There has been a lot of nonsense written about the lack of much if any warming over the last few years. It's not a new argument -- in fact, I blogged about it here -- but like an axe-wielding psycho from a cheap horror flick, it just keeps coming back.
At times like this, it is always useful to look at the data. The figure below shows the temperature anomalies (relative to the 1961-1991 average) from 1850 to 2007. The data are the Hadley HadCRUT3v analysis.
As you can see, 1998 was an extremely hot year, mainly due to the presence of the biggest El Niño of the 20th century. Depending on which data set you use, 2005 may or may not have been hotter. My guess is that 2005 was basically a statistical tie with 1998. Other years since 1998 have not reached the lofty warmths of 1998 and 2005.
A close look at the plot shows that this situation is not abnormal. In fact, global warming has stopped repeatedly over the last 150 years --- meaning that there are many instances when the temperature reached a maximum that took many years to surpass.
The reason is clear. A warming rate of 3 degrees C per century corresponds to an annual average rate of warming of 0.03 degrees C per year. At the same time, interannual variability, such as El Niño events, are of the order of 1 degree C per year. Thus, over short time scales, the slow upward trend can be completely swamped by the large year-to-year variability.
Over the course of several decades, however, the slow warming trend dominates, and you end up with significant warming. Thus, to determine if global warming is occurring, you have to look at time periods of decades, not years.
What to make of the new climate poll
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
bigTom Posted 9:19 am
02 May 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:26 pm
02 May 2008
Keep chanting Grist:
"Decades not years" -- Yet, they want us to reconfigure the economy over one anomalous year: 1998.
"The science is settled" -- Yet, new models predict cooling, no IPCC scientist "predicted" this in 2004 -- when the science was "settled".
"Consensus" -- So, who wrote that paper in Science magazine? Tobacco company stooges?
Keep chanting...keep hoping. AGW is over!
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
hapa Posted 1:25 pm
02 May 2008
Permalink
human power Posted 4:30 pm
02 May 2008
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:18 pm
02 May 2008
"...There has been a lot of nonsense written about the lack of much if any warming over the last few years... ...but like an axe-wielding psycho from a cheap horror flick, it just keeps coming back. At times like this, it is always useful to look at the data ..." (emphasis added)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) Although some may suggest that GISS data, may be a bit sus' (more on that later), the following is a convenient source of data over the past decade:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
It gives unsmoothed monthly data from GISS for the decade. Without any need to treat it statistically, any neutral person would conclude that this short data span is virtually flat. (A plateau at an average anomaly of ~0.6 C) However, it is possible to use arbitrary techniques in variety to show something different, including what you as an individual would prefer to see. (more on this later)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2) Now let's look at a different Hadley graph @
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
This is an annual bar-chart with the Hadley arbitrary 20-year filtering, (also known as smoothing or trending), given with the blue line which they suggest is the average result of the vertical bars. Unfortunately, there is a computer coding problem with the last ten years of data, (more on that later), but there are some features in this graph, which Dr. Dessler does not indicate
The following link shows a marked-up version of the Hadley graph discussed above
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa ...
You may be surprised to see some of the things that Dr. Dessler failed to mention!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:32 am
03 May 2008
Excellent work Black Wallaby.
That chart reminds me of financial stock charts showing deviation from the "Moving Average" (100 day in finance, 100 year in climate ?).
Maybe instead of a Carbon Exchange we should set up a Climate Exchange.
People can buy and trade in weather trends. The net result would be to buffer the actual temperature with products and services and funding based on the result. Higher temps: more funding for AGWers. Cooler temps: more funding for suburban housing developments.
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:43 am
03 May 2008
A good analogy (Andrew likes these).
It is indeed an imaginary "axe wielding psycho from a cheap horror flick", rather than a reality. Like you tell your kids, "Don't be frightened - it's only a movie." The "axe wielding psycho" only exists in the virtual world of computer models.
But Andrew gives us some sound advice: "At times like this, it is always useful to look at the data."
Now Andrew has not really shown you the "data". He has shown you a curve based on a "smoothing" of the data. But all those thermometers out there do provide the data to look at, and they tell a different story than Andrew's curve.
They tell us that the warming stopped in 1998. Or if you prefer (since 1998 was the all-time high ENSO year), it has stopped since 2001. All four temperature records agree: three (Hadley, UAH, RSS) show a cooling trend, while GISS, the odd man out, shows a flat trend).
And 2008 has started off even cooler, with the WMO predicting that the cooler temperature will continue throughout the year.
Denying an inconvenient fact does not make it go away, Andrew. Global warming has stopped (for now).
What will happen in the future is anyone's guess. The IPCC forecast of 0.2C increase per decade (for the first two decades of the 21st century) has died quietly, with eight slightly cooling years so far.
And the suggested link between CO2 and temperature has become much more tenuous that during the AGW heyday period 1976-1998.
So while AGW aficionados like Andrew are scrambling desperately to fog up the facts and keep the AGW story alive, those thermometers out there (even the ones next to AC exhausts and asphalt parking lots) are telling us: global warming has stopped.
And, as the old saying goes, "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time" (as the blogger response to Andrew's article on this site) shows.
Max
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 4:12 am
03 May 2008
A theory is a theory. We are continually collecting data that will either support the theory or refute.
During my long years in a science career, the more zealous the claims, the more likely there is data missing that provides an important new angle.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:15 am
03 May 2008
This is sound advice. Fortunately, we have a record (Hadley) that goes back to 1850, so that gives us plenty of decades to look at.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
If we follow Andrew's advice, we see that there has been several multidecadal cycles of warming and cooling over the record, with an underlying warming trend of slightly under 1C over the entire 150+ year record.
There were three warming and four cooling cycles:
1850-1858 (8 years), -0.091C/decade; -0.07C cooling over period (part of an earlier cycle?)
1858-1879 (22 years), +0.172C/decade, +0.38C warming over period
1879-1910 (31 years), -0.074C/decade; -0.23C cooling over period
1910-1944 (35 years), +0.150C/decade; +0.53C warming over period
1944-1976 (33 years), -0.013C/decade; -0.04C cooling over period
1976-1998 (23 years), +0.159C/decade; +0.37C warming over period
1998-2008 (10 years) -0.021C/decade; -0.02C cooling over period (beginning of a cooling cycle?)
Over these cycles we had the following increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations:
1850-1858, <1 ppmv increase over period
1858-1879, 2 ppmv
1870-1910, 6 ppmv
1910-1944, 15 ppmv
1944-1976, 23 ppmv
1976-1998, 33 ppmv
1998-2008, 20 ppmv
So we have the most recent warming cycle (1976-1998), which shows warming with increased CO2.
The early 20th century warming cycle shows even more warming with little increase in CO2, while the late 19th century warming cycle shows warming and essentially no increase in CO2.
The mid-century cooling cycle shows slight cooling with significant increase in CO2, while the latest decade (beginning of a new cycle?) shows slight cooling with a very high rate of increase in CO2.
The only cycle that really fits the AGW theory is the period 1976-1998. This has been the AGW "poster" period. It has been used to "sell" the story.
No wonder that earlier warming and cooling cycles that do not fit the AGW theory are not discussed by IPCC.
