(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming.
Answer: There is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behavior over the last century.
Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this.
Aside: It is usually interesting to ask just what observations or evidence your skeptic would consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels. Don't be surprised if you get no answer!
The new Senate global warming deniers
EPA affirms California’s right to set tougher automobile emissions standards
Comments View as Flat
jjwfmme Posted 1:14 am
26 Dec 2006
Ross Gelbspan has a good page...
...on this topic:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/...
Permalink
Pete H Posted 1:23 pm
26 Dec 2006
Objection Causation Usually Precedes Effects
Coby Beck Posted:
"Aside: It is usually interesting to ask just what observations or evidence your skeptic would consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels. Don't be surprised if you get no answer!"
Two quick observations:
- In the proxy data, increases in temperature often precede increases in atmospheric CO2 by decades and in one case by 800 years. So I guess the "correlation is not causation" is true enough.
- In recent history, we have seen both large increases in temperature prior to significant anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (roughly 1865-1940) as well as forty years of moderate cooling while anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were soaring (roughly 1940-1979).
Relying on general circulation models and theories is fine and may even be science, but observation, interpretation and explanation are even better. I believe it is legitimate to question "the precautionary principle." First we came up with a "best guess computer model." Then we fed that general circulation model 35 different levels of anthropogenic emissions tuned to 7 different sensitivities. Then we looked at the output and some of the resulting scenarios seemed to be extreme. Now we are ready to make public policy because we can't prove the computer model is wrong or that the extreme scenarios are impossible? That doesn't seem logical or scientific to me in the least.Permalink
JoulesBurn Posted 2:44 pm
26 Dec 2006
Mistaken Observations
Pete,
As has been stated many times in this series, AGW is not the only driver of climate change during the last 100 years. It is important to remember that the majority of anthropogenic CO2 has been emitted in the last 20 years. The integrated emission of CO2 from 1940-1979, while or course higher than in previous years, cannot be characterized as "soaring" in light of what has happened since.
Please refer to the following entry (and graphs therein) in this series related to mid-century warming:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189
Permalink
dobermanmacleod Posted 2:57 pm
26 Dec 2006
Or just wait and see...
It has been calculated (again, no proof), that without CO2, the earth would be a chilly minus 18 degrees C.
CO2 is only 1/3 of one percent of the air. We've already increased the CO2 level 1/3 since the Industrial Revolution, and are due to double it mid-century.
One other REALLY BIG THING: there are reserviors of carbon below the surface of the earth, and when the earth warms, they will predictably be released into the air. Worse, as they slowly enter the atmosphere, it warms, causing them to emit faster (a feedback loop). NASTY.
If those "global warming skeptics" don't believe the earth is sensative to increases of CO2, then they can just wait a few decades as the pot starts to boil. Visit them during one of our future severe heatwaves and ask them if they've reconsidered.
Permalink
Pete H Posted 2:37 am
27 Dec 2006
Even Further Proof?
So let me understand the "anthropogenic CO2 is the driving force behind global warming" argument. The carbon cycle involves roughly 210 gigatonnes of carbon equivalent. Anthropogenic emissions are less than 7 gTC. Natural increases in temperature will release more carbon (and don't forget about methane).
Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing at roughly 0.5 - 2 ppm for the last 47 years (from Mauna Loa observatory data. In 1959 it was 315 ppm. In 2006 it was 380 ppm. From 1959 to 1979 (20 of the 47 years) we saw moderate cooling. For the last 27 years we have seen warming. Of course it is possible that increases in temperature has resulted in increased carbon dioxide concentrations, but that was just what the proxy data showed - so of course we don't want to rely on that data. Back to the GCMs people!
But what about methane? Methane is 20-30% more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Increases in atmospheric methane concentrations trail increasing temperatures (much as historic CO2 has followed increased temperatures, if the proxy records are to be believed). 70% of the methane produced in the "global methane cycle" is anthropogenic (whereas less than 4% of the carbon in the global carbon cycle is anthropogenic, approximately 7 gigatonnes out of 210).
Only 20% of the anthropogenic methane comes from power generation (about the same amount comes from domesticated ruminants) the rest is caused by rice fields, biomass burning, landfills and waste disposal.
So leaving aside the fact that the temperature changes have preceded the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, why are we so worried about CO2 when methane is so much more effective as a greenhouse gas and anthropogenic methane is 70% of the methane cycle?
As far as nature vs. anthropogenic: new analysis confirms that the Arctic Ocean warmed remarkably 55 million years ago, which is when many scientists say the extraordinary planetwide warm-up (the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum) must have been caused by an enormous outburst of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases like methane and carbon dioxide. But no one has found a clear cause for the gas discharge.
I know, it's back to the GCMs. A computer model that was fed 35 different levels of anthropogenic emissions tuned to 7 different sensitivities can't be wrong.
Let's try not to think about nature and the historical "massive outbursts of greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide." I am sure a 20% reduction in our anthropogenic carbon dioxide will be the answer.
We should be glad that we didn't sign on to Kyoto, lest we be tempted to get in on some of that fabulous "cap and trade" cash that is causing more environmental damage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/business/21pollute.html...
Always enjoyable exchanging ideas, keep 'em coming.
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 4:51 pm
27 Dec 2006
further reading
"The carbon cycle involves roughly 210 gigatonnes of carbon equivalent. Anthropogenic emissions are less than 7 gTC."
please see http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/233610/33...
Trying to argue that the increase in CO2 is anything other than anthropogenic is about as fruitful as arguing the earth is flat. Seriously.
"why are we so worried about CO2 when methane is so much more effective as a greenhouse gas and anthropogenic methane is 70% of the methane cycle?"
Methane in the air is measured in parts per _b_illion, CO2 parts per _m_illion. Methane is a concern of its own, but CO2 dominates the GHG forcings.
"(the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum) must have been caused by an enormous outburst of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases like methane and carbon dioxide. But no one has found a clear cause for the gas discharge."
That's right, no clear cause. But there is clear evidence it happened. So what does that mean?
WRT your first comment, you might find this article illuminating:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76...
Thanks for the comments!
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 4:53 pm
27 Dec 2006
missing stuff
don't know why the post button cut this out:
"Of course it is possible that increases in temperature has resulted in increased carbon dioxide concentrations"
please see http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/co2-rise-is-nat...
AND
And for your doubts about models there may be some reassurance for you in here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/51921/827
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous
Permalink
Pete H Posted 2:35 am
28 Dec 2006
Which came first the chicken or the egg?
I have read most of your blog postings and just re-read the ones you linked.
So here goes again:
clearly you agree that historically temperature rises preceded increases in greenhouse gases and then there was additional warming and additional increases in gases (forcings - I get it). Of course we both agree this happened as a result of natural processes.
What I find interesting is that now we have widespread changes in land usage and increases in temperature - both of which significantly affect the carbon cycle.
Yes, it is true that we are also increasing our own emissions of greenhouse gases - but relative to the amount of carbon in play in the carbon cycle, can you honestly say that a modest reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will have any discernable effect on global climate change?
That is the important question. Now before I hear the "it's the old two step, it's doesn't matter or it's too late..." Honestly answer my question. What will be the net effect of a Kyoto like reduction in emissions? (diregarding the environmental damage being done in name of "cap and trade")
Permalink
Pete H Posted 2:46 am
28 Dec 2006
No Comment on the NY Times Article?
Why aren't we discussing the actual effects of the Kyoto protocol?
Why is "cap and trade" a bad idea? Well, let's see, rich countries paying poor countries for the right to pollute. It would seem like an economic incentive for both countries to continue business as usual. The fact that there is a "carbon market" is beyond absurd. The "carbon trading market" is failing and the Chinese are increasing "real" pollution as a result of these billion dollar deals. These are two examples of the failure of this policy. I would like people to actually think before having a knee-jerk reaction and trying to legislate feel-good policies.
What is the goal? How can it be reached? Does it make sense? We should be able to answer those questions before throwing our hat into the emissions cap and trade ring.
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 7:26 am
28 Dec 2006
decreased anthro = decrease total
"Yes, it is true that we are also increasing our own emissions of greenhouse gases - but relative to the amount of carbon in play in the carbon cycle, can you honestly say that a modest reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will have any discernable effect on global climate change?"
Given the incontrovertible fact that the entire rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is fossil fuel emissions, yes, I can honestly say that reducing CO2 will slow climate change, reduced enough it should stop climate change.
Modest reductions may indeed have no discernible effect, which is why we need more than that.
Kyoto could work if the US would participate. Kyoto is a long term and ongoing process, it is not simply a reduction to 1990 levels by 2012 and see ya later. What happens after that has not been agreed on and may well be moot thanks to the US's misguided selfishness. If it has not been agreed on, how can we estimate its effectiveness?
As a general answer to your question why I didn't discuss the effectiveness of Kyoto, aside from what I say just above, I do not believe in the utility of discussing any proposed solutions unless and until it is agreed that there is in fact a real problem of human origin. Until then, questions about Kyoto's effectiveness are only a tool for obscuring the reality and urgency of the issue.
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous
Permalink
Pete H Posted 8:44 am
28 Dec 2006
Reduced Enough It Could Stop Climate Change?
Wow, I am flabbergasted.
The thought that we can "stop climate change" is so far removed from reality that it boggles the mind.
