If man is causing global warming then what caused the previous Ice
Ages before the burning of fossil fuels?

I've asked this before but usually only get political jabs at best. I
would think if the GW man-made point of view is solid then someone
should be able to address this question.

If not, then I have my answer.

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
If man is causing global warming then what caused the previous Ice
Ages before the burning of fossil fuels?

I've asked this before but usually only get political jabs at best. I
would think if the GW man-made point of view is solid then someone
should be able to address this question.

It's not a solid question. The anthropogenic effect is one, generally,
of warming. Ice ages are a result, mainly, of cooling. What do you
really want to understand?

In the mean time, which of the following do you disagree with, if any:
There is a greenhouse effect
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over the past
150 years
The source of that increase is human activity
Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms
The global surface temperature record shows the last 20 years to have
been warmer than the previous 100.

If you disagree, what is your scientific basis for disagreement?

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:24:49 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
If man is causing global warming then what caused the previous Ice
Ages before the burning of fossil fuels?

I've asked this before but usually only get political jabs at best. I
would think if the GW man-made point of view is solid then someone
should be able to address this question.

It's not a solid question. The anthropogenic effect is one, generally,
of warming. Ice ages are a result, mainly, of cooling. What do you
really want to understand?

In the mean time, which of the following do you disagree with, if any:
There is a greenhouse effect
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over the past
150 years
The source of that increase is human activity
Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms
The global surface temperature record shows the last 20 years to have
been warmer than the previous 100.

If you disagree, what is your scientific basis for disagreement?

I disagree with the "source of that increase is human activity"
BECAUSE their were not precise enough measuring devices hundreds and
thousands of years ago to compare with today;ALSO more people are
alive today than the periods of time we constantly hear people compare
to today;ALSO fossil fuel burning has a short period of human history.
Am I to believe 200 years has done more than 500K years?
Does anyone care about the orbit changes with the Sun and how this
relates to warming? Is the earth in the exact same orbital path it has
always been in? Is the Sun the same size, shape and power today as it
was hundreds of thousands of years ago?

Talking about fossil fuel burning and ignoring all those other factors
seems like a direct undeniable political agenda. It is no wonder the
experts wish us to dismantle the very things that has made America an
economic giant. This seems too convenient a combination to just be a
chance happening.

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:24:49 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
If man is causing global warming then what caused the previous Ice
Ages before the burning of fossil fuels?

I've asked this before but usually only get political jabs at best. I
would think if the GW man-made point of view is solid then someone
should be able to address this question.

It's not a solid question. The anthropogenic effect is one, generally,
of warming. Ice ages are a result, mainly, of cooling. What do you
really want to understand?

In the mean time, which of the following do you disagree with, if any:
There is a greenhouse effect
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over the past
150 years
The source of that increase is human activity
Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms
The global surface temperature record shows the last 20 years to have
been warmer than the previous 100.

If you disagree, what is your scientific basis for disagreement?

I disagree with the "source of that increase is human activity"
BECAUSE their were not precise enough measuring devices hundreds and
thousands of years ago to compare with today;ALSO more people are
alive today than the periods of time we constantly hear people compare
to today;ALSO fossil fuel burning has a short period of human history.
Am I to believe 200 years has done more than 500K years?

In doing science, I go with believing the things for which we have
data. If 1-6 billion people in an industrial world turn out to have
more effect on the atmosphere in 200 years than a few thousand to million
over the previous 500k years, so be it. But that isn't really the
question at hand. Question at hand is whether the recent rise in
CO2 is from human activity.

The answer, at more length in Jan Schloerer's FAQ "CO2 increase"
hosted at my site, in the scientific literature is yes.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human activity was expected
in 1893 (which is why Arrhenius did his work on CO2-induced climate
change). If you tallied up, even then, the human sources and the
sinks, you found (people then did find) that atmospheric CO2 ought
to rise. Measuring it was difficult, however, and not done reliably
until Keeling in the 1950s.