And no wonder AGW aficionados (like Andrew) are scrambling to try to keep the image of continued warming alive, even when the record shows it has stopped.
Max
Permalink
Bob Tisdale Posted 9:53 am
03 May 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:04 am
03 May 2008
Gravity is also a theory, ya wanna say we should ignore that as well?
Seriously the whole "it's just a theory" argument get pretty lame after awhile.
Yes, it's a theory, but just 'cause it's a theory doesn't mean ya shouldn't prepare for it.
If it's "just a theory" after one screening at the hospital that ya may (or may not) have cancer, does that mean ya shouldn't start considering the possibility until it's confirmed?
If ya have a "theory" that certain people may (or may not) be plannin to fly planes into the WTC, should wait until it's confirmed before ya tell someone?
Those are stupid ideas that could get ya killed. When a theory points to a potential danger, the danger should be assessed, and preventive measures should be taken, even if it's still just a theory.
Anybody with real background in science who understands the underlying principles knows that.
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:13 pm
03 May 2008
Hi Tasermons Partner,
Looks like you still "believe" in the AGW theory (or hypothesis), even though the temperature / CO2 record does not give much support for this theory, with the notable exception of the period from 1976 to 1998, when the two curves coincidentally happened to correlate.
The latest (1998-2008) flat to cooling period with record CO2 emissions does not lend much confidence in the robustness of the CO2/temperature causation.
The fact that earlier warming periods cannot be explained by AGW, yet the 1976-1998 period is attributed to AGW "because no other explanation can be found" is a serious flaw in the whole rationale for AGW caused warming.
Sorry, TP, the hypothesis is starting to fall apart and people all over the world are starting to realize it, too.
Believe me, TP, his whole AGW hysteria will be buried on the trash heap of history in a few more years and you can move on to a new "imminent disaster" (caused by evil mankind, of course).
What'll it be next time?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:28 pm
03 May 2008
As you'll recall, I am familiar with several scientists who were on the IPCC.
And as you'll recall, I offered to have 'em personally go over your "findings" and explain their conclusions to ya.
The offer still stands.
So, what is it ya do exactly...work at an insurance firm or flip burgers or somethin'?
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:40 pm
03 May 2008
Message to Bob Tisdale
Thanks for your info.
You are 100% right. There are many explanations for the 1976-1998 warming cycle beside increased CO2. In fact, CO2 has only been incriminated by IPCC because "model studies" supposedly show that there is no other explanation".
But, as you say, these model studies have failed to consider the factors you mentioned (ENSO, PDO and AMO) and they do not mention the solar cycle and downgrade TSI impact to less than 1/10th of CO2
For me the weakest part of the IPCC argument for AGW causality is this: they admit they cannot explain the early 20th century warming cycle when there was very little CO2 (and they do not even mention the late 19th century warming cycle, when there was essentially no CO2), yet they attribute the late 20th century warming to CO2 (and other GHGs) because models indicate that "no other explanation can be found".
The logic goes like this
1. We cannot explain what caused early 20th century (and late 19th century) warming
2. We know that CO2 caused late 20th century warming
3. Why?
4. Because nothing else explains it besides CO2
To me this is a fatal flaw in the causality argument.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:52 pm
03 May 2008
You wrote: "As you'll recall, I am familiar with several scientists who were on the IPCC."
I can only say, "WOW!" I am truly impressed.
But I have to admit that I'm a bit curious as to how familiar you are with these individuals (but that is really none of my business).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:31 pm
03 May 2008
The logic goes like this
We cannot explain what caused early 20th century (and late 19th century) warming
We know that CO2 caused late 20th century warming
Why?
Because nothing else explains it besides CO2
To me this is a fatal flaw in the causality argument.
Things are not always simple.
For example, I recent bought a 1988 Mazda 626.
Great car, low mileage, very cheap.
The first time it rained, the passenger side floor, front and rear, filled with about a half inch of water.
I checked the doors...they were shut tight. I didn't see any holes in the gaskets.
I cleaned up the water and it kept happening (rains a lot here in Washington...so you may have heard).
Then I noticed there was some water in on the trunk carpet -- it was wet. I looked under it and saw there were a few rust holes. The water had been shooting up and gone into the right side well, where the jack is kept. Then it rolled into the floor area -- lowest spot.
Or so I thought.
I patched up all the holes with duct tape. Made sure there was no more moisture coming from the trunk.
And...it kept getting wet on the passenger side floor!
I then asked a mechanic. He said that there might be a leak in the windshield. I set up a repair appointment.
But, as the week wore on, and I vacuumed the water out -- suddenly, it no longer got wet when it rained!
My theory: it was the trunk, but it had pooled up so much water that it had a "reserve" and it took time for my repair to take effect, but the car had to "dry out" first.
I cancelled the appointment with the windshield place, confident there was no leak.
Until.
I noticed a drip of water near the bottom of the glove box...leaking on the carpet! It was just a drip, surely not enough to wet the carpet. But was that it? Or was it both?
See...it can be many things, in various amounts.
Two sides can both be right.
What I take umbrage with is not just arguing down the AGWers as wrong -- but with their totalitarian view point of absolute and exclusive rightness...
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:34 pm
03 May 2008
They teach some classes at the university. I used to have environmental sciences and environmental problems classes with several of them, and they explained much of their research for the IPCC in depth for the classes.
They held a slideshow not to long back with pics from where they attended some of the conferences leadin' up to Bali.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:10 pm
03 May 2008
I'm pleased you liked my notated Hadley graph @
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa ...
Although I guess it is bad news for AGW alarmists.
The interesting thing is that I simply describe the data that is already there, no alterations, but with the aid of that great tool @ "Flickr.com", I've only just realized the potential benefits in making simple explanations, with an accessible URL for a picture of my own!
It is fascinating; your analogy with the stock exchange, which is another example of noisy data! As far as I can see, it is totally valid!
Here is an example; some of us rationalists have pointed out that over the last decade, the global temperature trend is flat, even with the sus' data from GISS.
Oh no! say the alarmists, you can't use 1998, because that spike was not caused by CO2. Hmmmmm, well even if that is true, what about 1999 and 2000, which were, in the words of the share market, sharp corrections. (I guess Oz terminology is same as USA)
By perusing the whole of the Hadley graph it is apparent that in nearly every case where there is an unusually large spike, either up or down, it is followed by typical corrections! Thems be the facts! (It raises an interesting question concerning the full cause of 1998)
So let's go back to the 2001 IPCC report, where they, among other things exaggerated the Hockey-stick by using the obsolete 1998 spike, which now they say had nothing to do with CO2. Still, they impressed a lot of policymakers by using a scary number ~25% above the known trend at the time!
I wonder if Tasermans Partner took the trouble to digest my post above? No comment anyway; not that it matters.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:22 pm
03 May 2008
I'm mortified that you either did not read, or did not understand my post above:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/95549/87820#com ...
Since you are familiar with a number of unbiased scientists, if you don't understand it, why don't you refer it to them for their comments?
P.S. This strange sort of Pidgin English you use; where do you come from?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:31 pm
03 May 2008
I've got some lovely slide-shows.....you show me yours, and I'll show you mine!