Haven't we already agreed upon the pre-anthro emissions climate change? Temperatures rise - then greenhouse gases rise - then temperatures rise etc...
Now the goal is to "control climate change?"
Good luck with that.
I am all for reduced pollution. I am all for common sense solutions and realistic ways of coping with climate change. If we are serious about reducing CO2 we need to have a serious discussion about nuclear power (especially integral fast reactors),
We need to discuss how slow and predictable (and inevitable) sea level change will be addressed in countries all over the world.
What I am not for is inciting fear based on exaggerated scenarios in order to enact legislation that does nothing but redistribute wealth and exacerbate the problem, e.g. Kyoto.
Getting back to the original point - we have about 160 years of accurate temperature records, roughly 47 years of actual atmospheric CO2 observations and some scenarios kicked out by a GCM. To think we really understand how climate change works at this point is pretty presumptive. We are still trying to sort out why oceans were cooling when they were supposed to be warming and why global temperatures were cooling while atmospheric CO2 was rising. Most climate change scientists aren't anywhere near as "sure about global warming" as the alarmists.
Some of us are looking for more science and less fear mongering. Every day you can find at least 10 stories that talk about polar bear-jellyfish-bird migration-tropical diseases-ice cap melting-sky is falling-Katrina was due to global warming etc...
Some common sense and rational thought is all I am looking for.
Thanks for the posts!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:57 am
28 Dec 2006
Funneee!
"...common sense and rational thought is all I am looking for."
That's rich Pete.
650,000 years of climate records somehow become "47"? Hehehey.
I guess you ARE here to ammuse us.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:04 am
28 Dec 2006
Yep
"I can honestly say that reducing CO2 will slow climate change, reduced enough it should stop climate change."
I think it can even be reversed. More natural sequestration, through more conservation land restored to prairie, more wetland restoration, a large scale switch to organic farming that builds soil by storing organic matter that sequesters carbon.
A recently released 10 year study in Minnesota of natural prairie puts the sequestration at 1.8 tons per acre per year. Even half that for organic farm soil gives us the potential, along with switching to renewable energy, of reversing global climate change with uS action alone.
Given the participation of the rest of the world, there is reason to be very hopeful.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 11:21 am
28 Dec 2006
nice strawman
"The thought that we can "stop climate change" is so far removed from reality that it boggles the mind."
Pete H,
Sorry but strawman attacks like this are not consistent with your claim that "common sense and rational thought is all I am looking for". Having to spell out the obvious just removes any point of discussion, I am talking about the current anthropogenically caused climate change, not all climate change on every timescale between now and the time Sol becomes a red giant.
If we cease increasing the concentration of GHG's in the atmosphere there is every reason to expect the climate will stabilise on all policy relevant timeframes unless an asteroid crashes into the ocean, Yosemite blows its super volcano top or the sun cranks up the heat for unknown reasons.
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous
Permalink
Pete H Posted 5:28 pm
28 Dec 2006
650,000 years of accurate CO2 data? Uh ... okay.
Amazing-drx - I am glad I amuse you.
So I take it you are "on-board" with the proxy data? Now we can have the discussion, which came first - the atmospheric warming or the increased greenhouse gases. If you want to hitch your wagon to the proxy data, then you have to give up your "greenhouse gases are the main climate forcing" argument (or at a minimum do some "that was then - this is now" fancy dancing).
Somehow this thread was supposed to teach "the believers" how to talk to a skeptic about CO2 being the main forcing in global climate change.
Well, here I am. Let's hear it.
I have agreement that the proxy records clearly show temperature increases preceded greenhouse gas increases. That doesn't exactly prove your point. Somehow it seems to be more significant to you that the increased greenhouse gases THEN became a forcing that accompanied future increases in temperature - fair enough.
Now we switch to the current records. How long do we have accurate temperature and CO2 data? You tell me Mr. Amazing. The most accurate data for greenhouse gases that everyone seems to be using is from Mauna Loa. Do you have a different source of accurately measured atmospheric CO2? How about for "global temperatures?" Please let us know.
We haven't even discussed how the response of temperature to increasing CO2 is logarithmic. Or any of a whole other host of issues with some of the current theories and GCMs.
So if we want to discuss the current warming trend, let's hear it. How can we look at the recent, accurate CO2 and temperature data and make our case?
Cooling for several decades while CO2 increased exponentially? Not a problem you say? Look at the long term? Well, that doesn't help either, it seems we had some serious warming when our atmospheric CO2 wasn't increasing exponentially, then cooling when it was, then warming when it was - darn. The proxy data? No that didn't work for us. Maybe we can find that link when we look at the ...
I know - the GCMs!
Climate gods be praised - we have our proof.
I guess you convinced me.
Now what about those pesky radiosonde readings that didn't show an increase in the atmospheric temperatures even though the GCMs said they should ... I know - let's "time correct" them so they show some warming. Whew, I'm glad we got one sorted out.
Now what about those cooling oceans... I know let's talk about the multi-decadal oscillation, but remember, that is only when we need to dismiss a cooling trend, if it is warming - it's proof of good old manmade greenhouse gas global warming.
And on and on it goes.
Always fun gentlemen.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:54 pm
28 Dec 2006
Pete H,
It may be fun trying to bait random blog readers into quibbles about radiosonde readings, but it's a distraction.
On the one side, we have peer-reviewed research, the findings of which have been multiply confirmed and stood the test of time to become the widely held consensus of the relevant scientific community.
On the other side we have you, random internet dude, who would have use believe that all of those thousands of scientists are blind to rudimentary empirical, logical, and methodological flaws.
You've obviously read just enough to be dangerous, but what is the point of re-litigating the basic science of global warming in a comment thread? Readers don't need to become prosecutors of the case, they just need to figure out who to trust. The answer to that seems obvious to me.
www.grist.org
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:16 pm
28 Dec 2006
Leading, following
To paraphrase Al: when it is summer in the northern hemisphere the CO2 concentration goes down. why? Because most of the land area and plants are in the northern hemisphere. Photosynthesis absorbs cO2, you can see it on the graph.
Temperature actually rises while cO2 levels are dropping. why? Because land free of ice absorbs a lot of solar energy. It's summer dood!
that's a yearly cycle. That does not contradict the general trend in the graph.
And I believe Al DID explain how core samples of antarctic ice were taken to get that data going back 650,000 years. But that doesn't fit the biblibcal timetable? Is that it Pete? Jesus told you the earth can't be 650,000 years old?
Why am I bothering with you at all? because you amuse? Hehehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 12:51 am
29 Dec 2006
Records of temperature/ CO2 data
Frankly, I was pretty sure the records went back 420,000 years, they had established a firm correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, and the summary was published in the scientific magazine Nature in June of 1999, available here... btw, current CO2 levels are "off the charts" when compared with anything in these records...http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
Pete H Posted 4:09 am
30 Dec 2006
Wow - you got me
Here I thought this thread discussed how "global warming believers" can talk to "global warming skeptics." Specifically, this thread was supposed to address how to discuss the connection between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures.
LegumeSam: You are absolutely right - we have 420,000 years of data - your link to the Vostok Ice Core data was spot on. This data clearly "established a firm correlation between temperature and CO2 levels." Of course if you actually look at the data you clearly see temperature changes PRECEDE the CO2 level changes. So thanks for proving my point regarding the proxy data. Note the discussion often contains some variation of the following statement:
"However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation."
It appears that the way to talk to a global warming skeptic is to claim that the proxy data clearly and unequivocally supports your belief. Fair enough, but this may prove unsatisfying to those of you who actually read the data for yourselves.
If you begin to have some doubts about the "absolute certainty" of the proxy data supporting this theory (CO2 as the primary driver in global climate change) the next phase is an "Appeal to Authority."
You know this is where the "scientific consensus" is trotted out. Although I notice it now comes with some additional conditions - now it isn't just a "scientific consensus" but rather "the widely held consensus of the relevant scientific community." So if you are a climatologist or a hurricane expert, or someone who isn't "a believer" you may just be irrelevant. Wow, a pretty interesting way to conduct scientific inquiry. Funny, but when you actually read the peer reviewed research it is full of cautious statements like "we should expect to find..." "In the future..." "It is still unclear to what extent the..." "The current gcms predict..." So if I am still a little skeptical - it is because of the peer reviewed research not despite it.
As a quick example, note the tenuous link asserted between hurricanes and global warming in the "peer reviewed research" and contrast it with the public statements made by those same researchers. Oh, sorry David, I didn't mean to bring up another non- "CO2 is the driver" example on this blog thread. Let's stick to that "firmly established correlation based on 420,000 years" or better yet that "widely held consensus of the relevant scientific community."
It also becomes apparent that if the "appeal to authority" isn't strong enough by itself, a little "argument ad hominem" is added for good measure. You know, this is where you not only claim the skeptic is too stupid to believe the "consensus" but is also possibly a "Jesus freak" (hat tip to amazingdrx) or "just some random internet dude" (hat tip to David Roberts).
Fair enough boys. Forgive me for questioning your beliefs.
Despite my scientific training and my reading of most the available published research on this topic, I must just be "blinded by Jesus" or maybe "just too stupid to understand the science" - be it the proxy data or the current observations.
Here is how you can talk to a skeptic and spare yourself the trouble of questioning your own beliefs:
"Trust the GCMs and believe the consensus."
