Comments Pete H has made

"difficult to ascertain"

I posted the link so people can read it for themselves. I recommend that people always read and decide for themselves.  I should have posted the whole thing.

The last paragraph states that "the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation." It further states "...the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain."

So I ask you, how in the heck do you show a link between hurricanes and global warming if the AMO is the only accurate predictor of hurricane frequency and intensity and its effects are such that they camouflage or exaggerate the effects of global warming?

It is irresponsible to state "hurricanes are getting stronger - thanks to global warming." That theory simply isn't supportable at this time given what we know about the effect of the AMO on hurricanes and how little we really know about long term climate change.

I guess "difficult to ascertain" means "proof of a link" to some folks.

Here is that last paragraph:

Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain.

We do not talk -- we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. Henry Miller

Some of us post on this blog

You don't need to look to "conservative blogs" you can look at your own blog (liberal? environmentalist? progressive? smug?) to see that some of us conservatives are skeptical AND informed.

The "evolution vs. creationism" argument is tired and frankly doesn't get the job done.

"Faith" in the GCMs and thoughtless acceptance of one scenario (20 foot sea rise! really?) is hardly science, a consensus or anything remotely like it.

Here is a link, but beware - I don't bash Gore enough for you to dismiss me out of hand...

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84#19On Wherein we puzzle through the truthiness posted 2 years, 8 months ago 4 Responses

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.On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 11 months ago 78 Responses

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).
On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 11 months ago 78 Responses

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."On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 11 months ago 78 Responses

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.On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 11 months ago 78 Responses

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.On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 11 months ago 78 Responses

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.
On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 11 months ago 78 Responses

lack of comments may indicate day jobs and kids

and Halloween.

The scale here is quite interesting. The deviations from the actual temperature records could not be contained on the graph. I can not post the graph in this comment box, so please take a look at:

GLOBALLY AVERAGED DEVIATIONS FROM AVERAGE TEMPERATURE PLOTTED
ON A SCALE RELEVANT TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATION DEVIATIONS
Per Year from 1851 to 1984

contained in the following link:

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=404On 'One record year is not global warming'--Luckily, there are plenty more years to consider posted 3 years, 1 month ago 19 Responses