Do you come from Tasmania maybe?
Papua New Guinea?
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 4:47 pm
03 May 2008
<<
they admit they cannot explain the early 20th century warming cycle when there was very little CO2 [emphasis added]
>>
and:
<<
they do not even mention the late 19th century warming cycle, when there was essentially no CO2 [emphasis added]
>>
Both of those statements seem to be slightly incorrect.
Ice core data seems to indicate that atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the 1850 to 1910 time frame were somewhat above 280 ppm.
The current atmospheric CO2 concentration seems to be around 380 ppm.
The atmospheric CO2 concentration circa 1850 to 1910 thus seems to have been around 75% of current CO2 concentrations, not zero or almost zero CO2 as implied by the quoted statements above.
-----
The potential impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration by 1/3 since 1900 is, of course, close to the center of this issue.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:45 pm
03 May 2008
A modicum of intelligence would tell that Max did not intend to claim that CO2 levels have ever been zero or close to zero. That would be silly!
However, it is obvious that MAN-MADE CO2 levels have at some time been at that sort of level for practical purposes, and that that was what he was OBVIOUSLY intending to refer to.
It is also stupid to invoke ice-core records, which are fraught with issues. Regardless of whether they are accurate or not, we know from HISTORY, when the industrial revolution started, basically in tiny England, and thus when man-made CO2 started to became significant.
You do know it is measured in PPM?
What a load of old........pardon my French!
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 6:44 pm
03 May 2008
Most people here in the real world of adults have things like jobs and relationships and parenthood which take away a good deal of our time.
Try to remember that the next time ya comment on people not respondin' to your posts immediately, ne?
Also,
So let's go back to the 2001 IPCC report, where they, among other things exaggerated the Hockey-stick by using the obsolete 1998 spike, which now they say had nothing to do with CO2.
Waste your words more carefully please. Nobody said the 1998 spike had nothing to do with GHG emissions. They believe the higher-than-normal spike for that year may have been n partially due to an abnormal timing with recent intervals between el nino and la nina events.
And there's been some evidence that that abnormal interval was actually partially due to increased climate changes in the years immediately prior.
I have no idea what your obsession with Tasmania is...anyone with a map can tell all of Eastern Australia, along with New Guinea, Guam, and a good deal of Russia are in the same time zone...
...and that's if I'm even in that zone.
It is also stupid to invoke ice-core records, which are fraught with issues.
Really? Specifically, such as?
Regardless of whether they are accurate or not, we know from HISTORY, when the industrial revolution started, basically in tiny England, and thus when man-made CO2 started to became significant.
me thinks ya need a refresher in your history...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution
The Revolution started in England, yes, but quickly spread worldwide.
Also, ice core samples help show how, historically, natural increases in GHGs (which took place at much slower rates than human-induced releases) such as CO2 led to subsequent increases in temperature, and also for a measure of relationship between increases in certain types of GHGs and how much those particular increases resulted in climate change and average temperature changes.
It's a good way to refute people who deny changes in GHG could result in climate change. That's why we use core samples, amongst other reasons.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:13 pm
03 May 2008
The more copious water ingress into your trunk (boot) may be the consequence of the SOR phenomena in northern latitudes such as in Washington, although I would have thought 20 years was a tad early in period. Occasionally, this natural cycle can be shortened by vehicular collisions, which affect the regular integrity of the cycle.
Whatever, I think Mazda 626 of that vintage would be a top cost-effective choice, followed closely by Honda and Subaru. (without knowing spare parts and service costs in USA)
May I suggest that you apply an appropriate level of engineering neglect concerning the CO2 type drip over the glove box? Place a sponge or towelling to absorb it in the problem area and just ignore it unless it starts to smell. If that happens, try deodorant?
If no go, Email me!
Regards, BobFJ
Permalink
Bob Tisdale Posted 10:44 pm
03 May 2008
Actually, the reason is pretty unclear with warming rates like that. I took the pleasure of marking up your graph in the following:
http://i30.tinypic.com/2e31u2d.jpg
Please identify the warming rate of 3 degrees C per Century in your graph. The total temperature scale is approximately 1.0 degree C, and the period covers a span of 158 years. I believe your rates should have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.5 to 0.8 degrees C per Century and 0.005 to 0.008 per year. And people wonder why skeptics are skeptical.
If, for example, you subtract out a 75 to 95% natural component of that, let's say 90% for simplicity sake, you're left with 0.05 to 0.08 degrees per Century and 0.0005 to 0.0008 per year, due to anthropogenic sources. Of course, natural noise (ENSO, AMO, PDO, TSI) hides AGW signals.
Now subtract the other anthropogenic heat sources from the remaining AGW 0.05 to 0.08 degree rise over the 20th Century: land-use changes, black soot on snow, brown clouds (each of which is reported to have as much as a 50% contribution), methane, chlorofluorocarbons, etc. The remainder leaves little room for a CO2 contribution.
Another bad example: Andrew Dressler writes, "At the same time, interannual variability, such as El Niño events, are of the order of 1 degree C per year. Thus, over short time scales, the slow upward trend can be completely swamped by the large year-to-year variability." An El Nino perturbation of 1 degree per year? That would overwhelm your graph. Your source of El Nino data is in error.
From Trenberth et al "Evolution of El Nino-Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures"(2002): "It shows that for the 1997-1998 El Nino, where N3.4 peaked at approximately 2.5 C, the global mean temperature was elevated as much as 0.24 C." This equates to a 0.096 degree C change in global temperature for a 1 degree C change in the NINO 3.4 region. Therefore, for your 1 deg C perturbation in global temperature to be the result of an El Nino, that El Nino would have had to have been more than 4 times larger than the 97/98 "El Nino of the Century". An El Nino with a NINO3.4 reading of 10+ degrees C hasn't been recorded.
Regards
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:18 am
04 May 2008
When it was pointed out that during the late 19th century warming cycle, temperature records show a linear increase of temperature of around 0.38C over a 21-year period 1858-1879 (very close to the 0.37C linear increase observed during the 22-year period 1976-1998), during which time frame there was essentially no increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (only around 2 ppm), so that the warming could hardly have been caused by CO2 (as is being suggested by default for the late 20th century period, where CO2 concentrations rose by 33 ppmv).
You (very nicely) pointed out that there was an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv in 1850 (based on IPCC reports citing ice core data), so that there was not "essentially no CO2".
May I very nicely ask you what that has to do with the earlier conclusion that CO2 could hardly have had anything to do with the late 19th century warming cycle, as there was "essentially no" increase in CO2 concentration over this warming period?
This also begs the second question, which is: if the causes for the early warming cycle cannot be explained, how can we be sure that the same "unexplained" factors, rather than CO2, have not also caused the late 20th century warming.
Hope I asked this nicely enough.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:22 am
04 May 2008
Did ya take into account other GHG emissions? CO2 isn't the only one, ya know.
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:22 am
04 May 2008
To my point: "during which time frame (1858-1879)there was essentially no increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration", you wrote:
"Did ya take into account other GHG emissions? CO2 isn't the only one, ya know."
To which other GHG emissions during the period 1858-1879 are you referring, TP?