In the process of doing those observations, establishing that the
source was human activity was also a concern so, isotopic measurements
were made. Prime human activities affecting atmospheric CO2 are
burning fossil fuels -- which are somewhat depleted in carbon-13 and
totally depleted in carbon-14, and making limestone (which has the
same signature). Volcanic CO2 (which is 100 times smaller a source
than human sources) is also depleted in C14, but undepleted
in C13. Biosphere carbon is depleted in C13, but not in C14.

The outcome of the isotopic work is that matching the isotopic
observations requires a source like the human one. Conversely,
should you attempt to reject the human source, you have to find a
sink large enough to magically suck up all the anthropogenic carbon
fast enough to prevent it making the observed shifts in isotopic
levels, and then also invent a new source that would have the same
isotopic effect, and same magnitude, as expected from human activity.


Does anyone care about the orbit changes with the Sun and how this
relates to warming? Is the earth in the exact same orbital path it has
always been in? Is the Sun the same size, shape and power today as it
was hundreds of thousands of years ago?

Talking about fossil fuel burning and ignoring all those other factors
seems like a direct undeniable political agenda.

Just a second ago you were asking whether anybody cared about it,
and now your saying that nobody does. In fact, orbital variations
and solar variations are a standard part of understanding climate
change. Neither of them, however, changes (on its own) the atmospheric
CO2 levels, and it is the latter which is the question at hand.

So, one thing at a time. Do you now agree/understand that
the current CO2 rise is from human activity?

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

(Robert Grumbine) writes:

[his usual excellent discussion of the science at hand. Thanks, Bob.]

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:24:49 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:


[background deleted. Bob Grumbine asks Bob Brown for his opinion on the
following, amongst other questions]

Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over the past
150 years
The source of that increase is human activity

[...]

If you disagree, what is your scientific basis for disagreement?

I disagree with the "source of that increase is human activity"
BECAUSE their were not precise enough measuring devices hundreds and
thousands of years ago to compare with today;ALSO more people are
alive today than the periods of time we constantly hear people compare
to today;ALSO fossil fuel burning has a short period of human history.
Am I to believe 200 years has done more than 500K years?

Bob Brown, as recently as a week or so ago in this group, posed the
question of how much CO2 is produced by humans - not from burning of
fossil fuels, but from breathing. I posted a lengthy discussion of humans
as a carbon store, pointing out that humans today represent a larger
store of carbon than humans hundreds or thousands of year ago. More humans
= more biomass = more carbon stored. Thus, for the purpose of the global
carbon cycle, adding humans represents a sink for atmospheric carbon, not
a source. (The carbon is removed from the atmosphere by plants via
photosynthesis, then we eat the plants, or eat other animals that
ultimately get their carbon from plants. The carbon stays out of the
atmosphere until we die and our biomass decays and CO2 can return to the
atmosphere.)

I haven't seen Bob Brown post a followup to my discussion, but it seem
clear that in the text above he is continuing with the belief that human
breathing is a factor in the observed atmospheric CO2 rise.

So, don't hold your breath (pun intended) that anything you say
(regardless of how well supported by evidence) will change Bob Brown's
mind.

[remainder of Bob Grumbine's post deleted. Read the original - it's
worth it.]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:42:28 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

So, one thing at a time. Do you now agree/understand that
the current CO2 rise is from human activity?

I am unable to agree since their are no charted data on CO2 or Temps
dating back far enough for comparisons.
I know ice core samples have been taken and they sample the air within
the bubbles. However, the bubble samples from 100 years ago do not
always match the known recorded samples that were done by people.

So, how can we rely on these estimates when the 50-100 year
comparisons are not very accurate.

EXAMPLE: Ice core sample is taken from 50 years ago. It is compared to
known values 50 years ago. They do not match. They are retested
several times and still do not match. If that example cannot prove
accuracy of samples then how could we possibly make assumptions of
thousands of years ago with these core samples?