If that doesn't work try:
"I bet you are a random internet Jesus freak hehehe"
Thanks for the posts it has been "enlightening."
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 4:49 am
30 Dec 2006
appeal to authority
There is nothing wrong with relying on an expert community when one doesn't have the time, inclination or ability to delve into the nitty gritty details of a complex subject.
Pete H erects another strawman by saying "this is not the way to do science". Of course it isn't, no one said it was. Scientists should investigate everything and trust no statement absent solid data and consistent theory. But looking to authority is a good way for lay people to deal with someone like Pete H who does not address one issue at a time, who erects strawmen, who dodges the substantive points in favour of the argumentative ones and who thinks he can rattle off a dozen trivially obvious errors and omissions that have escaped the notice of an entire field of science.
When it becomes too confusing and time consuming to address this gattling gun style of arguing, a step back can give very good perspective. If Pete H sees all of these obvious problems, why can't NASA GISS, NOAA, NSA, IPCC, dozens of national science academies from around the world, AGU and every major institution dealing with climate realated science?
The answer is that characters like Pete H have learned enough about the issue to bring up its complications and surprises but stopped short of understanding the explanations and the real implications of the uncertainties. That is ignorance.
But worse is he refuses to acknowledge any of the answers when handed to him on a silver platter. That is wilful ignorance.
The cooling in mid 20th century is not a contradiction of GH theory
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189...
The language of science always contains caveats. The peer reviewed science Pete claims to be familiar with does not agree with him that we don't really know what is going on
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/232046/03...
Satelittes and radiosondes do not contradict models or surface observations
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/223318/86
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous
Permalink
Pete H Posted 12:26 pm
30 Dec 2006
Ad Hominem - don't leave home without it!
"But looking to authority is a good way for lay people to deal with someone like Pete H who does not address one issue at a time, who erects strawmen, who dodges the substantive points in favour of the argumentative ones and who thinks he can rattle off a dozen trivially obvious errors and omissions that have escaped the notice of an entire field of science."
"Someone like Pete H?" Really?
I keep trying to stay on one issue, specifically the link between atmospheric CO2 and global climate change. That topic seems to break down into proxy data and current observations.
Please take a moment to review for me the substantive points that were handed to me on a silver platter regarding the proxy data that I have chosen to willfully ignore. I must have missed them while creating my army of strawmen.
Regarding the current observations (sorry if my Gatling gun is firing too quickly for you) I see in the post that you reference you dismiss the complications with current obervations with this statement:
"The situation is similar to the cooling seen in the '40s and '50s. During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was temporarily overwhelmed by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution."
Wow - "temporarily overwhelmed by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution."
I must have been temporarily overwhelmed by the facts or blinded by the silver platter. Either way, you sure know how to talk to a skeptic.
Even in my own argumentative, ignorant and confusing "Gatling gun" post I'll give you the last word. Did you expect that from a "character like me?" Long live argument ad hominem!
"...characters like Pete H have learned enough about the issue to bring up its complications and surprises but stopped short of understanding the explanations and the real implications of the uncertainties. That is ignorance."
Permalink
mbayrob Posted 1:15 pm
30 Dec 2006
RE: Ad Hominem
Well, sorry if this doesn't apply to you.
I suppose the problem here is that you're making a large number of long posts, and for those of us who've been following the scientific debate on this, we've seen these kinds of arguments often, and not from scientists. They come, pretty much exclusively, from PR people who are in the direct hire of oil-company funded "think tanks". From your stance, you clearly are not a scientist. There just aren't more than a handful of researchers right now who I'd describe as "global warming skeptics", and really none of them would back you on most of your arguments.
I'll give you one small area. You put forward the claim that there is only CO2 data worth looking at going back 50 years or so. But no researcher right now, even a skeptical scientist, would make that claim with you. Both analysis of air trapped in ice cores (going back hundreds of thousands of years), and analysis of ocean sediments (going back further than that) are good proxies, and even a skeptical researcher has to include these in their analysis. But they do not ignore them, nor do they play verbal games to essentially disceive their readers, as clearly you are doing above.
You've obviously been doing this for a while, and you're more interested in persuading people than in accurately relaying information, and letting the info speak for itself. You clearly do not trust your readers to do that.
So people ask, not unreasonably, if you don't "have a dog in this fight". Either you have an awful lot of time on your hands, or you're being paid to do this (even if you're not typing this from work now).
You're under no obligation to say what your background, or who you work for. But your posts do beg the question.
Cheers,
Rob
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:53 am
31 Dec 2006
I would never say this!
"I bet you are a random internet Jesus freak hehehe"
Hehehey. You forgot the "y".
We are not claiming that CO2 concentration is the only factor in global climate change, we are merely claiming that GHGs are the predominant cause involved in the overall trend in recent global climate change.
Where natural cycles have average temperature dropping, it drops slower and to less of a degree than it otherwise would without human related GHGs. Temps can be dropping (as in the northen hemisphere winter)at the same time GHGs are rising.
Where natural cycles have temperatures warming, it warms faster and to a greater extent due to GHGs. GHGs can be dropping (as in the northern hemisphere summer photosynthesis peak) while average temps are falling.
And in the latest part of the graph the human GHG caused trend is going exponential. Of course at various points in the graph, CO2 leads or lags average temperature.
Earth's climate is the result of interaction between many different elements. Does that mean we can't draw any useful conclusions from any of the data? Is that why the hurricane predictions were ignored by the whitehouse during Katrina? Science is only theory?
Is that why evidence of GHGs as a major factor in global climate change was actively suppresed by political operatives inserted at NASA?
The lake levels fluctuate by season here in northern Wisconsin, they also fluctuate over years long cycles. In the past 30 years they have continued that fluctuation, but the trend is downward. The snowfall and cold weather trend is down too over that longer time period.
Al's graph shows the huge difference in the recent GHG and temperature change unprecedented in the record going back 100s of thousands of years. You want logical proof that GHGs are causing global warming. But all science has is probability, conclusions based on empirical data.
Logical proof works well in mathematics, but it often falls short when empirical evidence is introduced. That is the nature of our world.
That is why I taunted you about you maybe operating in a different reality. The faithbased reality our present leadership operates within. Sorry, that was wrong.
Nice sophistry though Pete! Maybe you ought to be a foxnews producer.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Pete H Posted 4:04 am
31 Dec 2006
Too much time on my hands
I certainly do have too much time on my hands - vacation to burn because I can't roll it over to next year is the primary cause.
For at least the last 15 years I have been following this topic - because I find it interesting. Yes, I have spent more than a few hours a week following the global warming ballyhoo and have a Google alert with the global warming stories emailed to me daily. I keep up with Nature and some of the other publications and abstracts/papers that are available to the public.
No, I am not paid by anyone to air my opinions.
As it was stated before I am simply "some random internet dude" and I do apologize to amazingdrx for omitting the Y in his "heheheY," my bad. I am not a Jesus freak, although that might make it easier for everyone. My undergrad degree was in geology, but times change and people don't (or is it the other way around). I currently pay the bills with a technical sales job that has absolutely nothing to do with the oil, gas, power, automotive industries, conservative think tanks nor the vast right wing conspiracy (please, run Hillary run!!!). I will be pretty pissed off if I find that people are being paid to rant when I am doing it for free! To the conservative think tank schills out there - hook me up. I could use a new Harley, er... I mean Prius.
To focus in on the one small area you cited - I am NOT asserting that the only good CO2 data is from the last 50 years - only that the accurate OBSERVATIONAL record begins there. Yes, there are lots of good "proxy" records out there and probably the Vostok Ice Core data is the most widely cited and commented on. Yes, there are also ocean sediments, fossil records etc... Proxy data is a sticky wicket and there has to be a way to integrate it (being that so many effects are limited geographically). I get all that and I am "on board."
When discussing the proxy record don't you find it curious that the paleoclimatologists (a fancy new made up word for geologists that discuss the environment at the time the fossils/sediments were laid down) and other scientists use caution when making statements?
e.g. "However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation."
A statement like that is ignored in favor of the "Al Gore" school of "scare 'em and sell 'em." Even Robert Hanson has expressed concern that the issue has been oversold (and he should know!). Of course in 2001 Dr. Hanson felt the warming would be modest and predictable and certainly nothing like the extreme scenarios being touted by the "Inconvenient Truth" squads.
The current "CO2 is the primary forcing" does not come from the proxy data - but rather from the observational data and the GCMs.
The current temperature record (from roughly 1860 to present day) shows what?
1860-1940: significant warming - but no indication that atmospheric CO2 has risen significantly or that it is a "primary forcing."
1940-1979: moderate cooling - but here the claim is that the CO2 forcing was "much less significant" and was "overwhelmed by other factors..."
1980 to present: warming accompanied by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, with periods of cooling (particulates from Mt Pinatubo primarily).
So here is my "skeptics" point of view:
The proxy data shows some correlation between global temperature swings and changes in CO2 levels. Despite the fact that the proxy record clearly shows the temperature variations precede the changes in CO2, it needs "interpretation." The "lesson learned" seems to be "well it could have happened the other way around - maybe we just aren't accurate enough to know." Or if you prefer - "the warming caused the increase in gases which then acted as a forcing causing more warming."