Where are your supporting data?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:56 am
04 May 2008
Andrew Dessler has referred us to the Hadley global land and sea surface temperature anomaly record and advised us to look at the data. A good suggestion.
Below are links to these data showing the overall linear trends, plus the linear trends during the various multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles observed since the record started.
The Hadley globally averaged annual land and sea surface temperature anomaly (raw data)
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
The Hadley temperature record since 1850
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2464515301/sizes/o/
The three multi-decadal warming cycles since 1850
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2465370166/sizes/o/
The seven multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles since 1850
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2465302088/sizes/o/
What can be seen from these data is that
· There has been an overall warming trend since 1850
· There have been three multi-decadal cycles of warming (and four cycles of cooling) since 1850, when the record started
· Warming over the most recent cycle (1976-1998) is not at all unusual, when compared to warming over two earlier cycles (1858-1879 and 1910-1944), when there was very little impact of CO2 or other GHGs
Since the warming of the most recent cycle is attributed (by IPCC) to CO2 (and other anthropogenic GHGs) because models show that "no other explanation can be found", yet no explanation has been found for the other two warming periods (when there was very little or no increase in CO2), the logic goes something like this:
1. We cannot explain what caused the late 19th century and early 20th century warming.
2. We know that CO2 caused the late 20th century warming.
3. Why?
4. Because nothing else explains it.
And, one could add: we also do not know what has caused the recent plus mid-20th century flat to cooling trends.
The clear "take home" is that there are multi-decadal cycles of climate change, that have very little to do with CO2 (or other man-made GHGs), as many other contributors to this site have also seen and expressed.
Max
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 6:54 am
04 May 2008
Any of them, there are dozens, ya know.
Off the top of my head, did ya check for increases in methane emissions? That does seem to be right around the time that industry-scale cattle farming began (not to mention increase in other massive scale agriculture and deforestation). Methane is nearly 20 times more potent as a GHG than CO2, so even a small increase may have some effect.
Did ya also check for natural phenomenon which could explain it?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 7:17 am
04 May 2008
Accordin' to the graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Carbon_Emission ...
Right after 1855, ther was a fairly good increase in CO2 emissions due to the use of coal.
The original source for that graph was the Dept. of Energy, so I'd think it'd be fairly accurate.
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:48 am
04 May 2008
Check it out yourself and you will see that IPCC does not show any major increases in other GHGs over these early periods.
The data they show on CO2 would indicate an increase of about 2 ppmv over the 1858 to 1879 warming period and about 15 ppmv over the 1910-1944 warming period.
"Off the top of your head" is nice, but quantified information supported by hard data is a lot better. The late 19th century increase in coal use compared to today's SUVs, etc.? Gimme a break, TP.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:08 am
04 May 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FuelvsDT.jpg
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:13 pm
04 May 2008
If you'd look at the chart, you'd see the increase in CO2 from 1850 to 1900 was nearly 1 Billion Metric Tons per year. Just from coal.
And even today, coal still releases more CO2 than the transportation sector does.
"Off the top of your head" is nice, but quantified information supported by hard data is a lot better.
Well, you claim that is wasn't caused by human-related GHGs, but if ya can't account for all the GHG emissions from that time period, then ya can't really claim such a thing and be certain that you're accurate. I don't know what, if any effect the increase in methane production would've had, but unless you know, then ya can't claim for certain that it wasn't a factor.
Check it out yourself and you will see that IPCC does not show any major increases in other GHGs over these early periods.
I've checked, but I can't find the section were that's stated specifically.
Mind providin' a link please?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:24 pm
04 May 2008
A useful graph concerning the acceleration of fossil fuel usage since the industrial revolution, and the non-correlation of CO2 with the warming and cooling periods can be found here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FuelvsDT.jpg
Several questions: One, does that graph count coal as a fossil fuel, and also, does that graph take changing land use into consideration for GHG emissions?
Two: Notice how towards the end of the graph, temperature rise is far more exponential than any other period on the graph and also nearly matches a near exponential rise in fossil fuel consumption.
Are ya sayin' that the events are unrelated? And also, doesn't that graph prove that temperatures did not, in fact, reach a plateau, at the end of the 20th century, and that temperatures are still rising?
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:15 pm
04 May 2008
Nope.
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 5:03 pm
04 May 2008
That desire for certainty is good, but it's very important that we realize we don't need to be anywhere close to "sure" about a potentially bad outcome to justify caution.
My chances of being killed in a car accident today are only about one in three million. The odds are very slim. But the consequences are so serious (being dead) that I'm going to put on my seat belt despite the slim odds, because it's a cheap and easy way to reduce my exposure.
The IPCC seems to think it is likely our GHG emissions will cause trouble for future generations. The word "likely" implies odds far greater than the one-in-three-million odds that prompt us to put on our seatbelts while driving.
Everyone who understands the logic of wearing their seatbelt thus sees the wisdom of using a "GHG seatbelt" in their daily lives.
Using a "GHG seatbelt" means taking easy steps to regulate the amount of CO2, methane, N2O, and other GHG's we dump into the atmosphere as long as there are uncertainties about the negative effects those emissions might have.
It's very easy for me to use less fossil fuel by walking, cycling, carpooling, driving a more efficient vehicle or not driving at all, using public transit, living close to work, telecommuting, etc.
It's easy for me to buy organic food, and to buy local produce in season. It's easy for me to eat less meat [zero, actually, but you must make your own choice there].
It's very easy for me to live in a multi-unit building with energy-saving shared walls, and to turn down the heat in my home and wear extra clothing. If I needed air conditioning it would be easy for me to set it to a higher temperature, but instead I just wear short pants. I can use a programmable thermostat to reduce my energy use when I'm away from home. It's easy for me to air-dry my laundry indoors most of the year.
Many of these easy-to-do things save me money on top of being easy.
I'm also fortunate to live in a democracy where I can vote for the additional risk-reduction measures that only governments can administer, such as:
Changes to urban planning, raising energy-efficiency requirements in building codes, and improving public transit;
Moving toward renewable, low net-GHG power sources for our public utilities;
Making long-term policies aimed at smoothly transitioning to a low GHG society over the next 40 to 50 years.
-----
If, as time goes by, research indicates with absolute certainty that human-caused GHG's are no problem, we can take off our "GHG seatbelt" if we choose (though by then we might be so happy with the reduced air pollution that we won't want to go back).
I don't need to be "sure" that CO2 and other human-caused GHG's are accelerating the rate of global warming in order to justify caution. As long as it is "likely" that this is happening, that's more than enough risk to justify the steps described here.
Everybody who willingly wears their seatbelt understands this.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:38 pm
04 May 2008
Which clearly made Max a little impatient. For instance TP protested that it did not show a plateau, which is widely evident for the past decade! Well of course not! The T data ends at 2000, not 2008, glory glory be!