I WANT to believe this, I really do want to believe everything about
Global Warming as being true. It's just that it seems people are
saying to me "don't question it, just believe it or else', it's the
preachy technique that I think is causing people to question these
findings.

On 28 Jan 2007 11:58:06 -0600, D Smith wrote:

I haven't seen Bob Brown post a followup to my discussion, but it seem
clear that in the text above he is continuing with the belief that human
breathing is a factor in the observed atmospheric CO2 rise.

So, don't hold your breath (pun intended) that anything you say
(regardless of how well supported by evidence) will change Bob Brown's
mind.

You explained it to me. What did you want me to reply with?
I asked the question, you explained it. Why would you expect me to
reply to something that was explained very well?

Were you just expecting an "ok, thanks" or were you expecting me to
say something that you, or others, could point out as being false?

What is the problem with me asking questions?

I would think that if you wanted more people to get on the man-made
cause explanation side of GW that you, and others, would WELCOME
questions?

I was sincere in my questions, those before and after.


If you, or anyone else, wants me on the right side of the science then
please inform me as best you can. What better way to win me over to
your side then with facts?

I never had any issues with GW. GW is real. My only issue was with
what causes/caused it to happen. My problem was/is with the part where
people say man has caused it to happen.

I am being sincere in my questions and comments. I am not a climate
scientists NOR do I wish anyone to think I am trying prove that I know
more than anyone else.

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:42:28 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

So, one thing at a time. Do you now agree/understand that
the current CO2 rise is from human activity?

I am unable to agree since their are no charted data on CO2 or Temps
dating back far enough for comparisons.

One thing at a time. Temperature records have nothing to do
with the sources of CO2 in the atmosphere. (I hope you can
agree to that.)

Nor is it essential to know the entire history of CO2 in
the atmosphere for the past 700 ky (much less the 4.5 billion
years some demand) in order to see that the last 200 years worth
of change are from human activity. This is no different than
being able to tell that someone is getting richer because of
a new job just by tracking his current income(s) and outgoes.
The prehistory isn't required to understand his current account
balance.

The CO2 case is much easier, because the carbon carries
tags as to its source. Unlike dollars which are all dollars,
carbon is fingerprinted as to whether it came from human activity,
volcanoes, biosphere, ocean, ... Those fingerprints show (in the
papers cited in the FAQ mentioned last time around) that
the source of the last 200 years increase is human activity.


I know ice core samples have been taken and they sample the air within
the bubbles. However, the bubble samples from 100 years ago do not
always match the known recorded samples that were done by people.

Ice cores are interesting, but are not required to establish
that the last 200 years' increase in CO2 is from human activity.
Again, one thing at a time.

[snip]

I WANT to believe this, I really do want to believe everything about
Global Warming as being true. It's just that it seems people are
saying to me "don't question it, just believe it or else', it's the
preachy technique that I think is causing people to question these
findings.

Why should you believe _everything_ that _everybody_ says about
global warming? I don't. Then again, there are a lot of people
saying a lot of things, many mutually contradictory, so that it is
impossible to believe _everybody_.


Again, that's not what is at hand. I listed off a few extremely
elementary points (to the extent that anything is elementary regarding
climate, these things are). As I expected, you don't (yet) understand
one of them -- how it is that it is true, and how we know that it
is the case. No problem on its own. Nobody knows everything. At
this point, you could:
* Take my word as gospel -- which I strongly disrecommend
* Read Jan's FAQ (or the equivalent IPCC section, but I think Jan's
is better written for nonprofessionals) and ask questions as needed
to reach understanding. -- this would be better
* Read Jan's FAQ and track down a number of citations he makes to
the scientific literature to make sure that he represents it correctly,
and to see how strong the conclusions are. -- this would be best
* From a different line, find scientific (not blogs, industry web sites,
etc., though some of those may point you to useful scientific literature)
literature which raises valid scientific questions to the current
rise being due to human activity. (Note that quibbles about it
being 90% vs. 100% are just quibbles -- some such quibbles have been
played by the denialist blogosphere as being total denials, which is
why I don't recommend this route.) -- this is probably not a very
good route, as there is much more smoke than fire here.