The observational data "supporting the CO2 forcing" is spotty from 1860-1979 and reasonably solid for the last 26 years (so long as the Mt Pinatubo and other mitigating factors are taken into account).
So what we are left with is the General Circulation Models. So we take a best guess computer model and feed it 35 different levels of anthropogenic emissions tuned to 7 different sensitivities and viola' - scenarios that show everything from
"moderate and predictable"
to
"extreme - quick, somebody make a PowerPoint presentation with PhotoShopped satellite photos."
It's all good boys. Having the discussion should "sharpen the sword." I think we all need to fine tune the rhetoric and present an accurate picture. If I am not being accurate, then by all means correct me (but please no more links to other parts of this blog).
Back to work in a few days, so hit me while I still have too much time on my hands.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:27 am
31 Dec 2006
"Salesman!"
Face it, you are just mad because Al's a better salesman. We all know it.
But seriously. Are you in favor of cutting GHGs or not? Do you not mind US reliance on oil from nations that support terrorism?
Do you think we ought to just keep up the status quo and hope it all works out? Iran is already in the gun sights for preemptive attack, invasion, occupation, and nation building.
That'll cut into your downtime!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Pete H Posted 5:14 am
31 Dec 2006
Not for arbitrary restrictions or cap & trade
If you say "charismatic" and "great salesmen" - naturally Al Gore springs to mind...
If we want to have a comprehensive discussion that included integral fast reactors and other feasible ways to substantially reduce GHGs - no problem. After all, the GCMs tell us we need to reduce the GHGs or we will all die in a massive flood (now who is the Jesus freak - better build an ark to deal with those 20' sea level changes when the polar ice caps melt and the polar bears are forced to eat the cast of Lost as they film in Hawaii).
The arbitrariness (is that even a word?) of Kyoto and the documented environmental damage that is currently the DIRECT result of the Kyoto cap & trade shenanigans - should make everyone question the wisdom of that type of strategy.
If the problem is so severe, why does Al own 4 houses and fly around willy-nilly on his private jet telling people to change their light bulbs and telecommute (I know, I know, he has a corporation paying to pollute, er I mean paying for "carbon credits" to offset his Bigfoot-size carbon footprint).
I question the economic costs of arbitrary emissions caps and whether they are worth it. We know the money could be spent on other feasible large scale power generation technologies, or at a minimum those massive expenditures could be used to reduce the "real" pollution that is occurring. I know it is nice to think if the US joins Kyoto then India and China will stop building dirty coal plants. However, the reality is we are seeing billions of dollars being wasted and result is an incentive for the Chinese to build more pollution spewing refrigerant plants etc...
It is nice to do something that "feels good" but I am more in favor of doing something that makes sense and has an effect, a positive effect (unlike Kyoto).
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:32 am
31 Dec 2006
Now
We are getting somewhere. You favor nukes over wind? With the new studies that prove it has lower costs?
That won't sell.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Pete H Posted 7:42 am
31 Dec 2006
Not familar with new studies I'll check it out
Permalink
BobK Posted 8:52 am
01 Jan 2007
My hat's off to you Pete H!
PeteH,
IMHO, you are the ONLY class act on this thread.
Since watching "An Inconvenient Truth" I have been plowing through the literature trying to understand the issues and the science behind them. Sensitive to Al Gore's warning that the media has distorted the debate (seemingly creating a debate where none exists), I wanted to find convincing evidence one way or another to satisfy myself. And what I have arrived at so far(and god knows I need to do MUCH more investigative reading), is exactly the inconclusive nature of some of the core evidence being put forth by those who contend the anthropogenic production of GHG is the source of great problems to come.
Why wouldn't anyone on this thread answer PeteH's simple question regarding the proxy data? Why do you all change this discussion rather than address a valid sceintific concern?
I too am in favor in reducing the U.S. burning of fossil fuels, but let's do it for the right reasons, not science that still has a way to go before it can be used for drastic measures.
And if we are to take drastic measures, why doesn't this community acknowledge the wisdom in nuclear power as an immediate and broad-based solution to this problem?
Please tell me why>
BobK
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 11:41 am
01 Jan 2007
if we want to discuss the current warming trend
Is it a warming trend? or is it a problem with temperature recordings.
Living things are water creatures, and yet we measure our comfort temperature with reference to the air. Basically IMO, not a useful method.
So if it appears hotter to us it could be from many reasons, such as
(a) high humidity
(b) standing in the direct Sun's radiation
(c) or it could be just be warmer.
The opposite can occur,
(a) if you are in the shade and there is a low humidity, you will feel uncomfortably colder... is it really colder.
OK, so we get out our thermometer and find that the air temperature says we should be comfortable, but we are still cold. Freeze in the shade and cook in the sunshine.
(b) or if there is a high humidity even shade conditions make you sweat.
Sorry if this is confusing, but I do not want to write a two finger dissertation on heat and water creatures.
Just let it be said that "thermometer air temperature" and "the comfort temperature of living things" is not simply correlatable.
[You can happily be in a room with no humidity and have a thermometer temperature well over 100 degrees centigrade.]
The atmosphere will not warm as much under a constant Sun if the humidity is lowered.
so as the air dries out, Global Cooling will become much more apparent. We are seeing this already with "ice clouds".
No wonder y'all playing with fractions of degrees warming, and feeling the earth is heating up in a remarkable fashion.
IMO what is happening is actually cooling as the water vapour pressure in the air is generally falling.
The oil layer on the sea is causing totally confusing trends when viewed through thermometer measurements. However the sea's temperature is warming, and it is valid to use a thermometer in this case. So this is cause for concern, for it has to be warmed by the Sun, and not the atmosphere, [because the atmosphere is open to space.]
Normally if the sea warms then that leads to higher humidity which leads to denser cloud cover, which then cools the sea.
It is too late to "analyse to make decisions", IMO, the measurements needed to define what is happening just are not made and have never been made. So yes the Carbon Dioxide hype is misfounded, but while y'all are looking that way, the real problem just gets worse.
Who will stop using oil ?... come on hand up!!!
Y'all will just have to wait until the end it seems.
I think if you find this very confusing then ask specific questions.
:)
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 4:43 pm
01 Jan 2007
one more time
BobK
Pete H's concern about the proxy data has been answered several times, on this and the other thread he commented on. See the link below, it is not complicated enough that his feigned inability to grasp it is convincing:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/co2-lags-not-le...
Nor is continually insisting no one has answered him yet.
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:51 am
02 Jan 2007
Too expensive
"why doesn't this community acknowledge the wisdom in nuclear power as an immediate and broad-based solution to this problem?"
Too expensive, too dangerous, too long to build, too many NIMBYs, proliferation concerns and on and on. We have been all over these issues here.
Wind is the lowest cost, cleanest, baseload power. Get wise to wind.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Pete H Posted 1:58 pm
02 Jan 2007
Still flogging that dead horse...
While I may be unable to convince Coby that my "feigned inability to understand" is actually a genuine concern that the proxy data is being oversold, maybe some of you will enjoy this post. (For the rest of you I apologize, whilst I flog this dead horse just ONE MORE TIME).
Here is a quick link for your reading pleasure, along with the "discussion" regarding the time lag. Please note that the source is realclimate.org, which is the ultimate source of the info on the other links that have been posted.
This link discusses the 800 year lag and answers that pesky question: "which came first?" (Oops, we can't say that) how about: "what is significant?"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
Begin quote:
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
End quote
Yes, you read that correctly. Better yet, link to it and read it for yourself in context.
So "All that the lag shows is that CO2 DID NOT CAUSE THE FIRST 800 YEARS OF WARMING, out of the 5000 year trend."
That's all? What about the next 4,200 years?
Well, "The other 4200 years of warming COULD in fact have been caused by CO2, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL from this ice core data."
So while it is clearly FACT that the first 800 years COULD NOT have been caused by increases in CO2, it is clearly A POSSIBILITY that the next 4,200 years MIGHT have been.
(Of course if the increased temperatures are causing the increase in CO2, then you might ask what caused the first 800 years of warming and why COULDN'T that POSSIBLY have continued to cause significant warming during the next 4,200 years?)
Again, I am not a heretic in this new "global warming" religion being created by the true believers. (Dr. Hanson and Al Gore be praised!) Clearly the physics and even possibly some of the recent observations tell us that the greenhouse gases play a part and can be a significant forcing. The problem is rather than have an honest discussion which includes all of the COULDS, MIGHT HAVES, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELLS, we are told the proxy data clearly PROVES that IS WHAT HAPPENED in the past.
Those very tortured sentences could have been written something like this:
"What the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming. It is certainly possible that the other 4200 years of warming could have been significantly affected by the increasing CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data and our current theories on global climate change."
"So while it is clear that CO2 could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming, it could have played a significant part during the last 5/6 of the warming."
Of course that second sentence is completely unnecessary, but the authors of the original link felt the need to include it, POSSIBLY to lend some weight to their theory. Clearly fractions are powerful joss when demonstrating how 5/6 of the time something COULD POSSIBLY HAVE HAPPENED, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL FROM THE ICE CORE DATA. (Somehow 83.3% just didn't have the POP of 5/6).
It's always a pleasure boys.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 7:55 pm
02 Jan 2007
It was a pleasure Pete
Yes the carbon Dioxide myth has grown to be a religion. Meanwhile........