TP, if you want to check out the authors and so forth, you could just do a quick GOOGLE. OK, I've done it for you, and have done a few quick pastes for you:
On the Coherence between Dynamics of the World Fuel
Consumption and Global Temperature Anomaly
By L.B. Klyashtorin & A.A. Lyubushin....2003 @
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EnEn.pdf
ABSTRACT
Analysis of the long-term dynamics of World Fuel Consumption (WFC) and the
Global Temperature anomaly (dT) for the last 140 years (1961-2000) shows that
unlike the monotonously and exponentially increasing WFC, the dynamics of
global dT against the background of a linear, age-long trend, undergo quasi-cyclic
fluctuations with about 60 a year period. No true linear correlation has taken place
between the dT and WFC dynamics in the last century.
Spectral analysis of reconstructed temperature for the last 1420 years and
instrumentally measured for the last 140 years global dT shows that dominant
period for its variations for the last 1000 years lies in the 50-60 years interval.
Modeling of roughly 60-years cyclic dT changes suggest that the observed
rise of dT will flatten in the next 5-10 years, and that we might expect a lowering
of dT by nearly 1-0.15°C to the end of the 2020s.
BACKGROUND
Development of the world energy status is directly attributed to the consumption of
fossil fuel (oil, gas, and coal). Resulting in the large-scale atmospheric emission of
carbon dioxide and some other so-called "greenhouse" gases,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Concerning your grasping at straws denying the obvious plateau in global temperatures for the past decade, try this:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1032347c0b9baf2fdc.j ...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:23 pm
04 May 2008
I noticed that recently a surfer in California was killed by a shark. Does that mean don't go in the water? We get people nibbled a bit by sharks in Oz too, but people still take the risk.
I like bush walking in Australia in areas where it is necessary to keep an eye open for snakes of about four common varieties which are deadly, including the brown with triple action venom. I have actually stepped on a tiger snake, and footfalled within a shoe-width of another, but jumped clear oK on both occaisions. I still go bushwalking.
Back in the early 80's, I spent time in Ontario and Michigan, and was astonished that most Canadians and Americans simply refused to wear seat belts even when they were fitted to their cars. Women in particular were concerned about crushing their clothes or their breasts. Then the US introduced passive seat-belts to force these idiots to wear them.
Gee it's nice to have "democracy"
The problem that I have with applying a precautionary principal to AGW, is that ther is NO direct evidence for it whereas there is plenty of evidence against it.
Unfortunately it is not like deciding to wear a seat belt or not, and the millions in poverty and suufering are left-out in the outer.
On the other hand there are some other risks that have potentially devastating effects not only on the selfish developed world, but also those other neglected hundreds of millions.
The precautionary principal can also result in demonstrable errors. For instance, the banning of DDT may have saved a few Bald Eagles, but there is also an argument that it has cost hundreds of millions of HUMAN lives. On the other hand, the loss of those lives would hardly have affected the comfort that MNG enjoys.
There is an interesting blog: Precautionary principle vs unintended consequences @
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3& ...
With over 700 comments, and 6,000 views.
Max may wish to add to these quick points, which i did in a hurry; 'scuse any spelling/typo's
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 12:44 am
05 May 2008
DDT is not banned from disease fighting, only from agricultural use
the vast agricultural use of DDT (one farm could use more DDT than an entire country's anti-malaria efforts) generated DDT resistance in the mosquitoes in every country where it was used agriculturally (most of Africa, India, Ceylon, parts of Indochina, etc.)
by banning agricultural use, the further development of DDT resistance was halted. It's too late for the countries where mosquitoes are now still resistant, but countries where DDT still works on malaria mosquitoes have the agricultural ban to thank.
"The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations over two years ago. For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before."
http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html
"Correlating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria transmission, it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."
(Chapin, Georgeanne & Robert Wasserstrom, "Agricultural production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India", Nature, Vol. 293, 1981)
"Endemic sporadic malaria close to the affected areas transmitted by An. culicifacies, which has been considered DDT-resistant for many years"
(WHO report on malaria prevention following the 2004 tsunami)
It's entirely similar to the question of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, vs the vast quantities of antibiotics fed to farm animals.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:32 am
05 May 2008
Watch your words. It could've just as easily been said that DDT may have saved a few human lives, but cost billions of dollars in untold ecological devastation, and easily could've killed just as many humans.
In case ya haven't heard, there's strong evidence that DDT increases the risk of cancer in humans and that many mosquito populations had already developed immunity to it before the ban. It was becomin' ineffective, as nearly as pesticides eventually do, when the pests develop strengthened immunity.
As for your graph, ya never did say whether they took land-use changes into acoount.
Also, I find it a might suspicious that that near-exponential climb would suddenly just bottom out a year after the graph ended.
Temperature flucuations don't usually work like that.
Do ya have a graph which shows this plateau?
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:11 am
05 May 2008
You have argued for "caution" rather than "certainty":
"That desire for certainty is good, but it's very important that we realize we don't need to be anywhere close to "sure" about a potentially bad outcome to justify caution."
This is the classical politicians' argument for justifying an unpleasant political agenda through fear.
US citizens were told by a group of politicians that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a Middle Eastern tinhorn dictator constituted an imminent threat to their security. The specter of a "mushroom cloud smoking gun" was evoked unless immediate action is taken (a preemptive strike that ended up becoming a dragged out war without end costing trillions of dollars and many thousand lives). The "intelligence" information concerning the WMD turned out to be incorrect, but the war could still have been justified, if one applies MNG's "caution rather than certainty" principle.
The world's citizens are now being told by another group of politicians that their emissions of CO2 constitute an imminent threat to the environment, other species and even humanity itself. The specter of "6 meter waves swallowing New York City" is being evoked unless immediate action is taken (the implementation of draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes that will plunge the world into a major depression and make a few already wealthy individuals richer and give politicians and bureaucrats trillions of dollars to shuffle around). Even if the "scientific basis" for potentially disastrous anthropogenic greenhouse warming turns out to have been incorrect, MNG argues that "I don't need to be `sure' that CO2 and other human-caused GHG's are accelerating the rate of global warming in order to justify caution."
My (very nice) precautionary advice to MNG:
· watch out for politicians (or environmental activists or AGW snake oil salesmen) that are using fear mongering to frighten the public into accepting an unpleasant political agenda
· be skeptical of their claims and make absolutely sure that the "imminent disaster" projections they use to generate this fear are based on sound science and not agenda-driven pseudoscience.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:40 am
05 May 2008
Hi TP,
You asked: "Do ya have a graph which shows this plateau?"
Here ya go, TP:
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2468849882/sizes/o/
As you can see, if you start with 1998, the plateau is flat.
If you start with 2001 ("21st century" only), the plateau shows slight cooling.
Read `em an' weep, TP (it's getting' cold out there).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:57 am
05 May 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"As for your graph, ya never did say whether they took land-use changes into acoount."
No....Why did you ask? Neither did they discuss the price of pickled herrings
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Also, I find it a might suspicious that that near-exponential climb would suddenly just bottom out a year after the graph ended.
Temperature flucuations don't usually work like that."
Why do you find it suspicous and that temperature fluctuations don't work like that?
Did you notice that the graph was dated 2003?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Do ya have a graph which shows this plateau?"
Did you notice that you were invited to open the following link?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1032347c0b9baf2fdc.j ...
Please do not hesitate to ask if you find this, or Max's graphs too complicated to understand.
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:24 pm
05 May 2008
Hi TP,
Black Wallaby gave you a link to a curve that showed the recent CO2 correlation with temperature.
