Comments wxman03 has made

  • 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. On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 6 months ago 78 Responses

  • 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...On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 6 months ago 78 Responses

  • 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.On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 6 months ago 78 Responses

  • 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.On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 6 months ago 78 Responses

  • 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. On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 6 months ago 78 Responses

  • 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:

    1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Proved in a laboratory a century ago.

    2. 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.

    3. 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!

    4. 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:

    1. 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.

    2. 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.On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 7 months ago 78 Responses

  • 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. On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 7 months ago 78 Responses

  • post

    by the way, I was talking about this post:

    by Pangolin at 4:01 PM on 05 May 2007 On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 7 months ago 78 Responses

  • 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.On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 7 months ago 78 Responses

  • 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.On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 7 months ago 78 Responses

  • water vapor

    Sometime many of you are forgetting to mention it is  important how water vapor is being used in the atmosphere. Even though our temperatures have went up since 1975, low level clouds have decreased while high level clouds have increased.On Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas, but there is plenty of room for CO2 to play a role posted 2 years, 7 months ago 29 Responses

  • 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.On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 7 months ago 78 Responses

  • 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.On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 7 months ago 78 Responses

  • 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
    KevinOn There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 7 months ago 78 Responses