honest information.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
CynicalBill wrote: Why is it that we should trust AWG predictions but when predictions fall flat like all the hurricanes we were suppose to have since Katrina, we should not even question or debate even further? I wish this wasn't driven by politics, we would get much more honest information.
And it is in the political arena that science gets lost and some scientists become corrupted. Like natural systems, there are checks and balances in the scientific community. Frauds and dishonest science is strongly discouraged and such scientists are simply ostracized. This is not to say that there is ready acceptance of wild ass ideas even if based on sound science. But ridicule of such ideas or outright dismissal fuels scientific intensity, meaning checking to see if criticism has validity or if a lanced theory suffers an agonizing death. OK, got to get back to writing on my various manuscripts.
From my perspective - the climate models utilized by the doom-sayers have so much variance in them, the predictions are less-than-robust.
Statistical models generate predictions. It's a good idea to test the predictions against reality, and figure out the proportion of variance explained by the model.
For me - the activists are prescribing dramatic measures based on models that while suggestive - are hardly conclusive.
Politics has really corrupted the application of climate models.
CynicalBill wrote: Why is it that we should trust AWG predictions but when predictions fall flat like all the hurricanes we were suppose to have since Katrina, we should not even question or debate even further? I wish this wasn't driven by politics, we would get much more honest information.
Big difference between meterology and climatology.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Rockdoc Franz wrote: @Dog You can talk about arrogance all you wish. Clinging to anthropomorphic causes reflects either ignorance of the real science or egotistical thinking on your part. Judging from what you wrote it is ignorance. So let me enlighten you. One of the reasons petroleum geologists take a dim view of AGW is because we deal with sea level problems and their driving mechanisms every day. There are distinct patterns of sea level changes recorded in the stratigraphic record. These patterns are intimately linked to the biotic productivity in marine ecosystems that are in turn driven by climate changes. Those changes have varying amplitudes. Small scale cycles frequently display a Malenkovich periodicity of around 100,000 years, a periodicity that ties to astrophysical motions and processes. Oil geologist have spent the past 30+ years studying the cyclical nature of the stratigraphic record and the processes that control them. It's done not with some ludicrous idea of dismissing global warming or from some asinine perspective that we have a vested interest in doing so. Instead, our research focus is on trying to use the cyclcity as a tool for reconstructing subsurface geologic relationships. My own research focuses on the cyclcity observed in natural gamma radiation, specifically uranium that is fixed in the marine environment by sorption to organic matter. Turns out that variations in organic matter and the amount of uranium fixed by it is a proxy for marine productivity, so once again we are back to trying to elucidate the causes of said periodicity. . What we see is a repetition of conditions alternating between icehouse and greenhouse worlds. None of which was driven by egotistical man. If that makes us arrogant. So be it. From my perspective, oil geologists compared to climatologists have decades of more experience addressing and trying to understand the flux of global sea level and climatic changes. The problem is it is not politically sexy nor can a host of others make money off of our work as can the AGW crowd.
So you dismiss the concept of that the anthropogenic contributions to carbon emissions based entirely on historical concepts of past cyclycity. Yes, I find that arrogant. That you impugn the motives of thousands of credible scientists as making "money off of our work as can the AGW crowd", while you, as a petroleum geologist have motives as pure as the driven snow in discrediting the idea that exploitation of fossil fuels can have a contribution to climate change is entirely hubris. I further find it arrogant that you actually believe that petroleum geologists have a better grasp on the science of climatology than those who have dedicated their research lives into understanding the complexity of those issues affecting the climate.
I at least have an open mind and am willing to continue to become better informed on these and other issues.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Rockdoc Franz wrote: @Dog You can talk about arrogance all you wish. Clinging to anthropomorphic causes reflects either ignorance of the real science or egotistical thinking on your part. Judging from what you wrote it is ignorance. So let me enlighten you. One of the reasons petroleum geologists take a dim view of AGW is because we deal with sea level problems and their driving mechanisms every day. There are distinct patterns of sea level changes recorded in the stratigraphic record. These patterns are intimately linked to the biotic productivity in marine ecosystems that are in turn driven by climate changes. Those changes have varying amplitudes. Small scale cycles frequently display a Malenkovich periodicity of around 100,000 years, a periodicity that ties to astrophysical motions and processes. Oil geologist have spent the past 30+ years studying the cyclical nature of the stratigraphic record and the processes that control them. It's done not with some ludicrous idea of dismissing global warming or from some asinine perspective that we have a vested interest in doing so. Instead, our research focus is on trying to use the cyclcity as a tool for reconstructing subsurface geologic relationships. My own research focuses on the cyclcity observed in natural gamma radiation, specifically uranium that is fixed in the marine environment by sorption to organic matter. Turns out that variations in organic matter and the amount of uranium fixed by it is a proxy for marine productivity, so once again we are back to trying to elucidate the causes of said periodicity. . What we see is a repetition of conditions alternating between icehouse and greenhouse worlds. None of which was driven by egotistical man. If that makes us arrogant. So be it. From my perspective, oil geologists compared to climatologists have decades of more experience addressing and trying to understand the flux of global sea level and climatic changes. The problem is it is not politically sexy nor can a host of others make money off of our work as can the AGW crowd.
The open mind of a closed bear trap.
So you dismiss the concept of that the anthropogenic contributions to carbon emissions based entirely on historical concepts of past cyclycity. Yes, I find that arrogant. That you impugn the motives of thousands of credible scientists as making "money off of our work as can the AGW crowd", while you, as a petroleum geologist have motives as pure as the driven snow in discrediting the idea that exploitation of fossil fuels can have a contribution to climate change is entirely hubris. I further find it arrogant that you actually believe that petroleum geologists have a better grasp on the science of climatology than those who have dedicated their research lives into understanding the complexity of those issues affecting the climate.
I at least have an open mind and am willing to continue to become better informed on these and other issues.