Permalink
BobK Posted 11:22 am
03 Jan 2007
ideology vs. fact
amazngdrx,
Perhaps you "have been all over these issues here" when it comes to nuclear power and the data supporting your global warming convictions. However, by my judgment of this thread alone, you and your community are not very open to good ol' fashioned scientific enquiry. I was hoping for otherwise and commend PeteH for his aplomb and ability to stick to the salient points.
Perhaps I should start another thread regarding nuclear power (and please advise if I should), but your quote...
"Too expensive, too dangerous, too long to build, too many NIMBYs, proliferation concerns and on and on. We have been all over these issues here."
...implies to me that you have many misconceptions regarding this and probably other energy alternatives. For example, wind power could NEVER be used as a base load source--it is simply too unpredictable. Also, nuclear power is still significantly cheaper than wind power, and that doesn't take into account the large scale savings that countries like France and Japan are able to realize. Offering "profileration" as a reason to discard nuclear power reveals depths of ignorance regarding how the nuclear fuel cycle works in western countries. I can go on and on, but it would seem your mind is already made up. If others are willing to engage in the debate, then I will start another thread.
In the meantime, in all fairness, I will read what previous discussions have occurred on this site and perhaps make a more informed assessment of this community.
cheers,
BobK
Permalink
blutack Posted 9:15 am
28 Apr 2007
RE: Still flogging that dead horse...
<backquote>
Again, I am not a heretic in this new "global warming" religion being created by the true believers. (Dr. Hanson and Al Gore be praised!) Clearly the physics and even possibly some of the recent observations tell us that the greenhouse gases play a part and can be a significant forcing. The problem is rather than have an honest discussion which includes all of the COULDS, MIGHT HAVES, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELLS, we are told the proxy data clearly PROVES that IS WHAT HAPPENED in the past.
</backquote>
Scientists can never be 100% certain about anything, that's not how science works. One thing that is pretty certain is that when the temperature of the earth rises (for whatever reason, usually the sun) CO2 rises as well, creating a positive feedback. This is why scientists, as far as they can tell, reckon the other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been affected by a rise CO2.
This is largely irrelevant. The point is we are putting large amounts of CO2 unnaturally into the atmosphere now.
To assume this doesn't have any affect on the temperature is to ignore the well known infra-red absorption properties of CO2.
Permalink
hamadryad Posted 1:33 pm
01 May 2007
high CO2 = always warmer temperatures?
"This is largely irrelevant. The point is we are putting large amounts of CO2 unnaturally into the atmosphere now.
To assume this doesn't have any affect on the temperature is to ignore the well known infra-red absorption properties of CO2."
In that case maybe you can explain better then here http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/89/3/329 why higher levels of CO2 then we see today didn't cause a raise in temperatures during the Jurassic period, when the temperatures actually... decreased.
Permalink
wxman03 Posted 4:06 am
05 May 2007
evidence
"Aside: It is usually interesting to ask just what observations or evidence your skeptic would consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels. Don't be surprised if you get no answer!"
Well being a weather/climate expert, I would say seeing the mid Troposphere warm just as fast, or faster than the surface temperatures would be very good evidence for increased greenhouse effect. The thing is, most temp records show that mid troposphere temps have only gone up .1C to .2C while surface temps have gone up anywhere from .3C to .8C depending on the temp record you look at. Also, if ice core data actually showed temps follow CO2, that would be another piece of evidence that would point to CO2 causing global warming. But they dont. Not a single one. CO2 follows temp on every single ice core data record.
No offense, but that comment you made made you sound very ignorant on this subject.
The Weather Service.com CEO/ lead forecaster
Kevin
Permalink
wxman03 Posted 4:19 am
05 May 2007
comment
"This is largely irrelevant. The point is we are putting large amounts of CO2 unnaturally into the atmosphere now.
To assume this doesn't have any affect on the temperature is to ignore the well known infra-red absorption properties of CO2."
Not exactly. CO2 has only increased 1.6 w-m2 while solar irradiance has increased 2.2 w-m2. We dont know how much CO2 is naturally being added by the oceans due to the increase of the 2.2 w-m2 of solar irradiance. We also have no idea how much w-m2 has increased due to the long positive PDO phases we have had since 1920. The current +PDO phase started around 1975 and many think we have just switched back over to a -PDO phase. PDO is very imporant because it controls ENSO trends. +PDO causes more el ninos would in turn moves the jet stream further north and also adds more water vapor to the air. Now you may think more water vapor would lead to more clouds since 1980. But it hasnt. We are also in a +OLR phase which generally means more high level clouds and less low level clouds. So we have more water vapor in the air due to the +PDO phase from 1975-2006? and less low level clouds. I would say that is at least 5-10 w-m2 increase. That is my best guess. I put a question mark at the end of 2006 because mounting evidence shows that we have entered a -PDO phase but we dont know for sure if the +PDO phase has ended yet. If we are in a -PDO again, this will create more la ninas now and if we have entered this negative phase of the PDO cycle, we should start to see a cooling on Earth and also another -OLR phase.
Now CO2 has less and less of an effect as more is added. This is shown in many labs and just common sense. My best guess is that CO2 has caused about .1C to .2C of the total warming since 1900. If that is the case, the next 100 ppm (total of 480 ppm) will cause about .05C to .1C of additional warming and then next 100 ppm will cause .025C to .05C of additional warming(total of 580 ppm). I strongly believe that this next -PDO phase (like that from 1940s-1970s) will cause Earth to cool even with adding CO2. Also, I also believe solar activity is going to take a major dip in the next 5-30 years. I'm actually much more worried about global cooling over from now to 2040 than global warming.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:33 am
05 May 2007
re: wxman03
The satellites data was being measured incorrectly, in particular the day/night cycle was being read backwards, and orbital decay of the satellites path was not being accounted for.
This was addressed in the Journal of Science in 2005.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/mor ...
This was resolved last April 2006.
In the NOAA report.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/trends.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/trends2.png
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalrep ...
For someone who claims any specialty in climate science this is a rather gross misrepresentation of the facts.
Yes, solar activity is primarily responsible for iceage warmings due to tens of thousands of years of changes in the orbital pattens of the earth around the sun.
These are known as Milankovitch cycles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
But to claim that it's not possible that climate can be changed by any more than 1 variable is dishonest.
And right now, we know that it's not possible that the sun is the cause of the current warming.
http://greyfalcon.net/solar4.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solar2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solar.png
The IPCC admits that solar variability is a factor in the past decades of global warming, abeit a very small one.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png
_
And since you seem to be quoting your statements from "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
How about you view this video by a GeoSciences Professor at the University of Edinburgh.
Which combats each of the distortions of science put forward by Swindle'
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216 ...
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 4:42 am
05 May 2007
Not Going Medieval on Your Temperature
"Unstoppable Global Warming..." clearly explains that much of the temperature data is inflated.
Examples are that thermometers are often located in "heat islands" of concrete that simply retain heat more than in the past.
Here's what the Modern Warming is like so far:
- Not as hot as the Medieval Warming
- Winters with less extreme cold.
- Longer summers -- but with temperatures flattening from 2005 on into a status.
Sounds pretty ok...and actually kind of boring compared to the soaring heat of the Medieveal Warming.John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:45 am
05 May 2007
One again
Thats like saying we don't know how much CO2 is being added by the Amazon rainforrest, the oceans are a net carbon sink.
And the one way that they emit more CO2 is if you heat up the whole ocean, and warm up the bottom layer where all the carbon settles.
And that takes roughly 800 years to do.
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pd ...
_
A radio interview with Martin Durkin, the producer of "The Global Warming Swindle" goes over this quite well on how he intentionally mislead the audience on the properties of the ocean/CO2 interaction by using selective editing.
Hell, even he admits that "the rise in CO2 was caused by industry".
http://www.greyfalcon.net/carbon
_
Furthermore, we can know it's "our" carbon by measuring the radio-isotopes of the ambient carbon .
And the isotope concentrations point toward manmade carbon emissions.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:49 am
05 May 2007
re: Jabailo
S. Fred Singer is not a credible source.
He's a professional lobbyist who routinely distorts science for personal gain.
http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-si ...
Permalink
wxman03 Posted 5:42 am
05 May 2007
reply
"The satellites data was being measured incorrectly, in particular the day/night cycle was being read backwards, and orbital decay of the satellites path was not being accounted for."
Yes I know that, i'm looking at the fixed data. You fail to tell me the amount of warming of the mid troposphere was with the "fixed" data because it is the exact same thing I just said. .1C to .2C.
"But to claim that it's not possible that climate can be changed by any more than 1 variable is dishonest."
Well I did mention solar irradiance, the +PDO phases, the +OLR phases, co2, enso, and water vapor. That is 6 variables, not sure where I said theres only 1 variable.
"And right now, we know that it's not possible that the sun is the cause of the current warming."
Very misleading.
The scales on your graphs that you showed me are misleading with a large temp scale and co2 scale and a smaller solar activity scale to make it look like it hasn't changed as much. You cant just plot 2 variables on a graph and say "well they dont match exactly, it cant be controlling it ". If we did that, then we should throw out CO2 because when co2 was going up in the 1940s-1970s, the Earth started to cool. Now, what could have easily happened is that as solar activity was increasing, one of Earth's natural cycles the PDO, went into a negative phase and cooled down Earth and only as we entered the positive phase in 1975 did we start feeling the full effects of the increase in solar activity. We have to remember that something, whether is was connected to the PDO phase switch or cosmic rays, lead to an increase in low level cloud cover in the 1940s-1970s. This would block some solar energy back into space and allow Earth not to feel the full effects of the solar activity increase until after 1975.