Here's some graphs that show how CO2 and global temperature have correlated over the past 150+ years.
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2469181025/sizes/o/
Whadda ya think about that? A "robust" causation? Or a total "flim-flam"? Hmm...
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:45 pm
05 May 2008
Wow...I was mistaken. Ya obviously know very little 'bout the factors behind climate change.
Land use patterns have a direct effect on climate change
What exactly do ya think happens when large forested areas are converted to agriculture or urbanized? What happens when a large bodies of water, such as the Aral Sea and the Red Sea, have been mostly drained? Ever hear of human-induced desertification? Slash and burn farming? River sedimentation? Coral reef bleaching?
All these things have a very large and direct impact on the climate, 'specially when taken into context together.
If ya think climate change revolves around just CO2 and fuel, then you're very wrong. Climate change is a multi-facated phenomenon and to disregard certain factors of that relationship will lead to a different outcome than what ya expect.
Black Wallaby gave you a link to a curve that showed the recent CO2 correlation with temperature.
The graph by BW and your graphs seem to contradict each other in several places.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:21 pm
05 May 2008
I've found a perfect fit to temperature deviation from average:
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fi ...
Fib(151)=1998
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:45 pm
05 May 2008
You wisely said, "If ya think climate change revolves around just CO2 and fuel, then you're very wrong."
Yep, An if ya think climate change (a.k.a. global warming) revolves around CO2 at all, "then you're very wrong", as the record shows.
So why put in a "carbon tax" to "solve" the problem?
Duh! What problem?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 6:01 pm
05 May 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2
All climatologists, even the few who are warming critics, agree that CO2 effects climate.
Why do ya think it's labeled as a greenhouse gas? That label (in and of itself) is not controversial. Where the dispute lies is whether levels are at sufficient amounts to alter climate at large scale.
But eveyone agress climate change (historically) has to do with GHGs. At least partially.
I've found a perfect fit to temperature deviation from average:
That graph, while it could be informative, lacks any labels. What is it that I'm looking at? And where did it come from?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:19 pm
05 May 2008
I also opened this late afternoon, a bottle of Oz-Audi Cabernet Merlot @ $2.99c (Currently ~US$ 3.20c, maybe $2.80c soon?), which so-far on glass # ~1.5, is surprisingly tolerable.
I also thought that if MNG is around, and since he has often displayed wont to gist Grist readers, he might help in my endeavour: In particular, a very eager person; namely; Tasermons Partner, has been very busy around the place, but has demonstrated some difficulty with an earlier tri-element graph in simple monotone. SO, at great effort, I've added all these colours to it, and notes explaining things as best I can. Gee, I hope he can sort the relevant from the irrelevant, after my huge effort!
Hey, give it a click @
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2470502310_99908b19a6 ...
Oh, and BTW, your wisdom on it might be interesting MNG!
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:27 pm
05 May 2008
You wrote, "But everyone agrees climate change (historically) has to do with GHGs. At least partially."
Not really.
There is no valid reason to believe that climate change (i.e. global warming) has had anything to do with (anthropogenic) GHGs in the past. The record shows warming with no added CO2, cooling with lots of added CO2 and sometimes warming with added CO2.
Take your pick, but it is certainly not true that "everyone agrees climate change (historically) has to do with GHGs".
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:12 am
06 May 2008
The 21st century has not started out well for "believers" in the AGW hypothesis, or for the politicians and bureaucrats that are hoping to use the AGW scare to implement hundreds of billions of dollars in carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes.
The ink has barely dried on the IPCC's 1,000+ page AR4 WG1 report and it is already way out of date.
While AGW alarmists are predicting model-generated imminent "tipping points" with disastrous consequences, the thermometers out there (even the ones next to AC exhausts or asphalt parking lots) are telling us a different story: global warming has stopped.
Global land and sea surface temperatures have reversed the late 20th century warming trend and have cooled slightly since around 1998. The satellite temperature record of the troposphere shows the same slight cooling trend.
Ocean temperature measurements from Argo robots show that the ocean has cooled significantly since 2003, when measurements started, essentially reversing the warming measured at spot locations over the previous 50 years. Since the ocean holds 1,000 times more heat than the atmosphere, this is a sign of major cooling of our planet.
The cold winter 2007/2008, that did not want to end, has broken records all over the world, and the WMO tells us that 2008 will continue to be colder than normal, as ENSO is in a cool cycle and Solar Cycle 24 starts out very slowly.
And during all this cooling, human CO2 emissions are continuing at record rates, as the economies of new giants, such as China and India are booming, European emissions are continuing to rise and Americans are still driving around in their gas-guzzling SUVs.
To make matters even worse for the AGW alarmists, there are increasing numbers of scientists and journalists that are daring to take the "non-PC" stand of questioning the science underpinning the AGW scare. One such article by a top climate scientist:
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828
And, in this age of instant information, AGW skeptical sites like ClimateAudit, WattsUpWithThat, etc. are drawing the public's attention to weak points and errors in the science and data, which support the AGW hypothesis.
No wonder the AGW alarmist sites like RealClimate, Grist, etc. are getting worried and are hoping to keep the scare going with articles (like the lead article here by Andrew Dessler) denying what the thermometers are telling us ("it's just a speed bump in the road") or diverting our attention with claims of overwhelming "consensus" in the "peer reviewed scientific community" for AGW, etc.
The politicians are also getting concerned that the multibillion-dollar boondoggle may implode before it really gets off the ground and are shouting that "the debate is over" and "we must act now to save the planet before it's too late".
Before it is too late, indeed... Pop!
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:57 am
06 May 2008
See comments so far on a new blog over at ClimateAudit on its first day!
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3& ...
Hansen covering his tracks???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by CoRev on Tue May 06, 2008 8:19 am
From Jennifer Marohasy's Blog http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003019.html ... we find that Dr James Hansen has no faith in average temperature calculations. What?? She references the NASA site here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
My gut feel is the Indians have the pine bough and are scrubbing their back trail to hide any tracks. Who us? We never predicted that! Oh, that was from the old bad data. Ya'no?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by jae on Tue May 06, 2008 8:55 am
Hansen and the NASA folks had better start doing something to reconcile the fact that all their adjustments, like lowering past temperatures, are making their dataset more and more out of line with all other datasets. Especially now that temperatures are not increasing signifcantly and may even be decreasing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by SteveSadlov on Tue May 06, 2008 11:31 am
Temperatures are decreasing. Real scientists know this to be a big, big problem. A deadly problem.
Now, imagine you have spent the past 20 years winding people up to believe that warming is deadly when it is not.
As a result, you now have 6 plus billion people who are, in the majority, ill prepared for what will happen if (killer) cooling occurs.
There are not enough oak trees in the world ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by jpkoch1962 on Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am
Hansen I believe is near retirement. My guess is he will jump ship before his reputation is completely tarnished -2 or 3 years tops. As for others the younger members of the Team, well things might get a bit rough for them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by See - owe to Rich on Tue May 06, 2008 3:01 pm
Steve S,
Please stop being alarmist! We can cope with 1/2 or 1 degree cooling due to long Cycle 23, and solar cycle models suggest that globally, averaged over 10 years, we won't see as much as that. And if we do, in time-honoured fashion, I'll alter my model
Even so, you don't necessarily want to invest in English vineyards at the moment...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by MarkW on Tue May 06, 2008 3:41 pm
Many, perhaps most solar physicists expect cycle 25 to be one of the weakest in centuries.