... and probably some other options.
But haring off on extraneous issues (human population 500 kya,
temperature records, ice cores, ...) is not one of them if you're
trying to have a scientific discussion regarding, at the moment,
whether the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past 200 years was due
to human activity.

Note that this one thing at a time cuts both ways. If the
topic at hand is the fact that atmospheric CO2 rise over the past
200 years was due to human activity, I don't get to (I wouldn't anyhow,
but you don't really know me) take your agreement on this point
to turn around and crow that you've agreed that every bit of bad
weather in the last 50 years is your fault personally, etc., etc.
(This isn't true, so you have even less to worry about.)

So take some time to read Jan's FAQ (or others which cite the
scientific literature), follow up some of the points into the
scientific literature, and digest it all. This isn't the work of
a few minutes. On the other hand, if you want to honestly disagree
with things which are well-established in the scientific literature,
you do need to invest the extra time.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Bob Brown . writes:

On 28 Jan 2007 11:58:06 -0600, D Smith wrote:

I haven't seen Bob Brown post a followup to my discussion, but it seem
clear that in the text above he is continuing with the belief that human
breathing is a factor in the observed atmospheric CO2 rise.

So, don't hold your breath (pun intended) that anything you say
(regardless of how well supported by evidence) will change Bob Brown's
mind.

You explained it to me. What did you want me to reply with?
I asked the question, you explained it. Why would you expect me to
reply to something that was explained very well?

Didn't necessarily expect a reply.

Were you just expecting an "ok, thanks"

That would have been polite.

or were you expecting me to
say something that you, or others, could point out as being false?

Well, after reading a bunch more of your posts over the past week, that
is something I think is probably quite likely, whether it is on this
subject or another.

What is the problem with me asking questions?

Nothing, if you are truly interested in answers. If they are rhetorical
questions, and you have no intention of listening to replies (especially
ones that disagree with you), then the problem is a refusal to discuss
things honestly on your part.

After all, your orignal post on the subject made a big thing about how
you didn't think anyone would answer your questions. Your exact words were
"I doubt anyone will answer my questions because you're [sic] assumption
is I want to poke holes in the MAN MADE global warming theory."

That makes it look like you've already made up your mind, that you
think you know it all, and there isn't anything anyone can say that will
change your mind. Your complete silence on the issue afterwards is
suggestive of this also. You started off with a rather confrontational
post, and then at the first sign of disagreement you disappeared (from
that particular thread). That's not a way to win friends and influence
people.


I would think that if you wanted more people to get on the man-made
cause explanation side of GW that you, and others, would WELCOME
questions?

Even more than questions, we welcome DISCUSSION. That includes such
things as "OK, I see that now, that makes sense. Now, how about...?"

I was sincere in my questions, those before and after.

That's not the way it looks. It looks like you completely ignored the
answer.

If you, or anyone else, wants me on the right side of the science then
please inform me as best you can. What better way to win me over to
your side then with facts?

The vast majority of the onus is on you to inform yourself. This isn't
Sesame Street, where you can learn by just sitting and watching. If you
want people to spend the time taking your questions seriously, then I
strongly suggest that you thank them and tell them when they've said
something that has helped you or made you understand things better. If you
don't close the loop, don't expect people to take you very seriously for
very long. An awful lot of us do this in our spare time, and we'll spend
it as we see fit.

I never had any issues with GW. GW is real. My only issue was with
what causes/caused it to happen. My problem was/is with the part where
people say man has caused it to happen.

So, are you convinced that the current increase in CO2 is from fossil
fuels, as Bob Grumbine has explained? This question is largely independent
of what has happened eons ago, as the methods Bob Grumbine described do
NOT require looking at CO2 levels prior to the current (say, past 50
years) time. Your other post, in reply to Grumbine, makes it look like you
still don't accept his argument, even though you don't point out anything
specifically wrong with it. Instead, you started to talk about periods
well into the past, which are irrelevant to the point Grumbine was making.