For example, in simple terms, its 9am and the sun is getting stronger (representing solar activity getting strong in the early 20th century) and the temp warms from 45 to 55, then around 10 am low level clouds move in the temp drops from 55 to 50 even when the sun is getting stronger (the 1940s-1960s). Then it clears out again and the sun is still strong (1970s- present) and the temp finally reaches the point that the sun could get it up to.
That is kind of what I'm trying to say what COULD have happened. I have no doubt that CO2 has caused .1C to .2C of this warming but other factors that I have mentioned in this post and my other posts are far more important I believe.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 7:25 am
05 May 2007
Ice Age
>>> I'm actually much more worried about global cooling over from now to 2040 than global warming.>>>
Yes this is exactly what will occur, unless we do something about the oil film. And IMO this cooling will not stop.
A few degrees drop in themperature is far more destructive than a few degrees warming.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:59 am
05 May 2007
Noone is arguing just CO2
The issue being that a relatively small warming in the troposphere is magnified by the increase in water vapor carrying capacity.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/watervapor.png
Permalink
wxman03 Posted 8:33 am
05 May 2007
water vapor
Look, if you want to talk about water vapor, then CO2 has had even less of an effect because water vapor has increased in the air as the temps have warmed and there are less low level clouds and more high level clouds. We really have no idea what controls cloud cover trends or the level at which they form. That is where the cosmic ray theory comes into play which I'm sure you are aware of. I'm in no mood to debate that theory but the point is since 1975, the way water vapor is being used in the atmosphere is causing warming (less low level clouds and more high level clouds) which is shown on the +OLR readings.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:01 am
05 May 2007
pinching mercury....
that's what reading this thread is like. When I was a kid I realized my father was a racist. No matter what reason he used to justify some racist behavior or policy that wasn't ever the real reason. Once you had logically destroyed that particular thread of his racism another would emerge.
Eventually he would recycle threads that we had destroyed yesterday or last week as if they had never been discussed. The truth is out now beyond denial. DNA studies confirm that all humans are of one indivisible race.
At a certain level Global Warming denial is like racism. The research has been done, the data published and triple checked and published in thousands of peer reviewed articles. Global Warming is real and is caused by human activity.
So now the Global Warming deniers (who frequently overlap with our friends the racists) are frothing at the mouth and throwing out multiple crazy denial theories. I believe there is a heart to their denial. Those hippies were right.
All those crazy hippies that made whole grain bread and drove little cars and moved back to the land. They were right. They were right about driving smaller cars. They were right about living in funny straw bale, cob and rammed earth houses. They were right about those early stuttering solar systems and homemade windmills. They were even right about pot being a medicine and hemp being usefull biomass.
So we are left trying to pinch a bead of mercury when we argue with the deniers with logic. They don't care about our logic. They can invent new denials faster than we can logically refute them. They can even believe the earth is flat if that's what it takes. As long as those hippies aren't right.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 10:12 am
05 May 2007
The Rainbow
I enjoy the current climate.
It's like The Rainbow.
It helps people of all suasions.
The deserts recede...a bit.
The crops grow...more.
The population stabilizes.
A Golden Age of moderate warming...less cold...more health...fewer disasters.
Let's enjoy the Modern Warming.
Get out and ride a bike...before it's too late.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
wxman03 Posted 2:22 pm
05 May 2007
oh please
You have got to be kidding me. I did not use one theory in my reasoning so please explain. That was a great essay you wrote with no data, no numbers and no reasoning.
How can you not have this sink into your mind:
Forcings:
CO2= 1.6 w-m2
Solar IRR= 2.2 w-m2
(I think 2.2 is bigger than 1.6)
Other key points:
- Two +PDO/global +OLR phases and only one -PDO/global -OLR phase. We will have to wait until the second -PDO/ global -OLR phase to see the real net change in temperature which will probably be around 2040.
- The way water vapor has been used in the atmosphere since 1980 has favored warming (part of the global OLR cycle).
Next time, use real data in your post instead of insane talk.Permalink
wxman03 Posted 2:23 pm
05 May 2007
post
by the way, I was talking about this post:
by Pangolin at 4:01 PM on 05 May 2007
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 3:09 pm
05 May 2007
Credible Is His Middle Name
sex GleyFlcn
Mmmmmm...how about this, from "Unstoppable Global Warming, p. 259":
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:14 pm
05 May 2007
wxman03- you're joking right?
>oh please
You have got to be kidding me. I did not use one theory in my reasoning so please explain. That was a great essay you wrote with no data, no numbers and no reasoning.
How can you not have this sink into your mind:
Forcings:
CO2= 1.6 w-m2
Solar IRR= 2.2 w-m2
(I think 2.2 is bigger than 1.6)
Other key points:
* Two +PDO/global +OLR phases and only one -PDO/global -OLR phase. We will have to wait until the second -PDO/ global -OLR phase to see the real net change in temperature which will probably be around 2040.
* The way water vapor has been used in the atmosphere since 1980 has favored warming (part of the global OLR cycle).
Next time, use real data in your post instead of insane talk.
You post these happy little formula's that are supposed to justify.....what? My understanding that current climate change modelling relies upon thousands of papers and many thousands of hours of computer modeling on computers that didn't exist before 1990.
Even so predictions are understating the acceleration of Global Warming events as proven by the decline of the arctic ice cap and the melting of Greenland's glacial mass.
I support the IPCC as a base from which to work. Everybody knows where to find their studies and data.
You've got what? Give us a link to support your denialist BS.
Permalink
wxman03 Posted 1:01 am
06 May 2007
PDO
Not everyone at the IPCC agrees. I got facts and understanding of how the climate works. You best remember me and this post as the Earth starts to cool from now to 2040 due to the PDO phase switch. Even most people that believe in co2-lead global warming will tell you this.
Permalink
wxman03 Posted 1:12 am
06 May 2007
my base
"(Editor's note: I invited David Evans from Science Speak to write the guest post below explaining his viewpoint and why he is betting against me over global warming. David welcomes a substantive debate in the comments. Obviously, we don't agree on all the issues, but I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone the value of civil debate with someone like David, who is genuine enough to put his money where his mouth is.)
I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry (Google on "FullCAM"). When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
In the late 1990's the evidence suggesting that carbon emissions caused global warming was basically:
- Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Proved in a laboratory a century ago.
- Global warming has been occurring for a century, especially since 1975, and concentrations of atmospheric carbon have been rising for a century, especially since 1975. Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit.
- Ice core data, starting with the first cores from Vostok in 1985, allowed us to measure temperature and atmospheric carbon going back hundreds of thousands of years, through several dramatic global warming and cooling events. To the temporal resolution then available (data points were generally more than a thousand years apart), atmospheric carbon and temperature moved in lock-step: there was an extremely high correlation, they rose and fell together. Talk about a smoking gun!
- There weren't any other credible suspects for causing global warming. So presumably it had to be carbon emissions.
This evidence was good enough: not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm, and actions started to happen. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 -- with the aim of curbing carbon emissions.And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!
But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed. Using the same point numbers as above:
- Closer examination of the last century using better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled at about 0.1C/decade while atmospheric carbon increased. But any warming effect of atmospheric carbon is immediate. By 2003 or so we had discovered global dimming, which might be adequate to explain this 35-year non-correlation. But what had seemed like a good fit between recent atmospheric carbon and global warming now looks shaky, in need of the recently-discovered unquantified global dimming factor to explain 35 years of substantial cooling. I reckon the last century of correlation evidence now neither supports carbon emissions as the cause nor eliminates it. Further quantitative research on global dimming might rescue this bit of evidence, or it might weaken it further.
- As more ice core data was collected, the temporal resolution was improved. By 2004 or so we knew from the ice core data that in the warming events of the last million years the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon started. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 -- it runs the opposite way. Presumably temperature rises cause a delayed rise in atmospheric carbon because it takes several hundred years to warm the oceans enough for the oceans to give off more of their carbon.
It is possible that rising atmospheric carbon in these past warmings then went on to cause more warming ("amplification" of the initial warming), but the ice core data does not prove that. It could just be that the temperature rose for some other reason, that this caused the oceans to raise the atmospheric carbon levels, and that the increased atmospheric carbon had an insignificant effect on the temperature.The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were not initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role.
4. A credible alternative suspect now exists. Clouds both reflect incoming radiation (albedo) and prevent heat from escaping (greenhouse), but with low clouds the albedo effect is stronger than the greenhouse effect. Thus low clouds cause net cooling (high clouds are less common and do the opposite). In October 2006 a team led by Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays affect cloud formation, and thus that
Stronger sun's magnetic field
=> Less cosmic rays hit Earth
=> Fewer low clouds are formed
=> Earth heats up.
And indeed, the sun's magnetic field has been stronger than usual for the last three decades. So maybe cosmic rays cause global warming. But investigation of this cause is still in its infancy, and it's far too early to judge how much of the global warming is caused by cosmic rays.