We are over due for a couple of major volcanic eruptions. If we should get a couple during cycles 24 and 25, things are going to get rough.
It's better to be prepared, and not need it, then the other way around.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Sam Urbinto on Tue May 06, 2008 3:52 pm
That page simply attempts to explain why the anomaly is what you want rather than an absolute value. That's been up a long time. Don't misinterpret its point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by CoRev on Tue May 06, 2008 5:02 pm
Sam, why'd you go ahead and ruin my day? Actually i was afraid of that, but didn't have the heart to do the due diligence. First impressions were just too good.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:35 pm
06 May 2008
TP Words to the effect: does that graph include land clearing?
BW No....Why did you ask? Neither did they discuss the price of pickled herrings.
TP Wow...I was mistaken. Ya obviously know very little 'bout the factors behind climate change. Land use patterns have a direct effect on climate change.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BW response: Please be aware that we were discussing a graph relating the use of fossil fuels, (~GHG's), to increasing global temperatures over the last~150 years.
Yes I'm aware of many other things that can affect global temperatures, including some that you did not mention, however those other data would need to be depicted on separate graphs.
If you still do not understand, please ask
Permalink
davkel Posted 2:44 am
07 May 2008
I'm new here. Have you ever told us why you feel the need to write in good ol' boy patois?
Can anyone help me with this, please? I am frequently informed that exhaled CO2 is exactly balanced by CO2 taken up by plants and consumed in food by animals. But it is consumed at ground level, and exhaled and presumably diffused through the atmosphere (since there is not, as far as I know, a huge pool of heavy CO2 at ground level), so would not an increase in population produce a proportionate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere? A world population of 6.4 billion, and an exhaled weight of CO2 at approximately 6 tonnes per person per annum equates to some 38 billion tonnes, (Wiki says 27 billion)of which I suspect only a small proportion is available for take-up at ground level. Add to that the animals and life in general, and it seems to me you must expect an increase in CO2 regardless of the fossil fuel contribution. How does the ppm of CO2 correlate to the population increase over the last 100 years?
A further question on the subject. When John Tyndall proved that water vapour was a greenhouse gas (and barely mentioned CO2 in this context), did he conduct experiments with the gases diffused in air as they are in nature, or was he using 100% pure gases?
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 6:25 pm
07 May 2008
The 6 tonnes per person per year is probably pretty close to the amount of air the average human breathes per year. But the CO2 content of human exhalation is only about 4.5% by volume.
The USDA has apparently estimated that the average human breathes out about 900 grams of CO2 per day, or about 330 kg per year.
-----
The same commenter asked whether human and animal expiration of CO2 in their breath causes atmospheric CO2 concentrations to rise.
The short answer seems to be: No.
Regardless of human or animal population, their respiration seems to be essentially CO2 neutral.
Virtually all of the carbon they exhale as CO2 has entered their bodies as food. All food in the food chain traces back to flora, which for the most part gets its carbon directly or indirectly from atmospheric CO2.
Thus every ton of CO2 emitted by respiring animals appears to be a ton that was previously taken from the atmosphere by flora, regardless of animal population numbers.
There are many ways that humans and animals are net emitters of GHG's, but our respiration doesn't seem to be a significant one.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:04 pm
07 May 2008
It's good to greet someone with an inquisitive mind on this site. I guess that you have worked-out that Mister Nice Guy is referring to YOUR enquiry. Furthermore, I think that probably his analysis on this occasion is good. It is what I thought might be the case without researching it.
If you were to enquire further on the CO2 balance in the atmosphere, whether the numbers published from Mauna Loa volcanic island at over 3000m in mid pacific are relevant to global average and things like that, then it might be like opening Pandora's Box.
For instance, I think it is agreed that about 50% of the CO2 that is emitted from burning fossil fuels, is not actually evident at Mauna Loa. Thus it must have gone somewhere else.
It is also generally agreed that the oceans are a VAST sink of CO2 both physically and biologically. Furthermore that because of the physio-chemico factors governed by upwelling and downwelling of waters of varying temperatures and salinity, wind and wave action, air temperature and whatnot, that the flux of CO2 in and out is so VAST and complicated, that any margin of error in its nett determination exceeds the observed increase at Muana Loa.
Thus the whole thing is a can of worms!
However, in terms of the debate on climate change, all we can do is just live with the published numbers from Mauna Loa
(A similar situation exists with the so-called global average temperatures....although GISS may be starting to back-pedal there)
Regards, BobFJ (Black Wallaby)
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:08 pm
07 May 2008
I did find your post VERY helpful.
Regards, BobFJ (Black Wallaby)
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:16 pm
07 May 2008
Wikipedia can be agenda driven by its contributors and others whom choose to edit it, and this is very apparent in the emotive issue of AGW! Sorry!
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 9:57 pm
07 May 2008
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:59 am
08 May 2008
The end is near!
Repent now or perish!
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 10:31 am
08 May 2008
Who know what the future holds?
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Permalink
davkel Posted 11:49 am
08 May 2008
Thank you for your welcome.
There seem to be very few cast iron facts on CO2 exhalation. Adult breaths are given as from 12 to 22 per minute, and human CO2 exhalation is given as 0.5 to 0.9 kg per day, but the extract below from a New Scientist article (not peer reviewed!) quotes different figures.
----------------------------------------------------
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.
About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I used whatever figures I could find at the time for my calculation, but I didn't differentiate between adult and child, or rate of activity, or indeed any variables, because it is far too complex for casual discussion.
Nor did I mention the enormous amount of CO2 trapped in the oceans, some of which must be released if the water temperature rises as it apparently has recently. Or water vapour, which tends to be ignored, perhaps because it is not subject to human control.
However, the exact figure doesn't matter for the purpose of estimating the effect of human exhalation on CO2 concentration. My contention is that whether or not the exhaled CO2 is part of a closed cycle, the fact remains that in the process of being transferred from a human to a plant, the CO2 will hang around in the atmosphere for some unstated period of time before the gasping plant can get hold of it, and is therefore contributing to GW. The more humans there are, the less land is given over to plants and the more CO2 is floating about awaiting takeup. Without any human involvement, presumably the CO2 contained in plants would be given off at the plants' death, or sequestered in the soil.
By the way, I once came across an article which stated that CO2 readings taken at one site varied by a huge amount between morning and afternoon. Unfortunately I can't remember where that was, but if true, it does rather suggest that ppm is about as reliable as global average temperatures.
Re Wiki, I know it is not the most reliable of sources, but it does have the advantage of sticking to its subject in contrast to the obfuscation one finds in many other sources, where the sought fact may be buried in a welter of extraneous calculations. I am not a mathematician, which doesn't help.