After all, if you catch me taking money out of your wallet, the judge
isn't going to ask you to demonstrate an entire history of previous
additions and removals of money from your wallet, for the entire time you
owned it, before I'll be convicted. All you'll need is a reliable witness
to the event of me taking the money out.

Now, to be specific: what is wrong with Grumbine's explanation, which
tells us how we can determine where the RECENT CO2 increase has come from,
regardless of what has caused CO2 changes in the distant past? If you
think his explanation has hidden assumptions about CO2 levels or fluxes
from the past, then what are they?

I am being sincere in my questions and comments. I am not a climate
scientists NOR do I wish anyone to think I am trying prove that I know
more than anyone else.

So, if you now accept my argument that humans breathing (in increasing
numbers) is irrelevant, why do you still post that the number of humans on
earth now compared to some time ago is an issue? Your exact words we

"ALSO more people are alive today than the periods of time we
constantly hear people compare to today"

If this statement is NOT about the amount of CO2 we exhale, then what
is it about? It sure looks like the same thing.

On 28 Jan 2007 18:15:50 -0600, D Smith wrote:

So, are you convinced that the current increase in CO2 is from fossil
fuels, as Bob Grumbine has explained? This question is largely independent
of what has happened eons ago, as the methods Bob Grumbine described do
NOT require looking at CO2 levels prior to the current (say, past 50
years) time. Your other post, in reply to Grumbine, makes it look like you
still don't accept his argument, even though you don't point out anything
specifically wrong with it. Instead, you started to talk about periods
well into the past, which are irrelevant to the point Grumbine was making.

After all, if you catch me taking money out of your wallet, the judge
isn't going to ask you to demonstrate an entire history of previous
additions and removals of money from your wallet, for the entire time you
owned it, before I'll be convicted. All you'll need is a reliable witness
to the event of me taking the money out.

Now, to be specific: what is wrong with Grumbine's explanation, which
tells us how we can determine where the RECENT CO2 increase has come from,
regardless of what has caused CO2 changes in the distant past? If you
think his explanation has hidden assumptions about CO2 levels or fluxes
from the past, then what are they?

I may being doing a poor job of asking this but here goes. My problem
is I will assume CO2 levels in the recent past have increased at
alarming rates. My problem with this is it seems to ignore the levels
of CO2 that existed before the CO2 levels he, or anyone, mentions.

If I can explain it this way: Go back 50K years and see what the
increases and decreases were in CO2. Do those variations mimic the
increases and decreases of CO2 in the recent past?

It just seems that everyone is focused on the "fossil fuel burning
era" of mankind and not looking at any measurements in the past to
compare with current increases.

I try to imagine a human making assumptions based on their first 10
years of life. They would assume that they would one day grow to be 50
feet tall and weigh several thousand pounds. We know, from experience,
that this is not the outcome. But, if all we did was look at brief
samples of history we would make the same mistakes as the 10 year old
child.

Am I explaining this well enough so that I could get a debate going?



I am being sincere in my questions and comments. I am not a climate
scientists NOR do I wish anyone to think I am trying prove that I know
more than anyone else.

So, if you now accept my argument that humans breathing (in increasing
numbers) is irrelevant, why do you still post that the number of humans on
earth now compared to some time ago is an issue? Your exact words we

"ALSO more people are alive today than the periods of time we
constantly hear people compare to today"

If this statement is NOT about the amount of CO2 we exhale, then what
is it about? It sure looks like the same thing.

If I repeated the claim, that you clearly explained to me, then it was
a timing issue. I may have read a reply and replied to it, in a diff
thread, before reading and replying to your explanation to me.

I am sincere in wanting to know more and have some things answered.

My poor writing style and lack of understanding of this issue may make
my points and questions lost in translation a lot of times. I can't
avoid that but will try in the future to be more selective in the way
I ask questions and make points.
thanks