So three of the four arguments that convinced me in 1999 that carbon emissions caused global warming are now questionable.
The case for carbon emissions as the cause of global warming now just boils down to the fact that we know that it works in the laboratory, and that there is no strong evidence that global warming is definitely not caused by carbon emissions. Much the same can be said of cosmic rays -- we have laboratory evidence that it works, and no definitely contradictory evidence.
So why did I bet against global warming continuing at the current rate? Let's return to the interaction between science and politics.
By 2000 the political system had responded to the strong scientific case that carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing carbon emissions. This was a good and sensible response by big government to what science was telling them.
But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken the carbon emissions hypothesis. At what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause of global warming? None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to recapture the attention of the political system later on. What has happened is that most research effort since 2000 has assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention.
(BTW, I quit my job in carbon accounting in 2005 for personal reasons. It had nothing to do with my weakening belief that carbon emissions caused global warming. I felt that the main value of our plant models was in land management and plant simulation, and that carbon accounting was just a by-product.)
Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics.
The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the effects of the political climate is that most people are overestimating the evidence in favor of carbon emissions as the cause of global warming. Which makes it a good time to bet the other way :)
I would like to bet against carbon emissions being the main cause of the current global warming. But I can't bet on that directly, because all betting requires an unambiguous and measurable criterion. About the only related measure we can bet on is global temperature. So I accepted Brian's bets about trends in global temperatures over the next 10 to 20 years. Basically, if the current warming trend continues or accelerates then Brian will win; if the rate of warming slows then I will win. Even if carbon emissions are not the main cause of this global warming, I can still lose:
- Global warming might be due to a side-effect of industrialization other than carbon emissions. Possible causes include atmospheric reactions of industrial chemicals that hinder the rate of low cloud formation.
- Global warming might be primarily due to a non-human cause, such as something related to the sun or to underground nuclear reactions. If this cause persists over the next 20 years as it has for the last 30 years then I will lose, but if it fades in the next decade then I win.
I emphasize that we are making a bet involving odds and judgment. The evidence is not currently conclusive either for or against any particular cause of global warming. I think that it is possible that carbon emissions are the dominant cause of global warming, but in light of the weakening evidence I judge that probability to be about 20% rather than almost 90% as estimated by the IPCC.I worry that politics could seriously distort the science. Suppose that carbon taxes are widely enacted, but that the rate of global warming increase starts to decline by 2015. The political system might be under pressure to repay the taxes, so it might in turn put a lot of pressure on scientists to provide justifications for the taxes. Or the political system might reject the taxes and blame science for misinforming it, which could be a terrible outcome for science because the political system is powerful and not constrained by truth.
Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But the cause of global warming is not just another political issue that is subject to endless debate and distortions. The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. The cause just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is. Looking back in another 40 years, we will almost certainly know the answer and Brian and I will be in agreement on the issue.
Given that betting is thus possible on this issue, it seems strange that some people who take strong positions and profit by those positions are not prepared to bet even a small amount of their own money. Betting something of one's own money adds, shall we say, credibility. And people whose own money is at stake try a little harder -- a well known advantage of private business over public. A good side effect of widespread betting would be a market in betting that would represent a community-wide best guess. Such markets exists in sports betting, and are the best predictors of game outcomes.
Let's hope for the planet's sake that I win the bets :) Meanwhile let's do more research, and take cheap measures to curb carbon emissions!
(Editor's update: a shorter url that David created for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3dbbrb. David's new blog on this subject is here.)
(Editor's update #2: I'm seeing some confusion at other blogs - please note that David can still win if the temperature increases at a slow pace. The bet summary: We have three bet periods -10, 15, and 20 years - and two bets for each period - an even-odds bet and a 2:1 bet in David's favor. The even-odds bet centers around a temperature increase rate of 0.15C/decade with a 0.02 void margin on either side (bet voids if temps increase between .13 and .17C/decade). The 2:1 bet centers on 0.1C/decade with a .01 void margin. Even-odds bets are for $1,000 each, and the 2:1 bets increase over time, with Brian betting $1,000, $2,000 and $3,000, and David betting half that. Brian's exposure is $9,000; David's is $6,000. More info here.)"
There is my base, Pang. Like I said, I do believe CO2 has helped the warming but is not the leading cause. I also believe the Earth will start to cool until 2040 due to the PDO phase switch. This cooling could be enhanced by low solar activity if that part of the equation comes true as well.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 1:47 am
06 May 2007
GreyFlcn, You're No S. Fred Singer
Why is it that when I present people who are Princeton Phd's, Directors of government research facilities and professors with a prestigious history of research, the Grist Ecologists poo-poo them as if they had just walked off the street.
Yet, these same people feel free to present as "evidence":
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 1:51 am
06 May 2007
Politics is Politics
Finally -- a reasoned analysis of the folly of making Global Warming a dependent variable on CO2 volume.
Since no good deed goes unpunished here, I'm sure the Grist Ecologists will dig up a bunch of links (from their own home pages) making you a "tool of industry".
Quite frankly, I think that although the general public is now catching wind of the Global Warming Scam, the Euro-political-scientists will get (some) of their money from the various Global Taxes being proposed in the name of saving the planet (from an inevitable mild climate, I have termed the "Goldilocks Optimum").
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:06 am
06 May 2007
Jabailo
Care to tell me what S. Fred Singer's positions are on:
- Tobacco Smoke
- Ozone Depletion
Care to tell me how many hundreds of thousands of dollars he personally has recieved directly from Exxon Mobil?Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:22 am
06 May 2007
So in short
So in short wxman03
Your entire arguement rests on the supposed influence of cosmic rays.
Despite the fact that Svensmark's work is continously wrong, shows clear signs of data manipulation, and has never been reproduced.
Thats about as much credibility as the guys who designed cold fusion.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:48 am
06 May 2007
don't be cruel.
Thats about as much credibility as the guys who designed cold fusion. Says you, my cold fusion rig impresses the other dungeon masters way more than any old lava lamp. |')
I'm working on a global warming is caused by an excess of ladies undergarments idea. It's just as futile but it might convince some of the deniers to go without.
Permalink
wxman03 Posted 11:01 am
08 May 2007
wow
<So in short wxman03<p> Your entire arguement rests on the supposed influence of cosmic rays.
Despite the fact that Svensmark's work is continously wrong, shows clear signs of data manipulation, and has never been reproduced.
Thats about as much credibility as the guys who designed cold fusion.>
wow have you not read what I have been saying? I think I count 6 factors that I have linked to this warming. Also, you ignore the fact that the cosmic ray theory does not have to be correct in order for solar activity have to an effect on global temperatures.
Your entire arguement rests on the fact that CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 380 ppm and that it has increased 1.6 w-m2. And that we should just throw out all of the other factors that have increased MORE w-m2 in the same time frame. Hmm, sounds firm to me.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:23 am
08 May 2007
My arguements
My arguements are based on scientifically reproducable evidence.
Yours aren't.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 12:18 pm
08 May 2007
The Guy Kicks, So What?
This outlines his funding and positions. This blog is hostile to Singer, so I don't think it's a whitewash:
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1478
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 12:20 pm
08 May 2007
Sonofusion
Actually a form of cold fusion called "sonofusion" has been demostrated and verified in six separate worldwide laboratories. Also called "table top" fusion because it can be performed with simple materials worth under $2000.
Only in demonstration mode and no were near over 1 energy, but cold fusion is real.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 12:23 pm
08 May 2007
S. Fred Singer, CV
Curriculum Vitae
POSITIONS HELD:
1989- Director and President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project. Foundation-funded, independent research group, incorporated in 1992, to advance environment and health policies through sound science. SEPP is a non-profit, education organization.
1994- Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
1989-1994 Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL. Principal investigator, Cosmic Dust/Orbital Debris Project.
1987-1989 Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation. Also: Deputy Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration; Chairman, Navigation Council (GPS applications). Technical advisor on Air Traffic Control System procurement.
1971-1994 Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Planetary science; global environmental issues (acid rain, greenhouse warming, ozone depletion); cost-benefit analysis; oil and energy(economics and public policy); economic and environmental impacts of population growth.
1970-1971 Deputy Assistant Administrator (Policy), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Also, chaired Interagency Work Group on Environmental Impacts of the Supersonic Transport.
1967-1970 Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior. Also, integrated atmospheric/oceanographic activities within the Department.
1964-1967 (First) Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. Expanded the oceanographic institute and added departments of atmospheric sciences and geophysics.
1962-1964 (First) Director, National Weather Satellite Center (now part of NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce. Established operational systems for remote sensing and for management of atmosphere, ocean, and land surface data.
1953-1962 Director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Professor of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Experiments, theory, and publications on rocket and satellite technology, remote sensing, cosmic rays, radiation belts, magnetosphere, the Moon, meteorites, general relativity.
1950-1953 Scientific Liaison Officer, U.S. Office of Naval Research, London. Reported on research in nuclear physics, astrophysics, and geophysics in European universities and laboratories.
1946-1950 Research Physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD. Cosmic ray, ozone, and ionosphere research with instrumented V-2 and Aerobee rockets, launched from White Sands, NM and shipboard.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
wxman03 Posted 12:43 pm
08 May 2007
ok
"My arguements are based on scientifically reproducable evidence.
Yours aren't."