Bob, a can of worms is putting it mildly. Scientists are noted for never agreeing with each other if they can help it, except, of course, in the IPCC, where disagreement is not permitted on pain of extermination. By the way, does anyone know what percentage of the IPCC 'consensus' is climate scientists? Is there a list somewhere of the people with their qualifications? Professor Phil Jones, of the East Anglian Climate Research Unit, with whom I had some correspondence a few years ago, claimed that '97% of all scientists agree about global warming'. I wonder if that is still the case, if indeed it ever was. He also claimed that 'proper scientists' don't have time to put stuff on the internet. However, as I found five of his own papers on the net, perhaps he isn't a 'proper scientist'. He did recommend that I obtained a copy ot the relevant IPCC report, amounting to 400 pages, so I downloaded some on my pre-broadband computer, and found the whole thing to be shot through with 'may', 'could be', if this then that, and every other qualification one might think of. I don't blame the authors - it must be incredibly difficult to get to grips with all the parameters involved in warming or cooling, and it is not to be wondered at that they get it wrong.
How about my question on John Tyndall?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:40 pm
08 May 2008
You may have raised some good points in principle, such as the lag-time between exhalation and bio-take-up, but it's swings and roundabouts in many ways; like humans multiply, and fish in the waters decrease etc. Also, even if the wikipedia entry for biomass data is only half right, it would seem that human contribution of about 100,000,000 tonnes (body mass less water) is trivial, at only about 0.13% of the total biomass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29
See separate comments on
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate ... ...
But anyway, krill, termites, ants, squid and many other fauna each massively outweigh the human population in the CO2 cycle, let alone zillions of trees etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You also wrote in part:
"By the way, I once came across an article which stated that CO2 readings taken at one site varied by a huge amount between morning and afternoon. Unfortunately I can't remember where that was, but if true, it does rather suggest that ppm is about as reliable as global average temperatures."
Yep, I remember clearly those reports and yep I think it is reasonable to believe that CO2 is not as evenly mixed in the atmosphere as is claimed. There is an interesting paper that studies a few issues with Mauna Loa that I'll try and dig-out for you! This also throws in doubt the much vaunted ice-core records because they can only indicate the very small hostile regional conditions at the time.....well, even the time is contested!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you talk to Phil Jones!
I place him in the ilk of Michael Mann. Need I say more?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You asked about Tyndall, but I'm a bit blank there!
You may have noticed some posts from Max Manacker. He Is probably floating around here, and may assist. He's certainly hot on Arrhenius!
Also MNG is wont to be nice and helpful!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:52 pm
08 May 2008
You gave the following link, to an article and subsequent blog concerning CO2 fluxes
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate ...
And, I was impressed by the very first post copied below. It is very recent, today:
By John, Channel Isles
Fri May 09 05:02:33 BST 2008
Catherine,
The first 'flaw' in your article starts with your first fact. You compare two data sets. One from bubbles in ice from the Vostok surveys over 420,000 years that show a variance of 180ppm to 300ppm using CO2 lab measurements. And another form of measuring, atmospheric, of CO2 from modern times, namely over the last 50 years.
Any good scientist will tell you ligning up 2 different data sets, using different collection techniques and different measuring techniques is not very good science. This punches a small hole in your argument.
Second problem is geographical difference. The Vostok records are from polar regions. The modern measuring is from Mauna Loa, Hawaii an equatorial/warm region. This punches another hole in your argument.
Finally what nobody at the IPCC has recognised in any report 1998 to 2004 is knowledge of the CO2 Solubility Pump. Indeed it's barely mentioned in the IPCC 2007 Report.
If any climate extremists understood this they'd appreciate that CO2 is dissolving in the oceans of Polar regions scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere resulting in lower CO2 measurements.
Similarly they'd appreciate measuring in Hiwaii in warm waters where CO2 is outgassed leads to higher CO2 measurements.
That's a mighty big hole in your argument.
And it gets worse. Hawaii is next to the biggest outgassing, the Pacific Ocean, on the planet. And scientists are on record as waiting for strong trade winds (sea winds) further increasing CO2 levels as huge plumes of CO2 outgass over Hawaii.
And it gets even worse (pretty bad already). The Vostok ice-cores measurement intervals are every 1,000 to 2,000 years. So to measure a peak in CO2 over 420,000-700,000 years the chances of measuring a peak is 3.5%.
So when the IPCC and other climate warmers claim we are enduring the highest CO2 levels in 700,000 years there's actually a 96.5% they're not near the truth. That's even without counting in all the problems with measuring CO2 mentioned above.
And that's just addressing the first 'fact' you mention in your article. I could go on and on and on what's wrong with your 'facts' but we haven't the space here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I must find that paper on Mauna Loa, it gets even worse!
Permalink
davkel Posted 9:14 am
10 May 2008
I confess I did not study Catherine's article in depth - I just grabbed a clip to add to my post. But I don't understand the rebuttal in the blog which complains about two different data sets being used in the assessment of historical and present ppm. Isn't it logical to turn to ice cores for historical evidence, questionable though it be, and to a different method to arrive at present ppm? You can't get current data from ice cores, can you? Anyway, in my ignorance, I would have thought using two different data sets is exactly what good science requires, in fact using as many as possible if you wish to try to get at the truth.
I suppose I am that evil being, a 'denier', and I shall no doubt fry in hell if the IPCC finds out my real name. I just wish it wasn't all so damn complicated so that my tired 78 year old brain could get a grip on it. Right now the whole subject seems to be like trying to nail jelly to the wall. I have been an engineering designer for most of my working life, and I am used to disciplines which admit of concrete facts that can be clearly proved rather than opinions which can't.
Among my weekly issue of Google alerts, I came across a warmer who claims that it was only the 'media' that ever said 'the science is settled'. So who were the two alleged climate scientists who said in broad daylight on TV that 'the debate is over and the science is settled'? One, standing in front of what I took to be a telescope, perhaps to establish his scientific credentials, went further to say that anyone who continued to doubt must be a congenital idiot, and should shut up, or words to that effect. It is guys like him who really make me angry, and who do science a disservice.
At the risk of boring everyone, can anyone tell me exactly how an average global temperature is arrived at based on the Stevenson screens and the like. I may not understand it, but I would like to know that the knowledge exists.
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:17 am
10 May 2008
The "Climate Myths" article you cited states:
"About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere."
Let's do a quick "sanity check" on this statement.
Human CO2 emissions are equal to 7.5 GtC per year.
This equals 27.5 GtCO2 per year (as CO2).
The troposphere represents a mass of 3,750,000 Gt.
So this annual emission would represent an increased concentration of 7.3 ppm(mass).
This equals 4.8 ppmv, after adjusting for the relative MW of CO2 and the atmosphere.
But the measured increase is only 1.9 ppmv.
This means that 1.9 / 4.8 or 39% stays in the atmosphere, and 61% (rather than 40%) goes somewhere else.
So the article is exaggerating the impact of human CO2 emissions on the atmosphere by slightly over 50% (which is actually not too bad for that site).
Most of this is absorbed by the oceans and the rest "disappears" elsewhere.
Here's an interesting article that talks about the "half-life" of atmospheric CO2.
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:25 pm
16 May 2008
Sorry for delay here is that study that questions the validity of the published data from Muana Loa and also ice cores etc
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/np-m-119.pdf
Permalink