solman’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Not a strawman

  Coby,

  Most people are introduced to global warming with the following argument:

  1. Here is a theory for how increased CO2 can cause increased temperature.
     
  2. Here is a graph of CO2, it is going up rapidly.
     
  3. Here is a graph of temperature, it is going up rapidly.

  The conclusion is then drawn that increased CO2 is causing increased temperature.

  Mentioning the theory behind the green house effect, but some how forgetting to mention anything about higher temperatures causing higher CO2 is a rather serious omission.

  I certainly don't think it disproves the mainstream theory of climate change, but it offers an alternative explanation for the data, and ruins this chain of logic.

  As far as the CO2 rise is natural thing:

  The article basically says:

  1. We emit CO2.
     
  2. The timing is anthropogenic.

  #1 is hardly convincing. There are a dozen theories about global cooling that could be similarly validated if not for the slight problem that the earth is getting warmer.

  I don't disagree with #2. The rate and timing of temperature change is compelling evidence to me that its anthropogenic. That doesn't mean its CO2. There are a great many ways in which man has changed the world he lives in.

  As we see here, anything that increases temperature, would be expected to increase CO2, and the absence of a time lang can easily be explained by the extreme rapidity of the current temperature increase relative to the graph.On 'CO2 doesn't lead, it lags'--Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming posted 2 years, 7 months ago 43 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Smart Decisions

  A good decision weighs the benefits against the costs.

  Wisdom REQUIRES answers to the following questions before taking immediate action [answers including a reasonable range of uncertainty are entirely acceptable]:

  1. What action do you propose?
     
  2. What will it accomplish?
     
  3. What will it cost?
     
  4. How much more will it cost to accomplish the same thing if we wait?

  Advocates of immediate action on global warming have utterly failed to answer any of these.

  Because they have not been answered, I suspect that people who want immediate action on global warming do not believe that the case for immediate action can be supported by facts.

  That is to say, if the general public were given clear answers to these four questions, advocates of immediate action believe that they would decide to do nothing.

  If Kyoto is not the action that you are proposing, then either say what that action is, or concede that given present technology, there is no available action that justifies the cost.
  On 'Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing'--Kyoto is only in its first phase posted 2 years, 7 months ago 16 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Suppose you're right

  Lets acknowledge but ignore the impact of other GHGs (or rather pretend that they behave as if they were just an additional amount of CO2, which they don't, but which is close enough for purposes of this discussion).

  Suppose that thermal inertia and dimming are hiding a large amount of global warming. Suppose fraction X of the total warming is represented by the 0.7 degrees.

  Then the total additional impact of 580ppm CO2 would then be roughly 0.7*((1-0.43)/0.43)/X or 0.928/X.

  If X is 0.6 (corresponding to a 40% masking effect, substantially LESS than most climatologists seem to be predicting, but plausible) then thats less than 1.55 degrees Celsius.

  Its hard for me to see the need for immediate action if that large a change in CO2 results in that small a change in temperature.

  Clearly either the models are predicting something decidedly more complex than inertia and dimming (in which case I'd like a reference to what it is) or the models are wrong, possibly because they fail to account for Lindzen's argument.On 'Climate sensitivity is not very high'--Thermal inertia of the oceans means the jury is still out posted 2 years, 7 months ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Thi is the weakest link in the whole debate

  This graph is the single most potent reason why I remain skeptical.

  You have two signals A and B which are tightly and very consistently correlated over a very long period of time across a wide variety of conditions, with signal B always following signal A by a fixed interval of time.

  This is a VERY powerful piece of evidence in favor of the hypothesis A causes B. In any other discipline, suggesting otherwise would get you stabbed in the heart with Occam's razor.

  The alternative hypothesis:

  First: C (which we can't identify or measure) caused a little A,
  Later: C caused B
  Finally: B caused a lot of A

  is not impossible, but I am utterly unconvinced, and this is at the hear of my skepticism.

  If historically CO2 was caused by some external cause other than temperature, what is it?

  The rapid current rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused by a disruption in the equilibrium of the Carbon cycle. This disruption could be, in part or in majority, humans putting extra CO2 into the atmosphere.

  But it also could be, in part or in majority, the same thing that caused the previous increases in CO2.

  The speed of the CO2 increase suggests that whatever is breaking equilibrium began with the industrial age of man, but man has changed the environment in numerous ways.

  The destruction of plant life, and the dimming of the sun from pollution have certainly reduced photosynthesis.

  Perhaps our actions have somehow resulted in the destruction of vast numbers of microbial photosynthetic ocean dwelling creatures (well actually we know they have, but I mean that perhaps the die off had a orders of magnitude larger impact on CO2 than we thought).

  Absent a debunking of the default hypothesis for this graph (that Temperature increases and decreases cause increased and decreased atmospheric CO2), its not reasonable to look at the data for the past century and say "CO2 causes temperature". CO2 and temperature have both risen, this graph says that causality goes the other way.
  On 'CO2 doesn't lead, it lags'--Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming posted 2 years, 7 months ago 43 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Not much of a rebutal

  This isn't much of a rebutal of the original claim.

  You say "Noting that something happened before without humans does not demonstrate that humans are not causing it today."

  That helps you argue with somebody who believes that they can "prove" that global warming isn't happening.

  It hurts against a personal who is skeptical of global warming because it reminds us that historical data that supports a hypothesis is not sufficient to prove it.

  I consider myself to be more of a skeptic, but I have become fairly convinced of the anthropogenic component of global warming because of the RAPIDITY of the current warming trend. I'd consider leading with something like:

  "Although the planet has warmed before, it has never warmed on anything approaching the time scale of the current global warming phenomenon."

  and give specific numbers and data to support that.On 'Climate is always changing'--That doesn't mean it isn't different today posted 2 years, 7 months ago 5 Responses