Somebody needs to go back to school. One of the most basic, natural cycles that Earth goes through is the PDO and I've explained this in my posts. If the PDO is not scientifically proven, I dont know what is.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 2:26 pm
08 May 2007
PDO
>> If the PDO is not scientifically proven, I don't know what is. >>
None of it is more than observation. Theories ???? LOL
The PDO seems to becoming much less cyclic and more erratic lately.
PDO basic, no, it is just a sign or symptom of global climate change.... the hydrology cycle does oscillate due to lag.
The earth's hydrology cycle is in trouble, and it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
Please show how carbon dioxide can have any bearing on the PDO. Thanks
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:17 pm
08 May 2007
re: wxman03
Frankly, this is actually a good example.
The specifics of the of the PDO cycles are not well scientifically understood.
Saying "Theres the potential that we can find evidence to prove one side of an arguement"
Is not the same as actually having conclusive evidence.
_
And as Zarkov mentioned, how is the PDO even relevant to this discussion?
Permalink
wxman03 Posted 8:53 am
09 May 2007
um
"The PDO seems to becoming much less cyclic and more erratic lately.
PDO basic, no, it is just a sign or symptom of global climate change.... the hydrology cycle does oscillate due to lag.
The earth's hydrology cycle is in trouble, and it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
Please show how carbon dioxide can have any bearing on the PDO. Thanks"
Co2 and PDO are not connected. PDO is caused by ocean circulations.
"Frankly, this is actually a good example.
The specifics of the of the PDO cycles are not well scientifically understood.
Saying "Theres the potential that we can find evidence to prove one side of an arguement"
Is not the same as actually having conclusive evidence."
We know what the PDO phases do and what effect they have on ENSO. We also know what ENSO does (el nino and la nina). Most meteorologists will agree with me when I say we are entering a negative PDO phase and this will cause more la ninas in the future causing less water vapor in the atmosphere which is by far the biggest positive feedback CO2 has. CO2's negative feedbacks could even be bigger than its positive feedbacks in -PDO periods.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:14 am
09 May 2007
re: wxman03
Thats almost meaningless because more evaporation has virtually no influence on the amount of water vapor in the troposphere.
There's a huge surplus of water vapor in the surface atmosphere, and it only enters the troposphere if the troposphere warms up.
And the troposphere won't warm up unless there's some external factor causing the warming.
_
Now it could change the amount of clouds, but that doesn't appear to be what you said.
"Atmosphere" is a rather generic term when you're talking about the science specifics.
Permalink
wxman03 Posted 11:12 pm
12 May 2007
well
"Thats almost meaningless because more evaporation has virtually no influence on the amount of water vapor in the troposphere.
There's a huge surplus of water vapor in the surface atmosphere, and it only enters the troposphere if the troposphere warms up.
And the troposphere won't warm up unless there's some external factor causing the warming.
_
Now it could change the amount of clouds, but that doesn't appear to be what you said.
"Atmosphere" is a rather generic term when you're talking about the science specifics."
So what you are saying is that -PDO phases do not cause cooling because la ninas do not cause cooling? Hm...
Permalink
wxman03 Posted 10:58 am
13 May 2007
ah
Thanks for clearing that up Gary. I did mean to say ENSO can change the way the atmosphere uses water vapor such as the amount of clouds and the level at which they form.
Permalink
ncoll Posted 8:59 am
04 Jul 2007
Speed of change
The one matter which I would like to see addressed by those who consider other factors to be more significant than CO2 is the current rate at which global temperatures are changing. I have not seen anything anywhere which has suggested that the world has previously seen such a sharp upward slope in the temperature trend.
If this is correct, then previously experienced (natural) mechanisms are presumably less likely to be the cause of the current changes. That leaves us with factors which we can and do affect as being a probable cause, possibly in combination with other accelerating factors.
A response from wxman03 maybe? Or anyone else who cares to chime in?
Permalink
John Schofield Posted 2:34 pm
26 Nov 2007
Proof
You are quite correct to say that "scientists make predictions and design experiments to ... contradict their theories". That is the hallmark of honest science. "This is how you can prove me wrong" is what a genuine scientist can say. Now in relation to the CO2 theory, is there anything that could prove the theory wrong? How many things can you list that could contradict the theory that a global increase in CO2 leads to a global increase in atmospheric temperatures? If you can tell me some hypothetical situations that could do this then I will believe the CO2 theory is scientific, genuinely held by scientists. Otherwise I suspect the theory is not scientific.
Permalink
Wylie Posted 7:13 am
11 Dec 2007
Questions about GHG (CO2, etc.)
I would like to commend Coby on his very considerate tone. There are too many insults hurled about in this debate for my preference. Just a quick disclaimer: I am an avid proponent of energy efficiency and conservation. Americans could use the exercise! However, I have a few questions/thoughts:
1) Beer's Law and Saturated CO2 absorption lines
As I understand it, CO2 absorbs infra-red light (as does water vapor) and this is the main expected reason for the increase in temperature (although not the only one). However, I thought that ALL light absorption followed Beer's Law of Light Absorption? Beer's law relates the amount of light absorption (and infrared radiation as well) to the LOGARITHM of the concentration. Therefore, and assuming this is true, the increase in the amount of light absorption arising from an increase in CO2 concentration of 40% (pre-industrial to today), would be the log of 1.4 (an increase in absorption of 14.6%). An increase in CO2 by 100% (doubling, by 2100??)) would only increase the light absorption by ~30%. As I understand it, those numbers ASSUME that the absorption of a given absorption line is not near saturation (i.e. very low absorption relative to 100% of the light being absorbed). However, as I understand it, the infrared absorption lines of CO2 absorb all or nearly all the infrared light at those wavelengths in a very short distance (I have heard numbers of less than 10metres). Can anyway explain whether or not the Global Climate Models fully incorporate Beer's law AND the saturation of infrared absorption? How would saturated CO2 lines increase the absorption of infrared light (and thereby increase global temperatures) when the CO2 concentration increases? I have heard objections that the infrared absorption lines are actually composed of many rotational absorptions lines that are not completely saturated when the CO2 is at high altitude (low pressure) but the pressure broadening of atmospheric pressure (close to the ground) should "merge" those lines into a large vibrational absorption band. Is this correct?
2) Cloud Formation as a heat transfer mechanism?
As I understand the logic that suggests that water vapor is not a significant contributor to Global Warming (as opposed to CO2), this is because an increase in the average amount of water vapor in the air would simply result in an increase in rainfall and decrease the water vapor back to equilibrium. However, isn't it true that the evaporation of water at sea level and the condensation of water at altitude (clouds) is a massive heat transfer mechanism from the ground to the upper troposphere? Isn't it also true that an increase in temperature (forcing) would allow an ACCELERATION of this effect? Therefore wouldn't there be a negative feed-back mechanism (a massive one) that would help to reduce the positive feedbacks? Also, wouldn't this mechanism be HARD to model? (cloud formation being a chaotic process) Question: Are there estimates (despite the computational difficulties) of the this cloud formation heat transfer effect and how it might change as a function of global temperature?
Any and all thoughtful comments/observation would be gratefully received.
Permalink
bobclive Posted 10:29 pm
16 May 2008
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warmi
Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2.
If this correlation showed CO2 as the driver RC would have a field day, a very interesting read and the graphs speak for themselves,
Joe D'Aleo, an AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, one of the founders of The Weather Channel and who operates the website ICECAP took it upon himself to do an analysis of the newly released USHCN2 surface temperature data set and compare it against measured trends of CO2, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and Solar Irradiance. to see which one matched better.
It's a simple experiment; compare the trends by running an R2 correlation on the different data sets. The result is a coefficient of determination that tells you how well the trend curves match. When the correlation is 1.0, you have a perfect match between two curves. The lower the number, the lower the trend correlation.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-wh ...
Permalink
Paulkenyon Posted 9:14 am
20 Jun 2008
CO2 as the primary climate driver
A book you folks will enjoy is "A Primer on CO2 and Climate," second edition by Howard C. Hayden.
My question to you and my question to Mr. Hayden stems from several studies available on line regarding the IR absorption spectrum of CO2. It would appear that CO2 now absorbs "to extinction" the energy in it's 4 principal absorption wavelengths, 2,5,7 and 15 microns. It does so in our atmosphere from a few 10's of meters to three kilometers...or so I read. What does this mean? The example given is of a window shade that blocks 90% of incoming light. Doubling the shade (adding one in this case) does not double the amount of light blocked. The new shade will block 90% of the remaining 10% or 9%. Doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations, then, would, from this source anyway, not increase the energy absorbed at those wavelengths much more and be responsible for only a small increase in global temperatures in addition to the 33 degrees attributed to GHG's. In one article, it is calculated to be an increase of about 1.76 degrees C...max. The globe is warming. No doubt about that. The question remains, then, as to the cause. Milankovitch Cycles are suggested as this cause among other factors (increase in other forms of radiation...I'm not clear on the physics behind that...sorry.) If CO2 is still the primary climate change mover, however, what other physics of that molecule explains its effect?
Thanks
Paul
Paul Kenyon is owner of Cumulus Engineering, LLC and studies wind power and sites and installs small turbines.
Permalink
LokiTheComplex Posted 10:32 pm
05 Sep 2008
Looking for a debanking of a Fox article.
What are the counters to the arguments here?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192544,00.html
thanks
Permalink